I wanted to play Bulletstorm, and I wanted to play Dragon Age. I had to go ahead and stifle myself on getting the games when they came out and instead worked the system. And it all came up milhouse.
Here's what happened, I kept hearing such great things about Bulletstorm, but we kept getting copies traded in, the general consensus being that the game is good.... not great.... but not terrible. The whole package is decent enough, but not any one in particular thing could keep your attention for much longer than a week.
So fine, I says, I didn't even want to get it. But I did want to at least try it out. So I pick up a used copy, the week Dragon Age 2 came out. I didn't get DA2 because I hated, HATED, the first one. Something about a WoW combat system on a console bored me. To death. I got, and beat the Bulletstorm in the week, brought it back and put that money towards Dragon Age 2. And in the end it was the right decision.
First on the block is Bulletstorm. Talk about a game with more publicity and hype, this thing was so proud of itself and what it had planned. Too bad it didn't quite keep up. I firmly believe the publishers didn't actually play the game, simply pegged it to be more awesome and bad-a than COD. The commercials, the jokes, the references, all to show how ridic the COD series had become.
So then we get into the storyline of Bulletstorm. You and your ethnic partner (who has a serious personal problem), are stranded on a planet where they're hunting an evil general, with the help of a tough-as-nails girl. Scroll down, it's the Killzone 3 review. Scroll down really far, it's the Gears of War 2 review. Now there's nothing wrong with the same story over and over, if the game is good the story won't come into play much. (Although I do like that Game Informer complained about the storyline of Dragon Age 2, but hailed the Bulletstorm story as smart).
I've played all of Fallout:New Vegas, and I ran into more bugs with Bulletstorm than I did Fallout. Just saying. The general concept is a decent enough theory, you get skill points for killing people in interesting ways, and you can push, pull, and drag the people into different traps and pitfalls.
Problem is, at least for me, I ran out of interest in doing so quickly, and the game simply became a fight to the finish. There were skillshots I could easily pull off, and others that seemed so daunting and complex that I didn't even want to attempt them. The biggest draw of the game now is the Echoes levels, which are essentially re-playing each individual level on a time-run for top scores. Meh.
What really bothered me about this straight forward shooter (which is yet another one that would have done wonderfully had it been released on the PC back in the day) was that it was made by Gears of War people. Gears, known in a wide amount because of their cover and shoot from cover systems. Bulletstorm? You could crouch, crouch next to a barricade, and people could still shoot at you, over the debris. So... what's the point of crouching? The game is actually intending on you to be so fast and awesome that you don't have to worry about getting too injured. I took 4 screw-shots (a drill into the stomach) in a row, and my guy didn't die, but 2 sniper hits and I was face down. This was on normal. When you die in the game, be prepared to make an audible sound of annoyance, sometimes it just doesn't make sense.
The game overall seemed somewhat rushed, but was released the same time as Killzone, a week before Dragon Age 2, and two weeks before Homefront. So I'm not sure why the rush. The current appeal of Bulletstorm now? The Gears Beta (which you have to have the Bulletstorm disc for *cheap*) and the Echoes levels. Beat your friends scores. Woo. Most of the people I work with have already done so. And shockingly they're already bored with the game, they just won't admit it.
The game essentially is a run of the mill shooter with some interesting elements (See Metro 2033, STALKER, etc). It's a decent game, but like I said, I beat it over a weekend, 7 hours to finish the storyline on normal, died twice, and another 2 hours to beat some of my friends rankings on Echoes. All of my friends however, had stopped playing, so leashing a fish in a barrel isn't that much fun. Rent it, give it a whirl, but don't make space for it on your shelf.
Dragon Age 2 to follow.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
I never did figure out that title....
A surprisingly few number of people have played Beyond Good and Evil, for no real reason. Well, it being released with almost no advertising or marketing didn’t help anything. I remember seeing an ad or two in EGM, but that was about it. It also had a somewhat interesting commercial I don't remember seeing, but trust me, that helped either. This happens all of the time, though, a good game comes out and the marketing department drops the ball and nobody knows about it (Mark of Kri, Guardian Heros, Rhythm Heaven, etc.) Well, I decided to download it to my GameTap account and try it out. My take on it? It's a great game!
This game is good because, well, it’s very different. Your charcter, Jade, is NOT a last-action hero, destined to save the world. On the contrary, she is a simple reporter who lives with a talking pig that invents things, and both of you take care of orphaned kids in your spare time. It really doesn’t sound like much of a game until some weird aliens start abducting people. Well, to combat this, a military group called the Alpha Sections fight off these mysterious aliens, called the Domz, but in return of your safety they need an almost dictatorship like control over the entire planet of Hillys (your home). So, the plot opens up as you take on the reporter role to find out why the Alpha Sections are so mysterious and why do they need total control. Honestly, that’s all I can say about the plot without giving away the oh-so-juicy bits.
So, as a reporter, Jade’s main action is to take pictures of incriminating evidence and to take pictures of animals to earn cash on the side. Her only means of attack is with a stick called a Dai-Jo, which is next to worthless against most foes. I admit, none of this sounds like I would make for a good game, but it does! Seriously, the simplicity involved in this game is what makes it such a joy to play, and it doesn’t get in the way of the overall story either.
As with any review, I do have my complaints. A common complaint about this game is that it’s too short. Like, WAY too short. I beat the game in 11 hors, and I took my sweet time with it. I thought the game was long enough to get the point across, and right as you might have started getting tired of the game, it ends, so it worked out for me. Another common complaint is that the game is way too easy. That one…I can agree with. With the simplicity of the game, the difficulty is just not there. The hardest part of the entire game is the final boss, and really all he boils down to is a giant game of memorization (for those that get stuck at the final boss, trust me, it’s a pattern). Heck, 80% of the game is you sneaking around in shadows, trying not to get caught and taking pictures when you get the chance. Heck, you only attack enemies full-force only a handful of times in the game, other than that you are sneaking about. There really isn’t much to the game in the way of gameplay.
Here’s what it comes done to…how much fun can you have while doing simple tasks? Think of the premise of Doom. All you do is shoot demons and zombies in Doom, but it’s fun! It’s the execution of simplistic gameplay that make it fun or boring, and this game executes well. Ease of play aside, it really is good title that everyone should try. It’s only 1200 points right now on XBLA arcade or $15 on the PSN Network, so now it’s a steal to buy and play one of the most under-appreciated games. Hey, the more people that buy this game, the more likely the developers will make the sequel that much better.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The greatest game eva!
I gotta stop misleading you all with those titles. This blog is about the best genre of video games. Now of course it's all personal opinion, but it's been discussed in great detail here and abroad. (Ok fine, at gaming stores)
The greatest genre of video games are RPGs.
How did we get to this conclusion? Well, I have a stack of games to play, as I usually do, but this stack is different than normal stacks, it's
Dragon Quest IX
Pokemon Black
Golden Sun: Dark Dawn
Now, the savvy video game consumer would, and often does, ask "is this game worth my $60?"
Well, unfortunately nowadays, most shooters can be flown through at about 8 hours. Now some are already protesting and creating effigies of me to burn. Put down the paper-mache and the stick-on facial hair and hear me out. The average game has a limited amount of space they can use for their game, so gaming companies have to divide up their game wisely. A portion of it can go to the single player, another portion to the multiplay, some for the cutscenes, a little here and there for the FMVs, and you have a game.
Which as far as a side topic goes, there hasn't been a game (to date) on the PS3 that's more than 1 disc, however on the 360, it's quite common to find games be 2 if not 3 discs (some even 4 discs, what is this, ps2??) The reason being the Bluray discs can hold more blah blah blah. Regardless, they all have about the same amount of space to work with. (However, would a game on the PS3 be able to have more content than it's single disc 360 counterpart? well, yes, but gaming companies don't do that for the obvious reasons)
So you have to manage your game space in the right way, but understand that people want as much bang for their buck as they can get. You can pretty much see how a game is divided by looking at the achievements/ trophies for a single game. Get all of the awards and essentially you've done "everything" a game has to offer, usually. The multiplay has achievements, the single play has achievements on different difficulties, and the likes.
But you're playing the game for the game and the story, why on earth would you want to go through multiple times to get every single dollar out of the game? Because $60 clams is still a lot of scratch in this day and age. They used to have achievements where you'd get them for just finishing the single player storyline, on easy. Not no more. Conversely, you'll find a growing number of gamers getting the hot new game, blazing through it on easy, then deciding if they want to keep it or not. Sad? Maybe a little, but as long as they enjoy it on easy, they usually tend to keep the game and try it on normal.
Truthishly? I played Dead Space 2 the first time on easy, got through the game, and liked it so much I tried it again on normal. Now the discussion of "playing games on easy" isn't todays topic. We're here to discuss bang for buck. And shooters.... usually don't have it if you're just looking to get through a single player campaign and enjoy the game.
Imagine spending $60 on Black Ops if you didn't have the internet? Seems like a waste yes? There was a rumor ages and ages ago, and it was probably more of a wish than anything else, that a game like COD would come out and you would be able to purchase individual items of the game, pick what you want. The single player would be like $25, the zombies and bot mode would be $25 and the multiplay would be $30. You could still buy all 3 at $60, or buy what you want. Buying the normal arrangement individually would cost you more than the packaged game, so if you wanted it all, you could get it all cheaper, see how it would work? Inevitably, the gaming companies would make a fortune on the games themselves because of careful planning. The consumers couldn't exactly complain because they were given options, and it's essentially like a map-pack, but divided better.
Will this ever happen? Hopefully, you're already seeing more and more XBLA and PSN games for sale individually. Stand alone DLCs are still pretty common too. But for now, we're stuck with what we got. So if you want to enjoy the awesome single player campaign of Black Ops (Which to be fair, if that was all they had to focus on, the game would be stellar), or just the storyline of BioShock 2 (since no one really plays the multi anymore, trust me, I checked for you), you're still going to have to fork out the total amount of everything, even if you aren't going to use it all.
Then there's the RPG, those saucy dime a dozen ladies of the gaming night. A standard RPG clocks in at 30 to 40 hours. Yeah, not 8. Sometimes there's a difficulty setting, but usually it's not present to make the player put more time into the game. Yet, there's something enjoyable about grinding an RPG you like. (giggity).
You don't mind the extra time put in, because you can start to get better loot, which will allow you to defeat bigger mobs faster and so on. But an entry-level 30 hours? That's huge.
You have to enjoy the RPG elements of a game, but they make some that are tactic based, some that are turn-based, hack-n-slash, and some that are just straight up Zelda-esque fighting with leveling elements, all that push the clock at 30 hours. And that's just playing straight to the boss, assuming you never die or need to grind.
Name a few games like this? Deal.
(Tactics/ table based)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced (GBA)-
(I personally have put in 50 hours into the game, and my team is only level 30, the level cap is 50, in the DS version it's 99, the DS version I have about 40 hours in)
(Turn-Based)
Dragon Quest anything
(currently my gaming crack, I'm like 10 hours in, and they're still giving me tutorials to skills)
(Hack-N-Slash)
Demon's Souls
(I'm 40 hours in, and I've only played 3 of the 10 classes)
Dragon Age 2
(I'm like an hour in, but I know there's more than 10 hours I can easily get out of this game)
(Straight up Zelda style)
Children of Mana (or any of the Mana series)
Tales of Symphonia
So what's all this mean? Well, if you're looking for a good way to spend your $60, maybe try something other than a shooter. I probably get one guy in every week annoyed at how quickly he's beaten every shooter, I try to tell him they aren't worth the full $60 if you don't play online, but it's hard to understand I suppose. I got him hooked on Borderlands, so there's hope. If he hates it, I'll suggest Final Fantasy 13, a good 60 hours of your life down the drain.
Try an RPG. Oftentimes they're portable, so that's always good too. And usually you can find a pre-owned one, so even cheaper.
The greatest genre of video games are RPGs.
How did we get to this conclusion? Well, I have a stack of games to play, as I usually do, but this stack is different than normal stacks, it's
Dragon Quest IX
Pokemon Black
Golden Sun: Dark Dawn
Now, the savvy video game consumer would, and often does, ask "is this game worth my $60?"
Well, unfortunately nowadays, most shooters can be flown through at about 8 hours. Now some are already protesting and creating effigies of me to burn. Put down the paper-mache and the stick-on facial hair and hear me out. The average game has a limited amount of space they can use for their game, so gaming companies have to divide up their game wisely. A portion of it can go to the single player, another portion to the multiplay, some for the cutscenes, a little here and there for the FMVs, and you have a game.
Which as far as a side topic goes, there hasn't been a game (to date) on the PS3 that's more than 1 disc, however on the 360, it's quite common to find games be 2 if not 3 discs (some even 4 discs, what is this, ps2??) The reason being the Bluray discs can hold more blah blah blah. Regardless, they all have about the same amount of space to work with. (However, would a game on the PS3 be able to have more content than it's single disc 360 counterpart? well, yes, but gaming companies don't do that for the obvious reasons)
So you have to manage your game space in the right way, but understand that people want as much bang for their buck as they can get. You can pretty much see how a game is divided by looking at the achievements/ trophies for a single game. Get all of the awards and essentially you've done "everything" a game has to offer, usually. The multiplay has achievements, the single play has achievements on different difficulties, and the likes.
But you're playing the game for the game and the story, why on earth would you want to go through multiple times to get every single dollar out of the game? Because $60 clams is still a lot of scratch in this day and age. They used to have achievements where you'd get them for just finishing the single player storyline, on easy. Not no more. Conversely, you'll find a growing number of gamers getting the hot new game, blazing through it on easy, then deciding if they want to keep it or not. Sad? Maybe a little, but as long as they enjoy it on easy, they usually tend to keep the game and try it on normal.
Truthishly? I played Dead Space 2 the first time on easy, got through the game, and liked it so much I tried it again on normal. Now the discussion of "playing games on easy" isn't todays topic. We're here to discuss bang for buck. And shooters.... usually don't have it if you're just looking to get through a single player campaign and enjoy the game.
Imagine spending $60 on Black Ops if you didn't have the internet? Seems like a waste yes? There was a rumor ages and ages ago, and it was probably more of a wish than anything else, that a game like COD would come out and you would be able to purchase individual items of the game, pick what you want. The single player would be like $25, the zombies and bot mode would be $25 and the multiplay would be $30. You could still buy all 3 at $60, or buy what you want. Buying the normal arrangement individually would cost you more than the packaged game, so if you wanted it all, you could get it all cheaper, see how it would work? Inevitably, the gaming companies would make a fortune on the games themselves because of careful planning. The consumers couldn't exactly complain because they were given options, and it's essentially like a map-pack, but divided better.
Will this ever happen? Hopefully, you're already seeing more and more XBLA and PSN games for sale individually. Stand alone DLCs are still pretty common too. But for now, we're stuck with what we got. So if you want to enjoy the awesome single player campaign of Black Ops (Which to be fair, if that was all they had to focus on, the game would be stellar), or just the storyline of BioShock 2 (since no one really plays the multi anymore, trust me, I checked for you), you're still going to have to fork out the total amount of everything, even if you aren't going to use it all.
Then there's the RPG, those saucy dime a dozen ladies of the gaming night. A standard RPG clocks in at 30 to 40 hours. Yeah, not 8. Sometimes there's a difficulty setting, but usually it's not present to make the player put more time into the game. Yet, there's something enjoyable about grinding an RPG you like. (giggity).
You don't mind the extra time put in, because you can start to get better loot, which will allow you to defeat bigger mobs faster and so on. But an entry-level 30 hours? That's huge.
You have to enjoy the RPG elements of a game, but they make some that are tactic based, some that are turn-based, hack-n-slash, and some that are just straight up Zelda-esque fighting with leveling elements, all that push the clock at 30 hours. And that's just playing straight to the boss, assuming you never die or need to grind.
Name a few games like this? Deal.
(Tactics/ table based)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced (GBA)-
(I personally have put in 50 hours into the game, and my team is only level 30, the level cap is 50, in the DS version it's 99, the DS version I have about 40 hours in)
(Turn-Based)
Dragon Quest anything
(currently my gaming crack, I'm like 10 hours in, and they're still giving me tutorials to skills)
(Hack-N-Slash)
Demon's Souls
(I'm 40 hours in, and I've only played 3 of the 10 classes)
Dragon Age 2
(I'm like an hour in, but I know there's more than 10 hours I can easily get out of this game)
(Straight up Zelda style)
Children of Mana (or any of the Mana series)
Tales of Symphonia
So what's all this mean? Well, if you're looking for a good way to spend your $60, maybe try something other than a shooter. I probably get one guy in every week annoyed at how quickly he's beaten every shooter, I try to tell him they aren't worth the full $60 if you don't play online, but it's hard to understand I suppose. I got him hooked on Borderlands, so there's hope. If he hates it, I'll suggest Final Fantasy 13, a good 60 hours of your life down the drain.
Try an RPG. Oftentimes they're portable, so that's always good too. And usually you can find a pre-owned one, so even cheaper.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The greatest shooter ever
The greatest shooter, or FPS game ever made is...
Metroid: Prime?
Ok maybe not. But here's what brought this all up. A regular was in the other day, and we were all discussing Killzone over Bulletstorm (sorry, if two shooters are released the same day, they're going to be compared, it's bound to happen). He blatantly said "Metroid: Prime is the greatest shooter to date".
Silence followed. How could this happen? A Metroid game beat out COD, Battlefield, even Goldeneye? That's when it struck me. All shooters are different, but the "best" one is hard to judge. This guy had played the COD series, played Bioshock and Borderlands, played all of the other shooter games, but he still stuck to his guns (wah wah) that M:P was the best. So what caused him to think so? Well, his arguments were environment and atmosphere. I'll be damned, he's right. To him, M:P gave him everything he wanted from a shooter. No multiplay so the single-player could be a long length, a good combat system, and an amazing soundtrack. So throughout the day, I've been asking people what they though the greatest shooter ever was. It unsurprisingly wasn't always COD. Not to start beating that dead horse again, but I think people are blinded by the current popularity and forget about the other good shooters that have come and gone.
Here's my short list of amazing shooters worth a try.
1. World is Not Enough
(think Goldeneye, but with more... other stuff)
2. Metro 2033
(a shooter should be complicated, and take bullet management, no one can carry 9000 rounds)
3. Metroid: Prime
(the guy was totally right, this was an awesome game that's faded into the background)
4. Deus Ex
(sandbox FPS, it takes some time to get into, but it was the start of what we take for granted now)
5. Return to Castle Wolfenstein
(no one will come close when it comes to atmosphere and story)
6. Thief: Deadly Shadows
(a shooter doesn't have to mean guns, it can be sneaky too)
7. Far Cry 2
(try the damn game, I don't care if it's old. You can start field-fires, think about that in combat..)
8. No One Lives Forever
(take Austin Powers-type comedy, mix it with a good early 2000s shooter)
9. Serious Sam
(although it's coming back, it sorta reignited the fast-paced Doom-esque shooter)
10. Kingpin: Life of Crime & Postal 2
(both got recognized because of their violence, but underneath the hype lies two games with surprisingly solid gameplay mechanics, and a deviation away from the normal "shoot in the head" logic).
You'll notice they're mostly older games, but they still make my list of games worthy of keeping around, if nothing else, it's nice to see games focus on the entire experience, not a package deal.
Metroid: Prime is the greatest shooter ever? I suppose maybe in some peoples eyes.
But as the Jimmy Carr joke goes "throwing acid is wrong.... in some peoples eyes". Think about it.
Metroid: Prime?
Ok maybe not. But here's what brought this all up. A regular was in the other day, and we were all discussing Killzone over Bulletstorm (sorry, if two shooters are released the same day, they're going to be compared, it's bound to happen). He blatantly said "Metroid: Prime is the greatest shooter to date".
Silence followed. How could this happen? A Metroid game beat out COD, Battlefield, even Goldeneye? That's when it struck me. All shooters are different, but the "best" one is hard to judge. This guy had played the COD series, played Bioshock and Borderlands, played all of the other shooter games, but he still stuck to his guns (wah wah) that M:P was the best. So what caused him to think so? Well, his arguments were environment and atmosphere. I'll be damned, he's right. To him, M:P gave him everything he wanted from a shooter. No multiplay so the single-player could be a long length, a good combat system, and an amazing soundtrack. So throughout the day, I've been asking people what they though the greatest shooter ever was. It unsurprisingly wasn't always COD. Not to start beating that dead horse again, but I think people are blinded by the current popularity and forget about the other good shooters that have come and gone.
Here's my short list of amazing shooters worth a try.
1. World is Not Enough
(think Goldeneye, but with more... other stuff)
2. Metro 2033
(a shooter should be complicated, and take bullet management, no one can carry 9000 rounds)
3. Metroid: Prime
(the guy was totally right, this was an awesome game that's faded into the background)
4. Deus Ex
(sandbox FPS, it takes some time to get into, but it was the start of what we take for granted now)
5. Return to Castle Wolfenstein
(no one will come close when it comes to atmosphere and story)
6. Thief: Deadly Shadows
(a shooter doesn't have to mean guns, it can be sneaky too)
7. Far Cry 2
(try the damn game, I don't care if it's old. You can start field-fires, think about that in combat..)
8. No One Lives Forever
(take Austin Powers-type comedy, mix it with a good early 2000s shooter)
9. Serious Sam
(although it's coming back, it sorta reignited the fast-paced Doom-esque shooter)
10. Kingpin: Life of Crime & Postal 2
(both got recognized because of their violence, but underneath the hype lies two games with surprisingly solid gameplay mechanics, and a deviation away from the normal "shoot in the head" logic).
You'll notice they're mostly older games, but they still make my list of games worthy of keeping around, if nothing else, it's nice to see games focus on the entire experience, not a package deal.
Metroid: Prime is the greatest shooter ever? I suppose maybe in some peoples eyes.
But as the Jimmy Carr joke goes "throwing acid is wrong.... in some peoples eyes". Think about it.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Ryu punching Spiderman? Not likely.....
Seriously, I want to love Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. Ryu hadokenning Wolverine. Spiderman tying the up Zero in his web. For the love of crap, Iron Man beating the hell out of Dante! What's not to love? I think it’s a great game. It has a ton of ambition behind it. It’s fun to play, easy to pick up with a lot of depth for the hardcore, like any good fighting game. The sound is epic, the character design is awesome, and the controls are forgiving and spot on. Heck, I can almost say nothing but good things about this game. Almost.
First I shall elaborate what I love, then I will get to what I hate. It should also be noted that I’m going to try something different, pictures. This blog is missing them and I feel they would highlight reviews and rants with better appeal. That aside, MvC3 is a beautiful fighting game. Usually, a 2-D fighting game has a control scheme similar to Street Fighter 2, (three sets of punches and three sets of kicks). MvC3 tosses that aside in favor of a simple six-button set-up, where 4 buttons attack and the other two call-out one of your three teammates. This set-up is perfect for an easy game or two you can get into.
Here is what I hate, and prepare for some serious backlash…. A fighting game is built around its multiplayer. Without multiplayer, a fighting game doesn’t exist. That’s really the end of the story on it. So why did Capcom f**k up what’s essentially a genre they invented? Yes, the single player game is, nothing special. The training mode is, well, also broken because you can’t set up a CPU opponent to fight you like you could in EVERY CAPCOM FIGHTING GAME BEFORE IT. So, in training mode it’s a way for you to try out your moves against a dummy that won’t move, or player two could be the dummy, which ever is available.
But the online multiplayer…Oh my God….fu** you Capcom. Seriously, you guys really bit the big one with this nonsense. Has anyone played Street Fighter IV? You know how while you are waiting in queue for it to be your turn you would watch the match unfold and try to gather some intel about the opponent you may go against? Yeah, that’s not here. As opposed to that, we are treat with this:
In case you can’t make out what this is, it’s a picture of two moving cards, bouncing back and forth while you wait for a match. Let’s see, your average match lasts about five minutes, and if you are in a medium sized room, which make you 4th in line…GASP…that means you have to wait 20 minutes before you can play. That’s 20 minutes (or more depending on the room size) of watching cards bounce up and down, with no way of knowing what the hell is going on. Is it a good fight? What tactics are the other players using? You don’t know! You get to stare a blank screen and “imagine” the fight as it unfolds.
Ok, some of you will argue that this way it conceals those tactics the other players may be using and you go into the fight fresh. To this, I say bull-sh**! I am old enough to remember “quartering up” in an arcade and waiting to play someone in a fighting game, whether it be Street Fighter or Tekken. This was how you learned, kids, by watching people perform better than you, and adapting. By the way, as mentioned, the last two Street Fighter IV games had this spectator thing going and it worked beautifully, why not here?
I will say that the connectivity from match to match is very smooth, with little disconnects (as SFIV was the king of) and maybe that could be the reason for axing the spectator mode. But seriously, waiting and staring at a blank screen while I wait for a match is boring as hell. Nothing notates the boredom I feel towards a game when I have to hit up a couple levels of Angry Birds before I get to play the game. Just saying….
It’s a decent fighting game overall, does a lot of things right, but the multiplayer wait time just pissed me off too much for words. I might be trading this game in the near future.
Ok, side note, to those that want to be good at this game, don't use this, the combos are too slow to input:
And try and use this, for obvious reasons:
Oh, and personally, note. I WILL be trading this game in. I liked the concept, but seriously, the controls are so simple and the movement within the game is so frantic, that I just started hating the game after a while. I mean, it's pretty good, but honestly, it just doesn't compare to what I will say is personally my favortie fighting game of all time:
Capcom vs. SNK 2, the Non-EO version.
It's paced correctly, you have different styles of fighting to choose from, the button layout is the classic control....awww....Yeah, I think I will trade in this game for Super Street fighter IV instead, whihc I believe is the beter game between it and MvC3.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Killzone? More like Killz-ON!
Cuz... you kill lots of stuff in the game. Killz-on. It... nevermind.
This game is a delight for many reasons. We all know I strongly disapprove of the COD series as a complete gaming value. It's a multiplayer game with an extended single player training level. *bash*bash*bash*
Killzone was a different beast all together. "Killzone was a different beast"
Way back in the PS2 shooter days there were slim pickins, but those games all showed potential in one way or another. I still own Killzone 1 and Black. For some reason they've always struck me as important games to the system. Killzone was released just a few years before the PS3 came onto the scene, so most of the PS2 games were worried about their future, and the gaming companies were showing off their mad graphic skills, which were considerably impressive at the time, at least in Killzone and Black's way.
Killzone 1 had online play, a good storyline, decent characters and enough of a varied level environment so the whole thing didn't feel too repetitive. Although I did feel like I was in that drainage warehouse for ever.
This ain't a Killzone review of all the games, but a commentary on the new one. Killzone 2 was a benchmark game for the PS3. But what better way to show off the swag of a new system than by a nice looking, decently made shooter. The Killzone series doesn't do anything better than anyone else, but it also doesn't screw anything up. I wish "PC Shooter" was a title you could give something, a game that was a nice stable shooter that you enjoyed playing one time through, had some multiplay, but was decent overall. Nothing impressive, just more of what you love. Or- PC Shooter.
The new Killzone does more of the same, but it's enjoyable. Let's see.... there's an evil planet of people who are basically cast-off and they start to build their own army and fight the earth forces, blah blah blah.
Come to think of it, it's strange but you sort of feel for both sides. The Helghast (the outcasts) were sort of cast aside unjustly and are simply fighting to survive, although they're taking it a bit too far, and the earth forces always seem to be the ones invading.
You know.... this makes me seriously consider the storylines of video games, and possibly a review of good storyline games.....
At any rate, you play the earth forces, and a generic BJ Blazkowicz of sorts, bent on being the best he can be. Buh.
For most of Killzone it's you and your also tough latin-american partner who both don't give two claps about their commanders, they're just getting the job done. So you and Dom, wait no, you and Cole Train, wait wait no no, you and Soap. Ok got it, you and Price are.... no wait... you're Sev, and your partner is Rico.
Ok, now's the touchy subject.... I was playing Killzone 3, and enjoying it. When I had a sneaking mission come up, you and another character start to sneak into enemy areas.
Your partner, I'm not making this up, has a fullbeard, sunglasses, and a backwards hat. He leads you through the enemy lines and helps you take headshots.
Did I just describe Medal Of Honor or Killzone 3? Dammit.... Killzone....
In their defense, it's a shooter, so who honestly cares. COD, GOW, and MOH aren't the first games to have these stock characters, and if it helps the story to progress and the developers to work on a better game, have at it.
Is the game any good? Yeah. Yeah.... it's I mean, a game you'll get through in a long weekend. The storyline is stock, characters are stock, theres a jetpack level, a few rail shooter levels, a nice mix of the same stuff we all enjoy.
But here's where Killzone 3 is doing what others is done and they done it right. There's a Co-Op mode, there's a multiplayer mode, there's a bot mode. The multiplay, ooooh the multiplay. I love me some FPS games where each side has an objective, not just "shoot everything". UT2K4 had a ton of those, there were waypoints to get, areas to defend, all the good stuff.
Killzone 3 has those as well. You basically play through a mission with your team. Blow up a door to open into a new area, defend that new area until a support weapon or vehicle arrives, use that vehicle to get control of another point. Controlling points sometimes allows for a better overhead map with enemy units, sometimes you have to defend a single player, sometimes that single player has to do all of the objectives, and everyone has to defend them.
It's all the same goodies that a good shooter should have, just with fancy Killzone 3 graphics and controls.
Which have to be last for a reason. The graphics and controls in Killzone are wonderful. The levels are huge, the particle effects are wonderful, the water looks like water, the snozberries... nevermind. The controls are a delight as well, the cover and shoot from cover system is something you won't use much, until you truly need it, then it'll come in handy. There are a few glitches here and there, some clipping, some audio repeats. But when there are maps that take 20 to 30 minutes to fight across, with no loading, beautiful atmospheres and environments (look up every so often in the game, you'll see what I mean, there's shit in space!!) You can forgive it. It's a good shooter for a system not known for it's good shooters. It shows off it can graphics better than the rest, and there's enough other stuff to keep you busy for a while. If you like shooters, love shooters, or want something different but familiar for your PS3. Get it.
This game is a delight for many reasons. We all know I strongly disapprove of the COD series as a complete gaming value. It's a multiplayer game with an extended single player training level. *bash*bash*bash*
Killzone was a different beast all together. "Killzone was a different beast"
Way back in the PS2 shooter days there were slim pickins, but those games all showed potential in one way or another. I still own Killzone 1 and Black. For some reason they've always struck me as important games to the system. Killzone was released just a few years before the PS3 came onto the scene, so most of the PS2 games were worried about their future, and the gaming companies were showing off their mad graphic skills, which were considerably impressive at the time, at least in Killzone and Black's way.
Killzone 1 had online play, a good storyline, decent characters and enough of a varied level environment so the whole thing didn't feel too repetitive. Although I did feel like I was in that drainage warehouse for ever.
This ain't a Killzone review of all the games, but a commentary on the new one. Killzone 2 was a benchmark game for the PS3. But what better way to show off the swag of a new system than by a nice looking, decently made shooter. The Killzone series doesn't do anything better than anyone else, but it also doesn't screw anything up. I wish "PC Shooter" was a title you could give something, a game that was a nice stable shooter that you enjoyed playing one time through, had some multiplay, but was decent overall. Nothing impressive, just more of what you love. Or- PC Shooter.
The new Killzone does more of the same, but it's enjoyable. Let's see.... there's an evil planet of people who are basically cast-off and they start to build their own army and fight the earth forces, blah blah blah.
Come to think of it, it's strange but you sort of feel for both sides. The Helghast (the outcasts) were sort of cast aside unjustly and are simply fighting to survive, although they're taking it a bit too far, and the earth forces always seem to be the ones invading.
You know.... this makes me seriously consider the storylines of video games, and possibly a review of good storyline games.....
At any rate, you play the earth forces, and a generic BJ Blazkowicz of sorts, bent on being the best he can be. Buh.
For most of Killzone it's you and your also tough latin-american partner who both don't give two claps about their commanders, they're just getting the job done. So you and Dom, wait no, you and Cole Train, wait wait no no, you and Soap. Ok got it, you and Price are.... no wait... you're Sev, and your partner is Rico.
Ok, now's the touchy subject.... I was playing Killzone 3, and enjoying it. When I had a sneaking mission come up, you and another character start to sneak into enemy areas.
Your partner, I'm not making this up, has a fullbeard, sunglasses, and a backwards hat. He leads you through the enemy lines and helps you take headshots.
Did I just describe Medal Of Honor or Killzone 3? Dammit.... Killzone....
In their defense, it's a shooter, so who honestly cares. COD, GOW, and MOH aren't the first games to have these stock characters, and if it helps the story to progress and the developers to work on a better game, have at it.
Is the game any good? Yeah. Yeah.... it's I mean, a game you'll get through in a long weekend. The storyline is stock, characters are stock, theres a jetpack level, a few rail shooter levels, a nice mix of the same stuff we all enjoy.
But here's where Killzone 3 is doing what others is done and they done it right. There's a Co-Op mode, there's a multiplayer mode, there's a bot mode. The multiplay, ooooh the multiplay. I love me some FPS games where each side has an objective, not just "shoot everything". UT2K4 had a ton of those, there were waypoints to get, areas to defend, all the good stuff.
Killzone 3 has those as well. You basically play through a mission with your team. Blow up a door to open into a new area, defend that new area until a support weapon or vehicle arrives, use that vehicle to get control of another point. Controlling points sometimes allows for a better overhead map with enemy units, sometimes you have to defend a single player, sometimes that single player has to do all of the objectives, and everyone has to defend them.
It's all the same goodies that a good shooter should have, just with fancy Killzone 3 graphics and controls.
Which have to be last for a reason. The graphics and controls in Killzone are wonderful. The levels are huge, the particle effects are wonderful, the water looks like water, the snozberries... nevermind. The controls are a delight as well, the cover and shoot from cover system is something you won't use much, until you truly need it, then it'll come in handy. There are a few glitches here and there, some clipping, some audio repeats. But when there are maps that take 20 to 30 minutes to fight across, with no loading, beautiful atmospheres and environments (look up every so often in the game, you'll see what I mean, there's shit in space!!) You can forgive it. It's a good shooter for a system not known for it's good shooters. It shows off it can graphics better than the rest, and there's enough other stuff to keep you busy for a while. If you like shooters, love shooters, or want something different but familiar for your PS3. Get it.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Dark Dawn...by the books for 40 hours
Before I begin, let me ask if you have played Golden Sun for the GameBoy Advance or Golden Sun: The Lost Age. If you have and you are a fan of the small series, then your decision has already been made to buy this game and you want to hear my thoughts. If you have never played either game, then prepare for a bit of Star Wars Syndrome as I talk about this game.
First of all,ahem ***************PARTIAL SPOILER ALERT!********************
According to the developers, this game is meant to stand on it’s own and people new to the series are supposed to be able to pick up the game and appreciate it. Well, the game does introduce an in-game encyclopedia so you can follow along, but at the end of the day it’s still a fan-based game.
Lemme give a quick rundown of the first game so you can see where I am coming from, you play as some kids trying to prevent the seals of Alchemy from being released. You spend most of the game trying to stop the lighting of 2 of 4 Alchemy Lighthouses. Apparently, you are bad at your job since 2 of the 4 Alchemy lighthouses get light right before your eyes and queue ending leading to sequel. The second game is about you playing as the enemy, trying to release the remaining seals on Alchemy. It’s way more interesting than the first game and eventually you get to join forces with the cast from the first game, thus making the story complete.
Eventually, you decide it’s better to light the remaining lighthouse because the world of Weyard will die without Alchemy. After this is done, it causes the Golden Sun event, which releases Alchemy into the world and stops falling apart at the seams. Happy endings!
Golden Sun: Dark Dawn takes place 30 years after the events of GS:TLA and you play as the kids of the originals heroes. It’s not long before you embark on some quest to get a feather, and before you know it the feather quest becomes something much bigger. Without giving anything away, one thing I can say is, it’s a Golden Sun story, meaning you will be going to multiple places to complete multiple different puzzles using your “pysnergy” powers. This is basically the best part of the whole game and makes it worth playing. The use of pysnergy to solve puzzles isn’t a bad thing, as it leads to relative Zelda-like puzzles, but the bad thing that does stem from this is…it’s been done before. Everything about this game isn’t new except for the graphics. The combat is the same as the last game, the summons that can be found throughout the game are the same, that tactic of summon-rushing a difficult boss is the same (Dullahan, the toughest boss in the game, can be beaten in five minutes by summon rushing him), and the part at the end of the game which leads into an inevitable sequel is the same as the first game.
To say I am a fan is a severe understatement. You see, I have played the first game and completed it three times, and I have completed the second game twice. I actually hadn’t expected a third game because the second wrapped a nice bowtie around the series. Apparently, the developers said the first two games were prequels. So…why did the game take seven years to make? It’s not THAT technically impressive. I mean, I’m not saying it doesn’t look good, cause it does, but it should not have taken SEVEN years to make this game. I think, like most fns do, that the series was originally abandoned and so much pent up demand for a third game caused the developers to try and come up with an add-on to the series. I know this probably isn’t true, but it FEELS so true since after a while I just stopped caring about the story of this game.
As a matter of fact, 20 hours in I just stopped caring about this game. It basically became a task for me to complete. The story became just stale, the battles were WAY too easy, I beat the game at level 40-45 without having to grind at all (this was actually refreshing, IMHO), and the cutscenes..OH MY GOSH…just like in the last two games they are unskippable and they DON'T WANT TO END!
Seriously, at the beginning of the game a quest is discussed about getting this feather to fix some sort of glider one of the main characters breaks for no real reason, and it takes 20 minutes to explain! It’s ridiculous! The cutscene length needed to be fixed back at the second game and I can’t believe it’s a problem in the third game.
At the end of the day, there are much worse JRPGS you can buy and play, but there are also way better. The fans (like myself) looking for something new from Golden Sun: Dark Dawn will be disappointed, since it’s basically the same game as the second one with a new coat of paint. Even the boss structure is the same: there are two bad guys that you will eventually have to fight…probably twice...and then they will become some sort of end game monster.
Bottom line, if you are a fan, complete and maybe hold on to it to transfer your file to the next game, as was the case before. If you are new and are looking for a new RPG story, you could do worse.
First of all,ahem ***************PARTIAL SPOILER ALERT!********************
According to the developers, this game is meant to stand on it’s own and people new to the series are supposed to be able to pick up the game and appreciate it. Well, the game does introduce an in-game encyclopedia so you can follow along, but at the end of the day it’s still a fan-based game.
Lemme give a quick rundown of the first game so you can see where I am coming from, you play as some kids trying to prevent the seals of Alchemy from being released. You spend most of the game trying to stop the lighting of 2 of 4 Alchemy Lighthouses. Apparently, you are bad at your job since 2 of the 4 Alchemy lighthouses get light right before your eyes and queue ending leading to sequel. The second game is about you playing as the enemy, trying to release the remaining seals on Alchemy. It’s way more interesting than the first game and eventually you get to join forces with the cast from the first game, thus making the story complete.
Eventually, you decide it’s better to light the remaining lighthouse because the world of Weyard will die without Alchemy. After this is done, it causes the Golden Sun event, which releases Alchemy into the world and stops falling apart at the seams. Happy endings!
Golden Sun: Dark Dawn takes place 30 years after the events of GS:TLA and you play as the kids of the originals heroes. It’s not long before you embark on some quest to get a feather, and before you know it the feather quest becomes something much bigger. Without giving anything away, one thing I can say is, it’s a Golden Sun story, meaning you will be going to multiple places to complete multiple different puzzles using your “pysnergy” powers. This is basically the best part of the whole game and makes it worth playing. The use of pysnergy to solve puzzles isn’t a bad thing, as it leads to relative Zelda-like puzzles, but the bad thing that does stem from this is…it’s been done before. Everything about this game isn’t new except for the graphics. The combat is the same as the last game, the summons that can be found throughout the game are the same, that tactic of summon-rushing a difficult boss is the same (Dullahan, the toughest boss in the game, can be beaten in five minutes by summon rushing him), and the part at the end of the game which leads into an inevitable sequel is the same as the first game.
To say I am a fan is a severe understatement. You see, I have played the first game and completed it three times, and I have completed the second game twice. I actually hadn’t expected a third game because the second wrapped a nice bowtie around the series. Apparently, the developers said the first two games were prequels. So…why did the game take seven years to make? It’s not THAT technically impressive. I mean, I’m not saying it doesn’t look good, cause it does, but it should not have taken SEVEN years to make this game. I think, like most fns do, that the series was originally abandoned and so much pent up demand for a third game caused the developers to try and come up with an add-on to the series. I know this probably isn’t true, but it FEELS so true since after a while I just stopped caring about the story of this game.
As a matter of fact, 20 hours in I just stopped caring about this game. It basically became a task for me to complete. The story became just stale, the battles were WAY too easy, I beat the game at level 40-45 without having to grind at all (this was actually refreshing, IMHO), and the cutscenes..OH MY GOSH…just like in the last two games they are unskippable and they DON'T WANT TO END!
Seriously, at the beginning of the game a quest is discussed about getting this feather to fix some sort of glider one of the main characters breaks for no real reason, and it takes 20 minutes to explain! It’s ridiculous! The cutscene length needed to be fixed back at the second game and I can’t believe it’s a problem in the third game.
At the end of the day, there are much worse JRPGS you can buy and play, but there are also way better. The fans (like myself) looking for something new from Golden Sun: Dark Dawn will be disappointed, since it’s basically the same game as the second one with a new coat of paint. Even the boss structure is the same: there are two bad guys that you will eventually have to fight…probably twice...and then they will become some sort of end game monster.
Bottom line, if you are a fan, complete and maybe hold on to it to transfer your file to the next game, as was the case before. If you are new and are looking for a new RPG story, you could do worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)