Daimon's Lair

Dom: "What are those glowing things?"

Marcus: "What do I look like, a fucking botanist?"

I started Gears 2 the other night--it looks like it could be even better than the first game, but I hope there won't be as much vehicle combat as there was in the first few chapters because I'm not sure what I like about the new turret mechanics (unlike the first Gears where you could fire a turret indefinitely, here the turret can overheat so you have to stop firing and hold RB to quench the turret). Yes, I know it's more "realistic" but the whole point of turrets in shooters is being able to fire indefinitely except in Halo 3 where you can rip the turret off its mount and run around with a limited supply of ammo.

Otherwise, I like it so far. It already has more of a storyline in the first few chapters of Act 1 than in all of the original Gears. Graphics and sound look nice and I appreciate (for the sake of my kids) being able to turn off both gore AND language. (Though I have to say that chainsaw executions are only satisfying with the gore turned on).

The designers have made the game have four difficulty levels, with there being an easy/casual, normal, hardcore, and insane. So far even the normal seems easier than "casual" (which was the lowest in the first Gears) so I might bump it up and see what Hardcore is like. Then again, there were only occasional segments (i.e. Berserkers) that were very challenging in the first Gears on casual (thanks to the incredibly generous regenerative health system) so I might have to play again.

I also like the new Hammerhead assault rifle with its (limited) zoom function and more of a semi-auto function. Not quite Halo 2 and 3's Battle Rifle, but it's still nice to have as a complement to the Lancer. Especially since the two assault rifles in the original Gears were almost too similiar with the noticable exception being the Lancer's chainsaw bayonet.

We'll see if there are any other additions as I play onwards.

My wrists are hurting a bit, so we'll see how this goes. . . .

Immersion

Pros: There was a reason Halo basically made the Xbox the console it was (and to a large degree what the 360 is today). It's a f***ing good game!

Let's see what can I say?

There are shooters, and then there are shooters. Halo is one of my all-time favorite games and I think it will continue to be rated as one of the best shooters for years and years to come. The story isn't detailed (it's not an RPG, after all), but the combination of cut scenes and the assistance/narration from Cortana (your AI partner throughout the game) gives the player a sense of simultaneously being part of a much larger conflict and the one person who can really make a difference.

Cortana is a great character.


I *heart* Cortana.

The Master Chief is one badass mo-fo. Captain Keyes is also a compelling, if rather minor, character. The combination of good characters and storytellling that's compelling but doesn't get in the way of the action is something many games ought to imitate.

Another good aspect is that the chapters (with the possible exception of the second) are of relatively equal length, so no one level design or plotline ever gets too drawn out. Put that in combination with one of the best orchestral score ever designed for a game--where each track melds perfectly with the action, in some ways even better than a movie (because there's less dialogue) and you are totally immersed unless you're playing on Legendary and just getting your ass kicked (if you're me) and fighting from checkpoint to checkpoint.

Cons: I HATE the Flood. Yes, I know you're supposed to hate them. But I HATE them!

Replay Value: I was never on Xbox Live with the original Xbox, so I've never played the online multiplayer, but the few times I played multiplayer with friends in college I really enjoyed it. Co-0p is also quite enjoyable, regardless of whether you're playing with someone better (my neighbor Nate in college), equal (my friend Justin), or slightly worse (my wife--no offense ;) ).

And unlike many many games (especially for me), the single player campaign has a very high replay value, whether you're cranking up the difficulty level or just replaying your favorite level for fun (which I've done several times with the second and third chapters :) ).

Balancing: One of the best examples of difficulty level progression is Halo: CE. "Easy" is just that--easy. I started off on that but found it waay too easy. "Normal" is challenging for a relatively decent player and it remains the only difficulty level I've beaten the full game on. "Heroic" is challenging at its easiest points and downright hard at others--my personal favorite is when you first board Truth and Reconciliation with a bunch of Marines and you get ambushed by wave after wave of Covenant (including seven cloaked Elites with beam swords). On solo I barely emerged victorious after several hours. Playing co-op with my wife, we beat it after a couple tries with Marines to spare.

I've tried "Legendary" solo and can't even get past the first room on the Pillar of Autumn. Guess that means I suck :P. I'll probably try co-op with my wife one of these days. We just have to find time away from the kiddies.

As far as game mechanics, I swear the Xbox controller was designed for Halo. Buttons become intuitive after just an hour or so with the game (at least for me). The fact that you can only carry two weapons sucks, but it's realistic--and it forces you to make interesting decisions later on (such as do I pick up the rocket launcher or keep the sniper rifle). It also allows the designers to give the players subtle hints--as in, if you don't have the sniper rifle and you see one, pick it up. Trust me.

Level design is great and only becomes repetitive in the infamous Library (I think I remember the name) level where all the corridors basically repeat themselves. One gripe I had about this level was that when you get the Index the only possible way (for me) to beat that room was simply to book it for the index, ignoring all the Flood around me and eking out enough health to get there and trigger the cutscene.

Which is where I actually have something positive to say about the Flood. Throughout the game there are definitely "run and gun" moments and Halo is never a tactical shooter. At its most cautious moment it still has faster gameplay than, say, GRAW. But still I took my time and often remembered where weapons were stashed and had to backtrack through part of a level to replenish ammo. I liked, especially in the second level, to pick off enemies with the sniper rifle (especially Elites), then run in with the assault rifle/melee to finish off the grunts and Jackals. Co-op speeds things up, but you can still easily bite off more than you can chew.

The Flood changes all that. There are points where you can kill every enemy in a room, but there are many other points where it sure seems like the supply is basically infinite and you just have to keep running and running and. . . it's exhausting. It totally changes gameplay. Plus, the music and the horror movie-esque way the Flood is introduced really makes it creepy.

And then there's my favorite part: the Scorpion tank. All of the vehicles are cool, but the levels where you can use the tank is some of the most rewarding gaming experiences you can have. *sighs*. I *heart* the Scorpion.

Final Impression: Play it! Even if you don't like first-person shooters, play it! It might convert you. . . . Halo is the reason I got the Xbox. I've played both sequels and I'm looking forward to Halo Wars and Halo 3: ODST. Plus I've read all of the Halo books except the newest (which I'm about to start). I have all of the soundtracks. I have the Halo 3 Zune and the Halo 3 Xbox 360.

Notice a pattern?

Halo is a must-have. It is a game you will love and you will not want to trade in.

For those interested, my wife has a pdg review at Asserting Reality.

Immersion:

Pros: I was initially skeptical about the economic system in Fable II, but the ability to take a job (and the jobs themselves) was strangely addictive early on in the game. By halfway through I had become a 5-star woodcutter, blacksmith, and bartender. An easy way to gold if you're willing to sit through very mundame mini-games. Having a job helped immerse me in the world of Albion, and also gave me something to do when I felt like playing the game but not necessarily do questing (something that would be interesting to see added to an Elder Scrolls V, if that ever comes around). Plus, it forces you to interact with the world because the only real way to make big bucks is to invest in real-estate and become a veritable mogul (like my wife :P).

As far as graphics go, the engine seemed relatively stable with little noticeable texture pop-in (not that I'm as sensitive to that as, say, the folks over at IGN). Sound was good, but not terribly involving even in 5.1 digital. The music was decent, but not as period appropriate as had initially been hinted at during the trailers with the heavily classical score in the intro to the game (and while in Castle Fairfax). But then, maybe that's for the better for most players. Definitely NOT a game that wowed me with its sound design.

Cons: A lot of these I mentioned in my last post, so I won't repeat myself. My main issue was the map system.

Replay Value: Practically non-existent. Despite the fact that your hero can evolve in very different ways, there are few truly story-changing choices (and, actually, almost no story at all--especially for an RPG) to make me want to go back and find out what would have happened otherwise. The ability to continue playing in Albion after the "end" is just another knock on replay value.

Balancing: A big negative in Fable II is the utter lack of a difficulty level. If it was challenging, that would be different, but it's not. Enemies scale to some degree, but enemies (and combat) end up being terribly repetitive by the end of the game.

The AI is incredibly stupid. My favorite combo was casting Raise Dead (which draws all the enemies towards my summoned creature, even if they'd already begun attacking me!) and then charging Shock to level 5 (which kills pretty much anything in one shot). Enemies have basically no tactics except running up and starting to hack at you (or your summon). Sometimes I tried different combos not because they were better but simply because I became bored.

Fights largely become a matter of being surrounded by massive numbers time and time again. The rare one-on-one fights are with trolls--and, to be honest, Lionhead found a way to make trolls simultaneously easier and yet much more tedious to fight than in Fable I.

The two main brightspots are the Crucible and the attempt to rescue Garth at Brightwood Tower (both of which are aspects where the combat is actually exciting).

One thing which would have helped was a difficulty level slider a la Oblivion--and Fable II is a stat-heavy enough game that something like that would work quite well.

Final Impression: I definitely have no desire to replay it any time soon (and probably never again). Would I have rather never played it at all? That's a hard question. The weak story and the totally lame, anti-climactic (and quite non-sensical) ending was a huge let down after what was a mostly enjoyable game (until the final few quests--basically everything after meeting Reaver).

I think I'd still have played it, but to get me to play a Fable III, Lionhead has to come up with a more engaging storyline and more variety in combat. And PLEASE! get rid of the stupid social system and abolish marriage. It's sooooo pointless!

One final request: if the Hero has to have allies/sidekicks, either a) make them interesting or b) make them helpful. For example, Garth is supposedly the greatest Will user of all time, but with the exception of one scene in the Tattered Spire, he's basically useless. Same goes for Hammer, and especially for the jag Reaver (god, can I kill him in the next game? Please?!!!)

I'm thinking about changing how I review games (not that I've been able to review many so far). Rather than write the review in article form, I'm thinking more about establishing certain criteria and evaluating a game based on each of those. This might help me keep from simply writing rambling reviews that are pretty much stream of consciousness (much as I like my enemies to suffer, I don't wish that on the few people who enter my lair).

I think the most important criteria is Immersion. In other words, how successfully does the game designer get you to forget the fact that you are in the real world?

Needless to say, this captures a variety of sub-criteria--graphics, sound, game mechanics, overall gameplay. The most important of these (for me at least) is game mechanics--in other words, if the controls and/or menu functions are clunky, you'll be constantly reminded of the fact that you're playing a game, not using your character as an avatar of your divine retribution (wait, what? :P).

A prime example of this is the map system in Fable II (fresh on my mind since I just finished the game a few days ago). Instead of having the wonderfully designed system in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Fable II's map is pitifully small (even on my 46" LCD). Even more clunky, you can't zoom in or set a target. And--also quite frustrating--fast travel isn't integrated into the map like in Olbivion.

At the same time, Fable II's well-done breadcrumb trail rarely had me looking at maps--except in my quest for all 50 gargoyles (which in reality was a complete wast of time, but more on that if/when I decide to write a review).

From there it's a toss up between graphics and sound design, with sound design breaking up into two further subcategories.

• graphics: for me, nice graphics are very important, with texture pop-in probably being my biggest pet peeve followed by poor character animations (both of them a major problem with Oblivion).
• sound design (effects): an integral part of sound design are effects and the overall ambient noise, something which games like Call of Duty 4 and Gears of War excelled at.
  
• sound design (score): a great theatrical score is one way to really suck me in. Tops on that list are all three Halo games--especially the recurring theme which I call the "almost there" theme, such as during 'Assault on the Control Room' in Halo: CE.

A final mention concerns cut scenes and load screens. I like cut scenes but they can be overdone. The worst offender in that regard was the demo of the Bourne Conspiracy, where the action was interrupted every 5 seconds (it seemed) by a short theatrical cut scene showing some acrobatic move. Why not integrate acrobatics into the controls a la Mirror's Edge?

Another offender--though I have enjoyed the game (so far) is MGS 4. I was a huge fan of the Metal Gear Solid on PS1, so when I bought the PS3, I bought the MGS bundle, but while the cut scenes are great and really give you a cinematic experience, they're a bit too long for my tastes. Then again, perhaps it's along the lines of what Peter Jackson seemed to be wanting to do when he was going to make the infamous Halo movie/game (which I think is dead, but I doubt anyone really knows expect PJ).

An example of excellence, however, is COD4, where even the load screens are disguised as cut scenes. You remain totally immersed throughout that heart-pounding experience of a game--damn that game was awesome!

We'll see if this format actually helps my rambling, since (heh heh) I feel like I've really been rambling during this.

Anyways, some more criteria:

Replay Value: This includes multiplayer and the desire to play the main campaign again. Do you get cool perks for replaying through?--i.e. the original MGS with the stealth suit, James Bond tux, etc. Are there alternate endings to explore?

Balancing: This is closely related to replay value and involves both multiplayer and how difficult levels (if present) progress. Is normal too easy? Too hard? Is Insane actually, well, insane?

Or, in the case of Fable II--is there a difficulty level at all? Which is another of my peeves with the game--except for a few cool parts (like rescuing Garth at Brightwood Tower), the combat was awfully repetitive and way too easy.

For RPGs, I think the best system was the slider in Oblivion--especially since combat was relatively straightforward and pretty much statistical computation.

For shooters, what does the difficulty change? Does it simply require more bullets to kill enemy A, or does the AI entirely change? Do ammo drops change locations, amounts? Does the difficulty level actually change your approach?

Final Impression: Knowing what I know after playing the game, would I play it again? Am I salivating over the sequel? Or do I think I just wasting the past x number of hours of my life?

Any thoughts on the criteria I've described? Any additions to suggest? Please contribute!

A guy is sitting on the couch, a controller in his hand, eyes glued to the tv. His wife/girlfriend comes into the room and just sighs, rolls her eyes, and walks back out. 'Men and their stupid video games' she's thinking.

A true stereotype? Probably--hence the prevalence of 'man-caves' throughout America.

Not for me :) Ha-ha suckers!!!

You know what my wife nags me about? That, instead of playing Gears of War 2 I should play Bioshock--CAUSE SHE'S PLAYING IT.

Oh, man, life is good. *stretches arms over head and smiles*