Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Six Days Cancellation another Sign that Video Games needs to Grow UP!
Just announced, Konami has killed Six Days in Fallujah due to:
""After seeing the reaction to the videogame in the United States and hearing opinions sent through phone calls and e-mail, we decided several days ago not to sell it," a public relations official of Konami said. "We had intended to convey the reality of the battles to players so that they could feel what it was like to be there."
So taking the fact of the game aside. Which is easy because we REALLY never knew what the game was REALLY about because it was supposed to come out on or around 2010.
The bigger issue here is that the game was canceled because people had a problem with the content. When was the last time a movie or even better a book was canceled on such grounds ?
This is a sign that the video game industry is not made up of "artists" as everyone wants to believe but rather made up of sales people. Who's only concern is what sells and what won't and not offend any of it's customers.
This is certainly not directed at the protesters of this game. You folks probably have a point. But free speech is free speech and Konami did have a RIGHT to make this game. Even if they decided it wasn't in their best politically correct interest to do so.
I'm simply saying that people in the movie industry, publishing industry, or heaven forbid people who make art like sculptures or paintings; would NEVER stop making something because it was unpopular to do so. In fact, they usually relish this sort of thing.
Finally, considering no one except the developer REALLY knows what the game would have consisted of, it's possible that the game could have made an incredible statement about war and why it's a moral quagmire. Perhaps it could have realistically portrayed the lives of soldiers in the modern battlefield. Who knows it could have done justice to the memory of everyone who has lived through and died during the recent conflicts. But hey folks, better to not make the game. Because you never know...
Finally the game could still be made by a different publisher, but Konami was a big gun to have turn you down. I'm REALLY hoping this project isn't COMPLETELY dead.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
TRIAL OF THE WEEK: Colosseum! (Community Games)
This weeks trial is just that. The game went unpurchased when I tried it out. Not because I had any REAL problem with the game. But because I was only able to test about 3 minutes of ACTUAL gameplay.
The game is a very well designed action brawler. You fight a bunch of different enemies in different arena shaped areas. I can't comment on story or anything like that because the majority of the TIMED TRIAL is the tutorial.
The game has descent graphics and certainly seems to have a deep combat system which you learn about in the Tutorial. But the tutorial itself REALLY isn't necessary. I could have easily jumped into this game and just button mashed until I figured it out. I certainly would have preferred this to the five minutes tutorial which allows you just enough time to get about half way through the first part of the first level. Your immediate feeling is, "What a rip-off!"
This was a BIG mistake. Usually timed trials are reserved for things like shooters or board games. Games that DON'T NEED A TUTORIAL.
However, my guess would be that the tutorial does represent to a fair degree the gameplay and certainly you get the idea of the graphical quality of the title from the tutorial as well. So if you like the tutorial then you will most likely enjoy the game. However, the game does cost 400 Microsoft Points.
" Fight your way to the glorious Grand Master title! Colosseum features a 6-level singleplayer-campaign and five different 1-4 player local multiplayer game modes, four of which can be enjoyed in teams."XBOX LIVE MARKETPLACE...
The game does contain multiplayer so if you and your friends during a party want something new and different to play it MIGHT be worth the money. But a 6 level single player campaign alone probably isn't. So I haven't touched much of the game from the Trial, but that's how it goes with Trials. Sometimes you get a good idea of the game, sometimes you don't.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Live Activity for the Week now with Community Games!(XBOX LIVE)
"LIVE Activity for week of April 13th
Xbox 360 Top Live Titles (based on UU’s)
1 Halo 3
2 Call of Duty: WaW
3 Call of Duty 4
4 Gears of War 2
5 GTA IV
6 RESIDENT EVIL 5
7 FIFA 09
8 Left 4 Dead
9 Halo Wars
10 Guitar Hero World TourTop Arcade Titles (Full Versions purchased)
1 OutRun Online Arcade
2 Hasbro Family Game Night**
3 Castle Crashers
4 The Dishwasher: Dead Samurai
5 Worms
6 Peggle
7 UNO
8 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1989 Classic Arcade
9 3 on 3 NHL Arcade
10 Puzzle Quest: Galactrix
The above arcade list is based on full versions purchased.
**Combined sales of all Hasbro Family Game Night titles
Original Xbox Top Live Titles (based on UU’s)1 Halo 2
2 Star Wars: Battlfrnt 2
3 Counter-Strike
4 Fable
5 Conker: Live Reloaded
6 Splinter Cell Chaos
7 Doom 3
8 Star Wars: Battlefront
9 SW: Republic Commando
10 Burnout 3Top Community Games NEW! (Full Versions purchased)
1 RC-AirSim
2 Rumble Massage
3 DrumKit
4 Aquarium HD
5 Rabid Gophers
6 Remote Masseuse
7 Pwned
8 NextWar: The Quest for Earth
9 Little Racers
10 Miner Dig DeepThese lists are based on global unique users connected to Xbox Live or in the case of Arcade and Community Games, full versions purchased during the week. "Major Nelson!
Good to see that we are getting some Community Game Stats now as well, considering most folks don't know what the heck to buy. That's why I started Trial of the Week.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Trial of the Week: Aria (Community Games)
Trial of the Week is a new weekly feature that reviews Community Games from XBOX LIVE based ONLY on their trail segment. In the future there might even be a Trial of the Week for XBLA games and PSN games.
This is the first game I'm doing a Trial of the Week for. This will also be an unusual game for the Trial of the Week because it is not only based on the Trial but also on the full game. Which once I downloaded the trial I all most immediately bought the full game.
Aria is a dual stick shooter that is very similar to Geometry Wars. However, the big difference with Aria is that the enemies spawn using the MUSIC from your hard drive on your XBOX 360. I have to admit the very thought of this was enough for me to all most immediately download the trial and then the full game. You can battle with four other players either locally with Aria. It could be a really fun party game.
As you can see from the screen shots above the game isn't the most graphically intensive. However, the meat of the gameplay is SO MUCH fun that I think most people will want to play this game quite often. The only real problem with Aria is the trial itself.
The trial for the game only allows you to play one song and this is a randomly selected song from your hard drive. Rather than fooling with the features in the game, it probably would have been better to only allow the player to play up to a certain score or a specific time limit. By doing what they did with the trial the game is really not fully experienced by the trial player. Which if the game didn't cost ONLY 200 Microsoft Points it would be a deal breaker.
Aria is a wonderful concept that I would LOVE to see in a more graphically complex form. In fact, this could be an EXCELLENT full featured game on XBLA, if they just added some more complex enemies or perhaps that could drop this music feature into the next Geometry Wars.
So go and DOWNLOAD this trial and see what you think.
(this is only a taste of what is to come in further trials. If YOU have a Community Game that you think is AWESOME, drop me an email(devilsalias@gmail.com), or tweet, and let me know. Make sure the subject line says Good Community Trial).
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Resident Evil 5, More Controversial Discussion from Sexy Videogameland.
So Leigh Alexander who all ways writes an insightful turn of phrase has taken on the controversy surrounding the apparent racism in Resident Evil 5. Certainly she quotes quite a few areas that one can go to seek more information and a more decisive opinion. I was in the same boat as she was until I actually started playing Resident Evil 5. This certainly isn't a review. I will be sending one of those out soon enough. But to the points that Tom Cross made about the game. It seems a little paranoia filled to me.
I like the guys over at Co-Op would love to just say,
"Hey, no one has the right to say what is or what isn't racism in your eyes. And I'm not going to try and say that the anyone is wrong on this issue." Which I thought was a little TOO politically correct.
But it does do one thing very well. The opinion keeps the conversation from veering from the ACTUAL GAME and not what people are making out of said game.
Leigh actually makes this point to some degree in her own discussion. What I would like to say is that all movies that show acts of racism are not racist. And the lack of discussion of racism in Resident Evil 5 might be bad. But the over arcing point in the game seem to be these:
1. Big Business is EVIL
2. The game obviously takes place in an alternate reality. Hence the whole Umbrella Corporation thing.
3. Bio-warfare sucks.
4. Even in terrible situations people can be strong and resourceful.
5. Things are not all ways what they seem.
Yes, as you can see no racism here, or even any discussion of it. Too bad it might have actually made the game feel deeper. Rather than just another action/horror game.
The concepts in game certainly are insensitive. The wide spread use of mainly African people as "infected." Is a little uneven. However, if the game was taking place in France I'm guessing it would mainly be the French that would be infected. So this alone is not enough. What is worse are the scenes where the Africans have taken to wearing their traditional ceremonial clothing. However, there is a document in the game that explains this. It is not, "out of the way." As Tom Cross mentions. But rather it is in full view on a table next to various other items such as green herbs.
This document does tell the story of a boy in the Majini village. And explains the whole process of the transformations and about the Umbrella treatments to keep these people healthy. Which is actually probably what made them what they are.
Tom Cross himself explains that with this document, it certainly makes the unsympathetic blow a little easier to take. But to me if this were a movie then it would explain it ALL away and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The main problem I have with the racism in the game is in the scene where this random, glowingly white; Woman is being chased by an infected and Chris and Sheva have to save her. They don't and Chris ends up shooting her. But what bothers me about the scene is not so much what bothers Tom Cross. It's that the scene seems COMPLETELY out of place. The wrongness of the scene aside. The actual scene for what it is, is just crap.
Without that scene. I would be completely fine with the game's intention. In the end however, the developers who made this game were certainly not racist. I would venture more to say that they were just not as sensitive to issue as might have been proper given the subject matter. But as Leigh has mentioned in her post. Judging by sales and the average buzz; no one seems to care very much. Perhaps the media has AGAIN made a mountain out of a mole hill.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The May Issue of Gameinformer and Why I'm not playing Fable 2 instead of writing this!
I just received my copy of the May Gameinformer. The awesome shots of Assassin's Creed 2 were wonderful to see in their print form, and although I haven't had time to read the preview yet, I'm sure it's good. I usually take A LONG TIME to read the game magazines I still get, so this article really isn't about that.
One of things this article IS about is the article that's in the magazine entitled, "Searching for An Audience:: Video Games Struggle to Make It on the Small Screen." The problem with the article is the same problem that is with every article out there about video games on television. They basically go to the people who are failing at it or have failed at it for answers. I think the guy from Variety said the same thing this year about G4 as he did when the channel launched. I thought it was hysterical. They also managed to paint the concept in the worst possible way. Which is interesting considering Gameinformer, IS a video game magazine. The main problem with the execution of the video games on television thing is that all most EVERY TIME it's been tried it's been done in the most childish; silly way possible.
Perhaps it would be beneficial for the same crazy enthusiasm that seems to permeate every horrible video games on television project to not become a tamed down edition of a bad reality show or worse a G-Rated version of Girls Gone Wild. Gametrailers and X-Play do this the right way and both have been beset with problems and issues with advertising and space. Who watches a show that's only on after 11 PM? Probably not many. As for X-PLAY they are apparently being replaced by old movies that G4 is REALLY EXCITED about getting access to. I certainly love both shows and I'm sad to see X-PLAY going slowly the way of the dinosaur and Gametrailers is probably going to go all Internet one these days to join the other EXCELLENT, WEB ONLY SHOWS that all ready live on www.gametrailers.com.
Why is this a bad idea? How about having video game tournaments online? Well, they would be fun to have on television. Halo 3, Rock Band 2, Street Fighter IV, Team Fortress 2, Command and Conquer Red Alert 3, and there are probably more; would work well in the television arena. But they have to be done properly. First and foremost, the prize money must be large and it must be sponsored by some big name companies that aren't watching the first year of ratings like rabid dogs at the feeding trough. Perhaps companies that are all ready sponsoring tournaments; like Mountain Dew, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Sony, etc... Second, the coverage must entail entire play sessions that are explained but not play by play, rather a more second chair sports broadcasting style where the main competitors are discussed along with strengths and weaknesses. Also the people commenting MUST know the game. They cannot be people who were only handed the game three weeks before the show or some other nonsense. Perhaps former professional players of the game or maybe some ex-developer of the game. Third, do not show more of the people sitting there playing the game than the game itself. It's not like watching Kate Moss eat cereal people. I don't care what these folks, look like, I'm here to WATCH the GAME! I think some producers and directors fail to get this part, maybe because THEY don't care about the game. But without it, they wouldn't be there. It's kind of like watching the spectators at a sporting event. Unless they are topless super models, no one really cares. Enough of my suggestions, I've been saying this same thing for two years and obviously no one is listening. The new HORRIBLE video game show on SCFI is proof.
The other part of this article is why I'm writing this and not currently playing Fable 2. I restarted playing Fable 2 recently and I've found it a pleasant surprise over my initial impression which was that I thought it was poorly designed and executed. But It wasn't necessarily; it's a fun time overall. But a little unforgiving and a little TOO interested in turning your"HERO" evil. I'm not reviewing this title because it came out late LAST YEAR and really what is the point of reviewing something that even the contemplative sites have all ready reviewed. I'm playing this game purely for the experience and because I love RPGs.
I'm writing this because SO MUCH happened this week all ready and I really had to vent about Fable 2 a little. I've been playing tons of other games: Demigod, Resident Evil 5, BattleForge, Dishwasher, and probably something I'm forgetting. So I'm enjoying some quality stuff. But I hadn't played any good RPGs for a little so I was happy for one. I picked my copy of Fable 2 back up and I've made some descent progress. I'm basically leveling as a Will focused character but you still end up using everything else eventually anyway, which is fun albeit a little ridiculous. In any story you've EVER read in the fantasy genre has any character who isn't a god used a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, and magic? None right? That's why it's ridiculous. But that certainly isn't my problem with it. No my problem is with one particular quest. The one where this guy Ripper gives you a quest to perform by killing a farmer and his little army of defenders, because they want to get this particular treasure in the farmer's basement.
Well, that's all well and good. But I'm a HERO of some Renown and I figured I could just talk with this farmer and his men and we could all ambush Ripper and his friends or worse comes to worse I could just not do anything when confronted by the farmer and then go back and kill Ripper at THAT point. This is a kind of quest that you MIGHT find in Elder Scrolls Oblivion. It would probably involve you walking up to the farmer and getting into some kind of conversation you just hauling off and starting to kill people right off. This is because in ELDER SCROLLS they WANT you make a CHOICE; not just follow the script. And your actions DO cause repercussions. Maybe the farmer is a SUPER powerful guy or maybe he is friends with the mayor of a big city near there. Maybe if you kill the farmer you won't be allowed into the town or they might throw you in jail. Or any number of things. But you can also save one time before and once after making the decision to see how it turns out. I only bring up Elder Scrolls because it seems that much of the main story quests from Fable 2 seem rather similar to Oblivion so it MUST have been an influence.
All of this was NOT the case in the critically acclaimed and incredibly recent Fable 2. Now remember Elder Scrolls came out like in 2006, this is 2009. I went off to see the farmer and his men. I walked down the road and when reached a little ways from the farm in broad daylight; my dog started growling. I was like,
"Huh? Are there monsters near, did the bandits go ahead without me and do the deed all ready?"
The dog continued to growl as he moved farther down the road and when I could see the farm. There was a virtual army of men there. And immediately they began shooting at me. I asked myself,
"I haven't done ANYTHING why are you shooting at me, do you shoot everyone that comes down this road? Fine, DIE then!"
What was I supposed to do, they would have just killed me. I guess I was supposed to attack Ripper and his men at the bandit camp or maybe not take the quest at all. I don't know, but there was NO WAY to tell. Fable 2 seems VERY interested in holding your hand. They have a no fail mode, they have a shining fairy dust path that shows you where your next quest is; but in something SO important they didn't even give me a hint.
The worst was yet to come, I was unable to gain access to the house, which had again an unbreakable door even though I shot the door, I hit the door with my shoulder multiple times, and finally I used a spell on the door that would have burned down the whole house had this been real. So the whole thing basically killed the suspension of disbelief thanks Lionhead for that. So I walked around to the open cellar door and got in that way. But the cellar isn't attached to the house, at least as I could tell. I opened the chest and pulled out the treasured book. Only to be greeted by Ripper and his men who THEN wanted to kill me for stealing his little bauble. Well, I killed them all. So there were no witnesses to my killing of all of these people, not even one. In Elder Scrolls this would have made me evil but no one would have known except maybe the Assassin's Guild. Not in Fable 2.
No for some reason EVERYONE EVERYWHERE knows of my killing the farmer and his men. I'm branded a mass murderer. Oh, and by the way. The book I picked up from the quest is worthless. But my punishment is simply to every complain about it everywhere I go. Well, I guess I know why there are SO MANY bandits around, there doesn't seem to be any law enforcement in this world.
So, I'm STILL going to keep playing and with information from a guide on the intenet I'm going to maybe find the legendary weapon in the farmers house. But I think the damage is all ready done to my respect of Fable 2. I wasn't trying to be evil. I didn't want to be. So I tried to donate my way out of the evil I'd done. This helped but I guess I need to donate ALOT more to clear my name. Which in Fable 2 usually means doing a job and while doing it, listening to everyone complaining about you being a mass murderer. Well, I guess it's fine to kill hundreds of bandits for money and treasure but when you start killing trigger happy farmers your in trouble. Oh, and just to REALLY make a point here. If the townsfolk thought that I REALLY was a mass murderer, I don't think it would be a good idea to make the SUPER POWERFUL HERO who is EVIL mad. You know, maybe it's not something you should KEEP bringing up every second. If there wasn't an autosave there were times when I wanted to kill EVERYONE in a particular tavern just to make this point.
All of this from people who live in a country where only Police carry firearms. I really don't understand the morality in the game and I really don't want to read the book on the morality in the game, in the game. Which if your wondering what I mean; then you probably haven't played much Fable 2. I shouldn't HAVE to read the book, it SHOULD be logical. This ISN'T logical. Maybe when Lionhead was making their cruddy expressions system they should have instead written in some dialogue tress, because obviously all this silence is only creating these ridiculous situations.
Fable 2 has many things going for it, but suspension of disbelief isn't one of them. Everything is very game-like, especially the respawning enemies. Not to be a jerk or anything, but if your experience system requires enemies to respawn ALL the TIME after you've JUST killed them the day before, maybe you need to lower the XP requirements for said levels.
So I hope I haven't bored you with my rant and there WILL be more videos, reviews, and even some more interesting articles to come; fear not. But you probably won't be hearing too much more about Fable 2; unless it gets ALOT better. I'm probably only about a third of the way into the game. The next article I write might be about my other GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT of the past couple months. Fallout 3, oh man, don't get me started...
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
OK, I'm a guy. I guess I Don't "get it"
In a recent post on GameSetWatch Leigh Alexander responds to a previous rant from GDC. So make sure to check that post out, or you will be SO LOST. The actual rant, given by Heather Chaplin; I haven't been able to find except in pieces scattered over various sites. But let's just say that the original rant was basically saying that video games are nothing but a bunch of guys getting off on being powerful guys.
The basic point of Leigh Alexander's post was that video games need to grow out of their adolescent beginnings. To grow out of the "guy culture" that seems to be holding back the industry. However, she does refute the fact that developers can do nothing but this. That everyone in the industry are just a bunch of chest pounding Tarzan types. Which is good, because I think the women in the industry would beg to differ. She does admit that most of the content in video games is juvenile and that we should have grown out of this by now. In this I wholly agree with Leigh. She is absolutely 100% correct! I would love to see better stories and more emotionally deep games. Games that draw on more than the "kill this culture."
What bothers me a little is that in the original rant there seemed again to be this need to be shooting for parody with the movie industry. The argument is brought up in so many ways and in so many places that it's ridiculous. Video Games shouldn't try to be movies and movies should NEVER try to be video games. That is a rule I think everyone could learn a lot from in these days of constant movie licensed video games. But that is beside the point...
This whole "guy culture" thing is a little silly. Generally speaking anything that involves selling games to people. Basically involves selling games to guys. You know around the ages of 13-34 years of age. So the deep emotionally deep game is probably being developed as a MMO, a flash game, or maybe on the DS or Wii. Which is because marketing wise that's where all the women are. I don't think too many guys would buy a game about someone's emotional struggle to find themselves in a complicated world. Especially not over the next installment of Gears of War. No matter how much research is done about women playing Shooters or World of Warcraft. They are all ways the minority and men are all ways the minority when it comes to puzzle games and other flash game faire.
Read more books? Watch more films? Really? I mean I think the last few movies I saw were pretty "guy culture" oriented. Because again the focus on young males is pretty hardcore when we are talking about movie box office. Unless of course it's something like Mamma Mia or Sex in the City which I think is a little more pandering to "female culture" than it is what every woman wants to watch. As far as books are concerned, well yes I think there are a great number of good lifetime channel inspired books out there. But the books that tell an incredible story usually do so because they deal with the inner life of their characters. Which is something that not even movies have been able to get right.
There are certainly lots of things that the video game industry could be doing better. But would any of it sell? Perhaps... But what are we talking about here? Well, better voice acting, more complicated stories, and probably better facial recognition of video game characters. These are all achievable goals. At least with the right developer and publisher. But in most cases the industry is happy to pump out sequels of the next space marine oriented shooter because it sells. Unlike art forms like music, books, or even the independent film industry games cost ALOT of money to make and take a TON of people. And it will have to be in such a situation that this breakthrough comes. Because no matter how philosophical you want to get with your 2D indie games they aren't going to draw any kind of emotional reaction from anyone except those who are all ready thinking philosophically.
However, I would argue some of this has all ready been achieved. Games like Flower, Braid, and some other Indie faire have nothing to do with killing and they all have had the ability to draw emotional reactions from their audience. But a deep story? Complicated characers? This is going to take more than a small studio with limited resources can achieve. Which brings us back to money.
Much like action movies and the "BIG SUMMER BLOCKBUSTERS." The audience for all this is mainly made up of guys. So don't go blaming developers or marketing for what is a simple reality. Leigh, I want to live in a world where women buy as many games as men. But I don't think this is going to happen unless we ALL CHANGE and maybe even some changes in technology wouldn't hurt either. But then I'm just a guy, so maybe I STILL don't get it.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Resident Evil 5 Versus Mode: So what does your $5 get you? A BIG Digital Key!
So, head over to my last post on this subject to get some background. Then you will be well informed about these issues. Now we find out through our own personal experiences that yes, truly this content was simply locked by a digital key on the disc. All be it a big key, at 1.86 MB but is TRULY doubtful that this was the ACTUAL MULTIPLAYER MODE.
I certainly don't fault Capcom for digital keying content. But digital keying a multiplayer mode? Just so everyone knows, the last statement Capcom has made about this, was also in my last post. This separate cost, they speak of can be attributed to the fees that Sony charges publishers to use their servers. Because as everyone knows, there is NO SUCH thing as free internet service, SOMEONE is paying for it. So I don't think that when they said that the mode had a separate budget we were really looking for the balance sheet for their online needs. I think people were "trying" to discover if the mode was all ready on the disc.
Lastly on the subject of a major developer/publisher lying to us about a feature of their game. I want to just say that we shouldn't file this under, "Why should we care?" Because if everyone just sits by and takes this, the next time Gears of War comes out or maybe Lost Planet 2. It will only ship with a single player mode and if you want to play the multiplayer you will have to buy the digital key that unlocks it. And the game WILL BE the same $60 as it would be WITH that same mode now. Is this what you want? So this isn't a "non-issue." Which SO MANY sites seem to think it is. Only Kotaku and IGN seemed interested in making comment about this occurrence. Not to mention the fact that Resident Evil 5 has sold over 17 Million since launch. It's not like this is some art house game that needs money or heaven forbid a movie tie-in that needs to pay for licensing fees. The game is a record breaker for Capcom, selling more than any other Resident Evil game to date. All this and they have to CHARGE for something that's on the disc to recoup the money Sony is charging them for servers? Perhaps this whole free PSN multiplayer thing needs to be reconsidered.
On a brighter note: The mode itself is EXCELLENT. Probably some of the best multiplayer I've played in a long time. The matchmaking is awful and the lobby system could be better. But the ACTUAL gameplay is stellar! Last night when I downloaded the mode, I certainly didn't realize that I was getting such a replay creating feature. It's like Mercenaries Mode but better. I don't particularly enjoy playing the Slayers mode and getting killed by fellow players trying to win the game by knocking down my multiplier rather than trying to build up their own. It seems kind of stupid to me, but hey if friendly fire wasn't supposed to be an issue then they would have shut it off or penalized people for doing it. But REALLY guys, if you want to shoot each other play Survivors where the point is to shoot each other.
I'm not trying to tell you not to buy the mode. I did... Rather just know what your buying and realize that this is probably not the last time your going to see content presented in this way. And this year looks to be a record year for Capcom releases. I just hope that the next time this happens Capcom will at least be straight with us.
UPDATE: Again Capcom is late with the real information,
"Capcom Vice President Christian Svensson stands his ground and says, "Keys are 100K or less. It is not a key. We have said in the past, it uses assets from the disc (like levels, models, audio, etc.) but the code is new and does not exist on the disc."Gamercentral....
OK so that ends it... This is an EXCELLENT feature and you SHOULD download it. I would like to apologize to Capcom for my assertions and simply suggest in the future that you make comment a little faster on this type of issue. Oh, perhaps when it comes up, like 3 weeks ago.
Update: Hey guys you sick of hearing about this. I am, but it turns out that there is NO WAY that the download sizes of the DLC match up with ANY AMOUNT OF content that could have been added to the game; EXCEPT a DIGITAL KEY! So again, Capcom is scamming us for $5 and the mode is great but why didn't Capcom just say they were charging for the key. Because whatever problems that would have caused would have NO WAY compared to those they created by lying about it. So I'm done, I'm playing it and loving it and I love RE5. A review is incoming. But hey Capcom, be honest! Really it's the BEST policy.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Halo Wars Review: War, War Never Changes!
Halo Wars isn't exactly the first RTS to creep on to consoles. But it is probably one of the first to be made SPECIFICALLY for consoles. This is also the last game that the wonderful studio Ensemble made before closing it's doors. Certainly Halo Wars has lots of innovation riding in the back seat of that warthog but it probably would take someone at least SOMEWHAT familiar with RTS games to notice it.
The story here takes place about 20 years before Halo Combat Evolved. The game details things like the first skirmishes with the Covenant and the first contacts with the Flood. The story isn't much to sink your teeth into, but the cutscenes are probably the best I've seen on ANY GAME, except maybe Resident Evil 5 but they are pretty close.
Showing is better than telling(ABOVE)
The graphics within the actual game are very good and shined to a polish that is rarely seen these days on console titles. No matter how far the player zooms in, the units keep looking better rather than worse. Certainly the game doesn't have the graphical chops that a game like Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 on the PC has, but it definitely is in the same ballpark.
The audio for this game is excellent; everything from music to voice acting was top drawer and certainly fits nicely into the other Halo games immense quality. That is definitely a theme that runs throughout the title. The HALO WARS IS a HALO GAME. Not some cheap knock off meant to financially fuel the next REAL Halo game. In this even the most avid hater of the game cannot deny. Now comes the really hard part, everything else...
The first and foremost thing that needs to be dealt with right from the start is that this game is MAINLY aimed at an audience that has either NEVER played a Real Time Strategy Game or has only played OTHER console RTS games. Also, it is aimed at the gamer who LOVES HALO. Which is probably the only category I fit into here.
Halo Wars Campaign mode puts you in the shoes of a Commander to find out what is going on with a Covenant group looking for some relic on an icy world. You also end up controlling the love interest in the game who is a snarky research scientist who helps said Commander and also gets captured at one point. With this setting you go about building some bases and making some units. Actually you build ALOT of units. The game has a pretty generous population cap; that you can raise a little through upgrades. But in some of the later missions I would have really liked to see a 200 or 300 unit cap considering the size of the maps and the fact that you were fighting quite a few enemy units in some cases. But in this, Halo Wars works pretty well. The game allows you to upgrade all most every unit in the game and it gives you the freedom to have fewer units but more powerful units. Which in SOME RTS games is the recipe for disaster; because some well placed counter units can destroy them easily. Not so in Halo Wars.
This is not to say the game isn't balanced. It's more to say that by the time the game gets at all challenging, it's usually because of some crazy condition. Like you only have five minutes to finish this mission. Or you don't have a base, so you better be careful how many unites you lose. This is the kind of thing I usually hate in RTS games. I just want to build my base, my units, and kill the other guy. But in Halo Wars it was a welcome change.
Why? Because the majority of the Campaign involves you making a base, making units, then going to your enemy's base and destroying it. Then you MUST make a base on the location that your enemy made his base on and defend it. This happens around 5-6 times in about three quarters of the missions. It happened SO OFTEN I was starting to doubt that I needed to do this AGAIN, because I had just done it.
This also plays into the fact that most of the secondary mission objectives in the game involve either killing a certain number of enemies, which is kind of lame; but not a big issue. Or exploring the WHOLE MAP and taking some little outposts. I have played 20 minute games of Command and Conquer and never seen the whole map, unless I needed to find a hiding enemy unit. Taking these outposts is relatively easy but it is usually finding them that is the pain. Also skulls drop when you complete these secondary objectives but then you have to FIND THEM! They are marked on the map, but they usually drop during a very busy period in the game and therefore can but easily forgotten. Instead of the game voice so ANNOYINGLY saying things like,
"Turret Complete..."
"Building Complete..."
"Select ALL UNITS.."
It should have said, "A skull has dropped."
That would have been helpful at least. I eventually turned off the in game audio and just had the sound on for the cutscenes. But this kind of thing is all right in a big RTS like Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 where you could have structures and units all over the map. But in Halo Wars you basically have everything centralized with one big army. If you don't you probably are doing something wrong.
The reason I say this is that, there were only 2 missions in the whole game that I felt it was worth while to split my army and one of those times it probably wasn't necessary. The game is built like Lord of the Rings Battle for Middle Earth. You build a HUGE ARMY and wander around the field with it micro-managing their very move. You usually have to, they have special powers to activate and sometimes you need to be the hand of god and heal them. Besides, what good are Spartans if you don't tell them to take over enemy vehicles?(that was rhetorical).
Finally, the big units have horrible path finding and usually need to be guided like the tanks they are through every little hiccup on the map, especially through all the canyons and such that are on the maps. For a game with SO MANY bridges and canyons this seems like something; someone would have noticed BEFORE the game shipped. Just saying...
There was a lack of endgame upgrades and units. The final tier of production in most RTS games are incredibly impressive and usually something worth the wait and the money. While this is certainly true with a couple of the units in the game, there was a noticeable lack of this considering a lot of the harder final missions ended with you having thousands of credits, a full population, and nothing to use the credits for except spamming god powers. Which are certainly cool, but if all I needed were a few units around an enemy base and just keep hitting the aerial blast command, what point was there in building all those bases in the first place. This also comes up more often in multiplayer where the skilled turtle player can run a game into more than a couple of hours.
The units in the game are fun to use and by the end of the upgrade process become a blast to use. Especially the Spartans and the ODST troops. My favorite unit in the game were the Vultures, a top tier Human unit that is a big ship. These can transport troops, fire missiles, and devastate with machine guns. They also have tons of armor and are basically the flying counterpart to the Elephant without the unit production ability. All units in the game were well made and certainly there were no throw away units in the game. If you haven't found a use for a unit, then you aren't looking hard enough. That said, there were lots of instances where there seemed to be a lack of unit selection when you have lots of credits, multiple bases, and you feel like you should be making something to decimate the competition. But there really isn't anything, except maybe one or two units to choose from. This seemed strange to me, because final tier units and even second to final tier units are usually the most fun to play and most for developers to make. Their omission was glaring.
This game was definitely made to be played and replayed. You get different medals depending on how well you did completely all the mission objectives and even how long it took you to complete the mission. In order to get the achievement for each mission you MUST score at least a gold medal. Which isn't usually hard, as long as you paid attention when the in game announcement decides to pop the secondary objectives. Which could also be easily over looked and probably should have just been laid out before the mission. Also, the skulls can be turned on to make the game harder or give you special effects. That is once you get the skull.
Every Commander in the game, there are 3 for each side have their own "God Powers." All of which are excellent and I loved using them. But it was probably one of the biggest things that pulled the game into too simplistic of a structure. Once the player starts using the powers it's easy to roll up to a base with a very light force and simple hit three god powers one after another and wipe out the base. This will cost you a lot of money but some upgraded supply pads take care of this pretty handily. Without ACTUAL resource gathering the constant flow of money in the game definitely puts the game in the RTS lite category.
The multiplayer in the game allows you to play either the Humans or the Covenant. Fortunately it doesn't allow you to play the Flood. I think that would have been a mess to balance and let's face it, the Flood is basically all cannon fodder. The Covenant while not playable during the Campaign are fun to play and with things like Shielding and on the field god powers they certainly play differently from the Human side of things. However, the basic idea is the same. Make a base, crank out units, make a teleporter, send your big army out to destroy your enemies. Repeat.
The rushing in multiplayer is easy to accomplish but also easy to counter. This shows that the developers had thought of this and maybe from viewed skirmish matches with friends and family realized it needed to be easily countered. The Brute units for the Covenant might seem overpowered until you crank out a fully upgraded ODST squad and watch them mow the apes down without any trouble. Or just have the Spartan hit them with a laser. That really hurts you know.
While I certainly would have LIKED to play a Covenant Campaign I don't think it was necessarily a deal breaker. What I did find a little odd however, was the total lack of different modes for Multiplayer. In single player you can play Co-Op online and this carries over to Multiplayer. Except that's it. You can play two team death, match, three team death match, or four team death match. You can also have the match begin with an all ready built up base with some units, but that's the extent of it. For a genre and Title that is SO tied to multiplayer it seems strange not to have more modes. Also, there are a VERY SMALL number of maps to play on, like 10. Which isn't good considering, while Ensemble has closed the only downloadable content is coming from their new outlet. That was barely on it's feet when the game shipped. How many maps do you think they have made all ready? Maybe one or two the most. There have been no announcements as to DLC and it doesn't seem like they are coming anytime soon.
Halo Wars as a game definitely has some problems. But it is probably the single best RTS on any console. Even the new Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 Ultimate Edition on the PS3 is aching for some mouse and keyboard control in comparison to this title. I would have to say that has a console RTS it gets high marks. As an RTS it's probably only meant for the first time RTS player or someone who REALLY loves Halo. Because the Halo will love playing with all the units and the newcomer to RTS games will find the game very educational in this like basic strategy and base management. Everyone else should probably just grab your mouse and keyboard and pick up Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 or one of the other FINE RTS GAMES on the PC. There are TOO MANY to name here.
(Again, no score, really, I'm not going to give you one, EVER. So stop waiting for it.)