20cc reviews: Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.

With Gamefly's inability to deliver Weapons of Fate in time for this week's review, and the fact that I'll no doubt have to take next week off for travel, it seems I'm looking at another month or so without a break in the release schedule. WoF and The Godfather 2 are already out, and before I've finished them I'll have Velvet Assassin to contend with. I may end up cutting a couple games out of my schedule, depending on their continuing interest level.

In WoF's absence, I had planned on writing a completely irrelevant Prince of Persia review for this week, but Gamefly couldn't get that in time either, so I was left to find something at Blockbuster for my review. (It goes without saying that they didn't have WoF in stock either.) I settled on H.A.W.X.

For a little background, I've had a rather sporadic relationship with Tom Clancy games, and flying games in general. Every so often, one catches my interest, but only for a little while, and I've never been particularly good at either. It may in part be that I played most of these games when I was younger and sucked at games, and over time came to ignore Tom Clancy games because they're pretty much all the same. And yet here we have a Tom Clancy flying game. How refreshing. My aversion to this genre would have kept me from playing the game, but a friend suggested it to me, and I ended up getting the demo on XBL, figuring I had nothing to lose. (And nothing else to play, since Gamefly fails at shipping.)

It turns out, the game is fun. I would go so far as to say addictive. They accomplish this, first of all, by making it ridiculously easy. I say ridiculously because I finished the game in a day, and as I said before I'm pretty terrible at flying games. Combat, realistically, consists less of pulse pounding dogfights with opponents firing their cannons blindly, hoping to wing their enemy and maybe chip off a little health, and more of blowing the shit out of helpless ground targets. Less realistically, while most fighters might carry two to four missiles, H.A.W.X.'s fighters regularly came equipped with 200 Joint Strike missiles, 40 multi targeting air to air missiles, and rocket pods (just to give a possible weapon load). In addition to the typical flight mode, H.A.W.X. adds an alternate “assistance off” mode (referred to as OFF, in capitals, for no apparent reason) that makes for easier dogfighting. What it does, essentially, is removes most of the HUD, such as the altimeter and speedometer, disables the ERS, (the “enhanced reality system,” basically an advanced targeting system) changes to a camera angle that makes targeting a pain in the ass, and disables the failsafe that prevents the plane from slowing too much and stalling out. While that seems to be mostly negative, it really is worth it to be able to cut the plane's engine, spin around 180 degrees and fire a couple of missiles into the face of that enemy jet that thought it was going to get away. Also, admittedly, it's pretty fun to stall the plane and then pull out a second or two before hitting the ground. (Tangentially, the game would have been better if the player could use a Mechwarrior-style customization system, perhaps selecting weapons that fit into a weight limit, instead of choosing from preset options.)

As far as missions go, the gameplay consists of a combination of area defense (boring), escorts (frustrating), ground support (the closest to realistic of all the mission types), and infiltration (rare but fun). Like GTA4, the game really doesn't stray from its model, except in a couple minor cases, for instance an escort mission in which the player's targeting and ERS only works while near the escort target, (an AWACS) or a defense mission that ends with the player having to intercept cruise missiles before they reach the target. Despite maintaining a strict model, the gameplay remains fun because of the graphics, and the feeling of power that comes as a result of watching a multi targeting air to ground missile wipe out a tank platoon.

But you knew I would have to talk about the story, didn't you? I can't say I know exactly what role Mr. Clancy took in the writing of this game's plot. However, I was under the impression that his stories were popular because of their realistic, near future disaster scenarios that incite the public's fears because of the possibility that it could actually happen. In H.A.W.X. (According to Wikipedia, this stands for High Altitude Warfare eXperimental squadron, a typically contrived acronym that is also inaccurate, since, as a support unit, the H.A.W.X. squad spends most of its time at a rather low altitude. I don't think the acronym is ever explained in game, but then I did stop listening to the dialogue about halfway through.) the protagonist is a decommissioned Air Force pilot who is hired by the upstart PMC Artemis Global Security. The early part of the game sends the H.A.W.X. to put down rebellions and such, and ends with Artemis signing a contract with Brazil and supporting them in a war against an alliance of South American states called Las Trinidad. The flaws in the writing are minor at first, like the fact that Artemis is not only angry but for some reason surprised that the U.S. tries to intervene in a full scale war between a friendly nation and a vocally anti-American alliance. My personal favorite quote comes up during the defense of Brazil's capital, when a fellow pilot remarks, “Las Trinidad is going for the throat. This is a coup d'état!” A coup d'état is a military revolution, and requires someone inside the country to be rebelling. A war between nations is something very different. However, I became convinced that this character was simply mentally challenged, since he also has a tendency to repeat the same line every goddamn minute.

About halfway through the game, however, in a fit of terrible predictability, Artemis gets a better deal from Las Trinidad, defects, and declares war against the U.S. Somewhere along the line, Artemis apparently confused the definitions for “company” and “terrorist,” because I really don't see how such a plan would be profitable. Whatever Wall Street's current condition, America remains a major economic and military power. A war with the U.S. would first cause Artemis's stock to crash, and then cause all of their soldiers to die. However, because we've long abandoned any sense of realism, this six year old private company manages to actually stage a surprise attack that disables America's defense network, takes several military bases, and sets up a jamming system that disables electronic targeting systems nationwide. There isn't much of a change in gameplay however, since with the protagonist's defection, Artemis's previously advanced forces are replaced with the same tanks and dated fighters that the rebels were previously using.

(Here's a video of someone who apparently doesn't know how to dodge missiles.)

I couldn't honestly say that I didn't enjoy my day with H.A.W.X. Unfortunately, it seems that all of the games I've played of late have been fun without any real valuable content. About a year ago I read an article about the improving condition of video game writers. Why haven't I seen any indication of this? The last game I played with a convincing plot was Silent Hill 2, which is now going on a decade old. Before that was Kane & Lynch, which has been overwhelmingly criticized for its graphics and the fact that the characters “swear too much.” (Whoever wrote those reviews have apparently never been in the real world. The characters in K&L swear less than my friends or my parents.)

What I'm saying is that I like games to be enjoyable, but I would also like to feel that I'm doing less to contribute to America's deteriorating intellect. It's really not that hard to write a convincing plot. All that's required is that the writer asks himself three questions: “Are my characters realistic? Is my plot fresh and plausible? Am I not a flaming idiot?” If the answer to any of those questions is no, it's time to get outside help. Please people, have some standards. There's a difference between games like Saints Row that are cleverly written and lack plot only because it's meant to be a parody, and games whose writers assume that we can't tell the difference between characterization and bullshit.

20cc reviews: Resident Evil 5

I have never played any of the old Resident Evil games. As such, I won't be able to judge the new game's plot in the context of its predecessors. My experience with the series is as follows: I saw part of the movie on TV once, played Resident Evil 4 at a friend's, rented (or something) the first and second movies, watched them, watched them again with Biscuits, and pretty much forgot about the whole thing. I took two main things away from my experience. First, if the older games are like 4, they would probably be pretty fun, but I'm too lazy to find out. Second, Albert Wesker is a very cool villain.

Then the new game came out, and I thought it would be a fun way to get some cooperative play in. Unfortunately, I didn't really get to try the coop, because it took about two days for me to figure out how to work the split screen. (Here's a hint. You start a single player game, and then press start on the second controller. Unfortunately, like CoD5, the two screens are letterboxed, which wastes a lot of space. I've heard it said that this has something to do with the resolution setting of the TV, but I'm not about to mess with that, because I would then have to recalibrate the screen and I don't really know how to do that.)

So now that I've finished the game, I've got to think that someone meant to get a hold of the unused ideas folder from RE4, but it turned out that they accidentally used the ideas that had been used already. For one thing, the two games play exactly the same. I won't complain about that so much, because I liked RE4, but the similarity persists. Not only are almost the same breeds of Plagas present, but several enemies return that would not be expected to, realistically. The chainsaw-wielding Dr. Salvador makes an appearance, though slightly reskinned, and JJ the Gatling-gunner returns, red beret and all. There are more subtle similarities as well, such as the Reapers (very much like a more dangerous version of RE4's Novistadors) and the test subjects discovered at one point in the game (which have a lanky appearance somewhat similar to the Regeneradors). El Gigante even returns in the form of a disgustingly easy boss creature named Ndesu. At first, the only apparent change is that Leon Kennedy has been replaced with another returning RE character, Chris Redfield. He's a lot like Leon, except less attractive, less intelligent, and ripped like a fucking tank. (They did that so that they could include a ridiculous scene at the end in which Chris knocks over a boulder... somehow.)

Unfortunately, good enough can never be left alone. It would have been acceptable to just make a direct sequel to RE4 and call it a day. But Capcom wanted to add a partner for Chris to talk to, and Sheva Alomar was born. And as no one apparently tried to come up with new enemies, no one bothered either to try and program an acceptable AI. It wasn't so much an issue with the enemies, who were expected to be not particularly smart. However, when Sheva decided to stand behind me and try to shoot through me to hit the enemies, a problem manifested. It didn't hurt me, but when Sheva has 12 shots left, and I'm expected to resupply her once she's out, I found myself wishing she would wade into the water and get eaten by a crocodile rather than waste any more of my ammunition. However, there is then the issue of the inventory. If it were possible to kill off my dead weight partner without failing the game, I would have half the space to carry my stuff. Unlike the relatively intuitive space based system of its predecessor, RE5 uses a slot system, where each partner has nine slots, and each item takes up one slot, be it an egg or an RPG-7. Furthermore, armor—of which there are two kinds—take up a slot in the inventory. Therefore, if you want both characters to be protected as thoroughly as possible, you'll have bought both Chris and Sheva the melee vest and the bulletproof vest, be out 40,000 dollars or so, and have only seven slots left in either inventory. Wouldn't you think the characters might be wearing their armor, rather than carrying it?

And then there's the racism issue. RE5 always bothered me because of all the people who complained that it was racist to be kill black people in a video game. I can't understand that. If a black person plays a game that involves killing Caucasians, is that racist? The game takes place in Africa. The people there are African, meaning, unless we're in South Africa—which I doubt—they will be black. If all of the enemies were white, it would be not only racist, but stupid. No, my problem with the game was Sheva. Apparently, since the sole reason for a female partner is the sex appeal, and since Americans don't find Africans attractive, Sheva had to be not quite African. So instead she has Caucasian features, a complexion about as dark as an Arab watered down by a generation or so of white parents, and a voice that fluctuates between British and “spoiled American bitch.” This falls into the racist and stupid category I mentioned before. Early in the game, a guard stops the pair and tries to search them. Not only does Sheva not respond in Swahili, which you'd think would be her native language, but she gives him her best pampered American princess, “Get your hands off of me!” Wouldn't a trained soldier understand that a guard would have to search them for weapons before they enter a sensitive area? I suppose this scene was included so that we would understand early on that Sheva is a bitch, so we wouldn't develop any emotional connection with her. So many problems would have been solved if the guard had done his job and shot Sheva just then. Alas he failed, and left Sheva to torment me throughout the game by, for instance, walking out into the open as Wesker is preparing his one hit kill attack.

As I suggested before, Capcom's ineptitude was not limited to programming AI. They also managed to hire some of the worst voice actors available. Sheva is a perfect example, though not the only one. I accept that a lot of the blame rests with the writers, for expecting the actors to deliver such juvenile lines. However, there are a few characters that couldn't make Whitman sound convincing. Excella Gionne, one of the main villains, (It's really not a spoiler, because if you couldn't tell she was evil from the first or second time she was mentioned, you probably need to be told.) is another graduate from the failed African impersonators' school, and goes through the game with a Latina accent. Only one character in the game pulls off an African accent and I can't remember his name, because he has about fifteen minutes of screen time in the whole game.

The game isn't all bad, however. I was actually surprised by how well the game used its graphics. While most new games showcase their graphics by demonstrating their ability to make everything as dark and unintelligible as possible, RE5 actually uses lighting effectively. There were a couple parts in the earlier levels that actually looked downright pretty. Unfortunately, since there is so much more sunlight than in RE4, the creators had to justify Las Plagas being in sunlight. Supposedly, the researchers found a way to increase Las Plagas' resistance to sunlight, which leads me to wonder why flash grenades still kill them.

And then there's Wesker.

What really made the game for me was that Wesker was actually involved in the plot. I've decided that he's the only character in the game worth caring about, despite having a voice actor who, while not exactly bad, sounded so stereotypical it hurt my head. The rational part of me wanted to hate him, for his silly voice, for looking like the character designer used exactly the same outfit as J.C. Denton from Deus Ex, and for being everything typical of a Japanese series archvillain, but the rest of me couldn't quite do it, because he's just so cool. However, a lot of the coolness wore off during the second stage of the boss fight, partly because he looked a little overdone, and partly because it took some running, a single bullet, and a button mashing sequence (not quite a quick time event, since I believe it was only one button) to defeat him.

Also, they insist on continuing to say the Las Plagas. This translates to the The Plague. I don't even speak Spanish, and you're telling me not a single person at Capcom can figure that out?

20cc reviews: Eagle Eye

I know I had planned to review Resident Evil 5 for this week, but I would like to get the rest of the way through, to try out the cooperative mode, and to see if the story is somehow salvaged at the end.

However, my conscience won't suffer me to take the week off, so I'm throwing together an Eagle Eye review. I know it's not exactly new, and I wasn't actually watching it with the intent of writing a review, but it did raise some interesting talking points.

As an overview, Eagle Eye is about an uninspired loser (Shia LaBeouf (I still can't get over how similar his name is to “the beef” in French)) and an overworked single mother (Michelle Monaghan) who are contacted by a mysterious woman and forced into working for her to an unknown end. The woman seems to know everything about them, and manipulates their surroundings to assist them, by opening train doors, changing traffic lights, etc. Meanwhile, an FBI agent (Billy Bob Thornton) is hunting LaBeouf, unaware of his situation, and an Air Force investigator (Rosario Dawson) is looking into the accidental death of LaBeouf's brother, a lieutenant in the force.

As expected, the movie showcases the often absurd feats of technology the mysterious woman utilizes to aid her pawns. In some cases, it makes for an interesting commentary on the dangers of our culture's technology. Others were a little too far toward the unrealistic side. For instance, everyone's favorite image enhancement trick, whereby an investigator zooms in several hundred times on a sector of an image, and then commands the techie to “enhance the image.” You can't create pixels from nothing. Someday I want to see the computer operator attempt to photoshop the image.

As far as the writing went, it was nothing terribly spectacular. Occasionally, I got the feeling that the characters were too clichéd, but it wasn't a huge issue. Unfortunately, most of the bigger issues I have with the film involve the ending. That being said:

SPOILERS BELOW

-------------------------

YOU ARE WARNED

To catch you up, it is revealed that the mysterious woman is in fact an advanced reconnaissance computer called ARIIA. Because of a poor decision made by the president at the opening of the film, ARIIA decided that the executive branch is a threat to the good of the American people, and devises a plan to destroy it. This plan involves smuggling a military-developed crystalline explosive into a concert attended by most of the chain of succession for the presidency. The crystal is shaped into a necklace and given to Monaghan to wear to a concert, and then triggered by a certain note at the end of the song. (Yes, that is how Get Smart ended, except it's even less logical, because instead of using the ending cadence as a trigger, it's only a single note, forcing us to conclude that there is only a single high F in The Star-Spangled Banner.) This ending works very well for a comedy, but fails a little when it tries to be taken seriously.

In the end, the plot is undone when LaBeouf sneaks into the concert, disguised as a security guard, climbs onto a table and fires into the air, disrupting the concert. The security detail, having failed at keeping LaBeouf from mugging one of their own to sneak in, shoot him several times. I thought this salvaged the rather silly plot. Although clichéd, I thought it worked well to see LaBeouf, a deadbeat who never accomplished anything, sacrifice himself to save not only the president, but Monaghan, with whom he had become close.

Unfortunately, there was another scene afterwards. Apparently LaBeouf actually survived the shooting, (and the legal and political feeding frenzy that would have followed) and is shown attending Monaghan's son's birthday party, where the two have a touching heart to heart and kiss. (Monaghan, that is, not her son.) The movie had managed to pull a satisfying ending out of a juvenile premise and then somehow throw away any credibility it had. My theory is that the last scene was attached because it was decided that the American public was too simpleminded to accept the first ending. While that may be true, it is no less unfortunate.

And so what we have here is a movie that is undoubtedly fun to watch, but only if you're willing to suspend a whole lot of disbelief. There are fun fight scenes, fun special effects, but little in the way of artistic value. Also, at the risk of sounding simpleminded, I would like to suggest that ARIIA seems very similar to GlaDOS, from Portal. It's just a suggestion.

20cc reviews: Killzone 2

When I was younger, I never used to finish video games. For some reason, I never really saw games as something to be beaten, just played for a year or so and eventually abandoned. Those were the days when I bought games for no reason other than that they were on the system I had (a Nintendo 64), or because the box art was pretty. I didn't follow gaming news, and I had no concept of what made a good game. I believe the first game I ever finished was Metroid Prime. After that may have been Gauntlet Dark Legacy. I don't actually remember, but I didn't really think of games as something to be played all the way through until around the time I got my Xbox.

As sad as that sounds, I do have a point. I was realizing this earlier today as I was considering the fact that I spent four hours of last Thursday, and maybe three more on Sunday, finishing Killzone 2. My eleven-year-old self would be shocked that I finished a game in fewer than twelve hours. Suddenly I find myself playing through one game each week, whether or not I like it.

With Killzone 2, I didn't want to finish the game. I would have rather read a book, or listened to music, or possibly played music, but I felt my journalistic integrity would have been compromised if I didn't make every effort to finish the game before I reviewed it. Ultimately, I finished it, at the cost of my health and my weekend, and really I'm not sure it was worth it.

I did not have a whole lot of personal interest in Killzone 2. I rented it because it new and relevant. My experience with the game beforehand was limited to an interview I had read, and the only thing I remembered from it was that Guerrilla Games was “putting a lot of work into the guns.” That is not a direct quote, but the closest I can remember. This intrigued me, because I always enjoy when a game works hard to look good, not just in the graphics, but in the overall presentation. As time went on though, I forgot that original interest, and began to feel the same thing I feel whenever a game I know little about gets a lot of hype. We'll say that I had mixed feelings going into the game. Similarly, it gave me mixed results, with parts of the game meeting my expectations, parts exceeding them, and parts failing.

The good:

Starting the first level, one thing immediately struck me about the game. The graphics were superb. It's hard to get me to say that about a game, because so often people say a game has broken into the next generation of graphics, and so often the games look just like every other one. Killzone 2 is something new though. Maybe it's just the PS3's superior hardware, but I'm still in awe. As a result, however, the characters suffered from exposure to the uncanny valley. Every imperfect movement was amplified, so cutscenes often looked somewhat unrealistic, near perfect graphics or not. Also, I eventually noticed that it doesn't really matter how good the graphics are, eventually they become normal. By the end of the game, I was no longer noticing the graphics, especially since I had been looking at the same things for hours. But that is a point best left for the next section.

The bad:

When I heard that Guerrilla was focusing specifically on the guns, being the things you look at through the whole game, I may have had too high expectations. Killzone 2 failed here not because of any technological limitation, but because game designers still disagree with me about which details are important. One thing that I know I've said before, and will no doubt say again, is that shooting games need to have more than one reload animation. It's not difficult. I don't insist on anything fancy. When you empty half a magazine and reload, that character takes the magazine out of the rifle, and inserts a new one. When the whole magazine is empty, he would have to pull back the bolt. That's all it would take. There were other problems too, about which I may find more sympathy. The weapons were all very much the same things we've seen before. As I'm actually discussing with 23 at the time of this writing, game companies make money by selling a product, and exploring new territory isn't a safe bet, financially speaking. Also, as I began to discuss earlier, the game isn't very creative with its level design. For the most part, every level looked the same, and even toward the end, when they started to change, they had the same feel. The complexity of the graphics may have something to do with that, since it somehow drained the character from the levels. Another cause may have been the fact that each level has the same objectives, specifically, kill the Helghast and avoid their bullets.

The ugly:

In one aspect, the game exactly met my expectations. This is perhaps the most important aspect of a game, the creative aspect. There was no plot of any value, as I expected, every twist was forecast an hour ahead, as excepted, and every character was a walking cliché with no depth, and generally only one real purpose in the story. While this was exactly what I expected, it didn't make the clichés any less painful, or the story any less dreary. I suspect that Guerrilla set out with the objective of making a pure shooter, and they came very close to that. While this is admirable in its own way, it does not excuse them from making something of value.

So what we have here is a game that does everything that it tries to do. Unfortunately, it doesn't try for the right things. As beautiful as the graphics may be, a game needs substance to be worth the money, and Killzone 2 falls short there. Overused weapons, a juvenile plot and unoriginal level design make for an overall unremarkable package. If bland shooters are your kind of thing, or if you just desperately need something to play on your PS3, then rent it. Don't pay full price until you're sure you like it. But then that's my philosophy for all games. Let me also say that Biscuits finally contributed to anyButton by rubbing the game on his balls before I played it. Whether that speaks positively or at all about the game, I leave to you to decide.

I've included the game's intro video. If you watch it in high definition, it should give you a sense of its graphics, and also of the quality of its plot.

20cc reviews: Watchmen

Once upon a time, a company called Remedy Entertainment made a game called Max Payne. This 2001 third person shooter was a revolution. It was one of the first (if not the first) games to use the bullet-time effect popularized by The Matrix. Since then, countless games have used a slow motion combat system, including one I just reviewed, and occasionally it is even referred to in game as “Max Payne style.” The game's plot was an intentionally over the top, film noir style story of policeman Max Payne, whose family is murdered by junkies, and whose search for revenge leads him into the darkest criminal underworld and up a ladder of conspiracy far beyond any he imagined.

In 2008, 20^th Century Fox released a Max Payne movie, starring Mark Wahlberg. I had high hopes, Wahlberg being one of my favorite actors, and the game being such a perfect candidate for film. Unfortunately, the movie was terrible. So terrible, in fact, that I immediately went home and played several hours of Far Cry 2, a game I don't even particularly like, just to make myself stop thinking about it. I couldn't imagine how the movie could have been so remarkably bad. The answer? Director John Moore changed almost every aspect of the plot. Aside from a character named Max Payne, a drug called Valkyr, a single slow motion fight scene, and a dark filming style, the movie was completely unrecognizable.

My point here is that interpretation is a dangerous thing. Of course, I count myself as an artist of sorts, and am in no way opposed to artistic license. I certainly don't expect a book or game made into a film to be the same as the original. Things must be changed, for clarity and conciseness as well as to express the director's personal style. When I saw the “Valkyries” in the trailer for the Max Payne movie, I accepted it as a reasonable interpretation of the story, and a pretty cool one at that. However, it's necessary to take care when negotiating the territory between “interpreting” something and “fucking it up.” Clearly John Moore came too far toward the latter in this case.

Enter Watchmen, a 1986-1987 graphic novel series that tells a chilling, alternate history in which costumed vigilantes are the main deterrent to crime, and the U.S. are on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The story begins with the murder of a government employed vigilante known as the Comedian, and follows a number of characters as they try to negotiate a world weeks away from self destruction. The story was written beautifully, and the characters were astounding in their psychological complexity and depth of character. Furthermore, I was already a fan of writer Alan Moore for another of his works, V for Vendetta, which was made into a movie in 2005.

Last week, the film of Watchmen was released under direction of Zack Snyder, the director of 300. Let me expound. I didn't like 300 at all. The story was juvenile and historically inaccurate, and the whole thing came off as an excuse to show a lot of slow motion violence and sex scenes. (Yes, I did mean to say slow motion sex scenes.) However, my problems with the film had more to do with the original story, and I admit it was well directed. What I really admire about Mr. Snyder in this case, was that he was able to recognize that he didn't need to change the story. Alan Moore (Perhaps somewhat like Julian Casablancas: A very talented artist, whether or not he's a good person. Yes, I recognize that comparing the man who wrote Watchmen to the lead singer of The Strokes is a fairly weak analogy. However, I'm tired, I was just listening to The Strokes, it's late on Saturday and I'm trying very hard to get this finished while it's still “this week.”) had already crafted a near perfect story, and Mr. Snyder had only to guide it onto the screen and reap the undoubtedly massive financial boon.

As I am supposedly a layman's critic, I'll have to assume that my audience has neither read the book, nor seen the movie, so I'll avoid anything that would spoil the plot. I'll focus my review instead on the artistic aspects of the film, and what was changed from the book. It seems to me that the movie would be more enjoyable for those who have read the book. While both of my co-authors at aB liked the movie without having done so, I've heard many complaints that the movie is difficult to understand without previous exposure to the story. After seeing it a second time, I am coming to agree more with that viewpoint. I admired the movie for staying so faithful to the original, with entire conversations copied word for word, and yet I'm beginning to see how my experience with the book may have caused me to imagine context that wasn't necessarily given in the film.

What was changed from the book can be fairly easily divided into two categories: stylistic changes, and necessary changes. The former were mostly minor details, like the slight changes in quotes or the alterations in a character's costume. For instance, my personal favorite line from the book, in which Rorschach writes, “The accumulated filth of all their sex and violence will foam up about their waists, and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'save us!' And I'll look down and whisper 'no.'” was changed in the movie by omitting the words “look down and.” I don't really understand what would prompt such a change, whether to achieve a more desirable sound in the director's opinion, or to try to make it seem as if the movie wasn't directly copied from the book, but either way it doesn't much effect the final result. As for the costumes, I mostly agree with the changes that were made. The exception is Ozymandias. In the book, he wore gold and purple, symbolizing his relationship with his namesake. In the film, the purple—traditionally a color for emperors—was removed, and the gold is largely replaced by black. I'm not entirely sure why this change was made, but I feel it was a bad one.

The parts of the film that I had more problems with were the changes made from necessity, and I can hardly blame those on anything but the constraints of the film medium. After rereading the book and watching the movie again, I noticed many more changes, but I consider it a positive that I didn't notice them the first time through. The film did a very good job of altering small details without damaging the film as a whole. A lot of the back story that was given in the book through conversations, or through Hollis Mason's fictional autobiography (excerpted at the end of a few of the volumes) is compressed into a montage sequence of the rise and fall of the Minutemen, put to the tune of a fitting Bob Dylan song that I don't know the name of because I don't listen to Bob Dylan. Several other sequences were condensed, and suffer slightly from it, but it couldn't have been done otherwise.

The biggest change, and the only one that actually diverged from the original plot, was the ending. Most of you will have already heard complaints about the change, and most other sources would have likely gone on to spoil one ending or the other. I will say only that it was a big change. Biscuits said that he liked the movie ending better than the original. Personally, I wouldn't go that far, but I do understand why the change was made. It would have taken probably another hour of development to make the original ending seem plausible to a film audience, and that couldn't be done with an already 163 minute run time. The new ending is a lot easier to understand, more modern, and slightly more realistic, but I still hold to the original ending.

Aside from the already amazing story, the thing that struck me the most about the film was the maturity with which it approached the violence and nudity. At no point in the movie did I feel that it was violence for the sake of violence, or nudity for the sake of nudity. It all served the story in some respect. The two really gruesome scenes in the movie (the alley fight and the kidnapping case, for those who know the story) were both included for the sake of characterization, to explore the vigilantes' motivations. As far as nudity goes, there is one moderately graphic sex scene, hardly unusual by today's standards, and it was at an important turning point in the story (though it was less obvious in the film than in the book). Also, the movie stayed true to the fact that Dr. Manhattan was naked for the greater part of the story. Frankly, I was surprised and pleased that Mr. Snyder didn't shy away from it. After all, the classical artists understood that there is nothing shameful in the human form, and it would have been a slight to change that aspect of Dr. Manhattan's character. I suppose it would have been possible to avoid showing anything through clever use of camera, but that would have been limiting, and I'm glad to see someone challenge America's gymnophobia.

My responses to some of the biggest criticisms I've heard are as follows:

1. How can Zack Snyder call himself an artist, when he practically copied the book in its entirety?

-It wasn't copied in its entirety, but in answer to the spirit of the question, I didn't expect Mr. Snyder to be an artist, I expected him to make Watchmen into a movie, and he did that well and with minimal interference.

2. It looked old.

-I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this. If you mean that the film was grainy and occasionally sepia toned, that's because it takes place during the 1980s, and at times during the 1930s. It was a stylistic choice that I though fit pretty well. If you mean that the special effects were sub par, I don't think we watched the same movie.

3. Dr. Manhattan was nude throughout the whole film. Was such gross pornography really necessary?

-Grow up.

And finally a few more trivial notes.

There's a funny little 300 reference at the beginning of the film. The Comedian is living in room 3001, and a coffee mug thrown during the fight knocks down the 1.

Snyder's 300-style use of completely unecessary slow motion appears once, during the burning building scene (once again, for those who know the story).

There's an interesting example of circular storytelling in both the book and film. Twice, Rorschach speaks the line “Fine like this.” The first time, he is rejecting Daniel's offer to heat some food. The last time, he is rejecting Daniel's offer of warmer clothing. The connection is more significant after you read or see it.

If my review seems awfully similar to Tim Buckley's (I won't link to it, because he has spoilers. If you want to read it, you can look it up.) it's only because we apparently noticed similar things about the film. I'm less ashamed of that now that CAD has started to improve again. There was a while when he tried to introduce “plot” to his comics, and it failed terribly. I seriously considered giving them up. Hopefully, he has since realized that his gift is in making clever jokes about video games, and not in constructing a compelling story.

Rorschach is awesome.

All of the characters are awesome, but Rorschach is the best.

20cc reviews: Braid

Alright, so this may not be a new game, nor is it my typical area of expertise, but then it isn't often I find an indie game that I'm willing to pay money for. So yes, there's one question answered, it's not free. It's on the Xbox Live Arcade for 1,200 points. I happened to get it when it was on sale for 800 points, but unless you grabbed it then and haven't played it yet, that isn't much help. Also, in response to its age, my justification is that the PC version is coming out at the end of this month. This can be an early review for those planning on gettting it then.

Braid is a difficult game to review. In fact it's difficult to wrap one's mind around, especially once finished. It's advertised a 2D platformer with gameplay focused on time control. What isn't mentioned is that, on the surface, the game is essentially Mario. Yes, there is of course the similarity in that they are both platformers, and as such share similar gameplay mechanics. However the comparison runs deeper. For one thing, the two most prevalent enemies in the game are a small brown head that waddles around on attached feet and is defeated by jumping on its head, and a fanged, Venus Flytrap-like flower that protrudes from a green pipe in the ground. Sound familiar? Furthermore, the objective of the game is to find and rescue a missing princess. Lest you think less of the game because of this, I assure you it's allowed to take ideas from Mario, because it's better.

[Collective gasp.] Did he just say that?

Yes, I did. Maybe Mario is a staple of the game industry, and a universally recognized character, and a legend in game development history but you know what, so was Pong, and that doesn't make that fun, no matter how many Flash artists try to renovate it.

Of course none of this should go unqualified, so let's get to the actual review. Braid opens without introduction, and shows the main character, Tim, in a sort of castle. Running across a drawbridge, Tim arrives in a room with five doors. Through these doors, you can find five alternate worlds (named 2-6, I won't tell you why.) that must be searched for the missing Princess. The catch is, in each of these worlds, time functions somewhat different than in ours. Some of the concepts are cumulative, like the ever present rewind function. Others are specific to a particular world. The story is told exclusively through a series of books at the beginning of each world. These books introduce the world with an anecdote from Tim's life, which also serves introduce the new time power introduced in the world. The names of the worlds each hint at the power as well (Time and Decision, Time and Place, Hesitance).

Once inside the world, gameplay is simple and addictive, but can become infuriatingly difficult in later worlds. The objective of each world is to find a number of puzzle pieces to reassemble a scene from Tim's shattered life. Each puzzle that is completed adds to the ladder that leads to the attic, where something else interesting awaits. At the end of each world, Tim finds a castle and is greeted by something like a stuffed dinosaur that tells him that the Princess is, invariably, “in another castle.”

The game's graphics are charming, with a sort of watercolor look. In some areas, there's a feel of simple beauty, while others impart a feeling of loneliness and desperation bordering on psychosis. The music fits the game perfectly, and consists mostly of calming acoustic tracks. Here's the part that made the game for me though. The music, like the world, is affected by Tim's time powers. When you rewind, the music rewinds. When you pause, the music stops. When you slow down time in world 6, the music slows to a crawl. This effect adds a higher level of immersion, and also adds to the general feel of the game, that Tim is somehow alone in these worlds that he functions mostly outside of, and that can never understand him.

If what I've said so far hasn't made you want to play the game, then I offer this: The ending will drive you insane. I can't say why, because that would spoil it, but the ending alone makes the game worth the... however the hell much 1,200 points is. There's much more to be said about it, but I really can't without giving it away. Maybe the suspense will make you buy it. Trust me, you want to.

I hate to put a walkthrough up, but really that's the only kind of video there is for Braid, unless it's just a video of someone walking back and worth in the same level. This is from world 4, Time and Place, in which time only goes when Tim moves, and flows in the direction he moves.

I noticed that GERARDAMO tried out a numerical grading system on his Onechanbara review. I find them to be rather simplistic, but they're also fun, so I thought I'd give it a try. I can't promise I'll stick with it, but here's my attempt at a per cent grade.

Gameplay: 70 (Simple, but bolstered by complex time powers)

Graphics: 65 (Not impressive, but they serve the purpose and fit the mood)

Sound: 95 (Music is relaxing, mood fitting, and reacts to time control)

Story: 85 (It's Mario with a twist. A really huge twist.)

Overall: 78.75

20cc reviews: F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin

I was discouraged when I saw that Yahtzee reviewed F.E.A.R. 2 before I did, and no doubt did a better job of it. However, he reviewed Web of Shadows this week, even later than I did. I suppose we all fall behind at some point.

So here we are. Monolith has finally undone all of the evil that Sierra wrought on the F.E.A.R. series with the release of Project Origin. We can finally forget the horrible incongruities and plot holes, and the terrible abomination that was Perseus Mandate. Unfortunately, nothing ever seems to be quite as good as hoped.

The game began promisingly enough, and I was happy to see that the controls had been translated properly to the Xbox. The graphics have of course improved significantly since the original. The combat system remains fast paced and fun, the environments were often creepy, and I was happy to see many of the old Replica skins return from the first game. However, none of the old weapons return, which seems an interesting choice, since the two games take place at the same time, in the same city. Apparently the ATC troops and Replicas sent after Becket and his team were issued different weapons than those hunting the Point Man, and yet the weapons all work like those in the first game. It may seem minor, but these are the design choices that can ruin the immersion of a series. Similarly, there was one problem that I hoped we had seen the end of with Perseus Mandate. In the Sierra expansions, there were a number of weapons (the laser, minigun, grenade launcher and perhaps lightning cannon, though I don't remember) with no aiming animation. When the aim button was pressed, the screen simply zoomed in a little, and the weapon stayed in the same place. This raises the question of what exactly the Point Man is doing to aim. Unfortunately, the new (again reskinned) laser in Project Origin suffers from the same graphical oversight. On the other hand, it's a terrible weapon overall, so there isn't much lost. The old game's fast paced combat is complimented by a new cover system that allows the character to flip over tables, desks, filing cabinets, and other objects to use as cover, much like the Replicas did in the first game. While it adds to the look of the fight scenes, it's next to useless tactically. Several objects can only be interacted with from a certain side, which isn't necessarily the side on which you want to take cover, and most of the time the toppled objects are too short to provide cover for much more than your knees. Even crouching, your head is clearly exposed to fire.

I noticed that the game remained consistently both easier and less frightening than the original. Combat is much easier without reflex time, but this is balanced by the fact that you don't have as much reflex time as in the original. The game keeps the difficulty fairly consistent throughout the game until one level, which is both very difficult and rather terrifying. (Spoiler alert: it's the schoolhouse. Doesn't it seem like the scary parts in games and movies are always in either schoolhouses or hospitals?) After that, the rest of the game is not very frightening, and only slightly harder. The difficulty did increase steeply right at the end of the game, with an actual boss fight. Such things are rare in shooting games these days, and while it was a gimmicky fight, it was less so than is often the case.

The main talking point is of course, the plot. The first game was rather hit or miss. I personally liked the story a lot, but I understand that it could come off as convoluted to someone who doesn't want to like it. Games like F.E.A.R. often have problems with plot, because of the terribly fine line between surrealism and nonsense. I spent most of the time with Project Origin feeling a little unsure of the plot. Without going into too much detail, it has a much different feel from the original. In turns, I felt that it was more logical than the first game's, or that they were really reaching for something new. Of course I was elated to see that Monolith found a new excuse for the Replicas reawakening that didn't involve Paxton Fettel arbitrarily being ressurecting.

Aside from the obviously new story, there are a number of stylistic differences. After the Origin Facility meltdown, the young, red clad Alma that appeared throughout the first game is replaced almost entirely by the older, emaciated Alma that appeared at the end of F.E.A.R. While I understand the symbolism, I rather miss the younger Alma, because, well, little kids are creepy, and her appearance underscored the influence of Japanese horror films on the game. There was also a thematic shift when it came to the protagonist's Alma-induced hallucinations. In the first game, the visions were of bloodstained hallways and hospital rooms, but in the sequel the material involves more natural imagery. There is one repeated image of a tree on a hill with a swing, and on several occasions, black roots spring from the ground to drag away Becket's unfortunate allies. It seems to me that, now that Alma has escaped Origin, her attention has turned to something more than simply freedom. She finds herself drawn to memories of her life before her imprisonment, and the hallucinations reflect this shift in focus.

I thoroughly enjoyed the earlier stages of the game. Unfortunately, as is so often the case (Condemned 2, for instance), the plot started to become unbelievable and the levels began to repeat. There were quite a few beautiful vistas of post-meltdown Auburn, but I started to get bored of them after I had spent an hour or so driving exo-suits through the streets and chasing a certain wayward teammate for three or four levels. I would have forgiven this slight staleness if the ending had been something really remarkable, but it wasn't. At some point before the climax, Project Origin crossed that line I mentioned earlier, and the ending was entirely nonsensical. I'll refrain from spoiling it, as I'm sure there are still some who would take offense, and I can't stand people who spoil stories. However, it seemed to me that Monolith was really being unnecessarily cryptic. The ending offered no closure, and it isn't even clear if Becket's objective was accomplished. It really isn't even clear how much of the ending actually happened, and how much was a hallucination, or rather there is really a distinction to be made between the two. Maybe they're trying to leave their options open for a sequel, but I personally believe there is no good way to end this story. This is probably as good as it will get.

I am again reminded of Youtube's failings. This is about the best video I could find for F.E.A.R. 2's psychological and combat aspects. Unfortunately, the resolution is too bad to make sense of the horror scenes, and the person playing is too bad at it to give a real feel for combat.

For my next horror experience, I'm considering the Penumbra series, a first person survival horror game available on Steam. It would be nice if those games could deliver a gem in modern day survival horror, but I remain skeptical. Of course I can still return to Silent Hill 2 every once in a while. I'll beat it some day.

Next week I should have a review of the Watchmen movie for you, and maybe also of the indie game Braid.

20cc reviews: Saints Row 2

Yes I know, SR2 came out in October. I'm lazy though, and I can't get F.E.A.R. 2 until I return SR2 (or buy it, because I've got a discount deal on Gamefly and quite a bit of gameplay left).

I can't claim this to be a completely objective review, since I have yet to actually finish it, but my conscience is hurting after taking off last week, so I'll just do the best I can.

On first impression, Saints Row 2 is Grand Theft Auto 3.5. After three or four days of gameplay, I feel pretty much the same way. However, while that fact has remained the same, my overall opinion of the game has improved with time. If any of you follow game news and reviews, you'll probably have some idea that SR2 is a bad game, mostly because it has “bad graphics.” Of course most real gamers will have some perspective, and recognize that these “bad graphics” are flabbergasting by the standards of two years ago. Of course they aren't up to GTA4's standards, but I've come to realize that that isn't necessarily a fault. GTA4 suffers from a severe case of “graphical modernization,” as demonstrated by the fact that the game is dark and gritty to the point of being unintelligible. SR2 strikes a nice balance of color while still being realistic. Some of you will be perplexed by that statement, but look at it this way: The world is not entirely made of mud. The sun shines, buildings and water reflect that light, grass is green. Darkness does not necessarily go hand in hand with a lack of clarity. I'm currently sitting in a relatively dark basement, and can still see clearly into the completely dark pool room some distance away. Sure the nights are still dark, but you don't get the same problem with GTA4 where you leave a dark building and the bright sunlight causes your screen to... get darker.

You will also likely have heard that SR2 is chock-full of bugs. Honestly, I never had a problem. Compared to Web of Shadows, the game ran like a dream. Like GTA4, it had the same AI path finding glitch where, upon receiving the order to enter a vehicle, your character decides that an obstacle is in the way of the door, runs around to the other side of the vehicle, and then decides that the other door would have been a better choice after all. Frankly, it happened less often than in GTA4.

My main problem with the game is the control scheme. Being used to GTA4, it took me some time to get used to especially the driving controls. SR2 doesn't do as well with what I suppose I'll call simulated realism as GTA4. I say this because obviously the driving and collisions in GTA4 weren't realistic, but they felt very close, putting aside the fact that you could slide at fifty miles an hour into a telephone pole and emerge unscathed. I at first was irritated by the driving system in SR2, but I've since gotten used to it and realized that, while simpler, it can be just as effective. Furthermore, each vehicle has a more individual feel than in GTA4. There is a much wider gap between the good cars and the bad ones, and you'll find that you'll soon start choosing which vehicles to jack based on something more substantial than the paint job.

On a related note, the customization is in all ways an improvement over GTA4, and not only because of the fact that there was none in the latter. Of course there is in the beginning a character customization screen, allowing you to choose from different skin colors, genders, body types, weights, voices, movement styles, combat styles, insults and compliments. Once in game, you can further customize your character and add to your “style value” by buying clothes, jewelry and tattoos. Also, there are a number of cribs to purchase. Some are just for vehicles, such as docks and one airport hanger. Other cribs can be customized with beds, bigger TVs, and decorations. All of these things add to your style value, which gives you a respect bonus upon completing activities.

I realize that this is in a rather illogical order, but it fits together in my head, so I'll continue.

The aforementioned respect system is used to unlock missions. Each time you want to play a campaign mission or a stronghold (side missions used to kick gangs out of certain areas), you have to spend one respect bar. The respect bar is filled by performing stunts in driving and combat (two wheels, near miss, gang kill, slice n dice, etc.) which are ranked based on the duration of the stunt with one to three stars in either bronze, silver or gold. For instance, spending some time driving in the left lane will give you a bronze star in the opposing lane stunt, and staying there longer will add another star, and then a third, and then one silver star. Similarly, killing an enemy while holding a human shield will give you a bronze star in shield kill, and each subsequent kill within the time frame will add another. More stars means more respect.

The better way to gain respect is through activities, however, and this is where SR2 shows its true stripes. What really makes it an improvement over GTA4 is that it doesn't try to take itself seriously. This manifests itself in a more interesting plot, more colorful characters (both literally and figuratively) and most importantly, truly absurd activities. These include Septic Avenger, which calls for the character to devalue property by spraying sewage on houses, Insurance Fraud, which involves getting into violent car accidents to collect health insurance, and Fuzz, a parody of the show Cops, in which the player disguises him or herself as a cop and commits random acts of police brutality to be caught on film. These activities each have six levels, with each subsequent level granting more cash and respect, sometimes up to two or three full bars. At present, I believe I have nine bars, but I recently had thirteen.

I'll wrap up the review now, as I fear it's become too verbose. I will add that my sole real complaint about the game is a lack of split screen cooperative play. Sandbox games would always be vastly improved through a coop mode, including Assassin's Creed, GTA4 and SR2. It seems foolish to me that Volition would decide how I play my coop, since of the best friends of mine that play video games (pretty much the people on anyButton), only two of them have 360s, and neither of them have Gold XBL accounts. Games are often improved by adding a social component, and that's always better done in person than online. Setting this complaint aside, I have ultimately decided that I agree with Yahtzee's assessment. SR2 is so far a more enjoyable experience than GTA4, and it seems that it will have more replay value once I finish it. I may very well buy it.

One last thought: Why isn't there an apostrophe in in the title?

Okay here's the last one: If you're one of those people who reads a page and skips over all of the hyperlinks, make an exception and check out Yahtzee Croshaw's Zero Punctuation. Seriously, he's a critical genius, and my personal idol when it comes to reviews.

20cc reviews: The Lord of the Rings: Conquest

Last week, I signed up to Gamefly. As reluctant as I am to actually pay money for something, I realized that the monthly charge is probably a better deal than the slightly ridiculous Blockbuster rental fees, and the library is substantially larger. So I got an account and ordered LotR:C to play with Biscuits. I was at first impressed with the game. It felt much better playing alongside a friend, and the game seemed more promising in a real level, rather than just the tutorial. The feeling didn't last very long, however.

Although it continued to be amusing, the game was too full of problems for me to enjoy it for more than five minutes before thinking, “Wait, how does that make sense?” The plot was a convoluted mess, that was not only inconsistent with the books and films, but didn't even hold true to itself. This became first apparent in the second level, when Gandalf kills Saruman during the destruction of Isengard. Then, at the beginning of the evil campaign, Sauron arbitrarily “resurrects” every evil hero that had been killed, including Saruman, the Lieutenant of Barad-dûr, and the Witch-king of Angmar. He also summons Balrogs on several occasions, which should have been well beyond his power.

Of course, I can't focus exclusively on the plot, because then the review would be over, and you (anyone reading this) would be feeling betrayed and bitter. Or not. Regardless.

Ignoring the holes in the plot, the game actually managed to be pretty enjoyable. At least enjoyable enough that I felt like picking it up again after I had put it down. It did, however, have a somewhat rushed feel. This game, like Silent Hill: Homecoming, had been on my radar, slipped under it, and then released much sooner than I expected. Also like Homecoming, it suffered from the quick release. The campaign mode was very, very short. I picked it up late Friday night, and we beat the good campaign in a few short hours, went to sleep, woke up on Saturday, and beat the evil campaign in a few even shorter hours. Each level felt the same, and none of them had the replay value of Star Wars: Battlefront, Pandemic's magnum opus. I was interested enough to make it through the campaign, but I can't see myself ever going back.

The classes were interesting, but not particularly original. There's a warrior, archer, scout, and mage. The scout actually looked like the most noteworthy, but it didn't fit my play style well enough. You would have to talk to Biscuits about that. Otherwise, the archer felt slow, the mage felt weak, and the warrior felt overpowered. One thing that struck me from the demo was that the warrior is given a set of special attacks that cause his sword to glow with fire and give the player an absurd edge. Also, the enemy ranks are bolstered with the “grunt” class, which isn't playable. This seems to defeat the purpose of the Battlefront style game, in which the player is no more or less powerful than the enemy. Also, it meant that once I got to the point in the game when I was fighting real enemy warriors, it was infinitely frustrating that they block almost every attack I threw. It could take two minutes to defeat a single enemy. Biscuits also complained endlessly about how useless the scout's cloak ability was, even though enemy scouts seemed to become completely invisibly. In addition to the base classes, either side has a “vehicle,” for lack of a better term. For the Alliance, this unit is the Ent, and for Mordor it's the troll. The two play the same, with a heavy attack, a light attack—which is just as good for splattering little infantry units all over the ground—a health regeneration ability, and the ability to pick up enemy units, crush them, and then use them as projectiles.

Then of course there are heroes, which all felt exactly like the base classes, but with more health. Their special attacks were changed aesthetically, but not functionally. They are mostly modified warriors, except Gandalf, Saruman, the Lieutenant of Barad-dûr and Legolas. The three wizards are perhaps my favorites, because they combine the basic mage's spells with an actually functional melee attack. Of course there are a couple of super heroes (pun intended): Sauron and the Balrog, both of which are amazingly fun, just because they make people go splat.

In summary, the game is short, the replay value is nonexistent, the plot is scattered, the classes are broken, and the evil heroes include the Lieutenant of Barad-dûr, the Witch-king, the Balrog and Sauron. Make with that what you will, though since Gamefly asked, I gave it a 4 out of 10. Just don't hold me to that.

20cc reflects on: Advent Rising

I was hoping to have rented Lord of the Rings: Conquest this weekend, to play with Biscuits and review for this week, but... well I suppose I won't bother with my weekend story. I didn't get around to it, and that's that. Maybe next weekend, though if the XBL demo is any indication, there isn't much to look forward too.

In lieu of doing a review that's pertinent to, well, anything, I've decided to look back on a rather under appreciated game from back in '05.

The hook to Advent Rising is that the story was written by the well known sci-fi author Orson Scott Card. This didn't mean much to me, however, since I've never actually read any of his books. Really, the plot isn't anything all that special. It's well done, but the idea has been done before. In short form, the human race, living on some planet that I can't remember the name of, is visited by an alien species called the Aurelians. The Aurelians worship the humans as gods, and have been searching for the last remaining human refuge to pay homage. Unfortunately, they have been unwittingly followed by another race, called the Seekers, who are trying to wipe out the human race. I won't explain why, but it does get rather interesting by the end. There are a couple choices you have to make that will affect the ending in small ways, and a very interesting scene after the credits, so don't you dare quit when they start rolling.

The game's real greatness comes from its gameplay. Once again, it's nothing terribly new, although you can dual wield any weapon in the game, including rocket launchers. However, after a couple levels, the Aurelians help our protagonist unlock the innate potential that apparently makes humans worthy of being worshiped. Essentially, you become a Jedi, and its damn fun. Every few levels, you unlock a new ability. Each ability has two forms, and the game maintains the two hand system, so you can equip a power to either hand, or two forms of the same power, or a power and a weapon.

Powers, weapons and combat skills are leveled up through use. If you're in the mood, you could max out most of the weapons, the jump ability, and your melee skills, in the first level. Of course that's hardly efficient, but it can be fun on a second or third play through. And yes, you will play it a second and third time. It's certainly fun enough, and the simple leveling system is just enough to allow players to customize their playing style. You could play through the game using only the plasma pistol and assault rifle, or you could max out Lift and Surge by the time you reach Aurelia, and never switch powers again.

The game has very pretty, if not really realistic, graphics in the cutscenes, and otherwise they're acceptable by today's standards. The environments are varied enough to be interesting, the powers look cool, and occasional use of slow motion highlights the cooler attacks and abilities. The characters are also fairly well developed, especially compared to the cardboard cutouts that infect most big games nowadays. Unfortunately, Advent Rising had a very small budget, and it can be seen in the number of glitches there are. Most of them are easy enough to overcome. However, if you've played through a couple times and want to feel more powerful, be advised that the cheat console occasionally causes the game to crash.

The game is great fun, and easily worth the $9.99 it costs on Steam. Be warned however, it ends with a terrible cliffhanger, and it's no longer likely that a sequel is ever going to made, because of the poor critical and popular reception. I've never been one to take a critical viewpoint, or especially a popular one, as the final word. If you're looking for some inexpensive fun, and you don't mind fighting through a few bugs, you should definitely take a look at this gem. Don't expect it to change your life, but it will certainly stay with you longer than, say, Gears of War.

It's apparently really hard to find a good gameplay video of Advent Rising. Here's a trailer that gives an okay presentation of the powers and combat system. It's a little too heavy on the cutscenes, but it's better than most of the other options. Also, in case you're wondering, the contest mentioned at the end of the trailer was canceled, so don't bother.

P.S.: It occurs to me that I should mention, apparently the Xbox 360 hasn't been updated to support Advent Rising, and probably won't be. This means that if you don't have an old Xbox, you'll have to get it on PC.

20cc reviews: Spider-Man: Web of Shadows

Yes yes I know, I'm going backwards. If anyone out there has an idea of a new game for me to review, let me know. I guess really it would have made more sense chronologically to review this one last week, but I wrote last week's review before I realize that WoS came out in October, probably because I just played it. I get it, I'm supposed to be reviewing new games, but don't worry, I plan to have opinions on F.E.A.R. 2, InFamous, and the Watchmen movie soon after they're released. Specifically, they better all be awesome or I'm gonna be pissed.

Back to the game at hand. The Spider-Man games have always been one of my guilty pleasures. I really don't want to like them, but they're just so much fun. It seems to me that as I've gotten older, the games too have changed to fit my tastes. I've played and enjoyed the N64 port of the 2000 Spider-Man game, the 2002 Gamecube version, Spider-Man 2 on the Xbox and on DS, and Spider-Man 3 on PC. Granted, the latter two were less than satisfactory, but putting that aside, Spider-Man: Web of Shadows is a well worthy addition to the series.

In my mind, what's made these games so fun since back in Spider-Man 2 is the addition of physics, and the introduction of a sandbox style environment. The ability to leap from the roof of the Empire State Building, plummet through the air, and catch yourself with a web line seconds before you splat on the pavement added a whole new level of enjoyability. Suddenly, it wasn't just about beating the levels. Just getting around was fun.

WoS is another improvement on this model, in that it's no longer based on the film series. The plot is actually fairly interesting, in a decidedly comic book kind of way. I won't go too far into it, but following the return of Venom, the Symbiotes try to take over New York, and Spider-Man is once again infected with the symbiotic black suit. Your job is to stop the invasion, the only way Spider-Man knows: by punching stuff.

There are two major innovations in this latest installment. First, the ability to switch between the red and black suits on a whim. Second, the renovation of the combat system to account for Spider-Man's trademark acrobatic style. These two combined allows for particularly asinine players, like myself, to switch to the overtly destructive black suit and wreck havoc among the unsuspecting city goers. The combat is remarkably simple, and, if you wanted, you could beat the game with only one attack button. This button allows the player to web zip at an enemy, tackle them, and vault off of their head. However, a punch button, suit specific attack button, and special attacks allow you to vary your fighting style, and can also be used to modify the web vault attacks.

There isn't much else to say about the mechanics of the game. As for the story, if you're a comic book fan, you'll probably like it. Otherwise, you probably won't. Several times throughout the game, I suddenly became aware that I had chained attacks through the past twelve enemies using nothing but the Y button and a little timing. Then I realized that I didn't care, because it was still really damn fun.

Unfortunately, as I remember was the case with Spider-Man 2, WoS is plagued by glitches. The web zip sound occasionally disappeared, and on one occasion, all of the game's sounds suddenly vanished for about a minute. On another occasion I jumped into the river and died, but instead of getting a game over screen, I sat and watched Spider-Man drowning in the river until I restarted the Xbox. The most annoying glitches were that occasionally, the targeting system had problems, and the citizens often failed to react to me appropriately. These two facts combined made it very difficult to save the assigned number of civilians from [gang wars/super soldiers/symbiotic monsters]. That's probably okay though, since I didn't tend to bother with those missions. On another note, the realism is slightly broken in that the web lines don't necessarily always attack to buildings like they did in 2 and 3. However, the camera is usually clever enough to keep you from seeing that.

That's about all there is to say. I may be wrong about that, but I'm certainly out of ideas. The game's great, if it's the kind of thing you're into. I'm aware this isn't the greatest piece of writing I've ever produced, but I'm pretty tired. I may add to this later. Until then, have fun.

Here's a video. This guy is pretty bad, and there isn't much action, but it does a pretty good job of demonstrating the look and feel of the game, including the destructible building facades, and the often irritatingly cheesey dialogue.

20cc reviews: Left 4 Dead

It's very sad how few games worth notice have been released lately. And this is in the aftermath of the Christmas rush. It seems like we should have something to play, and yet so little of what there is is any good. I had high hopes for so many games at the end of last year, and so many were disappointing.

Essentially I'm trying to justify writing about a game that's been out since November.

The first thing I will say about Left 4 Dead is that it's a Valve game. This means two things. First, that I had very high expectations for it. Second, that I had to wait more than a year after the originally scheduled release date to play the damn thing. I understand Valve's commitment to quality, but generally it results in my forgetting about the game by the time it's finally released. This was the case with the Orange Box, and Left 4 Dead. I followed it faithfully for several months, and then when Valve continued to ignore the release date, I lost interest.

Well, it's out now, and I've played it, and I have to say it's pretty good.

I'll give a summary, for those of you who don't follow Valve's work as closely as I do. Like so many of their games, Left 4 Dead is inspired by, or rather blatantly copied from, a mod made on Valve's Source Engine. This was true of Counter-Strike, Portal, Team Fortress and, I believe, Day of Defeat. In other words, all of Valve's games except Half-Life. I don't hold it against them, though, because they tend to greatly improve on the third party games.

In the case of Left 4 Dead, the inspiration was an entire line of mods, themselves based on the omnipresent and seemingly inexplicable human fascination with zombies. There isn't much of a plot, since the game is designed mostly for the multiplayer. This is a problem for me, since I don't like playing online most of the time. However, unlike Counter-Strike or Team Fortress, Left 4 Dead is still fun to play alone. The player selects one of four campaigns and is then thrown into the shoes of one of four survivors, lost in a zombie infected city or countryside, depending on the campaign. The objective is simply to fight through the endless hordes of flesh-starved monsters to reach the next safe house. A safe house marks the end of each of the four levels within a campaign. After the forth level, the players reach the extraction area, and are required to hold off the horde until help arrives.

Valve has taken this amazingly simple, quadricentric format and made it into something undeniably addictive. For one thing, the zombies themselves are fascinating to watch. Those of you who know the game will probably wonder why I chose to mention this before the Director. Because it was the first thing I noticed. When you watch from a distance, the zombies stumble around, rest on the ground or, strangely, with their foreheads against walls, even fight and kill each other. When they hear you, you can almost see the recognition on their faces, the sudden dawning comprehension, and when they run at full speed toward you in a meticulously lifelike sprint, it can be really terrifying.

The next thing about the game is the aforementioned Director. This is what gives the remarkably short game such good replay value. It was made with a program that observes your progress and factors in your life, ammunition, speed, and other values. It uses this information to decide where to put weapons, medkits and ammunition, where to spawn zombies, and when to bring the horde to harass you. This means you will never play the same level twice. You can never count on finding a new weapon in the same place. You may reach a box in which there used to be a medkit, open it and discover only a bottle of painkillers. It isn't the kind of game in which you can peek around each corner and snipe each zombie, since if you move too slowly the zombies will decide to come looking for you.

In addition to the cannon fodder zombies are four (surprise) “Special Infected:” the Hunter, the Smoker, the Boomer and the Tank. These four don't abide by the normal horde rules and instead move around the edges of the level, actively hunting the players. In online Versus mode, other players take control of the Specials, and each one comes with a special abilities. The Hunter moves quickly, pounces and survivors, and tears at them with its claws. The Smoker has a long tongue that it uses to catch and throttle survivors, and it releases a cloud of smoke when killed. The Boomer vomits a pheromone-laced bile that attracts the horde, and explodes violently when shot. The Tank is big, and it throws things, and not at all easy to kill. Just to add a little more fun, there is one more Special that cannot be controlled by humans in Versus, the Witch. The Witch sits quietly in a corner and cries. If you shine a light on it, or shoot it, or walk too near it, it gets up and kills you. Don't screw with the Witch.

There are, however, a few problems with the game. For one thing, the graphics aren't quite up to the level of the current generation. That's not so much a problem for me, however, since I'm running it on my laptop with a 1.7 GHz processor that can't handle the game at high quality anyway. The bigger problem for me was the way they designed the weapons. When I first heard what weapons were available in the game—a pump shotgun or Uzi at tier 1, an automatic shotgun, M16 or hunting rifle at tier 2—I was impressed with the way they seemed to be trying to use weapons that would be relatively easy to find in the case of a zombie apocalypse. However, this attempt at realism is negated by the fact that you can carry so much ammo, it doesn't really matter which gun you're using. Zombie just within sight? Carrying a shotgun? No problem, take the shot. If you don't hit it the first time, take another shot, you can spare a couple shells. If you do manage to run out, which will probably happen only if you're playing on Expert difficulty, then you can switch to your pistol, which has unlimited ammo. I recognize that Valve makes shooters, as a rule, but that doesn't mean you should be able to enter every room guns blazing. The rest of the inventory is well designed to create a feeling of desperation. You can carry, in addition to your two guns, one medkit, one bottle of painkillers, and one thrown weapon, either a Molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb, on the occasions that you find them.

The game is definitely worth the price, my only wish is that they had limited the pistol ammo, and lowered the ammo cap a tiny bit.

As a closing comment, if any of you are too cheap to buy the game, or are just interested in seeing some of the third party zombie mods, I would suggest you take a look at Zombie Panic. It's free, can be downloaded from Steam (If you're into PC gaming and don't have a Steam account, I highly recommend that you get one. You can get them at <http://store.steampowered.com/>, just click on the button on the left side of the screen for a free client download.) and is a good deal of fun. It has a tense, quick paced feel, a good variety of interesting weapons—like a golf club or computer keyboard—and a weight-based inventory system, something that is generally reserved for the the RPG sphere. I would play more of it myself but, for some reason, my computer seems to have a problem with multiplayer mods.