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: 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.

GERARDAMO Reviews: Onechanbara Bikini Samurai Squad

First, I apologize for taking this week off (again) and writing my review right after 20cc. I suppose I could have written it earlier this week, but this week hasn't exactly been sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows. So, in an attempt to make it seem like I'm not trying to steal 20cc's thunder, I'm going to wait until Sunday to post this up, sometime after the release schedule.

Alright, Onechanbara Bikini Samurai Squad seems like it should be a good game. I mean, seriously, look at the name, look at the idea behind it. It has everything:

1. Hot Japanese girls in bikinis with giant samurai swords and guns

2 Violence

3. Zombies

4. Violence

5. Unbelievable amounts of blood

6. Lots of violence

So, Onechanbara SHOULD be a good game, right? Well, it seemed like it at first. In fact, the first hour I played it was a total blast. You run through the streets slashing up zombies, splattering blood everywhere, giggling at the laughably bad breast physics (Apparently, dual-booby bouncing means that one bounces up while the other flops down. This is very hard to describe, and I'd say you're better off playing it to see them, but...). However, the second hour was like the first, and the third hour was like the first, and the fourth hour was like the first, and so on. I'd actually have to say that each consecutive hour was actually a little first, as you start realizing the game's many flaws, like: These graphics are slightly sub-par compared to most games today. This combat is just as dull as any other hack-and-slasher. Those zombies walked up to a fence and got stuck AGAIN, and so did I.

There are 3 characters to play as, Aya, Saki, and Annna (Yeah, 3 n's.), along with some downloadable characters (Well, pay-to-unlock characters. One of them is free, and she's pretty badass. Definitely my favorite out of the four characters I had, but I could only use her in free-play and not story.) Even Aya and Saki, who both fought with just swords had very different feeling moves. However, they could all be done by mashing the X button, but at least they tried. There's a tag team feature that allows you to switch between two characters, which is fun. 

It would be nice if you could use it strategically and switch characters when your health was low, but the zombies never seem to attack you. Instead of zombies that move towards you (I'm not saying run at you. I still don't like Left 4 Dead.) and demand "BRAAAAINS!" these ones just kinda... Stand at you, and ask, "Brains? Please? Maybe just your arm? Actually, I'm not even hungry. I'll have a salad." This is one of the main reasons Onechanbara falls flat. Zombies don't seem to be very aggressive at all. In fact, they seem quite civil. They just walk around the city and go about their business, and for some reason you walk up to them and kill them, just because they're zombies. There's a strong political message there.

I give the game props for sticking true to it's Japanese roots, but I realize I'm a small audience when it comes to this. The game is only lightly translated. The text is in English, but all of the voice-acting remains in Japanese. This lack of English, however, leaves out some much needed explaining in things. How come once you kill so many enemies, you get angry and your life starts depleting and then you die? Who knows? The game never tells you why. But, it's quite frustrating when you're fighting off hoards of lazy zombies and all of a sudden, one of the game's few meters fills up and your bikini-clad samurai gets angry and eventually kills herself. It's like that was placed there so you had SOME way to die, since the zombies certainly won't kill you.

The game has split-screen co-op, and it's hard for me to find bad co-op mostly because I never play co-op with anyone who takes games seriously. I played the first few missions with my younger sister who never plays games, and we had a good laugh at just how... Well... Bad the game was. However, I guess there is such a thing as bad co-op, because the split-screen co-op had an AWFUL frame rate, and it's not like there was too much for the game to process because the graphics certainly couldn't have been too hard to render, and there never were that many zombies.

Onechanbara is filled with glitches, and they aren't even entertaining glitches, they're just annoying. You'll have to clear a certain area of zombies, and fences will pop-up around the perimeter. This is already frustrating enough, being limited to a very small area to slash out of. It's more frustrating when zombies will wander into the fence and get stuck and become invincible to attack, making it near impossible to get out of the area. Sometimes, you might even get stuck in the fence yourself, and you're left to sit and wait to be devoured by the only slightly irritated zombies.

Alright, time to finish this up. Onechanbara was a game that had promise, everything was going for it. However, it's lack of explanation and depth and overload of glitches makes it fall flat on it's bouncing breasts. It holds SOME simple, guilty pleasure, but after about 2 hours, you're bound to grow tired of the X-button, and there are better boobs in better games. Rent it if you're really desperate for a game, but otherwise, you're better off with just about anything else.

(And for those who only like numbers:

Fun: 15/40 (Shallow, nothing to comeback to.)

Graphics: 5/15 (They look VERY dated)

Controls: 5/15 (MASH X! I forgot to mention that the camera moves unplayably slowly. You'll need to find a spot to stop and rest in order to just see anything.)

Story: 10/20 (It TRIES to make a decent story, and it almost is. Maybe it could have been interesting if I could have brought myself to finish it.)

Sound/Music: 0/10 (The music sounds like something from a gay night club. I had a much more enjoyable time playing it with the accompaniment of bands like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs (Heads Will Roll even fit more than the in-game soundtrack did) that actually had the energy to make this game feel somewhat exciting, and the voice-acting just seemed lazy.)

Final Score: 35/100

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: 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 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.

GERARDAMO on: Sonic Unleashed

Wait, what? GERARDAMO does reviews on new games? Damn right I do, I just seldom play them. Now, I realize that this game has been out for a small while now, but most of the other reviews I've seen for this game simply write this game off as another Sonic game, and therefore bad. Well, it is a bad game, probably because it is a new Sonic game. But, where all of these other reviews couldn't find anything decent in this game, there were parts of Sonic Unleashed where I couldn't help but turn into a grinning doofus from the plain, simple fun the game offered. Well... For the 1/3 of the game that was fun anyway.

The game is split into 3 different parts: daytime levels, nighttime levels, and looking around for the levels. The daytime levels are reminiscent of the Sega Genesis trilogy, but it also innovates on that classic game play by... well... Being new. There are also 3D sections that play like the Sonic Adventure series, just a lot faster. Sometimes it can be too fast. Your little blue blur will be running along, and suddenly, he'll disappear, and a few seconds later, you'll have realized you fell in a hole, but it will have been too late. Minus 1 life. Speaking of lives, I've noticed that many people are complaining about the life system, calling the game out for using a trail-and-error system. I say, isn't this what games used to do anyway? Have gamers really gotten so bad at games that don't involve shooting down squads of terrorists and dropping the fag-bomb over Xbox LIVE that they resort to throwing hissy fits when a game is too hard and punishes you by making you start over because you just plain fucking suck? That's just sad. Yes, it's frustrating when you die, but learn from that mistake and TRY GETTING PAST THE OBSTACLE SOME OTHER WAY. Anyway, yeah. 2D part is very fun. The transitions between 2D and 3D are fantastic, and there are times when they will be combined, feeling very reminiscent of NiGHTS into dreams... (Which is quite possibly Sega's greatest game ever.) 

Unfortunately, some moron on Sonic Team decided that Sonic needed to take a break from all that running... A loooooooong break. So, they decided that Sonic should turn into a werewolf, a stretchy werewolf, a stretchy werewolf in a bad beat 'em up platformer. Well, it's not that bad. If it weren't in a Sonic game, it probably would have went over very well. It has a rather deep combat system to prevent the monotony that comes from most beat 'em ups with the regular "PRESS A OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND HE DEAD NOW YAY" gameplay. But... It's Sonic. For one thing, he's a hedgehog, not a werewolf. For another, nobody wants to play a slow Sonic game... Nobody. Get it right, Sega. 

So, that's another 1/3 of the game. Wait, Gerard, that's only 2/3, you suck at math. No I don't. The other 1/3 simply consists of trying to find the damn level you want to play. This is not enjoyable at all. I don't want to get rewarded for playing a game simply by getting to actually play it. It can take upwards of half an hour to actually find the level you're supposed to play, and because of that, I could only stomach about 4 hours of this game before I quit. You go around trying to find some towns person to talk to, and they might tell you where the level  is, or they might just try to sell you a hot dog, or ice cream, or mushrooms, which would probably be a good investment and make this part of the game stomachable. 

So, when the majority of gameplay in a game is bad, yes, it's a bad game. It's sad, because the part that Sega got right is fun. Really fun. Really really really really really fucking fun. Sega did take a step in the right direction, and I have high hopes for the next Sonic game they might be releasing (When's the last time that happened?) After all, they did develop an entirely new engine for this game, I doubt they would use it for one game. Hopefully, Sega will learn from these mistakes. They're so close to fixing a problem that they shouldn't have had in the first place, but as an avid Sega fanboy, I'm not going to give up on Sonic. No, Sonic 2006 is still a terrible game that I'll never, EVER play, but it looks like Sega is starting to finally get things right. It's just a shame that if they had just shortened Sonic Unleashed and removed all of the shit that didn't belong in it, it would have been a perfect game.

20cc reviews: Call of Duty: World at War

CoD5 came out a little under the radar. Granted, when I say under the radar, I mean to say that I didn't notice it was coming out until shortly before its release, and I can't claim to be a careful follower of gaming news beyond that which is on Wikipedia. I should probably work on that, but it's not the point I'm trying to make.

Back in '07, I saw ads for CoD4 in theaters and was vaguely interested. That was about the end of it though. I played it at Dan's and mostly enjoyed the fact that the reload animation changes when the magazine is empty—something every game should be able to do now.

About a year later, Caleb brought CoD5 to my attention, and we shared high hopes, because of the cooperative campaign mode, and because the game was going to be set back in World War II which, while horrendously overused, is several leaps more interesting and realistic than the present day formula of “Terrorist steal nukes. America save world. We best nation in world. Yay America.” This is not to say that CoD4 was a bad game. On the other hand, I hoped that such a game could be followed by a truly stellar WWII shooter, something that's rather hard to find. Unfortunately, it was not to be.

When I recently got my hands on a copy of CoD5, I found it plagued with most of the expected problems, and a few others. The game was touted to be a “realistic” shooter, one that would accurately depict the conditions of the Pacific Campaign, and war in general. The game starts off with our beloved protagonist tied in a hut with another American, being interrogated by a Japanese soldier and his commander. We watch as the officer pushes a cigarette into the other prisoner's eye and leaves. The soldier then draws his knife and slits the American's throat, turns on the protagonist and is suddenly stabbed in the back by the typically well timed rescue operation.

And that's about all the horror you get.

I'll admit that I haven't beaten the whole game, but unless the last two levels suddenly turn into a burned-face, screaming-children gore fest, I feel that the supposed point of the game was missed. I have never been shot, but I imagine it would be rather unpleasant, and yet the injured soldiers in this game lie silently on the ground and, irritatingly, aim perfectly with their “last stand” pistol. In the real world, when a person is lit on fire, they scream and writhe and their skin melts off and they dehydrate. In CoD5 they die, very quickly and apparently painlessly.

That's okay, right? It would be pretty interesting to have a game that really made me feel the horror of war, but would it be fun? Maybe not. It certainly would have been a good game, if that was the only problem.

The next warning sign came after the second Japanese ambush. This brought two things to mind. The first was, don't these soldiers know how to fire a gun, or just charge at you with the bayonet? In my experience, it was mostly the latter. My second thought was, why are my allies so thick? Haven't they been fighting the Japanese for months? How many times are they going to walk into a clearing, see apparently uninjured soldiers lying on the ground (in Japanese uniforms) and think, “My, we haven't had any soldiers here. These men must have dropped dead of their own accord. It certainly won't be ANOTHER ambush.”

(Spoiler alert: IT'S ALWAYS ANOTHER AMBUSH.)

There were two things that really ruined the American campaign for me, however. First, the commanding officer is voiced by Kiefer Sutherland, whose reputation in my eyes has been forever ruined by 24. This is more a matter of personal opinion. However, around the third American level, I found myself carrying a heavy, belt-fed machine gun. I was firing it accurately without anyone feeding the belt, without bracing the gun, while standing, and moving.

At this point I could no longer hope for anything redeeming from this campaign. But the Russian campaign, that'll be fun. Alas. The stunning brilliance of the German infantry is showcased in the first level, when you take up a sniping position in the middle of the street, and kill one of two guards standing a short distance away. His partner responds with nothing but mild surprise when he sees his friend's head explode, and of course can't think to take cover before he himself is killed. You do this three times. It's okay though, because planes were flying overhead. It's a very clever technique. The planes cover the sound of the gun firing, and apparently also eliminate the muzzle flash.

I won't drag this out too much longer, but suffice it to say that the rest of the campaign is plagued by clichéd dialogue, two dimensional, poorly written characters, and a magical regenerating tank armed with both a cannon and flamethrower. Apparently the Soviets weren't broke after all.

My final complaint, less of a major issue and more just a demonstration of messing with something that doesn't need to be messed with. When playing in cooperative mode, the game doesn't use the full screen. Each player's screen is letterboxed and moved off into a corner of the screen. Apparently the game wasn't good enough on its own, so the makers had to stylize the screen itself. This wasn't so much an issue with me. My 65 inch screen made even a smaller than average playing area workable, but most people don't have 65 inch screens. This leads me to ask the good people at Treyarch, WHAT IN GOD'S NAME WERE YOU THINKING?

I recently reread a review in a certain unnamed gaming magazine that said the only thing that could be found to criticize about CoD5 is multiplayer that “Isn't quite as good as Four.” I'm inclined to wonder if we played the same game.