Wait... Old People Make Games?

Editorial Note: I know, it's been a while. I expect to be welcomed back with open arms and eyes welling with tears of admiration. YOU should expect a wordy article about nothing in particular and massive spoilers for Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite and Tell Tale's The Walking Dead.

It's been a rough few weeks for me. First I had to slog my way through Bioshock Infinite, then drudge past TellTale's Walking Dead, then shortly after submit myself to the agony of Naughty Dog's Last of Us. After severe depression and fits of uncontrollable sobbing I realized something; Becoming a father has made me soft(er). Let me set the record straight, I've always been a man who is in touch with his emotions (just ask me to explain the "Alternate Ending" comic for Fosters Home for Imaginary Friends) it's just something that has gotten worse, if that's the right word, since Hayden arrived.

 

Spoilers from here

The Last of Us opens with a surprise. You actually begin the game controlling Joel's frightened daughter, 20 years before the game proper begins. There is much to be said for this design choice, but this article isn't really about game design, it's about things that make me cry, because that's what you want to read about. After a short drive you gain control of Joel as he runs away from all the chaos holding his daughter, who is then killed, not by infected, but by military quarantine.

Sure, this scene tugs at the heart strings, but it's nothing compared to the end. The climax of the game is a mirror image of the opening, with Joel clutching Ellie, running through the madness of the hospital trying to escape. I lost it. Again, not terribly out of the ordinary, but the impact was greater on me. It was so simple for me to put myself in Joel's headspace.

The same goes for The Walking Dead game (That would be TellTales, NOT Activision's). It was simple for me to get into Lee's head and care about Clem, because she represented exactly what she was supposed to, something beautiful in a world destroyed. Lee getting bit resonated more with me than every single zombie bite I have ever seen, movies, comics, games combined. That fact can be attributed to Clem, the thought of leaving her alone and unprotected in that world was devastating.

 

Finally there is Bioshock Infinite. This game pulls a bait and switch. I went in expecting grand themes, painted broadly on the canvas of Columbia, the floating city. That is how the game begins. Where the original bioshock played it's sociopolitical commentary a bit closer to the vest till the end, infinite comes out swinging. It throws patriotism, racism, fanatic religious behavior, and overt violence at you within the first few minutes. The difference is that these themes serve as more of a red haring for Infinite's true purpose.

At it's core Infinite is a game about blinding regret. At the games conclusion you are left with the complete picture of a broken man, who sold his daughter to pay for gambling debt, and spent the rest of his life torturing himself for it. I know some people didn't quite like the way it wrapped up, and that the alternate universes let a bit to many story conveniences in. I found the resolution to be engaging and heart breaking. That moment when you realize you've been playing as Elizabeth's father this entire time is heart wrenching. Again, the feeling is compounded knowing there is an infant in the other room that is completely reliant on me.

So what do all these games have in common, other than being crazy depressing? These games made me realize something, video games are growing up. As an industry we have evolved from "Save your Girlfriend" (who was probably kidnapped by ninjas, or an over sized lizard... thing) to "Play as this guy, and through this guy view the complex and emotional path of parent hood, a thing mostly reserved for adults, but you can have a taste in delightful long form visual story telling utilized to near perfection."

I know that is quite the mouthful, but it's the truth. Granted, games have grown up in other equally artistic ways, but the exploration of the dynamic between parent and child is something so core to the human experience, it practically trumps everything else. This is not just entertainment. These games represent a way to gain insight into a core human experience.

For me, The Last of Us takes the cake (in the saddest way possible). While I love all these games, it holds the most water in terms of human interaction and storytelling. The evolution of Joel and Ellie's relationship is more than simply believable. I mean, I believe Lee would do anything to keep Clem safe, and I believe thank Booker was so wracked with guilt he would do anything to make up for it. Believability isn't everything, it's part of an organic whole with so many moving parts it's amazing how right each of these games got it.

There is a moment in Infinite that is a rather touching Easter egg where Booker plays the guitar while Elizabeth sings. It's very moving, and touching, and other sappy words, but the Last of Us has small moments like that (even something as insignificant as Joel glancing at his watch) throughout the entire game. I would recommend any gamer who is or will someday be a parent play these games. In all honesty it will prepare you for the harsh reality that parenthood is terrifying.

Don't get me wrong, being a parent is perhaps the most amazing thing ever in the universe, it's like life's bacon. There is, however, a flip side to that happiness. That is the stress and worry of having something you love so much more than you ever thought possible be so incredibly fragile.

Enslaved: Odyssey to the- Wait, What?

I find it quite astonishing how many people I speak to who have no idea what Enslaved: Odyssey to the West is. Even my friends that skim game sites on a daily basis weren't in the know (save for a a select few). In hindsight though this speaks to reason as the lackluster sales of Enslaved has dashed the hopes of a sequel ever seeing the light of day. The news came from the studio itself (Ninja Theory) who are currently hard at work on the Devil May Cry reboot/prequel. The news made me sad, so I decided to finally sit down and record my thoughts about Enslaved.

Enslaved, to me, is a fantastic example of a strong linear narrative in an interactive medium. Keep in mind that I do not use linear here as a negative, just don't come into this game expecting emergent storytelling. There, now that I've got the pretentious explanation out of the way I can get on to the good stuff. The characters and the world they inhabit are simply stunning. This game has incredible art direction. It takes the drab apocalypse and turns it into a fab apocalypse! The lush, colorful environments are a welcome change to the games I've been playing lately.

The story is loosely based on the Eastern classic Journey to the West (in about the same way the first Resident Evil movie was based on Alice in Wonderland). It ends up being fairly broad in its scope and execution, or at least more so than I thought it would be. Basically, I went into this thinking it would be Escape From New York, but it ended up being more along the lines of, say, Visions of Escaflowne.

The characters are strong, which they should be, as there are only three. The performances tend to avoid the uncanny valley and would at times elicit the occasional emotional response. This was a wonderful treat seeing as I had just finished playing Oblivion in which the grand total of characters I had an emotional attachment to was zero. In fact is was probably somewhere deep in the negatives because I actively hated many of the people in Oblivion...

The actual game play mechanics is where some say the Enslaved falters. The staff swinging and shooting of monkey can be a bit wonkey at times, but it remains enjoyable for the most part. Sometimes platforming can get frustrating as jumping is irritatingly context sensitive.

In the end I would certainly recommend this title. In fact I would love it if the Enslaved got a large, noticeable boost in used sales, making it financially viable to make a sequel. I'll admit, there's not much here in the way of "games as art" other than just being a fun game, but that's not a bad thing. I think back on my time with Enslaved like a good book, one I will certainly revisit later because of the vibrant art direction and enjoyable characters. Anything I'm willing to play twice can at the very least be considered a good game... or at least an okay game... well by any means it's certainly a game.

Bioshock Me Once, Shame on You. Bioshock Me Twice...

***SPOILERS AHEAD, ye be warned

I hold the original Bioshock on a very high pedestal. Its approach toward deconstruction of a linear narrative was, in a word, phenomenal. I was near giddy when I heard the good people at 2k were planning a return trip to that underwater paradise (lost) Rapture. Then the news broke that you would be playing as a Big Daddy, and in my mind from then on it seemed much more like a cash grab then a fully fleshed out sequel.

Honestly, that is what it feels like most of the time. It just doesn't seem like a story that anyone really wanted to tell. Bioshock was a big enough hit that they had to make a sequel, so they started with the idea (gimmick) that you would play as a Big Daddy. From there they made a decent story to wrap reason around exactly what you're doing in Rapture.

They just went in the wrong direction with Bioshock 2. The reason Rapture was so captivating in the first was due to the mystery. Seeing a mans dreams and ideals be destroyed by human nature was riveting. Almost all that effect is lost in Bioshock 2. Ironically, they started with the right idea. The opening cinematic shows Rapture as it was before it went to hell in a hand basket. The rest of the game I couldn't shake the feeling that I wanted to be playing that game. I wanted to see Rapture in all its glory, talk to normal people, watch someone record an audio diary.

Apparently the only thing to do in Rapture is record your thoughts

This is still a Bioshock game though, and at its core it delivers with a finely crafted twist. The entire game you are chasing after your Little Sister, who was taken from you by Sophia :amb, the new villian. While the first game took the path of slavery vs freedom, Bioshock 2 leans toward the act of choice. Namely that the choices you make don't really effect you. You can be a nice, mean, or neutral Big Daddy, but what you won't realize till the end of the game is that your actions were never meant to shape you, they were shaping who Eleanor (your "Daughter") would become. In the end that is all that really matters about the game, and as a person standing at the precipice (read: several years away from) of parenthood, I found the message quite resonating. Who you are is not as important for yourself, not in the long run. When you have children, who you are can directly effect who they become.

So Bioshock 2 wasn't so bad after all. It didn't quite have the same impact as the first, but it did better than most. Lamb's anti-Ryan persona makes for a terrific antagonist, and filling in some of the blanks from the first game (even though done through audio diary) was a great touch. Also, there is a very cool scene toward the end where you play as a Little Sister, and you see Rapture through their eyes, very interesting stuff. If you were a fan of the first Bioshock I'd highly recommend it... If you haven't already played it... At the very least it can well stem the tide before Bioshock Infinite, which lets face it, looks AMAZING!

New subject matter for Infinite... Can't wait!

The Company We Keep

I am a Christian, and I hate to admit it, but I say that with trepidation. Why, you ask? Because when you identify yourself as such people will occasionaly (read: more often than not) group you in with what the media portrays as "Religious Folk"

These guys...

Now, that doesn't stop me from believing what I do, but it's frustrating. Obviously, Christians aren't the only people with this problem. Just take a trip to the airport and watch who gets randomly selected for extra security screening. I know it seems like I'm off topic, but don't worry, this article is about video games. You see the point of all this witty banter is to drive home the point that the company you keep can define you, for better or worse. That is why a group of people is often forced to defend against the actions of a few.

Here comes the point. I feel the same way about identifying myself as a "gamer" (argument for use of the term at all aside). I read and/or watch just about every review and article I can and I'm finding more often than not the people who "represent us" seem to be doing a poor job. Look around you take stock, the voices that represent us are: self entitled, whiny, bitter, and nostalgic to the point of ignorance. I would add "alarmist" to the list, but this article seems a bit-o-that so I think I'll lay off.

I honestly think that the problem is most people can't take a step back and look at gaming as a whole. It shouldn't be hard, but apparently it is. Think about it, video games have only been around for about 30 years. It's still a young medium (that has nothing to with artistic value, mind) and as such it seems like nonsense to be predicting the downfall of it. I suppose the majority of this has to do with the internet, now more than ever any person can work their way to fame and notoriety through fear and alarm (See: Glenn Beck). Gamers are not immune to this, far from it. It's tough to get noticed when all you do is enjoy games, but show them a little tough love, or seething hatred rather, and you're in like Flynn. That, in turn, leads to whining and moaning about every military FPS, and talking about how publishers are ruining games.

Newsflash: Gaming has always been like this. We used to be inundated with side scrollers, then technology changed and along came the "3d" platformer. There will always be popular genres, just because there are many games in one style does not mean that gaming has some how reached the end of its life. The things about trends is that they spawn imitators, it's kind of what makes them trends. It's just growing pains. There is not a lack of creativity, in fact as gaming continues to grow I believe developers will grow with it. Just like art, just like literature, just like film. David Jaffe says that journalists need to push developers. I say; push yourself Jaffe, off a cliff preferably (I kid... I kid). Do you think 'To Kill a Mockingbird' was written because Harper Lee was under intense scrutiny from her readers and the press, or because she wanted to tell a story. Take your best guess.

Pressure from outside sources isn't what we need. Just let people make the games they want to. Technology is becoming more accessible every day. True, the smaller indie studios might not have the budgets of the big publishers (though some certainly do) but at that point you're splitting hairs. Do you want a developers vision or a multi-million dollar blockbuster? They might not be one and the same for some time, but for the time being just play the one you want. Lucky me, I enjoy both.

There will always be bad games, games that are made for the purpose of making money (which isn't inherently a bad thing), and games that are just okay. The existence of these games is not bad for the industry. If anything they can be used as lessons for what not to do. Good developers are constantly learning. It doesn't matter how far ahead you look to the future, there will always be those meh games. How can I be so certain of this? Easy, we've been writing for over 2500 years and we still manage to churn out crap. The only choice you have with par games is whether or not you play them (and through extension, whether or not you complain about them). Every game can't be tailor made for your tastes, stop being so self entitled. Seriously, stop it.

Video games make money, so they will attract people that just want to make money. However, it also is a valid artistic expression, so it will also bring in people who genuinely want to express a vision. There will never be a singularity that leads to a gaming utopia where every game is as awesome as Bioshock. A great example of that is the fact that not everyone loved Bioshock. Gaming will change, but not in the drastic (and alarmist) ways that people fear and blog about. The Wii didn't do it, nor will the Wii U obviously. So please don't worry fellow nerds, our beloved hobby is here to stay. So to recap; will you be able to recognize gaming in 30, 40, or 50 years? Well, the answer is YES, and no, but don't forget the first part is yes, so please stop whining.

"The PS Vita is just an iphone"

Boy, that was a little angrier than I thought... So am I famous yet?

...

The Force Unleashed Who?

Last weekend I was able to blast through Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II (No pun intended). It is a rather short game and would have certainly been much better suited as DLC, but I got it for scratch so I can't complain. That's right, stop reading now if you want to hear a seething rant about what an insult this game was. Honestly, it's a fun game. There may be one QTE too many for a few people but other than that the action is fast, fun, and you feel powerful. Like really, really powerful.

As a matter of fact as Starkiller you are so ridiculously devastating to the Empire that one has to wonder. As you plow through company after company of nameless troopers you can't help but think "how is it that no one in episodes 4, 5, and 6 ever mentions that one jedi who took out like HALF the Empire by himself and started the rebellion." That really is the biggest fault of FU II (oh how clever, Lucas Arts) the story is so inconsequential while at the same time being hugely affective. In the words of Bart Simpson it manages to both "suck and blow".

I really like the idea behind the first game. A secret apprentice who ***SPOILER*** starts the rebellion then dies, the end. A sequel just didn't need to happen. But it did, and ***MORE SPOILERS*** It actually ended with sequel bait! I was absolutely blown away that this short of a game would end with a hook for a third game, and talk about consequence, they have captured Darth Vader.

I can absolutely see them carrying on this series until literally the first scene of A New Hope. On that note I'm actually a bit terrified that Lucas Arts will continue to make these games through the original trilogy, and I don't mean in that interesting retcon/alternate history way.

Bet you didn't know this was only moments after Starkiller was knocked out by Vader

God I hope no one at Lucas Arts reads my blog...

All in all I have to say that I did enjoy playing both Force Unleashed games far more then watching the prequel trilogy. The story is silly, but the game is fun to play. Though this time around you don't get to slaughter any Wookies, Jawas, or Ewoks... So points off for that I suppose.

A Brief Reflection on Portal 2

It was no secret that I was excited beyond belief for Portal 2. As of the date of this posting I have finished the single player campaign. Unfortunately I haven't had any time to play the co-op so I'll only be commenting on what I thought of the "main story". Just a heads up, as usual this article will contain plenty of SPOILERS so I would recommend you turn tail if you haven't finished single player yet.

Short version: Portal 2 is exactly the game I thought it would be and I absolutely adored it. Long version...

The reason I loved this game so much was because it is hands down one of the best story telling experiences I've had in years. The team at Valve did a lot of homework and crafted a game that draws from equal parts Bioshock, Half Life, and...well, Portal. This is a game where "play, don't show" took center stage. The story unfolds in two acts more so than three (it seems to go prologue, act I, act II, epilogue). There is technically a third act, but it was a bit brief (not that's a bad thing).

The voice acting and dialogue is all top notch. This game had me laughing out loud almost entirely throughout. In addition to the hilarity of PA messages, they were also informative (toward the story and/or history). This rang especially true in the "old" Aperture labs. The way you hear Cave Johnson deteriorate was fantastic. This brings me to the other captivating part of Portal 2, the atmosphere.

Wow. The atmosphere in this game is great. It is constantly subtly changing as you progress which actually lends to the sense of progression and avoids tedium. I mean, think about it, you go from jungle over grown labs, to watching the facility put itself back together until it resembles Portal, then going through the old labs, then watching the facility fall apart. I'll give special mention here to the "old Aperture" labs. That portion blew me away, it was phenomenal. The trophy case that you can look in (if you choose) that divulges the origin of Aperture was a great touch. Of course, the reason I love this part so much probably has something to do with my mild obsession with abandoned things.

That's what I love about Portal 1 and 2, the story is gets deeper if you want it two. If you want, you can take time to stop and read signs or writing on the wall. It's the players choice. In my opinion the fact that this game had me wanting to learn everything I could speaks volumes about its story. One that Valve provided without resorting to codex' or lengthy journal entries. This was very much a visual, playable history.

So there you have it. Portal 2 is great, but you probably already knew that. Oh and there are some puzzles and stuff in the game too... those were fantastic as well.

Time For Wild Speculation!

The big N had a "leak" this week and it was a biggin. Provided all the information (from multiple sources, mind you) is true we will be getting a glimpse of a brand new Nintendo System at this years E3. This seems like a bit of a shock following so closely to the release of the 3DS, but with Nintendo's financial dominace the last few years this new platform has me curious.

Details are sketchy at best but preliminary reports indicate that this will indeed be a fully HD system, set to possibly even give the PS3 and 360 a run for their collective money... again. Also, while some reports are saying it will be backward compatible to the Wii, the primary focus of this console will be to grasp the "core demographic" once again. One leak has stated that the controller, as of now, features two analog sticks and a built in LED screen, which could possibly be a touch screen.

The code name for the project is "Cafe" which is odd, but hey, does anyone else remember the "Dolphin"? If I had to make a wild guess, which of course I will, I would say that "Cafe" is a good indicator that this system will be more focused on the social side. Nintendo has had issues with this before, the Wii was a bit of a disaster online, but the 3DS is certainly moving toward a social market and appeal. In addition, there will almost assuredly be 3DS interconnectivity.

Now that you have all the facts allow me to gush about how awesome this move is on Nintendo's part (please note I am in no way, shape, or form a Nintendo fanboy).

The Wii was a powerful force that took many by surprise. It was accessible but not to the point of alienating its core fans too much. While I do think the motion controls were gimmicky, it still managed to put out a fairly solid library of games, mountains of shovel ware excluded. Simply put, the Wii managed to put Nintendo in a very good position financially. You have to remember, Microsoft and Sony took a huge hit to the wallet the first several years of production while Nintendo was making a profit.

Now it is about 5 years later, the "average" cycle for a system, and Nintendo is ready to launch a new one... but where is the competition? Sony and Microsoft are both trying to stretch out the life of their respective systems for another 3, 4 or possibly even 5 years. That's why they introduced the Move and Kinect. That means Nintendo is going to be first to the market with a shiny new toy, and be the best on the market to beat.

Simply put, Nintendo is poised to dominate once again; core demographic, casual, social. Word is that Nintendo is already showing the build to third party developers, which could even mean a solid launch with good titles. Granted this is all just conjecture at this point. but the big N always seems to be a step ahead lately. There is a small, and I mean minute chance, that this system could go the way of the Dreamcast. There could be a gap in development between the established 360/PS3 crowd and developers might not be willing to take a chance on it. That said, however, this is a Nintendo console, so the majority of "must have" titles will be first party.

I don't know what will happen come 2012, but what I do know is that I am darn excited for E3 this year... maybe I'll try to get a press pass. I'm sure they wouldn't mind giving full press access to a nerd with a blog!

You Should Trust Me When I Say You Shouldn't Trust Me: A Meta-Review

A fair warning, this is probably the most pretentious thing I've ever written. That said, it is written out of love, not for the sake of hearing my pretentious opinions. Now then, on to today's topic: Fact vs Opinion.

I really like video games, but you probably already knew that. You probably also know that I like to talk about games. I will be absolutely honest with you; my opinion doesn't mean much. That's not to say it's worthless, it holds value to me and a handful of friends, but overall it's not very valuable to anyone who isn't me. Why bring this up? Well to be honest, and this is a big one, I feel that the game industry as a whole has lost a lot of journalistic integrity. That is not wholly the fault of the industry, far from it, it is simply the fact that there is no monitor for what is put on the Internet. From sites like IGN who present themselves as a professional source to Blistered Thumbs as the "indy scene" reviews and even previews are being presented in mind numbing fashion. That is to say, they are being presented with a heavy slant on personal opinion.

Opinions must be presented delicately when in a journalistic fashion because the people reading might not be able to separate fact from fiction. The unfortunate part being when someone mistakes opinion for fact and misses out on an experience because of it. It is all to common to see on message boards below a review "Yeh dis gai wus totaly rite, dis gaem lookd like it SUCKD". Granted, such jargon would usually be found under a video review, as the writer probably isn't to fond of reading. It is for this reason that when I review a game I never give it a final score or grade. There is simply no such thing as a universal grading system for games because Video Games are in themselves unique experiences and as such each person will have differences in approaching, playing, and reviewing them.

An Example: Let's say two people played Minecraft for about 20 minutes each. Your character begins life in a randomly generated world with nothing to his name but his fists and a penchant for punching trees. Player 1 immediately beings experimenting and discovers how to use the wood to build a work bench, tools and so on. Before long Player 1 has secured a cave home with a few torches to keep him safe. Player 2, on the other hand, spends the entire time harassing chickens and pigs until the sun sets, where upon he is killed by several zombies, a spider, and perhaps a Creeper for good measure. At this point Player 2 would likely comment how lame this game is and move on to something more stimulating to their own tastes. Meanwhile Player 1 is busy mining and building a new home and having a great time.

It is easy to see how these vastly different experiences will relate to vastly different reviews. Even to the point where the player's individual past experiences would make a difference. I know that my childhood spent playing with Legos and my love of the Harvest Moon franchise greatly contributed to my pleasant experience with Minecraft. Personally, I find that I disagree with the "professional reviewers" quite often. To the point where I have to wonder if some of them even have fun playing games. Again, this is all just opinion.

Just recently I saw a preview by Greg Miller, one of the foremost editors on IGN, declaring that he was not impressed with the current build of Ratchet and Clank: All 4 One. He didn't have a lot of fun playing it, fair enough, but that isn't true for everyone. Instead of just presenting the facts he is putting his own personal feelings into the mix. The same goes for Bennett the Sage from Blistered Thumbs. In a recent review he lamented how boring a game was and the tedium of "gaming now-a-days" (which by the way sparked that awesome rebuttal by Benzaie 'Gaming in the 90s Sucked'). As I said before I don't have a problem with opinion. What I have a problem with is personal opinion presented as fact.

Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw of Zero Punctuation fame is just about the best reviewer I can think of. He makes it clear exactly what he is bias toward and against. Lets think about this though, Yahtzee will review a game, say, one that you really liked, and will tear it a new one. When asked why you didn't take his opinion it's easy to dismiss because hey, it's Yahtzee right? So why then would we defend the opinion of someone like Bennett the Sage, Angry Joe, or [insert IGN employee here]. What really grinds my gears is when a person presents opinion as fact, and it happens all the time. Every time a review professional uses relative terms like "boring" or my least favorite "repetitive" he is petitioning his subjective opinion under the guise of an objective review.

The fact of the matter is this simply isn't going to change, what needs to change is our perspective of reviews. It is, and will continue to be, simply one persons opinion, and it must be taken as that, just an opinion. The only person who will be able to tell you whether or not you will like a game is you.

Through our own individual experiences, prejudices and bias' we shape an entirely unique opinion. it would be a million to one shot to find a person to appropriately represent your opinion. You can find people with relatively similar opinions to latch onto, but relying on reviews, professional or otherwise, is a mistake. It's almost disheartening to think of how many people have passed on games they might have greatly enjoyed just because of a review.

Sorry for the rant, it's just my opinion.

TL;DR: Take reviews with a grain of salt

Only Slightly Delayed: A Review of Dante's Inferno

If you know me at all then I'm sure you are prepared for what I am about to say. Dante's Inferno is a good game.

Good, of course, is a relative term so allow me to explain further. First and foremost I suggest you watch this video by Benzaie (TGWTG), this is a topic I was planning on writing about and may do so in the future. Basically the game market today is very close to the game market of yesteryear. Back in the day (late 80's early 90's) popular titles were emulated, some were good, some were bad, most were just okay. This brings us to Dante's Inferno.

Dante's Inferno is a rip off of God of War in the same vein that Battlefield Bad Company is a rip off of Call of Duty. Both are good games and share very similar assets, that's all. For the sake of clarity I'll now disclose that I have not had much time with God of War, at the same time however, I am not ignorant to the features and game play. God of War, Bayonetta, Devil May Cry, Dante's Inferno and more are all examples (some perhaps better than others) of the new breed of Hack and Slash. Quite frankly all these outrageous and over-the-top characters are what all the attempts at system "mascots" were back in the day. Nowadays though we need something more edgy so instead of a silly blue hedgehog or possum with a jet pack we get angry brooders or buxom seducers. Sometimes you just have a sword, sometimes sword and guns, sometimes...hair... and occasionally something sharp at the end of a chain. The important thing is not what you use to deliver the damage but how you do it. If the pain is delivered via combos, or more accurately, button mashing, then you are usually enjoying a modern hack and slash.

Dante's Inferno gives you plenty of visually appealing ways to deal with bad guys, but ultimately you can beat the entire game with two or maybe three combos. So if you are looking for depth and variety, feel free to avoid this one (go pick up Devil May Cry). If, however, you are like me and enjoy mashing buttons to a barrage of particle effects and blood, then read on. As I have said before the game feels very similar to another hacky-slashy-mad-at-the-afterlife-murderama, but what I'm trying to stress is that the similarities don't make it an inherently bad game. One slightly unique aspect of the combat is the ability to punish or absolve enemies, this gives you points to upgrade either holy or unholy powers, though to be honest not much is done with this.

On the character of Dante himself I find it almost funny how hard the development team worked to make him marketable. I mean, just look at his weapon, not only is it Death's scythe, but it's made of a spinal column. I think my friend Jeremy said it best: it's just so signature. That's the difficult part about our industry, you can't make something signature, it just happens. The dev team behind portal wasn't trying to make the most quotable game ever, it just happened because they wrote what they thought was funny. They had no intention of twitter becoming ground zero for cake related jokes because they were smart enough to know that you can't force that kind of stuff. If you do it usually just comes off as annoying or obnoxious. So yes, Dante was made to be a franchise character, but don't use that to judge against his game.

Our hero ladies and gentlemen

Based on the epic poem also known as the Divine Comedy it does take it's fair share of "poetic" (no pun intended) license with the source material. The story begins rather one note in that your soul goal (pun intended) is to rescue your beloved Beatrice. Once you get into the fire and flames though things change up a bit. Dante's Inferno obviously isn't as somber as the poem but the game still manages to delve into at least some serious and evocative territory. One scene in particular (SPOILER) finds Dante in the Suicide Wood were he is met with a surprise; his mother. Dante had believed all his life that his mom had died of fever, but here he is confronted with the undeniable fact that she took her own life.(END SPOILER) The scene was handled well and ended up being surprisingly powerful.

The story continues to grow and as you get deeper into Hell you learn more about Dante himself. The journey is always about saving Beatrice but the entire time you are forced through some very painful self reflection. Let's just say Dante hasn't had a life well lived. The story is told in three types; in game cut-scenes, pre-rendered cut-scenes, and animated shorts. The variety is great and each (particularly the animated) lends well to the over all atmosphere.

an example of the animated cut scenes

While it certainly won't win any awards for originality Dante's Inferno does have some awe inspiring art and architecture. The levels of Hell are all beautifully and disturbingly rendered. I've heard the jaded gamer cry out about how this game was just churned out of the industrial machine to appease "that" demographic, but honestly it is more than that. Many of the games stages are down right jaw dropping, not in pixel power and bump mapping mind you, but in concept and design.

The only major gripe I had with the game was eight completely out of left field "challenge circles" right before the last layer of Hell. This feels random and almost like a cop out, as though they couldn't think of anything for the semi circles of liars. It was lame and out of place. Also, the combat often occurs in the same way, you enter an area, the entrance and exit are cut off, fight wave after wave, repeat. I know this bothers a lot of people, not me, but it's a pet peeve of some. That aside, the boss battles are suitably epic and the levels are designed well.

One thing I will give the game kudos for is its use of tangential learning. It gives you the opportunity to learn more about the source material as well as the time period and people from it. There is some really fascinating information in this game. In a way it's almost brilliant, combing a poetic masterpiece with a hack and slash game to deliver something with enriching source material to a demographic that would otherwise never think of exploring it. I wonder where they got that formula... Obviously this game is no where near as important as the poem on which it is based, and yes the concept itself of making a game out of the Divine Comedy is a bit silly, but in the end we are left with a good not great action heavy game with some striking and powerful imagery and some very heartfelt moments. Due mostly to the character design it walks the line of parody, but chooses to play it straight. I honestly can't say whether that was a good idea or not, but I can say this game is a fun distraction at the least. Dante's Inferno the game isn't as monumental as the literary work, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

So yes, I managed to make it through this entire game without once likening it to "going through Hell" (har har har). No Hell would be more akin to playing Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, but I'll get to that later.

Things I Should Like, But Don't: Borderlands

A while back I reviewed Borderlands, calling it a fun and addictive but flawed game. I liked it, so why has it made the list of Things I Should Like, But Don't, you ask? Well it has to do with an interview of Gearbox's Creative Director Mikey Neumann. The interview was an open Q&A about "Anthony Saves The World" (a fun series by the way, starring Neumann and Anthony Burch of 'Hey Ash, Whatcha Playin' fame). Durring this Q&A a fan asked Mikey about his public resume (available on the Gearbox site), saying that he listed Chrono Trigger as his favorite game. The fan then asked if he had any intention of making an RPG. Mr. Neumann responded flippantly that he already had "umm little game called borderlands, if you've heard of it" the answer was rude, arrogant, and wrong... well kind of.

I respectfully disagree that Borderlands is an RPG. It has certain RPG elements, but having loot and leveling up does not make your game an RPG, certainly not one you can compare to Chrono Trigger. Simply put, I do not enjoy Borderlands as an RPG because represented as such, it is a complete failure. What if I tried to sell you Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands as an RPG. You certainly play a role and you even level up abilities. The game is fun, but one would not buy and be satisfied with PoP as an RPG. I enjoyed Borderlands as a First Person Shooter, not as an Role Playing Game, but if the creator insists it is as such then I have to say; I don't like it.

David Jaffe Doesn't Like Me

It's true, David Jaffe (creator of Twisted Metal and God of War) Does not like me. Why, you ask? Because I have the gall to claim that video games are art. My current frustration comes from a lengthy blog written by Jaffe as he procrastinated on Twisted Metal. To summarize he said that games are not art, and saying that they are art is damaging to the industry. Specifically he targets artistic games as follows:

"Shining the powerful media light on these sorts of games - that tell you they are important but are not really all that engaging/interesting play wise and are nowhere near as emotional or meaningful as most B rate, night time dramas on network television - means that the media light and publisher cash gets taken away from traditional games," he explained. "And because of this, traditional games are disrespected, devalued, and shown a lack of appreciation, understanding, and love for the very things the medium does so well, so effortlessly, and so successfully."

Look closely at what he said, first he undermines any emotional resonance that a game carries (and I'm not talking about nostalgia). Next he goes on to explain that these artsy games are taking money out of the pockets of traditional or "pure games" in his words. Then he claims traditional games are disrespected and devalued... I'm not sure what rock he's been living under but I believe I saw just last week that Black Ops was the best selling game in US history, the AAA market is still churning out hits on a regular basis, and those other studios producing "traditional" games are in no worse a position than they were last generation.

I just can't believe he would claim artistic games are devaluing traditional games. If anything AAA hits like his own God of War are taking funds away from other devs because that big name IP is a sure thing. If you're so worried about your "traditional" games not getting funding then how about giving the publishers no choice but to push that. Of course, that would mean dropping your two most popular IP's.

The final nail in Jaffe's coffin was this:

"To be going on and on about how games need to be/can be/should be/already are 'more' than 'just games' to me disrespects the joy and happiness traditional games bring to the world."

Striving to be more is disrespectful? I'm sorry, when I was young I wanted to be an paleontologist, then an archeologist, later a game designer. As I grew and matured the things I wanted to do and achieve changed. So is it disrespectful to my childhood that I did not stay on the same path and become a paleontologist. No, of course not, the very idea is absurd and immature.

By saying that games are not art Jaffe is showing arrogance of overwhelming proportions. He is not speaking for just himself, he is speaking for everyone who has ever played a game. I bet you didn't know that David Jaffe was the judge of every experience you've had with games. Coming from someone this well known to the industry that really hurts. Recall if you will when Roger Ebert said games are not art. This was coming from a man who had never even touched a game. That is why it is such an insult that something like this would come from not only an avid gamer, but a game designer.

If we give Jaffe's fears a reasonable basis it is that all the attention on artsy games is going to make developers think they have arrived as artists. I have news for you, they already have, yet developers still strive to create new artistic visions. Jaffe's fears of the industry become stagnant are baseless. Its just ignorant. All genres evolve. Since Jaffe was so keen on comparing games to movies lets stick with that. I'm sick of naysayers predicting the end of gaming as we know it. Do you honestly think Hollywood is going to stop making blockbuster movies because indie films are getting more popular. No, they will not, because blockbusters make a lot of money. The same goes for games.

Another argument Jaffe has is that the medium is to young to have true artistic value. Age shouldn't be the judge of art. Gilgamesh is just about the earliest example of a narrative, is that not a work of literary art? How about Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, a silent film and cinematic masterpiece. If one were to look at Missile Command in a different light, even a game as simple as that becomes incredibly powerful.

Traditional games aren't going anywhere and it's downright stupid to project your fears onto a certain group of developers. Also, on that note, to Peter Vesterbacka: No, the mobile market is not going to destroy consoles. The portable market didn't do it, an increase of available systems didn't do it, and your microgames sure as hell aren't going to take down the AAA market. There are too many big businesses invested in this industry for it to just vanish. It seems like gaming more than anything is constantly fighting rumors of its demise. Just calm down people, there is room enough for everyone; Big games, independent, artistic, portable, mobile. Diversity is not a bad thing.

One last bone I have to pick is with Jaffe picking on Flower. The opening of his article says "Just because there's wind blowing and a minimal soundtrack and vast open spaces to explore and a slow pace doesn't mean that the game your playing is art." That is a clear shot at ThatGameCompany (creators of Flow, Flower, and the upcoming Journey).
While he is correct in saying those elements don't make a game artistic I have to disagree that Flower isn't anything but beautiful and moving. The demo alone left me speechless. The people at ThatGameCompany are trying to do something different and because he thinks it's not fun suddenly it's not art. No sir, you are certainly not the gauge of what is artistic in this medium. Jaffe's games are fun (though I'll admit God of War has never held my interest) but his games are also just noise. I'm not trying to take a cheap shot at him, it's quite clear he thinks the games he makes are just a fun diversion, not art.

So Mr. Jaffe, if all you think you are doing is making toys for people to play with, then by all means continue to do so. But do not think that gives you the right to stifle others' artistic vision.

Preview of Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness Review

So I bought Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness. It's been... an experience...

Only Slightly Delayed: Jurassic The Hunted

Well I was going to do an article on Trophies/Achievements but alas, I procrastinated and now someone else did it (and probably better). So instead I will now regale you with a story of why it's so awesome to be me, and how I had a fantastic time playing what many consider a bad game.

Jurassic: The Hunted is First Person Shooter set in the Bermuda Triangle where you shoot dinosaurs to your hearts content. If you didn't just high-five yourself after reading that blurb then you're probably not as excitable as I am about dinosaurs. J:H is also a b-movie, only it's a game… The gameplay is smooth and satisfying but the acting is abominable. The dialogue sounds like it was written by a 14 year old and all the motion capture seems like it was from marionettes, and it all ends up being amazing. These hackneyed elements combined with actually satisfying gameplay create a strangely mesmerizing experience. This is an extremely unique game. It is akin to Troll 2 or The Room, it is so awful, but still playable, so the poor elements become entertaining. This game squeezes in amongst the "so bad it's good" crowd.

The story goes something like this. Generic every-merc Dylan is on an escort mission with a "scientist" to the Bermuda Triangle when something goes horribly wrong. A magic mcguffin opens up and time goes haywire. Now you're on an island trying to find your team through waves of dinosaurs. Now, if shooting a dilophosaurus in the face on top of a volcano doesn't interest you then I'd suggest you stop reading now. For me, it's nirvana.

Being stuck in a time warp Dylan has to use whatever weapons he can find. These run the gambit from single shot Black Powder rifles to a Plasma Gun. Also, Jurassic: Hunted had an exploding bolt crossbow before it was cool. As I said before the mechanics in this game are great, the gunplay is fast and fluid and does not feel awkward at all. The addition of things like Civl War camps and World War 2 ships really helps add to the atmosphere of the mysterious circumstances you're in.

There is a Trophy/Achievement called "Clever Girl" that you get from being killed by a Raptor melee. Best Trophy Ever.

The environments get the job done, there's not much range (jungle, volcano, cave, jungle opening) but the game looks good enough. It's not eye candy, but it's not painful to look at, plus there aren't any screen tearing or slowdown issues, which is wonderful on a budget title. The one thing the game toted as it's unique feature was something called Adrenaline Mode, which is basically just bullet time BUT you can see the vital organs of the whatsitsaurus you're about to shoot giving you a tactical edge. Honestly, I think this feature works better than "traditional" bullet time. Adrenaline slows down everything, even you (unlike most games wherein bullet time you still have some semblance of speed). This means it's much more about your accuracy and less about you just slowing down time to cheat.

The game does have it's fair share of actual faults though. Segments are often repeated specifically "kill a ridiculous amount of dinos from a turret" and "kill a ridiculous amount of dinos from the fort you're in (that you need to repair)" These missions tend to outstay their welcome. Another downer; despite nazis being insinuated in the plot (a level where you travel to a u-boat) you never actually see any nazis. That would have been the cherry on top of this game to include nazis along with dinosaurs. Hilarious!

All in all, yes J:H is a budget title and it certainly shows in the story and acting departments, but honestly, the game as a whole is a laughably fun adventure. Plus it doesn't hurt that the game came out as a budget title ($40) and can now be found for $15 or less. While I know many will not enjoy this game the same way I did I can't help but feel it was one of the better games I've played in recent memory. If only because I was genuinely entertained and was laughing out loud at the atrocious dialogue.

Speaking of dinosaur games, check out the trailer for the new Jurassic Park Game from Telltale! I am so flippin excited for this one!

Latersaurus

Making a DisAppointment

I've been under-disappointed lately.

I mean, everything has turned out better than expected. I watched The Room and it was suitably hilarious and awkward. I played Kane and Lynch 2 and while it was bad it was still at least playable. I watched all of The Last Airbender and left with my sanity in check, thinking only that it's biggest crime was trying too much with no talent.

Much in the way something gets over hyped *cough* Avatar *cough* and then doesn't live up to its astronomical expectations. I'm having a similar problem, except I've been hoping for these things to be massive unequivocal failures but I've only been met by things I can identify as just plain old bad. Granted, having a sunny disposition as I do it is a tad bit difficult, but still, I have decided to set out on a journey, much like Mr. Glass, to find that magical train-wreck. I want to play the unplayable game, read the unreadable book, and watch the unwatchable movie.

This will test the limits of my sanity and challenge my optimistic outlook. My starting point is this: it has to be worse than Twilight New Moon, which will be difficult, because that movie almost broke me. I'm open to suggestions but I think I am going to start with Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness for the Playstation 2. This should be a fun experiment.

Right vs Wrong: The Good Bad

Simultaneously, Only Slightly Delayed: Kane and Lynch 2 Dog Days

My first accomplishment of 2011 was a rather odd one indeed. I rang in the new year by beating one of the worst games of 2010. That's right, I subjected myself to the four dreary hours of Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days (half of that was co-op with Jeremy). Of course that begs the question; Matt, why would you do that to yourself and a friend!? First and foremost to test the waters, see if the game really was as bad as people said, after all, even I had some strong words for it in a previous article. Second was to teach a lesson, if it really was bad, then I had just the right game to compare it to that did the same thing, but actually succeeded.

Kane and Lynch 2 is a bad game, but you probably already knew that. Granted, it was not the train wreck I was expecting. It was a playable, albeit painful, experience. For starters KL2 is an ugly game. This normally wouldn't bother me, but to make up for how piss poor the graphics are the developers used this god awful cell phone camera quality filter, it has neither charm nor purpose. I suppose this was to add to the "gritty realism" the game was going for (and failed at miserably). At one or two points in the game they actually try to play it like there is some masochistic-deaf-dumb-camera-shy-mute they don't like to talk about following them around and filming their escapades.

Adding to the "realism" is the fact that your characters shoot about as accurately as a hardboiled cop egg. KL2 is a cover based third person shooter, so all the gunning is done from quite some distance, so inaccuracy becomes a huge issue. The ultimate catch 22 of this game comes in the form of the core mechanics, it wants you to stay in cover, but you have to be 3 feet away from your enemy to do any damage. Basically, bullets will kill you, fast. Your enemies however are only mildly allergic to bullets. This is a formula for frustration and ends up being a lazy way to pad the length of the game through cheap death. While playing the game co-op it is easy enough to manage, provided your friend is smarter than the brick they emulated for the AI. Simply put, the AI is incompetent. It will not kill enemies, and you will die because of that.

Washed out colors and excessive bloom lighting! Sign me up!

The final place this game falls flat on its face is the story. There is no believable connection between Kane and Lynch, and barely a hint of humanity (though the game does try, offering a daughter and girlfriend as collateral, but it doesn't work). You start by killing thugs, which is fine, then you kill cops, which is odd, then the army comes after you, then special forces. There's no two ways around it. You are evil in this game. Evil.

(NOTE: Thats the end of the brief review, not much to say about it really. The following is a comparison to a game that succeeded where KL2 failed) Now is playing as a bad guy a bad thing? Not at all, but there is a right and wrong way to do it. So lets look at a good example shall we?

There are many good examples but this one matches quite well in theme: Call of Juarez 2 Bound in Blood. This is an old west FPS that tells the story of two brothers gone bad. Mechanically it is a very different game from KL2 so I'm not going to touch on that, I want to focus on the story, or specifically, how we as a player are drawn in.

KL2 assumes that you are the lowest common denominator, you are the loyal G4 audience, you gawk at breasts and absorb violence like a sponge and all the art you need is applied in a simple filter. You don't mind killing cops, army men, or special forces, because your playing as the misunderstood heroes… who are not at all misunderstood, they're pure evil. KL2 is like two incredibly violent kids in a sand box, and honestly, that works for some people (read above). To tell an engaging story from that perspective though is much more difficult than one might think.

Unless you are the person described in the above paragraph you will always feel detached from the characters in KL2. What that game is missing is a proxy, an entry point into the story for a normal person with regulated testosterone levels. Call of Juarez has not one, but two proxies. The first is Thomas, he is a bandit like his older brother Ray, but not quite so aggressive. The next proxy is William. He is not a playable character but has an incredible story arc none the less.

I'm sure you can guess which brother is slightly more evil

With Thomas, Ray, and William we are given an entry point to the story so we can enjoy it on a much deeper level and actually connect with all the characters. They all suffer from flaws and deal with deep emotional conflict; Love, family, selfishness, revenge, contentment, envy. Death has weight and consequence in Call of Juarez 2, something sorely lacking from Kane and Lynch 2.

There are plenty of games and movies that play up the angle of being a bad guy. Some succeed and some, like Kane and Lynch, fall terribly short. You won't leave this game feeling like a badass, heck, you won't even feel entertained. No, it's much more likely you'll just leave Kane and Lynch 2 Dog Days feeling dirty, very, very, dirty.

A Special Announcement

http://worldsworstcritic.blip.tv/

My long awaited Internet Video debut!

+10 Internets to the person who can name the game I'm playing in the "Video Games" part

Final Fantasy VII vs Ocarina of Time: Which to remake

Two absolute classics

I was posed with an interesting question yesterday. If given the choice which would I rather have remade with the best current technology; Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time or Final Fantasy VII. Both these games are close to my heart so it was quite a difficult decision. Each of these games contributed greatly to the industry as a whole and even had genre defining attributes. So which deserves a remake? Let's break down the individual elements. (Please note: I'm not going to take into account that Ocarina IS being remade right now for the 3DS)

Remakes aren't quite as prevalent in gaming as they are in movies, and they take on a different form. Generally in movies a person wants to apply their own artistic view on a subject so they remake it. In games a remake tends to be a few minor gameplay tweaks and a major overhaul to the graphics. Case in point: the remakes of the early Final Fantasy games for the DS and the Monkey Island 1 and 2 remakes. I'm explaining this to create a clear line between a remake (re-creating and updating content), re-imagining (redefining the source material in a new and usually drastically different light), and reboot (forgoing source material and sustaining core elements). This article is only discussing merits for a remake, as that was the original question.

Story

Both these games have landmark stories, but they couldn't be more different. One involves time traveling to save a princess and a kingdom and the other… well, I've read dissertations on the story of Final Fantasy VII. Simply put, a lot of people love these stories all based on taste, it's simple vs grandiose. In my opinion Final Fantasy VII comes out ahead, the narrative in this game is epic, and deserves to be experienced by a new generation.

World and Setting

Hyrule is awesome, it harkens back to the day of good 'ol swords and sorcery fantasy, but we've seen it… a lot. It's been seen in different forms and while not hyper realistic HD graphics (wow!) it has been thoroughly done. It pains me to say this because I really do love Zelda games, but something needs to change. It's pretty sad when the Final Fantasy series is more innovative and adept at trying new things. Final Fantasy VII has a robust and engrossing world filled with characters to chat up, side quests to undertake, romance, action, adventure! It has it all! Ocarina and VII have beautiful worlds to explore, but just based on sheer variety I'd have to go with Final Fantasy VII.

Gameplay

This is another category based solely on opinion, because honestly is just comes down to which genre you prefer. Ocarina is a fantastic action adventure game while FFVII is a great JRPG. One has you swinging a sword and grappling to walls with the press of a button the other has you strategically planning your next five moves. However, Final Fantasy VII also showed us just how many amazing mini games you could squeeze onto three PS1 discs. Whether snowboarding, riding your motorcycle or piloting a submarine, this game had quite an abundance of extras that were worked into the story incredibly well (even the ability to replay them!).

Ocarina had some great dungeons and puzzles (including the infamous Water Temple). The combat would still be the same essentially, no matter how HD it is. I don't really care if I can count all the hairs on Clouds head as he swings his ridiculously phallic sword, or if I can see the thread count in Links sweet hat. I can't really choose a winner in this department because somedays I'll feel like an action game, somedays a JRPG. As for applying new technology though, I think improved AI would make for some fascinating and intense battles in Final Fantasy VII, can you imagine if the Weapons were smarter?

Other remakes/re-imaginings

Ocarina was a great success and Nintendo does this funny little thing whenever it has a great success: It remakes that game over and over until it stops being successful. Zelda and Mario are the worst offenders here. There is no denying that Ocarina is a great game, it is certainly one of the all time classics, but it has been remade again and again (referring to the similarities in Zelda games since Link to the Past). I don't really have an issue with playing the same game over and over with minor differences but when it comes to a remake, I'd rather a game get remade that hasn't been done so many times. Also, looking at how the Zelda games have evolved what would you get with a remake? HD graphics, maybe some voice acting NPCs, and perhaps some enhanced puzzles. Enemy AI could be improved but you'd still just be swinging a sword or shooting your bow. Link still won't talk… and he's no Gordon Freeman.

On the Final Fantasy side of things you have an interesting trend. Much like Nintendo a few years ago Square Enix realized the last game that people really loved was Final Fantasy VII, so they decided to go back and milk that cow till it was dead and dry. They made new games in the FFVII universe and told new stories. A sequel movie and game and two prequels. It was a great time to be a FFVII fan, for the most part. The games on whole lacked the charm of the first thus never struck a chord with the fans. Though Crisis Core remains one of the most well written and intricately woven prequels I've ever played (and it's fun too!).

Final Verdict

Each respective franchise has seen it's growth and changes, but I think Final Fantasy has grown more and would have more to offer for a remake. Now, do I think FFVII will ever be remade? No, but that comes with a caveat. Square Enix holds the FFVII remake as a trump card, basically if they were ever to screw up so badly as to alienate their entire fan base *cough* Final Fantasy XIV *cough* they could throw down an announcement that they are remaking VII and everything would be right again. Now, here's why that will never happen. First, fanboys: they will always defend and love Squenix. Second, it would be nearly impossible.

Final Fantasy VII is such a huge, rich and deep game that to recreate the world and bring it to todays standards (Voiced NPCs, Cutscenes, fully rendered backgrounds) it would take Square Enix 30-40 YEARS to finish according to Final Fantasy XIII Director Motomu Toriyama. As for Ocarina of Time being remade, yes, I believe that will happen.

Ultimately though I don't think a remake of either of these games is necessary. They both had a huge impact on me and I don't need to experience them any other way than how the were intended. Yes, both would look stunning simply from an artistic standpoint, but honestly it's not that hard to pick up either game in it's original form and still be floored by it, and I think that speaks more highly of a game's merit than any remake ever could.

An early Tech Demo for the PS3 before it was released. Also, a game that will never happen

(...probably)

;D

Only Slightly Delayed: Prince of Persia Forgotten Sands

Prince of Persia has always intrigued me. I remember when Sands of Time came out on PS2 it got rave reviews and I wanted to play it, but I didn't do so until about 5 years later. I must say Sands of Time aged like fine wine. The Free Running platforming is smooth and fun and the combat, while weak, certainly got the job done. Why am I explaining how great the first was? Well because Forgotten Sands is essentially the same game with HD graphics. So is that good or bad? Read on to find out (oh how I love baiting muwahahaha)!

Forgotten Sands is an appropriate title because this game was literally forgotten in the series. The story places itself between the first and second games and it works well enough. Our young Prince Dastan finds himself in quite a pickle after his brother unleashes a cursed army. The story tries to play along the same lines as Sands of Time only with a "family ties" bend. It works, but won't be winning any awards. Also, take note, this has nothing to do with the movie Sands of Time even though they were released in conjunction… I'm sure that was just a coincidence the Ubisoft had a Prince of Persia game in production while Disney was producing a movie...

Story aside, this game functions like all the rest in the series; platforming and combat. The real reason you want to play this game is the platforming. Forgotten Sands offers up some excellent Free Running that is both challenging and rewarding. There were only a handful of times I felt the game "tricked me" into dying. The jumping puzzles require impeccable timing and button switching. Thankfully the Prince's ability to reverse time is back. Along with that you gain the ability to solidify water, replace broken surfaces and do a… warp kick… Believe me, by the end of the game you will be doing all these in rapid succession like a pro.

This is about the minimum number of enemies on screen at one time

The combat, much like Sands of Time, is the weakest part of Forgotten Sands. enemies come in predictable patterns and are dispatched by mashing attack and occasionally casting one of four magic spells. Sword attacks feel a bit sluggish but that is made up by the attack speed of your enemies being that of molasses going up hill in January… with crutches. Simply put, the fighting is easy and slow. There is no block, which can be frustrating at times, but the dodge roll often teleports you threw attacks. Your greatest foe tends to be the camera in the larger scale fights, particularly when your enemy is the kind that charges. However, my opinion on the combat changes drastically in the last quarter of the game.

You see toward the end you get the Master Swo… magic Mcguffin Sword of Solomon. After this the combat feels quick and responsive, because you are suddenly ridiculously strong. Every attack is a one hit kill, it seems odd, but with the sheer amount of enemies the game insists on throwing at you it really makes the combat flow far better. That, in turn, mixes the combat and platforming much more naturally. The combat becomes easy and fast, so you can get back to the juicy platforming faster.

The game is fun throughout but the last quarter of it is amazing. Honestly the set piece before the final boss had no right being that good. Basically (this isn't much of a spoiler but if you want the full impact DO NOT READ, skip to next paragraph) the last part before the boss takes place in a giant sand storm. You hop from piece to piece of broken palace fighting enemies occasionally. Granted it is fairly easy, the spectacle of it was just awesome. I haven't been floored by design like that since the Scarecrow levels from Arkham Asylum. the boss fight that follows is just average, but to be fair it's hard to top crazy sand storm tornado parkour.

So that's Forgotten Sands in a nutshell. The platforming is top notch, but the combat leaves much to be desired. The end of the game is great but the middle drags ever so slightly as fighting becomes more prevalent over platforming. I got this gem for $10 and it was worth every penny. If you're a fan of the series you should definitely get it. Honestly, it's worth it, even if only for the penultimate scene. One last gripe though, Prince Dastan looks weird. It's almost like they started with the idea this was going to be a movie tie in then couldn't afford Jake Gylanhopperwhosit... He just looks... off...

Maybe it's just me... But Leeanne agreed...

Only Slightly Delayed: Killzone 2

KZ2: Pure, Unadulterated Eye Candy

The first Killzone is one of my all time favorite First Person Shooters. Available on the PS2 it went for a very heavy approach to war. You were able to play as 1 of 4 unique soldiers as you fought off the invading hordes of Helghast. It was tonally quite different from other FPS' out at the time and a breath of fresh air in my opinion. Nowadays though gritty, dreary war games are a dime a dozen. So how does Killzone 2 hold up? Read on to find out.

Killzone 2 opens with an all out assault on the plant Helghan. Helghast are the big baddies of the KZ universe and now you're stomping on their turf. The story is generic; you play as the unstoppable one man army Sev. Basically plot points are just mission objectives on your way to capture Vasari (the main bad dude). It works well in the context of the game and fills in the cracks adequately enough. The end was really great though, even if it was just sequel baiting. The story uses rising action to great affect. It builds up to epic proportions then does a sweep kick and knocks you off your feet with this helpless feeling. moments later you're back up again for another rising action and climax.

Lets be honest though, not many people play First Person Shooters for the engaging narrative, they want to shoot things. The first thing you will probably notice is that this game is stunning. Just like the first this game is fistfuls of setting, tone and realism wrapped up in a gritty sci-fi package. Simply put; it is awesome. Now, when it comes to shooting things the major aspect that sets Killzone apart from other First Person franchises is the feel of the gameplay. While basically every FPS goes for a very light and fluid approach Killzone mixes it up by adding something: weight. No, I don't mean you feel like a portly soldier plodding and wheezing across the battle field. You can feel the weight of your gun and equipment as you heft it around corners and through the ruined cities. Guns punch with recoil, enemies drop hard, and movements take effort. It might take some time to get aquatinted with, but in the end it feels very natural and actually helps draw you in.

There is also a cover system that works well enough. If you don't use cover you die, luckily it is abundant and doesn't rely on gimmick. In Quantum of Solace when you pop behind cover the camera shifts from first person to third. It works for Bond but it would have felt awkward here. This game survives on immersion and they never break it.

Helghast: with a name like that how could they not be evil?

I did miss the squad based mechanics of the first game. Here you play as Sev the entire time where in the first you could play as 1 of 4 each with their own unique style. It was a nice distraction and lacking in the sequel despite the fact you're usually with at least one other member of your squad. I doubt they will add this in KZ3 but here's for hoping.

They're currently taking pre-orders for Killzone 3 and I must admit, I'm very tempted to get this day one. However, I remain steadfast the Worlds Worst Critic so I believe I will wait for it to drop down to the delightful $12 I purchased KZ2 (gotta love black friday). So to wrap this up, KZ2 is great game. It is heavy both in the games mechanics and story. The Killzone series is very much a sci-fi retelling of World War II an it works. KZ1 was Pearl Harbor (The Helghast invade the ISA planet Vekta) and in KZ2 you take the fight to them. However, toward the end it strays a bit from the formulaic approach and takes the story in a far more tragic direction. I'm interested to see where this series will go next and glad to say that I made it through this review without any mention of another inferior sci-fi FPS… Turok. ;D

Happy Holidays everyone! I know this article is a bit short but I've just finished several games and I've got to many "games as art" articles on the back burner to focus on really fleshing these Only Slightly Delayed games out. Fear not my loyal readers! I have a surprise coming for my fast approaching 50th entry!

This is actually from KZ1... I just love it because KZ1 has my favorite sniper scope EVER