GamesReview UK

You're Late!

2009-11-16T20:31:00.003Z

Things I’ve been playing recently:
Borderlands
Uncharted 2
The Left4Dead 2 Demo
The Torchlight Demo
Dragon Age (the reason I’ve missed another Monday post)

Given that the merits of Uncharted 2 have already been discussed in an earlier post, I’m only going to say that this is a game of sheer quality. Its one of those games that really pushes this medium as an art form, blending fun and intuitive game play elements with an exemplary cast and script.

Borderlands and Left4Dead 2 have been briefly run over by myself, so I’ll avoid these two. As much as I love Borderlands I don’t feel that there’s much more to say than it’s a brave attempt at a new concept, flawed if you will by its own design. Left4Dead 2 will be receiving a bit more coverage from me around the time of its release.

That leaves us with (arguably) this year’s two biggest RPG releases. Both games are vying for the void left between the date Diablo 3 was announced and its eventual release (probably in around 5 years time). I was going to rant about why I hate developers releasing in game footage of titles when they’re nowhere near completion but I don’t want to sound like a miserable git. Instead I’m going to actually discuss why after playing over 30 hours of one, and around 30 minutes of the other I adore both.

Created by a team of RPG veterans, Torchlight focuses heavily on Dungeon Crawling game play mixed with the same click to attack style of combat found in the Diablo games. For a short time, it’s an extremely fun game and its one I could see myself playing in bursts (and for £14.99 I’m not complaining) however over a long period of time, I’m really not so sure it will hold me as much as say... Dragon Age. That’s not to say Torchlight isn’t a good game, it has both good and bad points. Its just a shame that for me, its repetitive game play stands out as a bad point.

Overall, the thing that really stands out for me in the game is the music. Immediately on your arrival in the town a huge sense of atmosphere is created by the sombre song playing in the background. It’s almost depressing in tone, but works really well to set the mood of the dead end town you find yourself in. Inside the dungeon itself, the music takes much more of a background role to the well recorded combat sounds yet still manages to set the dark and dangerous feel of each floor you pass through. It really does help to make the very repetitive game play much more bearable and it is easily in my opinion, the game’s best feature.

Bioware’s latest effort, Dragon Age takes influence from a variety of mediums including most fantasy genres and of course, tabletop Dungeons and Dragons. What Bioware Game (Mass Effect not included) would be able to function without stats, stats, more stats and damage rolls. As confusing as it may be to your average gamer, it’s something that quickly becomes clear after an hour of play and in my opinion there is nothing like it. As ridiculous as it sounds, what better way is there to ensure you never play the same game twice than by adding random chance to almost everything you do in the game! Seriously, I’m not complaining here! I know it’s a huge over exaggeration but it’s something that I feel is a core component of the genre. Baldurs Gate was rock solid because of it and luckily, Dragon Age is just the same (to the point that I *may* have lost some hair).

The one thing that had kept me engaged throughout the difficult situations was the constant need to progress though the story within the game. Engaging narratives have been common features within Bioware games (even if they can be criticised for their similarities over the various games) and this one is no different, combining traditional medieval themes of war and treachery with a swords and sorcery fantasy setting. It works well for the most part, assuming that you ignore some of the stereotypical plot points and contrived characters (Morrigan) and focus on some of the better things to come out of the game (Opening Character Sections, Shale).

At present I’ve clocked up around 50 hours in the game and according to the in game progress calculator I’m around 30% of the way through. For £30 I think this is fantastic value for money, especially when you consider most games nowadays offer 6-8 hours of single player game play, with developers assuming most players will fall in love with the multiplayer side. In terms of numbers, you’re getting around 6 games for the price of one here and it’s a great deal for a great game. Definitely a game of the year contender.

This is all starting to look a little jumbled now so I’m going to quit whilst I’m behind. Stay tuned sometime this week (hopefully) for a Left4Dead 2 piece.

Gaming Podcasts

2009-11-16T12:09:00.007Z

by Robinson09

I'm sure that many of you out there own ipods and the like, so therefore enjoy a good podcast. I have various favourites 'casts on my ipod, some gaming ones in particular. I have chosen my favourite two and thought id would share the enjoyment with you!

First up we have the Gamespot UK Podcast, which can be found her e.

Presented by the brilliant Guy Cocker (insert immature name joke here), this podcast releases a new recording 3/4 times a month, generally between 1 and 2 hours long. The team discuss all the latest gaming news, latest reviews and also have a special guest for every episode, often a highlight. Guests are generally from a more obscure gaming background, giving a great in-site into many different sections of the industry. The podcast has a high production value and is very informative and entertaining, making it a great listen on the bus or when walking the dog etc.

Secondly, i would also recommend the Joystiq podcast, which accompanies the great gaming blog Joystiq. Find it here.

This podcast, recorded in the states, I would class as second place to gamespot UK. The cast is very informative, and i find that discussion on certain issues can be deeper than GSUK and more provoking. The podcast is also fairly humorous at points, but where it is let down compared to GSUK is the production value. Whereas GSUK is very tight and well produced, Joystiq takes more of a 'wing it' approach, with people entering and leaving randomly, mobile phones going off and various sneezes and what-not throughout the recording. This does let it down, but its a good podcast none-the-less.

So i suggest you check them out. Stand-by for my Modern Warfare 2 review, making sure i give it a proper play through, and I'm finding some parts fairly hard at the minute. Should be up soon though.
Thanks for reading.

Fear? not really.

2009-11-12T09:19:00.007Z

By Goldfingers

Fear 2 is the successor to the popular PC game Fear, a ‘port’ later ended up on 360. Well successor is perhaps not the right word, but I’ll get into that later.

Once you get into the game most PC players will immediately notice one thing, black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. Yep that’s right, they didn’t bother to add support for 16:10 resolutions and if the recent steam hardware surveys are anything to go by it’s easy to see how it’s an annoyance for most people. From then on I realised this was a game made for consoles, and pc was now the ‘port’. Now let me make this clear, Fear 2 is a console game.

The game actually looks pretty acceptable aside from the black bars. Although it suffers from a boring colour palette (and the black lines) the game looks quite pretty; great effects, satifisfying blood puffs, a few shiny textures here and there.

Once you actually start shooting at stuff there are a couple of differences that differentiate the game play to fear 1, but largely you would be forgiven for thinking it’s the same game. The biggest improvement is that when you aren’t in slo-mo mode the combat still feels great. And it creates a more cinematic feeling of going back to normal motion- slo mo and so on. In fear 1, while the combat felt great in slo-mo the weapons all felt wrong, they didn’t do enough damage and the recoil was too much in normal speed. Aside from that it’s still going to try and scare you in the same ways, except there’s a difference this time. You’ve seen it all before. In fact the enemies are almost identical to the first game as well.

It’s a simple story; this super being that they have created is now going mad and killing everything in sight. She’s more powerful this time, and actually seems a formidable foe. In fact the parts of the game with Alma in are actually really fun, atmospheric and often scary. Right now your thinking how could anyone go wrong with a story so simple as that, right? Well IW choose to tell the story through notepads, borrowing from games like system shock 2 and doom 3. There are few cut scenes, and the radio messages do little to explain things. The problem is, these little notepads have some of the most cringe worthy writing I’ve ever seen In a game, simply has to be seen to believed.

The sound does it’s job fairly well, it’s all in 5.1 and works. It creates more of an adrenaline feel this time, rather than the tense atmosphere of the last game.

Overall you’re getting an average experience, it all works it just doesn’t do anything really well. For fans of the first game prepare to be disappointed, and for those who haven’t played the first game; stick to that.

Football Manager 2010 Review

2009-11-08T18:59:00.010Z

By Robinson 09

Being my first post on the site, i have decided to 'kick off' (excuse the pun) well within my comfort zone with the new football manager release. My love of the football manager genre began with Championship Manager 4, since which i have been a sucker with my money every year since.
Last years title saw the introduction of the controversial 3D match engine, and with new competion from the now revived Championship Manager series, what improvements can Football Manager 10 offer to hold onto its crown?

The first thing you notice is a total re-jig of the user interface. This hit me for six, having just come from FM09, trying to navigate around the new UI was particularly dificult. After a while the new setup does come easier, but still, admittedly after just a few hours gameplay (like clicking you fingers in FM terms), i still feel myself getting frustrated with what seems to be a rather fiddly UI (The continue button is now in the top right hand corner! Why put it there, it has never been there, it should never be there etc etc).

So, the UI apart, what other new features do you get from FM10. The 3D match engine, first introduced last year, has seen a years worth of polish, which really shows in the end result. The play seems much dynamic somehow, with 'over 100' new player animations, the whole thing just feels slicker and altogether more enjoyable. Ball physics seem to have been notably improved, so watching the net ripple as your midfield maestro curls one in from 30 yards looks great.
Other things that i have found especially useful are the inclusion of 'Backroom Advice', where your staff offer there advice on various different actions you could take to improve the team or sign a new player etc. For the lazy player (like myself), this enables quick and easy changes to be made. Players can also now 'Shout' tactical changes from the touchline for his team, and also chant and gesture rudely towards the referee (ok, that may not all be true). This extra tactical option adds another layer to FM's already extensive tactics system, but in reality, I didn't find myself using it much on a regular basis.

So yes, its football manager. They still don't have the license for the German National Team, and it will most definitely still eat up large amounts of your time. As with last years game, i will be trying to win the champions league with Everton, which is always good fun (my 2.3 million signing of Ruud Van Nisterrooooy is looking inspired).
The thing is, for the first time with a FM game, i would rather be playing last years title. I wish that Sports Interactive had taken the 'If it aint broke' approach on the user interface, as this is where the game seems to be let down. This may well improve with time however, meaning Football Manager 10 is still very much the undisputed king of Football Management Games.
Thanks for Reading.

Weekly Update

2009-11-02T23:26:00.009Z

By Morgan

Rather than a full on article this week, I'm going to be skimming over several topics. After spending most of my week playing Borderlands I've become fairly out of touch with what's going on in the gaming world. Of course, I won't just be talking about Gearbox Software's new game, I'll also be reviewing some of the stories that have been brought to my attention this past week.

Borderlands
After taking advantage of the 4-pack deal on Steam I had expected a wonderful co-operative experience from Borderlands that would combine the game play of Fallout 3 with the old school Dungeon Crawling loot of the Diablo series. Instead what I found was a worthy effort at re-inventing a genre, verging on brilliance but unfortunately failing due to simple mistakes made by its developers.

Upon release for the consoles Borderlands was blighted by networking problems that often meant a large majority of people could not host or join co-operative games online. Worse still, the PC version that was released around 2 weeks later still had these crippling issues, despite a console patch being released the previous day. Now, don't get me wrong, I love the game; however if a publisher chooses to market a game on the strength of its co-op play they should at least make sure the developer has not cocked up the netcode before release. Yes there are workarounds such as lan software (Hamachi, Tunngle, Gameranger) or port forwarding however these should not be needed. It reeks of laziness on the part of Gearbox and its hard to justify paying full price for what is essentially a broken game.

They have however nailed something that a lot of games are missing these days, fun. When you can get a co-op game going this game is fantastic, just make sure to play with friends if you want your fair share of the loot. I just feel that simple development issues are stopping me from enjoying it even further.

Left4Dead 2
Another moan as pre-order customers get shafted once again. A demo that was 2 days late, no apology and no real benefit to pre-order customers. Yes, there is a hat that you can use in Team Fortress 2, but if you don't own said game, its more money you're paying out just to get your pre-order bonus.

Modern Warfare 2
I'm glad I left it a few days late to write this article, else I wouldn't have stumbled across this great transcript from a chat session with the Infinity Ward team. I am astounded that the developers of one of the most successful games ever seem to be continually driving away a market that has allowed them to reach the position that they are in today.

It would also seem that a video entitled “Killing FourTwoZero” (That's IW's Robert Bowling) has been removed from Youtube as Activision claimed copyright infringement. Are they are blind to the storm they have caused?

...And Finally
Dragon Age: Origins is released in the UK on Friday and I honestly can't wait. After being hooked on the flash game I am eager to jump in to the full game head first and lose myself just as I did with Baldurs Gate.

Moan, Moan, Moan... and Moan

2009-10-26T23:43:00.008Z

By Morgan

I’ve recently been trying to write an article regarding the current Infinity Ward Dedicated Server malarkey, however I find myself struggling to provide anything other than what’s already been said. Therefore during this article I’m going to moan about Activision.

Robert Kotick can’t seem to get enough of controversy at the minute. Here is a man at the head of one of the top gaming publishers in the world, a man who is in charge of so much responsibility and a man who for his own reasons, seems to hate the gaming world.

First he announced the rise in pricing for Modern Warfare 2 with copies reaching up to the dizzy heights of around £55 per console copy of the game. This was shortly followed by a complete contradiction of his former views claiming that due to the high price of the Playstation 3 and its accessories, Activision didn’t feel it was a profitable platform to produce games for. All of this coming from the man who watches Guitar Hero (a game with a plastic guitar) sell millions of units with each going for up to £100 in the United Kingdom on release. Seemingly not content with angering the console and pc crowds, Kotick recently made a speech at the 2009 Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference in which he claimed the future of video games (more specifically, game development) was one “without fun”; a nice choice of words there from one of the most powerful men in gaming.

Kotick doesn’t seem to realise that the games industry is an entertainment one, built on the foundations of fun. Imagine if he was in charge of cinema and film distribution. Would every film be a low budget, art house piece of crap where we sit and watch a girl drink, smoke and cry for 5 minutes whilst a man pats her on the shoulder? Probably, but heh, if we take out the fun all we’re left with is mind numbing boredom and drawn out references to social problems (for those wondering about the above, it’s probably daddy issues). The problem is that if said film sells out he’ll be encouraged to make more (unless he’s Uwe Boll, in which case he will just make more...).

As the industry grew it was always likely that management types such as this would take an interest and it’s a shame to say that we as gamers may have brought this upon ourselves. Who else remembers the days of demo’s, shareware and (dare I say it) free games! It was a time in which people were just expected to have fun and nothing else. Nowadays it’s all about addicting the consumer to a concept, rather than allowing them to just enjoy something.

Games such as World of Warcraft rake in millions ever year and although enjoyed by gamers, one has to ask what exactly it gives people over other games? An epic story? Great characters? An amazing setting? Endless replayability? You could probably tick some boxes however a lot of questions remain. Endgame raiding for example just screams endless repetition to me and can it really be called replay value when you’re paying money for the game each month? Sure fans may love it, but for me, the growing price of the game over time does not make it a worthwhile investment. Compare this with a game such as Dead Space that cost a maximum of £40 on release (Around 3-4 months of World of Warcraft, not including the price of the boxed media), a game that attempted (and succeeded) to revitalise the horror genre. Despite its great reviews, the game encountered poor sales EA and had apparently considered scrapping the brand until they saw the cult following it had developed. Companies seem to be in favour of scrapping innovation in return for a profit, and it’s something people like Kotick are really pushing for. The problem is that shareholders and investors are seeking profits and are likely to agree with him, thus forcing the industry down a very bad road.

Before someone says it, piracy is NOT the answer. But neither is shelling out large amounts of money on games that are using their name to generate interest. Just look at FarCry 2, what a crock of shit that was. Look for innovation, look for fun and through buying these games we can hope to show the industry that fun is the way forward, that fun is what the consumer wants when they’re spending their money.

Maybe a Modern Warfare 2 article next week. Maybe...

Uncharted 2: A new era of gaming

2009-10-26T11:59:00.009Z

by
The Critical Alien

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves

I've never actually said this before about a game. Uncharted 2 has blurred the line for me between film and game. Finally, after years of gaming highs and lows, a game hits that does pretty much every single thing right. There isn't any issue with the game. There isn't any blemish that erodes its greatness. This, my friends, is as good as gaming gets.

Whenever I play Uncharted 2, which I've completed twice now, my reaction is always the same. It plays like a movie. Ever since the first 3d titles, games have attempted to mimic and recreate film. Set pieces have always been an attempt to portray cinematic moments. As far as I'm concerned, gaming has, since its infancy, been on a journey of catch up with film as a narrative medium.

I guess Half Life 2 was perhaps the first example of this boundary dissolution between the two. In that, characters were lifelike and there was never a differentiation between cut scene and game. Steven Spielberg, the CoD4 whore, even commented on this and believed this was where games needed to be heading in order to reach the next level. Uncharted 2 is surely the first game ever to cross this boundary. Personally, I think GTA IV was close but didn't quite make that jump.

Beyond the characters and dialogue Uncharted 2 is simply an excellent game. The level design is homed and never overly fleshed out. The action is tight too. The cover system is perfect, and works online, as is the cool melee system and climbing mechanic. Even the enemy A.I seems flawless. They make an effort to flank you, use cover effectively, hurl grenades, and even retreat.

I honestly have tried to find flaws here. If I was being picky, I'd say that perhaps the last level lacked the sheer wow factor of mid-game stages. This is such a straw man though. Perhaps the only thing that can be said about Uncharted 2 is that it could do with even more co-op levels. The co-op isn't linked to the single player, a good thing, but with only three levels to play through with mates you soon plough through it. However, more are likely on the way in the form of DLC.

The multiplayer is generally excellent. Matchmaking is here but works well for this sort of game (not for stuff like... oh MW2 on PC). There are also other co-op modes for up to three players such as a fun and unique gold rush mode and standard survival. This game has also opened up the Playstation Network to new great things that Xbox Live users have grown accustomed to. Now all we need is cross game chat ;)

I don't want to go on about Uncharted 2 too much for fear of coming across like a fanboy. I don't care what console this game is on, nor do I care if it could or couldn't potentially run on an Xbox 360. All I know is that Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is one of the best games I've ever played on any format.

Infinity Ward and the PC Community

2009-10-25T22:27:00.029Z

by
Laxe

Well, as a new contributor to the site my first post will be on a topic that's quite big right now in the PC community. Namely Infinity Ward's decision to take away dedicated server support for their new title Modern Warfare 2 (you may have heard of it).

Now before I get flamed by the console crowd be aware that I do own all the current gen consoles and handhelds bar the DS Lite cos I sold that a while back. I chose to play many of the multi-plat games on the PC and if it was a console only game the PS3/360. I do not play FPS on the consoles if I can help it, mainly due to the control scheme but also due to the match-making. As a matter of fact I choose to play my FPS and most other games on my PC because I find p2p match-making botched and very often laggy - something which dedicated servers alleviate.

Personally I don't know why Infinity Ward decided to get rid of the dedicated servers instead of having both match-making and dedicated servers. It's not like they're mutually exclusive methods of getting into a game. Also I cannot understand why they did not go for a 'master server' which EA did with Battlefield 2142 where there were stat tracking and had a log-in system in order to prevent pirated copies playing online. This worked fairly well in my opinion and whilst not perfect (stat-padding etc.) it still supported dedicated servers which many PC gamers prefer.

Of course I know many console gamers don't know nor care why the PC gamer crowd (or most of them from what I can see) are so uptight about this change Infinity Ward has made to Modern Warfare 2 but for me it's simply this: they've taken away the online advantages of playing online with the PC which hinges around those dedicated servers and lag-free gaming. That and now that the player cap has been reduced from 32 players to 16 to account for the p2p connection which in my eyes means less fun with more players in games. Some may not see it that way but the value proposition of the game has suddenly plunged four-fold so far.

The fact that Infinity Ward says that these changes were made to cater to the 'casual' and 'moderate' COD4 player is somewhat of an oxymoron. Such players either do not mind the server browser or don't exist. Those that found PC COD4 intimidating have either moved past the difficulty curve of choosing a server (which, let's be honest, if you can install a game on a PC and configure it you won't have much trouble at all) or have moved on to the console scene. I do not think that COD4 nor MW2 will ever be a 'casual' game by any stretch of the imagination and therefore saying that such a gamer exists on the PC is both an ice-thin argument and laughable.

It is a sad state of affairs overall in the PC community and I can't see this getting any better anytime soon. There were other avenues Infinity Ward could have taken to combat piracy (which will always be a problem on both the PC and 360) but the lack of choice of method is one I cannot accept. On a deeper level I do not like the fact that they have waited until now to announce these changes to the PC community. One could say they knew that there would be backlash and wanted to quietly slide this under our noses so near to release, especially if the claim that they have invested a lot of time and money into this new system. Surely one would think they'd want to shout about it from the rooftops if they honestly had believed that IW.NET would be a resounding success?

As many I don't think I will be buying this game and have instead pre-ordered Borderlands which I had not before since I had assumed all my gaming time would've been taken up by playing MW2. It's sad to think that within two years Infinity Ward has changed it's tune so drastically regarding the PC community; from their stance on supporting modders and dedicated servers (see here for an interview with Grant Collier) to the poor excuse of catering for players that either do not exist or are the distinct minority of PC gamers. That and the lack of information about IW.NET this close to release does not alleviate my concerns for the tone Infinity Ward are taking towards PC gaming in general.

For all those who are interested, please sign the petition here and show your support. As of writing it has reached 156744 signitures. If anything it will show Infinity Ward how many people's toes they are treading on with this decision.

Clash of the mil-sims: A dragon is rising

2009-10-14T17:18:00.012+01:00

I'm not even convinced there is such a genre as the mil-sim. There is really only one true fully fledged military simulation game and that is Operation Flashpoint and the Arma series. There isn't anything else out there that is even remotely comparable to those Bohemia titles. However, it is clear that the tubes speak of the mil-sim nowadays like it is a defined category of game. The reality is that most realistic war games are closer to tactical FPSs. The mil-sim is something more than just that. It is a sandbox open world where a multitude of military vehicles, small arms, and disciplines can be played, tested, driven, and destroyed.

I was going to talk about Arma2. My review of it didn't quite finalise what I had to say. However, Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising has now hit and I've decided to combine my opinion on this new game with what I have to say about Arma2.

The reception Dragon Rising has received seems to be pretty negative from the perspective of the community yet rather positive on the reviews front. This is because no matter how hardcore a games reviewer is, writing for a well known website or magazine, they are not in the same obsessive league as those true mil-sim aficionados who will spend hours arguing on youtube over whether or not the Chinese fire green tracers or not.

Dragon Rising is all about accessibility. Arma2 is more a toolkit for smart people. Dragon Rising aims to bring the mil-sim (or in other words the original Flashpoint template) to the masses. In my opinion, this has been achieved. Console players seem to like the game. It is easy to learn but not so easy to master. Arma2, on the other hand, is hard to learn and hard to master. It is just hard. I love Arma2 though. But I also love Codemaster's new take on the mil-sim.

Sadly, most of my gaming buddies don't do sneaking around in the bushes with night vision goggles on. They're too busy grinding in caves or surviving onslaughts of the undead. I did manage to get one pal onboard for my tour of DR though. Using neat virtual LAN software to get over the problems with the game's influxed master server, we hit some co-op. We aren't yet close to completion but I've seen enough to know that DR is a quality game.

DR is alot like the original Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon before Red Storm Entertainment got shafted and Ubisoft borked the franchise in the GRAW series. You can't muck about. Enemies will catch you out and cleverly flank you. The key is in applying realistic doctrines to your assaults and behaviours in game. This is why I like DR: because using real world tactics actually achieves outcomes. Even Arma2 sometimes fails to achieve authenticity when it comes to stuff like this. Enemies won't be pinned down by suppression for example whereas in DR they will be suppressed if you sustain enough covering fire on a position. They also run away and even play dead. Gunfights are dirty affairs but when things go to plan it feels oh so great.

It all reminds me of Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway. This was a vastly underrated game that adopted the same system as DR. This is squad based combat and it is homed for that. Co-op for up to four players is what DR is all about although the A.I is workable.

Arma2 is a different sort of experience to this because Arma2 is realistic in ways no other game attempts to realise. If DR is hollywood realism then Arma2 is just realism. Hardcore mil-simmers want full realism. Most gamers want a mixture. Me, it depends on my mood and that's why I have both games on PC.

The editor that ships with DR for PC is simply incredible. It's probably more sophisticated than Arma2's one and is certainly much easier to learn. However, CM made a pretty big mistake with regards to hosting your mission files. In order to play them with people, you must manually send them the files first. Not a big issue but I personally loved showing random players in Arma2 my crazy attempts at a mission.

There is also a 64 object limit for the editor in DR. Clever people will overcome this (CM are sure of it) but it requires proper scripting knowledge in the LUA language. This means that DR's accessibility doesn't quite put a lid on the complex ambitions of mission makers out there.

There is no denying that Arma2 is the real Operation Flashpoint sequel. It is also a far more ambitious game. However, DR is still a good game though. It isn't as good as Hell's Highway (and if that game had co-op I'd be in heaven) and it really feels like a console game but it's sound, tactical stuff. It also achieves a greater sense of immersion than Arma2. This does fall short with classic console coding limitations though, such as enemy bodies vanishing after 30 seconds.

In summary then. What I'm saying here is that it isn't that Arma2 is a mil-sim. It's that Arma2, and other Bohemia titles, are the only mil-sims. Dragon Rising is a tactical FPS and a rather good one. Ultimately then, there is no clash going on here. Personally, after all is said and done, I'm left wondering what could have been if Codemasters and Bohemia had never parted company. As a fan of the original Flashpoint from 2001, I still feel that the polish of Codemasters as publisher combined with the genius of Bohemia as developer is what both these games ultimately lack in order to be classed as truly great games.

by The Critical Alien
2009

Batman: Arkham Asylum

2009-09-21T15:40:00.004+01:00

I don't care much for caped crusaders. Never been one for the comic books. It just hasn't ever resonated with me. Because of this, I've never really been interested in computer games based on comic book characters. However, Arkham Asylum has proved the one comic book game that stands above the usual suspects. Here we have a genuinely great game and one that actually makes the uninitiated rather interested in the man dressed as a bat.

Simply put, this game is a master class is level design and pacing. It is vanilla gaming. Gaming 101. I couldn't put the damn thing down. Like a great movie, it ends too quickly and you want more. Challenge mode keeps you going though once the single player is dealt with. It's fun for a while and gives you quick access to punch ups and stealth stages. You can also freely roam the map once you've done the game and hunt for all the riddles and trophies you may have missed.

I'm not one to go around trying to find all the lost gems in games and even with Arkham Asylum I don't really plan on bothering to get that 100% completion achievement. That is just me though. The game is just a masterful romp around a well designed island. The fun of the fighting system is probably unsurpassed. I've not seen a better scrolling beat-em-up since Streets of Rage 2. There is also a really nice sense of cinematic quality to the set pieces and the gadgets are well implemented as they all must be used during certain points.

Solid as a rock game by Rocksteady. You don't see this sort of old school stuff that much nowadays. It's a fresh title and one that really came from nowhere for gamers like me not that interested in the source material. A quick review I know, but there is little else to say. If you are reading this and own either a PS3 or 360, or have a decent gaming PC, just go and get this one. Anyway, back to the batcave.

by The Critical Alien

Sequels, sequels, and more sequels

2009-09-21T15:14:00.016+01:00

I've not updated the blog in a few weeks, largely because all I seem to play nowadays is Left 4 Dead and occasionally Arma 2. However, quite a few titles are around the corner. For those that might be interested, here are the games I intend to play and review over the next coming months:

Batman: Arkham Asylum (review now here)
Halo: ODST (maybe) (Update: Actually, I cba)
Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising (Here)
Borderlands (co-op fest)
MW2 (clearly) (Update: Bad news)
Left 4 Dead 2 (Those swines)
Natural Selection 2 (If it ever makes an '09 release date) (Update: Which it won't)
Uncharted 2 (I smell a classic)

And if that's not enough, I'll also be revisiting Arma2 at some point because certain things just need to be said. So stick around and I'll be in touch.

by The Critical Alien
2009

Left 4 Dead: Pros in action

2009-08-10T14:25:00.007+01:00

Left 4 Dead is, in a word, awesome. Nothing seems to beat the co-op mode when you're with a good team and taking on an equally good team in the versus mode. This vid shows me playing alongside some gaming buddies. This is how the pros do it. Take note.

by The Critical Alien
2009

Bloody 'Armazing'

2009-07-26T21:59:00.015+01:00

It's so easy to knock a game like Arma2. It is a behemoth of a game; aiming at meeting the expectations of a community of gamers so hard to please that even real militaries sometimes fail to convince them things are done a certain way (America's Army 3 for example). Arma2 is the spiritual successor of Operation Flashpoint and is, in many ways, just like that 2001 title.

The interface is essentially the same, only far more sophisticated. You get more options. You get more units. You get improved A.I and you get one stunning new graphics engine. For me, the fact I got a brand new map to play with and make my own missions on was enough. I guess the one things that really is new here is that map in all its graphical glory. Stunning. There is no game to compare this 225km2 landscape to. It feels real and lush and takes us noticably a step further into a virtual subspace. Oblivion was the first to really do this in 2005. Now we have Arma2.

I could go on and on here about why Arma2 is easily the greatest FPS/Military Sim ever made. It is an acquired taste though. Many will only take note of the bugs and sure, it has them in abundance. Many will also just dislike the intense realism and the fact that you just cannot play this game rambo style. Arma2 is a tactical affair and one that simply acts as a gaming platform at its core. The fanbase will mold this puppy like they did with the original Flashpoint and first Arma game. Mods will eventually come out that will improve on aspects that are arguable lacking. Already, a stunning sound mod has been ported over from the original Arma community and works great with Arma2.

Any PC gamer with a good enough rig needs to at least check out the demo of this game if only to see the graphics. But be warned: this game is a demanding one and even mid range PCs will struggle. I recently bought what can only be described as an ub3r gaming rig and even I struggle. To be honest, this is largely down to current issues the game has with Nvidia's flagship GTX295 card and Bohemia have promised us patches that will fix these problems.

The gem with Arma2 isn't the campaign. I haven't really even touched on it. Nor is the gem here the adversarial mp. If you want that, play Call of Duty 4. The gem is co-op. This is plain and simple. Co-op in Arma2 is co-op squared. No game compares. Any console game looks old and weak in comparison and even most PC-based co-op games fall short of what Arma2 offers: the ability to make and host your own co-op missions/scenarios and play them effortlessly online with as many mates as your bandwidth can handle (about 3-10 I'd say). The YouTube video posted above is my very own and based on a mission I am currently working on. (see here)

The sad thing here is that most PC gamers really just have a lot of hardware catching up to do to join this co-op fest. If something like this ever made it onto Xbox Live... game over competition. There are rumours that Arma2 is, in fact, being ported to the 360 and I am very excited at the prospect. Let's hope they manage to transfer this "create and host" dynamic onto a console. Without it, the game wouldn't be the same.

In terms of platforms, Steam is the way to go with Arma2. Although it doesn't support cloud-based features or server lists and steam friends invites, it does automatically update itself (which is worth the extra few bucks alone) and supports the Steam in-game interface. This allows for you to talk to friends whilst in-game and simply makes arranging games a more hassle free affair. However, I will admit to being slightly disappointed at the lack of 'full' integration. It really is no big deal though as the netcode is stable and hosting private games is a piece of cake.

I am simply in gaming nirvana when I have the tools of Arma2's inventory at my disposal. I have made a bunch of missions and keep learning more and more aspects of the powerful mission editor. I have hosted them and played with mates and it feels like gaming has finally enabled a level of freedom never before seen. I can make my own scenarios and play them with friends. From this point on, anything else for me is going to seem dated and seriously limited in comparison to this.

There are issues with Arma2 though. The flora/grass is great but doesn't exist after about 20 feet. Ground is bare and featureless besides trees and bushes beyond this point. This means that no-one can truly hide in the grass as they will be seen by people at a distance! Bohemia fixed this in the original Arma with a patch that simply created less detailed grass at a distance and basically need to do the same here. There are also just general bugs with everything from a certain weapon's firing animation to the fact players tend to get kicked from mp games when the host switches a mission. There is one word for this though and that word is patches.

Fixes will come and Arma2 will improve. Mods will hit and Arma2 will find new fans. Arma2 is a platform and I cannot stress that enough. No developers out there are doing what Bohemia have done here. They have released a toolkit for the wargamer. Everything from first aid modules to hand signals can be enabled or disabled in the editor and for the single player side of it there is even a random mission generator that allows you to define the type of battle. If you know what you're doing, you can even then save these missions and put them in the appropriate folder of your Arma2 dir and host them online! True gaming freedom.

If everyone who is remotely into war games had the kind of PC you need to fully embrace Arma2 then I think we'd be seeing far more hype about this game. The reality is though that this game is just too revolutionary for most gamers to take on board. Firstly, you need a really high end PC to get the most from the visuals. You also need to know what you're doing and be prepared to 'fiddle' and experiment with tweaks in order to get those extra frames per second. Perhaps most importantly though, you need to be a patient and mature gamer. Not a gamer who is only after the quick fix sensations of the linear 'CoD' genre. This game spoonfeeds you nothing. You have to go out and find those gaming moments. The thing is, once you encounter them they are real and unscripted. Nothing else comes close.

by The Critical Alien
© 2009

Arma2 on Steam: PC gaming is back on track

2009-06-08T11:31:00.005+01:00

I'm going to be quick to admit that, for the most part of last year, I was brainwashed by console propaganda. Me, a veteran PC gamer, spending all my gaming time and budget on Xbox 360 titles and eventually even a PS3! I'm suddenly now at a point of total 360 reversal though. Console gaming has its place, sure, but PC gaming looks oh so promising once again.

I sort of gave up on PC gaming by about mid 2007. Essentially, the realisation that Call of Duty 4 was best played on an Xbox 360 and Live got me thinking and negating any potential long overdue system upgrade. I was also just fed up with the hassle of the installation process. Why doesn't it just work like with a console, I'd say to myself. I got infuriated by driver conflicts and low frame rates. I just wanted straight forward, hassle free, gaming on my HDTV.

Of course, I was right to think this way for a while. PC gaming was, for all intents and purposes, dead during a black period of about late 2007 to... now. Two things have suddenly changed this. One is Steam. The other is Bohemia Interactive's Arma2.

Steam

When Steam first launched in 2003, I hated it. So did everyone. Even your mother hated Steam. Steam was Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Steam, worse even than that, was Jar Jar Binks when it came to gamers. No-one wanted anything to do with it. It was the enemy of IRC, CS 1.6, and celeron processors. However, Valve knew what they were doing. Steam improved and it's now essentially Xbox Live on a PC... only better and free.

Because of Steam, I've hit up a few games and love them because of the ease of being able to download them and play them with friends. Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor are Steam-centric games and no-one can imagine playing them the old way.

Arma 2

Arma2 is BIS' latest title; a hardcore mil-sim and by most accounts the greatest. I'm an Operation Flashpoint vet but never played the original Arma due to my lack of upgrade in 2007. However, Arma2 is the reason why I've upgraded to a very high end rig and 24" monitor! It is the reason why I'm unlikely to log into Live or PSN for months. From what I have read and seen, this game will be astonishing.

When you combine the literally unlimitied potential of Arma2 with the fact it is going to be released on Steam this month I think it becomes clear that a very special moment awaits for those gamers that are into the FPS / mil-sim genre. This will be an easily accessible large scale co-operative game of scope and purpose. Sure, it will have bugs (that will get patched) but in the words of Eurogamer, this is clearly one of the most ambitious games ever made.

If I had to select one game to play for the rest of my life I would still, to this day, say Operation Flashpoint. However, this may soon be set to change to Arma2. Everything is in place here: gorgeous graphics, realism, a mass of customisable weapons and vehicles, a new and powerful mission editor, the huge 225km map, and countless online modes. I have no doubt that the mod community will also truly flourish. There are already impressive vids out there of projects that will no doubt add to Arma2's greatness.

There is also the potential of the organic campaign. I've read things about this that have simply flawed my expectations. Firstly, it is four player co-op. Secondly, it is persistent and not based on any standard mission structure. Things change on the fly, intel comes in, and you decide who to trust and what to do and what not to do. Like a real recon team, you're forced to act on information as it comes in. The potential here for arguments and squad in-fighting regarding what direction to take is enough alone to put a smile on my face.

Another important thing to note about Arma2 is its landscape. This game looks like it has an exploration factor comparable to Oblivion. The scenary, the animals, the plantlife, all stunning. The civilians, the weather, the night and day cycle, all incredible. This game is one to check out. Roll on the 19th! It is due out on Steam on the 30th but here's to hoping that they move that forward soon to match the retail release.

by The Critical Alien
2009

A journey with the PS3: I came, I saw, and then I went "Meh"

2009-04-16T18:22:00.020+01:00

I've spent the past few weeks in a daze of sorts. DMT? No, I wish. Alcohol? Sure, but that's only partly to blame. No, my real drug of choice has been Sony's Playstation 3.

I've sampled this piece of kit in every manner possible and come to some interesting conclusions. This is a tale of my time with the PS3, split into sections detailing each specific area.

The interface

Crucial to the console experience, the initial interface or hub is as vital as anything. Coming from the Xbox 360, I was at first a little at odds with the lack of eye candy. I then realised that this was actually a rather cheeky little interface; enabling you to customise most elements. Needless to say, I stuck a nice pic of a lady up for my background and was pleased to see it fully on display (unlike with the NXE and its random black blobs of blockage).

DVD playback

The PS3 is the DVD playback king, no doubt. The upscaling is incredibly good. End of discussion. Oh yeah, and blu-ray is good too.

Killzone 2

It seems as if this game is, by itself, a part of the PS3 so integral that it almost seems embedded in the console. I was very won over by the hype before this game came out and I will admit that it was a major factor in my mind when it came to deciding whether to buy or walk on by.

For me, FPS titles are where it is at gaming wise. KZ2 is a mighty title. It is graphically incredible. It is technically impeccable. It has very good online multiplayer. However, here comes the inevitable. It is essentially just another linear FPS. It gets old quite quickly. It suffers from all the old FPS faults and it isn't as good as CoD4 online. Nuff said.

Playstation Network

Now here is where my proper analysis kicks in. We all know that the PSN can barely touch Xbox Live when it comes to ease of communication. However, what amazes me about PSN is simply how reliable it is most of the time when compared to Live. This is largely due to dedicated servers being the norm in most games.

For a game like KZ2, dedicated servers aren't around and yet the lag seldom sets in. It is generally a flawless affair. However, with games like Little Big Planet (see below) lag creeps in like a wasp through your car door on a hot summers day.

"Be gone, lag! Hello?"

The above line about sums up ones inner thoughts and linguistic behaviours during a session of LBP - the game I "wanted" to love. You see, the PSN succeeds only with a few games whilst in others you simply begin to miss Live. I hate admitting it but I have grown accustomed to Live over the years and can't seem to tolerate the choir of trying to arrange a session with mates without the Live tools at my disposal. Even before NXE's fantastic party mode feature, for years Live allowed gamer to send messages, arrange private chat, and quickly send invites. Sony take note.

The PSN is a form of stripped down, bare essentials, online experience in comparison. Like an old Soviet T-34, the thing works but just lacks the polished, feature-ladden sparkle of Uncle Sam's M1a1 Abrams (and yes I do know that this is likely the worst cross tank / online system comparison ever considered by a gamophile on the internet).

In all fairness though, a brilliant new feature has just recently come out with a firmware update. Now you can create private text-based chat channels and use them to communicate with friends when in games. Not quite a party mode but it's close and actually something Live doesn't have.

Little Big Planet

Made just up the road from me, LBP is a unique gaming experience akin to taking five dried grams of psilocybin magic mushrooms. The only difference is that with psilocybin you get to see self replicating machine elves, whereas with LBP it's all about sack people.

LBP represents a lesson for me. This is a lesson I should have learnt a long, long time ago. That lesson is this: don't go telling people to get a game unless you know for sure it's worth the cash. I waxed lyrical about this thing for weeks. The problem was I hadn't played it much online with other people. When you do, things fall apart due to lag.

I've tried playing this with two or three friends and the lag kills all fun. With one other, it is just about playable but even then gets sluggish and hangs during load times. Lag, or netcode, utterly ruins this game online and the whole point of this game is the online component.

PS3 Home

Ah, now the fun bit of my little tale. Home is a kind of Second Life-like, Active Worlds wannabe but without the ability to make your own world and show your mates. Instead, you get an apartment that no-one ever sees because no-one cba to look at how imaginative you are when it comes to arranging generic furniture around a template room.

Home is essentially a 3d realm of Sony hegemonic adware. You get to look at posters for PS3 exclusive games. You get to watch videos of people talking about the PS3. It is all very stomach churning. Home is also unoficially a 3d flirting space where males attempt to chat up females who are, in reality, males looking for lulz.

For a week or two it was fun but I soon got bored of telling people great anecdotes about all manner of things only for them to say "I have no keyboard".

It was all looking bleak for Home until...

Xi

Xi, which literally means something, is a sub Crystal Maze ARG, or Alternate Reality Game. Basically, Sony made a sort of persistent MMO challenge, split into missions and clues. You start in a lobby environment and eventually enter the "games" area. This was the state of play the last time I logged in. It gets updated constantly. However, I'm no longer interested.

In reality, Xi is an exercise in Googling. You need the answer to the first mission? Cba to actually work out the puzzle for yourself? Google the code! Google the next code! Google the answer to everything until you actually have to start doing something with your controller.

The first real mini challenge is a fun series of timed arcade games. You then get to have a go with the six axis tree dodging. Finally, you get to experience a text-based rpg old school style. I was just about still interested up until this point but then suddenly a new mission struck. Now, you're expected to do all those mini games again... only on an expert setting. Read strict time limits and other annoyances. I gave up with it. Where is the incentive? Nah, it's not worth the button pounding.

Browser

If I'm honest, the main reason I got a PS3 was for the internet browser, which I heard was very good. I was pleased to discover it's true greatness. 90% of my PS3 time now consists of just resting in bed watching Youtube, iplayer, Dailymotion, etc. The way you can make videos full screen and view them on your HDTV is just total goodness.

Life with Playstation (formerly Folding@home)

Wtf is this? No, seriously. I still don't know. It seems to be a series of mathematical downloads akin to Seti packets of data for CPUs to churn over. Whilst the cell works, you get to look at a globe and read news stories. Downright random. I wasn't won over. I wasn't even approached by anything from what I can tell.

Conclusion

The PS3 is a highly sophisticated device capable of all sorts of things. Little touches like upscaling and wireless connectivity out of the box impressed me. I actually like the interface too. It's simple and mature, unlike the NXE; a horrendously misjudged mish mash of childish theme and adult content.

Although I like the PS3 for being an all singing console, the sad truth is that I know the 360 will still woo me back to it everytime with its promises of easy mic-based communication, invites, fast and instant downloads, and a vaster library of games. All I know is that last night I was on CoD4 on Live and it felt oh so good.

Here's the deal with the PS3. It's not a games console. It really isn't. It's a sort of blu-ray/dvd player with an internet browser and a decent set of codecs for file playback. This thing is basically a big bad black son of a... media player.

by The Critical Alien
© 2009

A new direction... sort of

2009-03-18T18:06:00.005Z

I've been thinking about it and have decided that reviews just don't work for blogs. People may disagree but it just seems out of place somehow. I've also concluded that reviews in general are almost a dated concept in this ever-evolving new era of the personal computer.

From now on, I won't be continuing with the review template; that is, I won't give a game a score out of ten. I want to share my thoughts about games I play, sure, but no longer see the point in giving them the review treatment. If a game is pants, I'll just say it.

I no longer believe that scores hold any real meaning, particularly when it comes to computer games. What a gamer thinks one day about a title changes a week later. There are so many things to take into consideration: longetivity, playability, the potential for patches and updates. The list is endless.

I prefer the idea of offering my own take on games without trying to forge a review on top of that. So, farewell to ye olde rating system.

by The Critical Alien
2009

Demo reactions

2009-02-10T17:51:00.004Z

Precisely what it says on the tin; my reaction to some of the latest demos to hit Xbox Live and the Playstation Network.

Resident Evil 5:

I'm not a big Resy gamer. Not since 2 have I cared, and to be honest I didn't care that much even then. I wasn't that blown away by anything I saw with this demo. I'm not feeling the controls (who is?) and wasn't impressed at all by the death animations of the zombies. The levels in the demo felt linear and horribly tight. There doesn't seem to be much exploration factor and although I never really got my teeth into Left for Dead, I doubt this game will be able to compete in the zombie stakes. Co-op might prove fun but I see no great game to behold here.

Halo Wars:

Oh my. Is it just me? Wars is a sickeningly generic RTS affair. There is nothing going on here. I, for one, can never go back to the old school RTS template after playing games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes. This demo just felt dated and stamped with a big sticker marked 'Halo merchandise'. Fun? Maybe for a short while but this really is just a hideously average looking RTS game and nothing else.

Killzone 2:

Firstly for the record, I now have a PS3! Go me. I am going to post something separate soon detailing my experience of the console switch and my take on Sony's side of the gaming pie. Now, KZ2. I went into this demo open minded but with the knowledge that I had been spoiled by years of PC and 360 FPS games. Everyone keeps affirming that the PS3 doesn't do FPS titles. It just doesn't. Well, it now does. I was very impressed by this one. This is an adult FPS game and aims to please the veterans out there. The A.I is smart, the graphics obscenely good, and the general production values are clearly way, way up there.

There seems to be a big fuss right now about this demo's suposede 'trigger lag' and sluggish movement. This is what happens when an entire generation of FPS gamers start their epic journey with titles like CoD4. They grow up thinking it's the norm to be able to pull off a twitch 360' jump head shot from 50 metres, bless them. KZ2 is a different kind of FPS. This is a nice hybrid mix of Vegas and Halo. From my experience with the demo I am certain I am going to love the full game. The multiplayer may very well be the next big thing too.

F.E.A.R 2:

Oh dear. Remember the first time you watched Robocop 2? No? I do. It was a weird experience. You knew that the movie's wasn't all that bad. It was just that it wasn't Robocop. Why? Different Director. F.E.A.R 2 isn't made by the same people as the original and you can tell within about thirty seconds. This is a good example of a bunch of immature games makers being allowed to run with an idea and just keep running. By the end of the demo, you've probably seen more ghosts than you saw in the entire campaign of the original. I basically don't think this will be anything like as good as the first one.

Lord of the Rings: Conquest:

Late to the party with this one I know seeing as it's already out now. All I will say is that I respect Pandemic for trying something new here with the old team deathmatch template. It plays like World of Warcraft pvp split into rounds. Ultimately though, it's just hardcore button mashing. It's also a sad example of poor balancing. You either play as the scout or... well you just play as the scout. Probably not one to buy then.

by The Critical Alien
2009

Review: Gears of War 2

2009-01-07T11:11:00.010Z

Format: Xbox 360

Category: TPS
Players: 1-10
Publisher: Microsoft

Those gears of war

It look me a while to get round to reviewing Gears of War 2. I wanted to assess it after a long playtest. My initial reactions were positive but I wanted to delve deeper. I wanted to know, for sure, that this was as good of a game as I thought during those first few days. Time will tell I said, and it did.

There is no denying that the original Gears was a great game. It set a level that many titles still fail to come close to. Even two years on, this is still stunning to play. About the most important and integral feature of Gears was its pioneering cover system. Replicated many times but arguably never bettered, this turned what would otherwise have been a brilliant third person shooter into a stellar game worthy of an Xbox 360 purchase.

Gears 2 was seriously hyped prior to launch but the hysteria never reached that ridiculous fever pitch we witnessed in 2007 with Halo 3. It is obvious that due to Gears 2's mature content the marketing was carefully targeted and word of mouth relied upon. In other words, any half serious gamer knew about Gears 2 and had made it a 2008 aim to pre-order.

The truth is that there is nothing overwhelmingly new about Gears 2. It plays just like the original and the visuals are arguably hardly much different. I say arguably because I've been told to go back to the original now after playing the sequel because apparently you quickly realise quite how dated the original suddenly looks compared to the new game. I'm cynical but will confess I haven't tried it.

The cover system mechanic is the same as before but simply didn't require any alterations. The single player is about as dramatic as the original and two player co-op is still a possibility. I have to admit that I just wasn't that bothered about the single player though. This isn't a fault of the game itself. It's just that it has gotten to the point now for me where I crave multiplayer and large scale co-op. I was just too busy on Horde mode.

Simply put, Horde mode is where it's at. Easily the best feature of Gears 2, this is a five player co-operative mode where you are expected to simply hold your ground and survive against increasingly tougher hordes of the locust enemy. It's basically GRAW 2's defend mode... done well. For about three weeks no-one on my Xbox Live contact list could put it down. We lived Horde mode for days on end. I even dreamt of Horde mode. Horde mode... mmmm.

I'm pretty convinced I know precisely why Horde mode works so well. It's because it genuinely requires co-operative team work to get through. Without working together you will get stomped on, hard. By about level 25 it's intense to the point of cardiac arrest danger territory. You know a game is dynamite when you're listening to four other grown men screaming wildly like schoolgirls over headsets at 3am because a Grinder just breached the defences.

When you're done taking on the swarms a very workable matchmaking-based five-on-five adversarial (Tom Clancy language) mode awaits. Now, I've always sucked at Gears when it comes to the player versus player angle. I'm not one of those Quake-style gamers who can be bothered to run half way across the map each time a round begins just in order to pick up some grenades or a sniper rifle. Therefore, I generally mid table it every time and tend to use the shotgun religiously.

For this reason, I wasn't as excited about the team deathmatch stuff as others out there. However, I will acknowledge the fact that it's clearly very good; with a vast number of settings/gametypes to fiddle with and well implemented bots to fill the numbers and practice on.

So, what about time? Has it told? Sort of. For me, Gears 2 was a love affair that actually only lasted around a month. When your Live contacts start failing to accept your invites to Horde mode and you're left playing with the 13-year-old gamers things fade. There are also several omissions here. There should have been a clan creation system, with ladders etc. There also should have been single player co-op for more than two players. Remember, we live in a post Halo 3 gaming world here. I'm also of the opinion that Horde mode now needs a fresh update. Give us the ability to go beyond level 50, create crazy objectives, and allow players to set the type and amount of enemy? Customisation ftw.

Gears 2 is awesome, clearly. I'm just reaching that point now where I can no longer get that excited by a game unless I'm playing alongside lots of pals. I think what I'm trying to say is that I'm now officially a co-op whore. Horde mode is Gears of War 2 and, in the famous words of Faithless, I want more.

Summary

+Gears greatness
+Matchmaking for Gears greatness
+Horde Mode
+The greatness of the Gears
-No clan support

9.4 / 10

It's Gears of War 2!

by The Critical Alien
© 2009

Writers

2009-01-01T10:30:00.017Z

I'd like to use this page to welcome the new writers on board. I'm no longer alone!~Alien

List of current writers:

The Critical Alien

(Pics and further info to come!)

PS3...

2008-12-27T11:20:00.003Z

Hmm. Do I buy a PS3 or don't I buy a PS3?

2009 will be Sony's year, I predict. Home looks sweet. Killzone 2 is primed. And perhaps it is now clear that Blu-Ray won the format war. So, during this time of economic upheaval, is it really a wise move for me, an Xbox 360 owner, to spend hundreds on this great black obelisk-like machine?

Discuss.

by The Critical Alien

2008

The New Xbox Experience?

2008-11-27T19:02:00.005Z

Microsoft don't do philosophy. I do. I ask the big questions. The kinds of questions that would leave even closet Satre's flummoxed. One such question is this: what exactly is the New Xbox Experience?

I've spent the last few days pondering about this one. My conclusion is based on literally two hours of intellectual toil. 'NXE' is an odd concept. Microsoft wants you to believe that their recent dashboard update for the Xbox 360 is a major step into new territory, but is it? Let's weigh it up.

Initially, there is clearly a wow factor once you've switched your 360 back on after the update's initial installation. The new design for the dashboard is neat and modern. It really goes to show how, even in the space of just three years, the design of software can move from cutting edge to obsolete. The old dashboard design had clearly done the rounds and needed to go. However, I'm not so convinced it was replaced. In reality, the NXE is a paintjob.

The major new feature is the Avatar. You create a Wii-like alter ego. Clothing and shaping your avatar is a laugh for about five minutes. I spent a good deal of time perfecting mine because I imagined some great 3D lobby beckoned. However, no such 3D massively multiplayer platform exists. The avatars are ultimately the biggest waste of effort I think there has been since Sega launched the 32x.

What is the point of an avatar when there is literally no environment available where you can take them? The answer is there is no point. None at all. The 'friends' blade (are they still called blades??) is random. It's interesting to see how your friends have designed their avatars but this blade is the only section of the dashboard where you can view them. Because of this, they don't seem integral to your Xbox experience. They feel gimmicky and less central than even the old gamerpic you can select for your profile.

About the only thing to praise about the NXE is the new party feature. Finally, you can have up to 8 friends form up in a private party via the dashboard and either migrate into games together or do as you will separately whilst still being able to speak in the party's private chat. Essentially, this new feature equates to the end of trash talking... if you want it to that is. No longer do you need to be in public channels to be able to speak to more than one friend at a time. Expect a good deal more silence when playing games solo from now on.

For me, the NXE needed a really solid 3D world where you and your buddies could chill out independant of any game. The party mode should exist within a 3D private lobby - akin to something like Habbo Hotel's room creation. Omg. I actually just mentioned Habbo Hotel. Kill me now.

I'm sure Microsoft are due to spam us with mini games featuring 'avatar support'. However, we will no doubt have to pay for them. As far as I can see, the NXE will be based in a sadly 2D world. This reality check got me thinking about Sony's Playstation Home. I'm interested to see how Home shapes up once it finally comes out and will certainly be tempted to give it a go if it turns out to be as good as the hype suggests. Like I said in a previous post a while back, I predict Home may well represent the great console shift to the PS3 unless the NXE actually competes with something more than a gimmicky Avatar system thrown into the fray.

In conclusion, my personal take on the NXE is that it's a very convuluted dashboard paintjob. Party mode is fantastic and I cannot stress how happy I am to see this. The problem though isn't with the party mode. It's with the rest of the NXE. There is nothing to behold besides a slightly fancier marketplace front screen and some nice new camera effects if you keep your Vision Camera plugged in when on the dash. The NXE doesn't really seem like much of an experience to me, or particulary new for that matter. Hmm.

by The Critical Alien
© 2008

Rant Review: Call of Duty: World at War / Call of Duty 4 (???)

2008-11-18T21:29:00.011Z

Format: Xbox 360 / PS3 / PC

Category: FPS
Players: 1-18
Publisher: Activision

What the CoD?

Time for a new feature: the quick capsule review, aka a rant review. Inspired by an obscure Hicksean joke, I have decided to 'quick capsule' those games I just cba to actually properly critique. This may be for various reasons but you can rest assured that it will always be for a reason, and not just due to laziness on my part.

So, CoD: WaW. It was inevitable this game would hit and hit it did. I wasn't even going to bother picking it up but swapping Far Cry 2 for a part exchange in a well known games store ensured the coinage came calling. To say I was sad to part with Far Cry 2 would, simply, be a lie.

I didn't expect much from "CoD5". Treyarch's games catalogue reads like a token example of a list of games that should be put on a bus for a one way trip to the desert. However, I wanted to give this one an open mind. People had told me that it was surprisingly good. Infact, many have even dubbed it 'the greatest' WW2 game ever made. Let's break that down.

I guess people are impressed by the dramatic set pieces that... wait. No. Let's roll back a year or two. So there was this games developer called Infinity Ward and they created a few great WW2 FPS games off the back of their expertise having worked on the original Medal of Honor titles. By 2006, they got working on their magnum opus, Call of Duty 4. They made it from scratch and set a gold standard in the process. Call of Duty 4 was, and still is, that standard for FPS games on both the PC and consoles.

A few months pass. And here we have CoD: WaW. Quick Capsule review time: this game is merely the sum of Treyarch taking IW's CoD4 formula and just dumping a few new ideas into the mix. This is literally akin to someone taking a core code for a game, customising the options screen, adding a new score over the top, and altering the maps/player models and then announcing it's the latest big thing.

I'll admit that, at first, this game actually really surprised me. At one point I fell for the line that Treyarch had actually pulled it off. I then realised that this was far from the reality of WaW. The reality here is that people are paying for a CoD4 clone. There is nothing new here. Co-op is decent enough. However, I'm not convinced it was particularly hard to implement. My real gripe is with the adversarial multiplayer. Compared to CoD4, it's just not that good. I can't put my finger on it. It's a sense of there being a lack of that magic touch to the map design we saw in CoD4. It's in the way weaponry lacks that cool and solid feel you get in CoD4. It's in the lack of red tiger camo. WaW just isn't as inspired.

It's also in the small things. The voices of the enemies and buddies alike. What they say. How they say it. The voiceover you get for the start of a multiplayer match. All of these elements are superior in CoD4 because they just are. I also prefer the helicopter for a 7 kill streak over a pack of dogs anyday.

Guns, generally, are a massive failing point for WaW. Nothing is particularly exciting to use. For God's sake, to pit CoD4's arsenal of cutting-edge military shooters against the back catalogue of your Daddy's WW2 era firearms is only ever going to result in one winner when it comes to gamer satisfaction stakes. Treyarch needed to breathe life into these rusty guns in order to keep them exciting to use. We needed a little bit of artistic licence here. The M1 Garand, for example, needed a far more weightier, bass-heavy, blast of a sound effect. I don't care if your sound engineers didn't conclude that would be authentic. Also, camo patterns should have made it in in order to insert something into this dull set of boom sticks. There are also way too many bolt action rifles.

All WaW is is the product of an inferior studio trying to copy a superior one by literally pasting an entire body of code into their new game and tweaking/screwing with it in p-laces. About the only welcome new feature I could find was the filter for matchmaking that allows you to search for local gamers only (about time this became a standard over live). WaW does a few things well, such as the co-op and decent new gore system. The new zombie mode is also a neat bonus. However, I refuse to accept this game does anything better than, say, CoD2 when it comes to dramatic set pieces and linear level design. For me, it's also just a damn frustration that this WW2 title has taken all the limelight and left Hell's Highway in a cold and lonely shadow. Highway is the superior WW2 shooter even after its lack of co-op and poor multiplayer is taken into consideration. This is because it tried to do something different and ambitiously placed a heavy emphasis on realism.

CoD4 is all about the fun factor both on and offline. That is why red tiger camo is acceptable. That is why you can take on near enough one hundred baddies as a solo sniper guarding a man with a busted up leg. CoD: WaW tries too hard to be a 'horrors of war' piece and trust me when I say that computer games cannot achieve this like a good movie or book can.

Here be my conclusive take on Call of Duty: World at War:

Quick Capsule:

Online: Inferior to CoD4 in every respect - including map design, weapon selection, gametypes.

Single Player: Just another linear CoD romp. Co-op is fun but nothing ground breakingly good - particularly after experiencing Gears of War 2's Horde Mode (review to come soon).

Because of everything I have stated above, I refuse to actually score WaW. This is because I fear giving it a mark out of ten will negate my primary message here; being that CoD4 is the game and WaW is some pretender trying to make out it's the game. However, seeing as I never actually reviewed CoD4 back in 2007 I will use this moment to rate that glorious title instead.

Summary (Call of Duty 4)

+Linear gaming at its finest
+The paragon of pure FPS games
+Intense, dramatic, heart racing action
+Simply put, the greatest FPS multiplayer experience since CS
-Co-op... if only

9.6 / 10

The pinnacle of a crowded genre both on and offline

by The Critical Alien
© 2008

Review: Far Cry 2

2008-10-30T18:58:00.010Z

Format: Xbox 360 / PS3 / PC

Category: FPS
Players: 1-16
Publisher: Ubisoft

Roaming the Bush.

Now here's a game that looks at first to have it all. A grand arsenal of guns? Check. A vast and varied map? Check. Smart A.I? Check. However, let's look a little closer. Cover system? No. Satisfying gunplay? Nope. An actual sense of being lost in the wilderness? Never.

You see, Far Cry 2 is not what it at first seems. I was excited to begin with. Everything was in place. The graphics are certainly a cut above most FPS games and the clean and clear HUD made me smile. It basically looks like real life. The problem is once the bullets start flying this game falls apart. It just doesn't feel right. I can't explain it but I know many out there will just know what I mean. Shooting an enemy just isn't satisfying. Firing your weapon is a generic experience and there is just a total lack of intensity about the combat.

You do a lot of driving in Far Cry 2... until you discover the bus stops. Even after being teleported via a black loading screen to the bus' destination there is still a good deal of marching to be done. I say marching because jogging/running in this game is broken. Like the gunplay, it feels wrong. I guess the PC gamers out there (all remaining five of them) might have no issue with this whilst playing WASD style. Sadly, us console gamers do. Pressing down on the analog stick COD4 style to run is how it should be. However, not being able to easily change direction mid run is awkward. Also, a problem for all formats, comes the blemish that is the way that running means your vision will become blurred around the edges of the screen. This pointless effect seems designed with some aim of achieving realism in mind. However, this actually simulates nothing and just proves irritating and even enough to spark motion sickness with some.

There is no denying that there is a real exploration factor here. After the initial thirty or so minutes of missions that are indirectly designed to teach you the controls, you are free to do as you will. I took a vehicle, hit the road, and headed out into the wild. To begin with there was an amazing sense about this. The hot African sun bombards your windscreen as you negotiate thick foliage and ramshackle dirt tracks. The driving side of things is very well handled. You get a first person view of the inside of the vehicle and are free to look around whilst driving. You can also study your map, which you hold in your arms, and still move around. This simulated view is a far more immersive way of putting you in the driver's seat than something like GTA IV's bog standard external views and bizarre windscreen-mounted-cam view.

Your journey will eventually come to a firm halt whether on foot or off roading though. Regardless of what way you go, you'll encounter impenetrable rock faces that oddly seem to run parallel to the roads as if nature mapped those very paths. In other words, the map is sectioned up. It doesn't feel realistic. I wanted to just head into the bush with a pistol and a machete and just get lost in a wilderness. It just doesn't work that way. Head in a direction for long enough and you'll hit a mountain side. There is no way to climb rocks or devise elaborate methods of crossing over. The game just doesn't really give you that sense of battling against the elements and pulling through.

Far Cry 2 needed more in the way of an emphasis on survival. There should have been the option to buy a tent and deploy it whenever you wanted and use that as a save point. There should have been a way of collecting various resources in order to make stuff like primitive bows. I don't know. It just seemed to me to lack everything I wanted from such an African setting.

The missions with Far Cry 2 are your standard go and blow up some crates tasking objectives. To be honest, I didn't bother with many. Instead, I roamed the map and created my own story. I often 'pretend' things when playing these kinds of games. In my world, I was a lone sniper out to cause as much chaos as possible whilst remaining out of site. I moved from enemy checkpoint to enemy checkpoint and engaged with an old Springfield bolt action sniper rifle from a distance. After playing in this manner for several hours I had basically unlocked almost every location marked on the map.

It was certainly fun. However, it was rather a pointless tour of duty. Sniping is completely effortless, with no scope drift or bullet drop, and the enemy make no effort to hunt you down. I wanted to see a collective effort by them to track me. I wanted to see swarms of them rambling through the vines, coming to get me. Instead, I just saw a load of checkpoints; where enemies patrol and never budge from. Once killed, they eventually respawn, ready for it all to happen again.

Many reviews go on about the awesome fire effects in this game. Personally, I think it's pretty worrying when the best thing you can say about a game is that the fire looks cool. Sure, it spreads around a little, only to then puff out into smoulder before you've got yourself a forest fire. Nothing burns for long and no major structure is destructible. I'll admit that on one occasion I was very impressed by the way fire can be used as a distraction. I sneaked over a promontory of rock where I had an overhead view of a few bad guys patrolling a... shed. I hurled a molotov and it lit the grass alight. They all ran off screaming 'fire' whilst I sniped them one by one. It's all good but just not enough.

Far Cry 2 is let down by its gunplay. Death animations aren't impressive. The blood effects are also poor. I wanted to see pools of the red stuff under bodies and entry and exit wounds. I also just wanted to see more realistic enemy behaviors. The A.I isn't stupid but the enemies don't strike me as organised. Okay, they're a bunch of militiamen with AK-47s and not much skill. However, this is no excuse for the way they never seem to just do human stuff like call for backup, stay in cover, or just run away.

There is a possibility here that I'm missing something regarding the A.I. You see, I ended up playing this game on the easy/normal difficulty settings. This was because otherwise, I just kept getting killed by crazy enemy jeep assaults (see further below) or just found it impossible to survive with enemies charging me and the sluggish control handling making precision firing next to impossible.

Just to cover it, I may as well bring up the game's multiplayer offering. To be blunt, it sucks. It feels dated, much like Hell's Highway's recent attempt. Also, it is another game that suffers from its lack of any co-op mode. The idea of roaming this vast world with a buddy to share the experience with would have made it all worthwhile. The hyped map editor is all very well but I'm just not into map making. At first glance it just looked too complicated to me and I doubt we will see many console players embrace it. It's interesting to note that at the time of writing the most popular custom map was a user created 'Shipment' from... yes you guessed it, Call of Duty 4. To me this was yet another example of multiplayer gaming truth number one: map design makes or breaks an online game. Map editors are all very well but they need to be backed up by... good maps.

I'm going to round this up with my final few points. The whole, 'omg I have Malaria, best take my meds', feature is BS. It shouldn't have made it into the game. You have to make sure you are stocked up with pills or otherwise you'll suddenly find yourself wondering the jungles and thinking you're under the influence of eight dried grams.

It was also sad to see this game suffer from the Oblivion style 'bandit on the road' syndrome. Whenever you drive across the road you're bound to encouter enemies driving jeeps and riding shotgun with a fixed MG. In other words, you'll get shot up and f*cked up unless you, too, cruise in a vehicle boasting some form of turret. You die, you die, you die. All because some jeep smashed into you and you had no time to grab cover.

This is a game that boasts it all but the execution is just lacking. It's just not that fun or satisfying to play. Combat is overly simplified and the marvellous world you roam lacks any real sense of life besides the generic evil militiamen and the odd zebra. This title is more a showcase than it is a computer game. It's a tech demo with a hefty pricetag for admission. If you're that desperate for some African sunsets, just get saving for that real trip.

Summary

+Visually stunning
+Uniquely realistic fire
+Pretty limitless freedom
+/-(But the map is sectioned up via rocky borders)
-Combat is generic and lacking in intensity
-No real sense of getting 'lost in the woods'

7.8 / 10

With freedom comes generic content and a dated FPS experience

by The Critical Alien
© 2008

Brushing up on some Gears

2008-10-28T22:00:00.004Z

I wonder quite how many people are doing, or have been contemplating doing, what I got up to for a great deal of last weekend. With the imminent release of Gears of War 2 for the Xbox 360, I felt it wise to return to some old ground with the original Gears of War. Released in late 2006, this is still one beast of a third-person shooter.

Playing Gears again reminded me of quite how good it was. Sometimes it's too easy as a gamer to knock games and take the truly important stuff for granted. Playing through it on the Insane difficulty setting with a pal over Xbox Live co-op affirmed for me one thing above everything else; that this game still remains to be bettered. No shooter has really come close to offering the level of co-op integration that exists in Gears. Sure, Vegas 1 & 2 gave us a few laughs, and no doubt Halo 3 kept parties keen well into the night, but there is no denying that in terms of integration of co-op gameplay Gears is the daddy.

I was also reminded of the simple fact that Gears just feels solid and smooth around the edges. It's in the details such as the way a bright orange glow will pierce bullet holes upon initial impact with solid surfaces. It's in the way the cover system is just flawless. It's in the way your A.I teammates just seem to get on with it and it's in the way the active reload feature keeps even reloading your weapon entertaining.

Frankly, I just forgot about the calibre of game Gears represented. I forgot how much of a marvel it was and remains today. I'm sure vast swarms of gamers will be revisiting this title over the next few weeks in preparation for the arrival of the sequel and I bet most of them conclude much the same as I; that in actuality we've seen little in the way of greatness over these last two years.

Call of Duty 4 stands out for me as the only truly special game to have come out since Gears. Again, the key with CoD4 was its polish. The 60 fps touch. The unique perk multiplayer. The engrossing story. The developers just had that special touch that makes a great game. GTA IV just didn't quite nail it for me atleast - not enough for me to call it great anyway. Halo 3 certainly didn't. The rest were never really in the competition.

Roll on Gears 2 then.

by The Critical Alien

Review: Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway

2008-10-04T17:20:00.015+01:00

Format: Xbox 360 / PS3 / PC

Category: FPS
Players: 1-20
Publisher: Ubisoft

Got the t-shirt.

Literally. It came free with my copy of Gearbox's latest tactical WW2 FPS; a game I've been pretty pumped for since... oh at least 2006! When it came in the mail it was one of those childish moments I seldom experience nowadays. Like a geek, I 'prepared' myself before settling in for a hardcore night of war gaming. How? By watching Saving Private Ryan and eating Pringles, of course.

I can't be bothered to type Hell's Highway every time so from here on in this one's called Highway. I had a feeling Highway was going to do something special. Three years of development would surely ensure one hell of a game? You would think so, and you would be right to think so, for Highway delivers. There are a plethora of issues here though; most being minor, a few being major.

I'm going to be blunt here. Quite simply, Highway is without doubt one of the finest FPS games I've ever played. It's also one of the very best WW2 era shooters put onto a disc. As war games go, this is a high point. However, it's a flawed game and some of its rougher elements are plain embarrassing for all concerned.

Highway is all about the single player experience. Forget the multiplayer. It's optionless, laggy, played by about 35 people, and blatantly just an afterthought. There is no party mode, clan system, or any sense that it's going to be a hit. It feels like the old days of online gaming and reminds me of early builds of Day of Defeat as opposed to a Cod 4 rival. This is a shame. I wasn't expecting a great deal from the team deathmatch mode but was hoping for co-op. Highway is just one of those games crying out to be played with a friend. Why it didn't make it into final code is a question I don't think anyone has a satisying answer for. The best I've heard is something about how 'we' are just not there yet as an industry. Well, surely we are? With Cod 5's 4 player co-op on the way and countless other games managing to include some form of co-op mode in recent years there basically just isn't an excuse. It was obviously on the cards at some stage of production but just never happened. Frankly, this is just embarresment number one.

If Highway had just been a generic romp of an FPS game I'd have been utterly pissed off with the fact the multiplayer side of things is just pants. The thing is this: what Highway does well it does so well that I, for one at least, can just forgive and forget. The experience this game puts you through feels like playing the very best bits of Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan. Now I know that just sounds like a gaming cliche' nowadays, and I'll admit I've said that before about much older titles, but here I just cannot emphasise it enough. However, the bug/omission list goes on.

There are all sorts of blemishes with Highway that could/should have been ironed out before release and considering the length of time it took to make, and countless delays, it just makes no sense that they exist. One particularly striking issue comes with the way your character's mouth doesn't move when he is yelling out a command to the squad. When in the third person cover view this is very noticeable and just takes away some of the sense of it being real and cinematic. All we needed was a mouth movement animation! Also, why can't you chose your kit before each stage? I wasn't impressed by the way this game assigns weapons to you. It's odd because you never get to use some guns, such as the Grease gun, at all. It's also rather bizarre how you can't pick up German stick grenades. They don't seem to be modeled at all. This is a shame as it would have been nice to have more than one type of explosive. I also wanted to try out the bazooka and .30 caliber MG for myself. There should also have been some form of melee attack, a rifle butt atleast.

There is no animation for attaching charges to Pak 88s either. You just hear a click to acknowledge the bomb is set. I died the first time I primed a field gun because I literally just didn't realise I'd done anything and didn't run for cover. I was also unimpressed by the way death of squadmates is handled. They never die! Instead, they fall and writhe in pain only to respawn at the start of a new checkpoint. The Cod system should have been adopted here. I would liked to have seen some form of pool of reinforcements who run into the fray every time a soldier falls. A medic would have also been a decent inclusion, and a sniper team. Stuff like this would have made this an absolute masterpiece of a game as opposed to a very, very good one.

This brings me to another problem. Only in one level near the end do you get to play with a full squad at your disposal; being 3 teams of 3 guys. I wanted far more of this earlier on. However, the early stages were still stunning in every other respect and that's the thing about Highway. Its successes are solid enough to negate the f*ck ups.

What Highway does is something no other war game, besides former Brothers in Arms titles, has ever come close to: depicting combat for what it really is. Skirmishes can be long, drawn out affairs where you find yourself flushing enemies out of barns with grenades, pinning down an MG42 position with sustained covering fire, or even just getting so confused and battle weary that you lay low in the bushes and hope for a positive outcome. Blood spatters the ground where dead bodies rest in the grass and grenade explosions raze sandbag placements and create billowing craters in the earth.

Combat just feels authentic. Sometimes you'll just see red and feel a burning desire to assault all guns blazing. It never works out though. You rely on the men around you, your squad, and the skill is ultimately in leading them through it. Here are a few things you simply MUST do in order to get the full experience with this game: 1) Turn off every on screen HUD element. 2) Crank that effects vol all the way up. 3) Set the controls for 'tour of duty' - the FPS controller layout God intended. 4) When it's unlocked, you owe it to yourself to play in the 'authentic' difficulty setting.

With these pointers in mind, you'll get to experience a true simulation of WW2 era squad based combat. This is not a game that has you single handedly defeat a reinforced armoured battalion. Nor is this a game that puts you in the shoes of some godlike hero of warfare. In fact, Sgt. Baker is in some ways an anti hero. You're a dried up soldier in no mood to do much besides get through it.

The story is adequate without being particularly memorable I would suggest. My biggest gripe was the way British troops were acknowledged but in that antiquated way certain Americans just can't leave alone. I do wish Gearbox had just accepted the fact years ago that games cannot mirror television when it comes to portraying character. The cutscenes are overly sentimental and seem to be aimed at a pro-war, go America, gun demographic that doesn't really exist anymore in any great number and probably are mostly just too busy watching re-runs of BoB to play games anyway. That or they're dug in deep in Afghanistan right now.

The battle dialogue that can be heard during gameplay between squad mates could have been better too. It's good and quite varied but I just wish it had been even more varied and, well, just done by much better voice artists. There is often a lack of emotion in the comments you hear and not enough swearing. It's that simple. I really wanted to hear yells of "this son of a bitch" and "fucking flank that bastard" during intense moments of swell. Occasionally you do hear some realistic dialogue but it's just not as integral as it could have been.

The last level of Highway is a big anti climax. It's another 'to be continued' moment. I can live with that though because I want far more of this game. A factor I struggled to accept at first was the way this game tries to go all mystical on us. The initial in medias res level is a poorly handled introduction to the game as it simply fails to do anything besides throw you straight into the combat without any sense of a build up to the action. Later, we are once again forced to play through a sort of dream-like sequence in an abandoned hospital. You are split up from your squad and end up wondering through hallways whilst marvelling at the impressive visuals. The atmosphere is fantastic and certainly rivals moments from fully fledged horror games such as Fear and Bioshock. However, it just felt a little out of place. This is a realistic war game. It tries to be more than that and just shouldn't.

The eastern village moments are few and far between compared to the constantly challenging and genuinely realistic scenes where you are in the thick of it. I wasn't that amazed by the tank combat though. It felt like Medal of Honor, enter the evil nazi shooting gallery, territory. During scenes where you take on enemy tanks as infantry you also get the sense that realism goes out the window. For a game striving to be realistic there is no excuse for these old school moments where you defeat panzer tanks via satchels and rocket launchers instead of just avoiding them and calling in the P-51s.

So much that was promised simply hasn't made it into the game. For instance, enemies do not 'trip up' or help one another to safety if wounded. All of these elements simply failed to make it into final code. Also, civilians play no role whatsoever. There is also no true sense of comradeship with your men. I never once 'exchanged ammunition' for example. At its core, it's not much more than the previous Brothers game. It just takes those original premises, such as the find, fix, flank, finish game mechanic, and gives them a serious overhaul.

What Highway offers is a humble simulation of small scale skirmishes. No other game I have played comes close when it comes to just capturing that sense of real combat. Inclusions such as the action cam are simply brilliant. It slows down the action and zooms in on your well placed headshot or grenade hurl. Sometimes it can seem so real that you actually feel ill at ease with the results. The gore is grim and bloody.

Highway is a game I know I am going to play again and again. If it had co-op this would be an absolute high point in gaming. I'm not sure why it took so long to make, although I get the sense the PS3 may have been a seminal factor, but on the whole this is a brilliant game. When you're pinned down beside a log by enemy fire, hearing the whizzes of overpassing tracers and seeing the dirt hit your face, you will be about as close to war as you're ever going to get within the comfortable confines of your armchair.

Summary

+Fantastic visuals, sound, and atmosphere
+Genuinely realistic and tactical
+A WW2 game for the more mature gamer
+/-Which has no co-op mode
-What? No co op mode? Ya rly! No wai!
-Vomit inducing story

9.0 / 10

A seriously intense, realistic, and mature war game