Daimon's Lair

On the heels of President Obama's speech concerning sending more troops to Aghanistan, I figured it was time to offer a reflection on what is supposedly the "good war". Or, was to liberals during the 2008 presidential campaign--but appears increasingly neglected even as the country spirals out of control. Here goes:

Define Victory

Considering that our presence in Afghanistan is a "war", that seems like it would be a silly question to ask. Victory means the defeat of our enemy. But, considering the asymmetric nature of modern warfare--especially in the Middle East--it is a valid one.

One could easily argue that Bush defined victory in the Fall of 2001 as follows: the September 11th attacks were an unprovoked attack and constituted an act of war. The label 'act of war' required the following line of reasoning: the perpetrators of the attacks, though not agents of a nation-state, were acting in accordance with the wishes of a nation-state. Moreover, the nation they operated out of gave them safe harbor and would not possibly bring them to justice on their own. Thus, in defense of our own interests, the proper action was not merely a military police action (apprehension of international criminals across national boundaries) but all-out regime change lest the cycle simply repeat itself.

Victory was the apprehension of al-Qaeda and the removal of the Taliban regime. A necessary sub-condition would be the establishment of a viable replacement for that regime, because leaving Afghanistan in a power vacuum is unacceptable.

Eight years into the conflict it remains unclear whether even those modest victory conditions have been satisfied. Numerous operatives of Al-Qaeda have been apprehended, but Osama bin-Laden (by all accounts) remains at large. The Taliban is no longer in any real political power but remains a very real military power in a country controlled by disparate factions more than any real central authority out of Kabul.

The lack of ultimate success against bin-Laden combined with the difficulty of achieving a stable Afghanistan was forseeable. Regardless, it leaves many in this country with a bad taste in their mouths, unsure whether they have the stomach to continue.

Obama essentially wants to define victory as establishing an Aghanistan that is "stable enough" that we can begin drawing down troops as Aghani units come online. He is willing to commit a limited number of troops to the mission but has already handicapped them with incredibly restrictive rules of engagement that were demonstrated failures in the early years of the Iraq War.

Many on the conservative side--including a local radio show host I frequently listen to--want to maintain that we are simply there to "kill" the enemy, not nation-build. What point killing the enemy has if a power vacuum remains escapes me. Yes, nation-building is a long and expensive undertaking, but it is a task we implicitly accepted the instant we remove the previous regime. Still another response would be to point out that killing the enemy and then leaving when that job was "done" was precisely what the CIA did after the end of Soviet occupation--conditions which allowed the Taliban to come into power in the first place.

Neither redefinition of victory is acceptable. Yes, we are there to defend our national interests. The primary way to do that is to kill the enemy and destroy their ability to mount terrorist attacks on our homeland or installations abroad.

But the instant we attacked Afghanistan we accepted a commitment to the Afghan people. The Taliban regime was far from stable, but removing it destabilized the country further. If we simply pulled out, the country would inevitably plunge itself into chaos. Not only is that not in our (long-term) national interest, it would be a cruel gesture to a country we already abandoned twenty years ago.

Wholesale regime change and nation-building is a prickly issue--especially when it comes to establishing whether a war is "just" or not. Once war is entered into, however, it is a required element of victory and cannot be abandoned just because we Americans have short attention spans.

1. The novel I've been working on for quite sometime, which switched protagonists and is probably going to be split into two books (again :P). I need to finish this, and I've actually gone back to it today, trying to finish revising the latest chapter (18 out of probably 20-25).
2. My attempt at re-writing the first protagonist's half of number 1, which was to be my nanowrimo project. That got off to a good start, but stalled out for two reasons: (1) my wrists simply can't keep up with writing that much on a constant basis; (2) the arrival of Modern Warfare 2 in my mailbox ;) Still, I'm going to keep at it even as I try and finish the first project.
3. Something I just started doing (and I'm having a lot of fun so far, btw) is writing backstories/vignettes that would probably never make it into a book but are exercises for me in fleshing out my character's POV. Especially characters who aren't the protagonists. I was going to post them here, but in case I need to use them in any of the stories, I'm not. Last thing I want to do is anything that would jeopardize my chances at publication in hard media.
   

Okay, so I'm far from the only person who's going to be commenting on this game (perhaps one of the biggest of all time) but doing it serves two purposes: (1) it satisfies my current all-consuming addiction to the game; (2) helps to resurrect a blog that I've sorely neglected.

Since release day delivery at 1 p.m. (for once Amazon's service came on time!), I've put in about two hours on campaign and probably close to eight on multiplayer. Where has that gotten me? I'll break my impressions into two parts:

First off, the campaign. We've all been warned that this game--like its predecessor--is a fairly short experience. Furthermore, its story is supposed to be less cohesive and a bit far-stretched. I just started Act II (of 3) but I can see these criticisms.

Still, though, what I was looking for was something supplied by the previous game: an action title that pushed the boundaries. Call of Duty 4 was a revolutionary title in many ways, but one of my favorite aspects was the novel aspects to its story. Beginning in "Charlie Don't Surf" you see a war against Islamic radicals. Then Kamarov introduces you to the "new" Russia. A nuclear blast goes off, killing one of the POV characters (!). All of this combines over the course of the (brief) campaign to create a dystopian view of the modern battlefield. Accurate--painfully accurate--to the realities of the present, but with a distinctly dark twist.

Modern Warfare 2 takes that dystopian vision and turns it up to "11".

*SPOILERS*
Early in the game you discover that the efforts to preserve Russia against the ultra-nationalists utterly failed (even though it was a military success). The terrorist Imran Zakhaev is now lionized as the hero of the new Russia (!).

The scope of global terror is greater, more destructive, and smarter. This will be a difficult war to win, one which demands sacrifices--something that MW2 provides early and often.

The campaign has taken me (so far) from Kasakhstan to Moscow, to Rio de Janeiro. But the way it begins is awesome: in Afghanistan. Unlike the "generic" Middle East setting of the first game, you start in an actual theater of the War on Terror. I can understand (some of) the controversy surrounding another developer's "Three Days in Fallujah", but it's refreshing to see a developer avoid PC and have an Islamic nemesis hailing from a real country. No white-washing here.

I can already see how far-fetched the story could become as the game progresses, but it's already given me what I loved from the first-game: a story that pushes the boundaries, but not through adult content (though, of course, this is far from a kid's game).

Multiplayer has so far been nothing short of addictive. I enjoy the gameplay of COD4 but I only recently got into it (as opposed to Halo 3), partly in preparation for MW2's release. I'm not good (at all) but I started to enjoy it. COD4 was my first introduction to class-based multiplayer and, quite frankly, it annoyed me. Weapon unlocks and the lack of skill-based matchmaking was something foreign to me after so long in the Halo-verse.

MW2 uses the same basic formula, but it's so much better. Weapon unlocks take about the same time, but there's more challenges to complete, and more exp bonuses. It seems like just about every match I get a bonus for something (like making a kill after dying three or more times, which happens a lot). The constant gratification of that, plus the addition of "accolades" (MW2's take on Halo 3's medals), makes it a more involving experience this time around--less an exp slog like COD4 was, for me.

My current favorite weapon is the tried and true M-4 that I fully unlocked in COD4. Once I get it mastered (all unlocks--and there are twice as many this time around), I'll explore some other classes. Right now I'm still having fun experimenting with different perk combinations (again, more of these) and learning maps.

Last night I had a few moments of rather good success, even being the MVP on a couple teams (during losing efforts, I have to add). Believe my current killstreak best is five. Not great but respectable. Which brings up something I love that they changed in MW2. Once you earn a killstreak reward, you own it--even if you die. It seemed like I would earn a UAV in COD4 and then immediately die. This time around, I can call it in after I respawn.

The basic formula remains the same, but the numerous tweaks and additions make it that much better. Dare I say, another aspect turned up to "11"?

And there's still a whole other aspect of the game I haven't even started on yet!

Turn-based or Real Time? RTS all the way!

Rounds or Respawn Timers? Timers. Rounds get waaaay too painful.

Cutscenes or Scripted Events? Mix of both. But definitely note cutscenes with "minigames" built in, a la Bourne Conspiracy. Ack.

Sliding Floor Tiles or Sliding Blocks? Sliding blocks. My nemesis!

Free To Play or Subscription Based? I'm cheap but I'm not going to subject myself to a crappy game just bec. it's free to play.

Crosshairs or Iron Sights? Crosshairs, but I do like the 'aim down the sight' game mechanic. I really don't have a preference actually.

Skill Trees or Dialogue Trees? Why not both?

Console or PC? Console all the way! I love my 'puter but not for gaming.

Coop or Multiplayer? Why not both? Multiplayer is for when your friends aren't around.

Block or Dodge? Dodge

Open World or On Rails? Open world--hence the reason that I love Bethesda's Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3. I love FPS games but I like ones that give you some tactical choices and don't funnel you down a corridor.

What is the most beautiful feature or mechanic in games? Good v. evil that results in the deformation of the character a la KOTR.

What is the most disappointing game you have ever played? Sadly, probably Halo Wars. I want to love the game and. . . I like it--but don't love it.

What is your favorite game judging solely by user-interface? That's really tough. Probably have to go with Halo 3 on that one.

What famous designer do you wish you were? Cliffy B. or shishka.

What game's world is most interesting to you? That's super tough. Call it a tie between Halo and Elder Scrolls. Though Bioshock's right there.

What game would you most like to turn into a franchise with 13 sequels? Definitely Elder Scrolls. I love Halo but I'm skeptical of any game in the series not developed by Bungie.

Have to go to work soon (I know, working on Sundays is a bummer) but it's time for a brief update on what I've been up to.

First off, I finished Bioshock. Wow. . . . Awesome game! Look for a full review eventually. Hey, you know me! Weak ending but still a great game. Don't know how the sequel's going to pan out. I'm pretty skeptical--probably even more than my wife.

My current main addiction is Bethesda's awesome Fallout 3. Great game! While it plays much like a shooter, at its core it's an RPG--so if you like those, buy the damn game! Now!

Buy it yet?

Because of the crappy people who stole my Xbox I've had to restart Oblivion (try number 4 now). Love the game but can only take so much at a time.

Replaying Halo 3--still love it!

Trying to finish GRAW for the first time. Pretty good game but also really methodical. Only have the patience to play for so long.

Anyways, gotta go. Peace! (or war, if that suits your fancy better)

On vacation on the East Coast missing my 360 but having a lot of fun (except for sunburn being at the beach).

When I get back, it's time to get back down to business. Finish Bioshock, maybe start Fallout 3 (I'm in the mood for something open-ended).

I have to whittle my pile of games down before my birthday present from my wife arrives: Halo 3-Odst *salivates*.

We'll see how well that works, right :P

Need to rebuy Xbox Live too, but I'll wait a day or two so that it's there when we get home. Or maybe not. . . . Games are in my blood!

I've been playing Bioshock quite a bit but I'm nowhere near the end--it's a surprisingly long, deep game. I knew my wife liked it but now that I'm into it I've really been enjoying it. If my wrist problems hadn't flared up I'd probably be playing a lot more of it.

There are two things I really like about the game: (1) blending RPG mechanics with a FPS--and doing it really well. It's not a dungeon crawler RPG, it's a true FPS. At the same time, blended in with the tactical approach you HAVE to take is deciding what to upgrade when, how much money and ADAM to invest in things. . . . And how many Big Daddies to take on. I love the fact that the semi-bosses are also semi-optional. You have to fight Big Daddies to get ADAM, but you don't necessarily need to get maximum ADAM to beat the game. Also, you get to pick and choose your battles. Each big Daddy patrols a certain sector and, for the most part, won't attack you unless you start it. That gives a lot of options for ambushes--or, if you're low on supplies, you can backtrack when you've got the ammo and health that you need.

(2) The incredibly deep story. It helps that Andrew Ryan reminds me a lot of my central character, Azriah Shepard, except off his psych meds :P. I can see the real dangers posed by gene manipulation, but I defintely have a rosier outlook than the game portrays. Still, the way you see each of the side characters' lives transformed by ADAM and the corrupting influence of plasmids is incredibly powerful.

I've been re-trying COD4 also. Still like the campaign and am neutral on the multiplayer. I might try Gears of War instead now that the bugs seem to be all ironed out. My wife's probably gonna get me back into Fallout 3 as well.

Which helps forestall my Halo 3 addiction--though my unwillingness to pay for DLC when ODST will include that has a definite influence. My Xbox Live Gold trial is almost up, so I should probably break down and pay up. But Halo 3 isn't much fun when I'm limited to endless matches of Social Slayer (ack).

I love Bungie, but it's for my own good that I'm staying away from the Halo universe. At least, until ODST drops in September. (Wow, I'm going three months without Halo--impressive, neh?) *My wife's probably laughing her ass off as she reads this. Right, honey?

Anyways, my kids are threatening to destroy my carefully organized shelf of cleaning chemicals so I should probably go.

No excuses, readers.

I knew it'd been a while, but I didn't realize until now just HOW long it had been. Sorry.

Well, actually, I suppose I do have one excuse--getting all my stuff stolen a couple weeks ago. And just been really busy fixing up my house and working on my writing. Still trying to finish the first draft. . . . Check back in a few months :P.

So, what have I been playing?

The frakking crooks took everything except my lowly PS2 (which was tucked away in the basement feeling inferior to the 360 and the PS3 :P). So I used it as an excuse to play the original Half-Life again. Not that I ever finished it the first time. Or the second. Or the third. But this time's the charm. At least, we can hope.

So, how am I enjoying such an old school title?

Despite the graphically challeneged gaming, I'm really enjoying. I'd forgotten how enjoyable a nice mixture of puzzle-solving, platforming, and FPS could be. It's a nice hybrid--one that Bioshock (my other current game, now that we've gotten everything replaced) is a good contemporary counterpart to. Two games that also have KILLER sound designs.

I'll try and be a bit more regular in the future. But no promises. Then I don't have to give any excuses. Wow, Baltar MUST be wearing off on me. . . :P

Oh, and astute readers will notice the new gamertag (with it's pathetically low gamerscore). That's because MS has been NO help with their totally FAIL Windows Live password recovery system. Ah well. I'm not one for going specifically after achievements anyways. And God knows I hardly ever play with my 'friends'.

Sorry I've been letting my video game blog go to waste. As my only reader knows well (i.e., my wife), it's not that I haven't been gaming. On the contrary, I've been gaming A LOT.

So, what have I been up to? Well, let's see. . . . Mostly a lot of Halo 3. I've been tinkering with the Forge, but I'm not really that good at it. I've been playing a lot of Team Slayer based games, and am really enjoying the Mythic Map Pack.

My favorite map has to be Sandbox--and not just because of its Forgeability. I really like the default layout--it's fun for Slayer and for CTF games. Yes, I actually enjoy CTF on Sandbox, provided I'm not stuck on a team with a bunch of imbeciles (or, alternately, matched up against a team full of Generals and the like).
My next favorite map has to be Assembly--which is a tiny, but incredibly fun map. Team Swat is INSANE on this map--especially when just about any spawn point is already within range of a shooter. At the same time, while there are points that a well-coordinated team can control and use to dominate, it's not a map you can camp on, because it's so small and so symmetrical.

Orbital is probably my least favorite map, but I'm starting--starting, mind you, to get the hang of it. The long hallways make it fun for Swat and BR matches--anything else starts to become painful, because whichever team has the power weapons wields a huge advantage. Despite my suckiness, though, this has to be my favorite for SWAT matches. A team sniper match would be interesting, but probably a little too insane.

Another interesting thing for the ninjas out there is that, despite it's long open hallways, there's a few secret passages that ninjas can use to sneak around in--a nice touch.

It'll be really interesting to see what happens when Mythic is open to the non-Halo Wars LCE owners and becomes part of the matchmaking as a whole. Finally, I hope, I won't be the lowest ranking member of a match (despite being a Captain, Grade 3). I'm getting a little sick of being pwned by Brigadiers and Commanders (not to mention the crazy proportion of Generals in this playlist).

Speaking of Halo Wars, I've spent a lot of time playing that. I haven't finished the campaign yet, so I'm not going to give a full review yet, but here are some of my initial impressions.

Ensemble has done a fantastic job bringing an RTS to the console. You can really tell that they designed this, from the ground up, for the 360 controller. The menus are simple and intuitive, the unit selection is pretty good (all your basic functions are there) and the tech tree is well-designed.

One of the key aspects to any RTS is the balance between the factions. This is one thing that I'm iffy on when it comes to the online multiplayer. In my experience, the Covenant is crazy powerful right at the beginning of the game because of their leader powers. But, if I survive the first 5-10 minutes, I've won probably 95% of the time. Whenever I see the Covenant is my opponent, the first thing I do is build as large an army as possible before worrying about serious upgrades. And even then, if they attack early I still usually lose.

I haven't yet tried playing as the Covenant, because their opening strategy is so cheap it reminds me of my friend Travis' infamous 'Commander Drop' strategy in Total Annihilation (basically sacrificing the Commander to use him as a free nuke). I may try playing them to see if you can win without the cheapness, otherwise I'll stick with the UNSC.

One thing, less so about the Covenant (though, again, I haven't used them yet), that I like is that which leader you pick gives you significantly different strategic choices. Think of the leaders as providing three sub-factions.

I've switched between the three UNSC leaders quite a bit. For a while I was enamored with Professor Anders because of her discount on tech tree upgrades, but against a good opponent the Hawks are just too weak of a super unit (not to mention that the Cryo bomb, her main leader power, is annoying but not truly destructive). Lately I've had good success with Captain Cutter, because the ODSTs are simply bad ass.

The other nice thing is that, with the right combination of units, I can beat up another person's army, then hot drop ODSTs (essentially creating 10 units nearly instantaneously) to use as reinforcements to either pursue the offensive or defend my front base while I rebuild my other units.

Another thing I've noticed is that it--as much as Halo Wars was billed by Ensemble as a fast-paced RTS [and it is]--it really pays to patient. I've learned the hard way that (so far) the best strategy is to wait for the other player to attack, or feint in order to provoke them so that you can fight in the shadow of your own base. Doing that, the turrets provide a significant firepower advantage that will allow a good deal of your army to survive while theirs is beat to shreds. From there, you can quickly re-build (or if you're strong enough), launch an immediate counter-attack.

The other thing that gives Cutter such a huge advantage is that, while you need a good mix of vehicles and air units along with the ODSTs to succeed, your main attack unit is so much cheaper resource-wise than the other two leaders. That gives a huge advantage to Cutter in longer matches that boil down to wars of attrition. I learned that the hard way when I was playing as Anders--I'd repeatedly get pwned by players using Cutter because I'd eventually exhaust my resources building the more expensive units. Plus, the re-build time for infantry (even if you don't hot-drop) is so much faster than vehicles and air units.

Another thing I need to try is 2v2 or 3v3 matches. I can imagine that if you have a good partner, those would be lots of fun. But we'll see.

I've really been enjoying Halo 3 multiplayer, especially since I've gotten my wife (who's over at Asserting Reality) into it. You should have seen her playing Grifball--jumping up and down and screaming at the people on our various teams who were being idiots. Or, alternately, cursing the few really good teams we encountered. I think, over the two nights we played, we probably won around 70% of the time (with something like 50 matches under our belts). I'd also say that once I got the "ball" I probably scored at least 75% of the time. So, seriously, guys, GIVE ME THE BALL!!

Which, I have to say, is really funny, because the first weekend I encountered the joys of grifball, I was terrified of picking it up. My my, how things change with a little EXP.

An added perk is that, somewhere in between the thrill of competition and the frustration of getting pwned by a cadre of vastly superior players, my wife gets really, really horny. It's great. She's such a little freak, it's awesome. (She'll probably kill me for posting this, but oh well :P).

Somewhere in between grifball and constantly getting pwned in Team Swat I'm starting to wear myself out on Halo 3. Don't get me wrong--I'm still in LOVE with Bungie's awesome game and I'm freakin' out about Halo Wars LCE and the Mythic Map Pack coming in the mail on March 4th, but I'm starting to want to branch out a bit.

So, even though I started Bioshock--which is awesome, btw--I felt like playing a little COD4. So far I've beaten the first two levels on Veteran. It's challenging to some degree, but nowhere near like any of the Halo games on Legendary (esp. solo Legendary). That said, I'm starting to shudder when I think about the TV station clusterf*** and the timed run down the hill to the helo. Any timed run in a FPS is madness. I hate them, because I am just not a run and gun guy. Then again, the sniper mission is probably going to take me a couple hours to beat. I'm a decent sniper, but can I kill 70-100 odd guys in under five minutes? We'll see. . . .

So, anyways, I'll keep y'all posted. I know I've got more games to review and stuff, but I'm just not feelin' it right now. But we'll see.

Peace!

Immersion: I wouldn't quite call Gears a tactical shooter, but I wish most tactical shooters would emulate Gears' cover system. Hide, pop out and shoot, duck back, hop over, SWAT turns, etc. all occur relatively seamlessly--aided by the on-screen hints.

Despite being light on a storyline, I actually found Gears to be quite immersing, because events take place in such a focused storyline. You never join a larger unit, you occasionally split up, but you feel like you're always right there. The scenery does the Xbox 360's hardware justice, and the sound design is top-notch (despite a relatively so-so soundtrack--especially compared to the Halo trilogy).

The story of Marcus, Dom, Cole, and Baird is full of rather blah banter but there's some really good lines. You get a sense of each of their personalities, and while the tactical command menu is basically worthless, they have some of the best friendly AI programming available in a shooter (especially compared with my latest experience with the abolutely worthless Arbiter in Halo 3's early levels).

Another thing which contributes to the sense of immersion are the nearly ever-present Kryll, which threaten to nearly-instantly devour you if you stray into the dark (a la Pitch Black). The relatively simple puzzles required to get your way through the darkened streets represent a requirement to always be aware of your surroundings--even when there are no apparent enemies. That's something I really like.

One final thing I have to comment on is how beautiful the COG architecture is--despite it's mostly ruined state. Before E-day and especially before the Pendulum Wars, the planet Sera must have been one beautiful place.
Replay Value:

Core gamplay is quite good for the campaign, but I could take-or-leave the multiplayer (especially since I tried it after already being on Halo 3's server for many many hours). At least it's not glitchy like the sequel still is. So I'm not piling on adulations like other critics. Then again, I haven't liked many multiplayer shooters apart from the Halo trilogy, Goldeneye, and Perfect Dark.

Balancing:

So far, I've only played through on casual--despite having played through numerous shooters, simply because I wanted to get through the game. I found it challenging, but I'll probably play through on Hardcore (but probably not Insane, though we'll see).

A couple criticisms: despite my liking for the Kryll as a gameplay mechanic, I found the UV turret level stuck out in a game otherwise lacking in vehicular combat (something notably present in the sequel).

A much bigger gripe is the Berserkers. I appreciate the challenge they represent, especially given the time-delay required to lock on the Hammer of Dawn. The thing is, they're never really integrated into the Locus horde as a whole (e.g., you never see a member of the Theron guard releasing one, they just show up all of a sudden, and (thankfully) alone). And despite being alone, they somehow manage to be even more annoying than the Hunters in the Halo trilogy. Which, trust me, is saying a lot.

Final Impressions:

I got this game for free, but I had always planned on buying it. I would still buy it again, but buy it if you're the type that likes singe or two-player co-op, not online multiplayer, because the multiplayer sucks. A must play, but I game I'll probably eventually trade in.

Sorry I haven't been updating much lately. My wife and I have been on a bit of a Halo 3 kick, both multiplayer and the campaign. We're trying to beat the campaign co-operatively on Legendary after both getting (temporarily, I'm sure) stuck doing the same on solo.

So far it's been a lot of fun, and though I'm glad there are 'macro' checkpoints (in that you can re-start a co-op campaign at several rally points throughout a level, I wish there were more because sometimes it takes a while to beat a level--the longest so far is Tsavo Highway (about 1:15).

I'm sure that compared with other Halo 3 players, we're pretty sucky, but it's all about the fun, no?

What's interesting too is that while I'm definitely noting differences between Heroic and Legendary, I'm still basically getting stuck at all the same parts. In fact, parts that I used to get stuck at all the time (like where the whole mess of drones appears in Crow's Nest) we got through on the first try.

The hardest parts so far are the same: the first encounter with a full Brute Pack in Crow's Nest took us a good half-hour to beat. Tsavo Highway in general was difficult, but the part where you have to dismount on take on another Brute Pack took us a LONG time (probably 45 minutes or so out of the whole 75 minutes on the level).

The thing I'm realizing more and more: it's all about the headshot. Plus, since Bungie is soo stingy about sniper ammo, I've renewed my appreciation for the BR. I only wish I was better with it in multiplayer. 7 out of 10 times I get pwned when it's BR vs BR. I'll have to rectify that. . . .

As someone who absolutely hates these, I thought it was a humorous treatment of them.

Mass Effect has become one of my favorite RPGs to date--one which I hope many future titles will emulate (not copy).

Immersion: The single greatest innovation Bioware introduces is the dialog system. Unlike many old and new RPGs, ALL dialogue is voice-acted--that includes NPCs and your own character. And, considering that you can play as both a man and as a woman, that means Bioware invested in a considerable amount of voice-acting. Which is, by the way, top noth--but that's not the innovation. There have been and will be many games with fantastic voice acting.

The truly ingenius innovation is that, upon being prompted for a response, you don't have to read the literal word-for-word response your character is going to say. Instead, you're presented with a number of 'gut responses', allowing the actual dialogue to be interesting. There were sometimes that choosing a certain gut feeling produced dialogue I wasn't expecting, but I loved the system overall. It makes the game feel more like a movie, especially since both voice actors (male and female) for Commander Sheppard are quite good. Also, while much of the game is third person with the camera parked behind you, in dialogue it pans to a more theatrical perspective, showing Sheppard and/or the person he/she's talking to.

Gameplay as a whole is good and while some of the side quests become tedious--especially the buildings, which all have the same floor plan/architecture for the most part--the plot is pretty good. As a fan of shooters, I liked the combat system, though the tactical commands are pretty barebones. I wish you either (a) had more control or (b) your allies had better AI and were pretty much self-sufficient. That said, some of your allies (the asari in particular) are pretty badass when leveled up. Nothing like seeing five enemies simultaneously being picked up and tossed around a room. Sweet. . . .

The graphics are quite good and the excellent sci-fi soundtrack only adds to the ambience. It's clear that Bioware is intentionally recalling older sci-fi influences from the 70's and 80's--especially Battlestar Galactica, something which my wife and I were talking about when we watched the new series recently.

Replay Value:

Negligible. I tried replaying it a second time through, but there are too many fetch and story quests and ultimately not enough variety in the combat to keep it appealing. But that doesn't give a knock on the game as a whole--very few RPGs have a lot of replay value, simply because they are so story-intense. If the story branched more, maybe there would be some replay there, but it's just not happening for me.

Balancing:

In general the control scheme is good. I thought the mechanic of never running out of ammo but continually worrying about weapons overheating was an interesting way of making the combat like a shooter without constantly having to scurry around scrounging for ammo. That said, I didn't like the difficulty level settings for combat. The first time through I thought normal was ok--a bit boring, but hard was too difficult. The second time through (for as long as I put into it), even hard was a bit too easy because I knew exactly how I wanted to level up my characters.

I guess the main problem is that even though the geth are supposedly a formidable enemy, they're not much of a challenge (with the notable exception of their equivalent of a tank, which is WAY too powerful). At one point a NPC (the quarian I think) states that the geth are smarter when they have greater numbers, but that's not terribly evident. For the most part, they site there and shoot at you without ever trying to flank you or even use any kind of tactics whatsoever. Though it's not exactly as if Mass Effect is a run and gun, and you have to keep in mind I'm writing this after not having played the game for quite a few months.

Final Impressions:

Even though it lacks replay value, it's definitely a must-play. Normally RPGs lack the degree of immersion a FPS or more action-oriented game has, but this one is in a class by itself on immersion, which I think is the most important criterion for a game. This is an overused phrase, but it really plays like a movie. Buy it or rent it (it takes about 20 hours or so to beat)!

Immersion: This is--hands down--THE most immersing game I have ever played. The game plays like a movie and except for the times I got stuck because I'm only an average player, that experience never stopped. Even during load screens. Yes. The designers at Infinity Ward made possibly the singe coolest design choice I have ever scene--disguise the load screens as cut scenes with only minimal pauses. I was literally gripping my controller with tension as I played some parts of the game.

The storyline takes of Call of Duty franchise where it's never been before: modern warfare. Begone old, tired WWII with its utterly known outcomes and thus lack of ultimate drama. Enter in a new, original storyline which is Tom Clancy-esque in its themes and design. The story isn't terribly original, but it's the way in which it's interwoven into the game that is so original.

The opening level--and indeed the whole game--is played through a unique perspective that I've never quite encountered. Both PCs are not commanders, not in charge, yet it's not like your squadmates will do everything for you.

You begin the game as a newbie in the SAS. In fact, on the first mission the NPCs will do most of the work, letting you bring up the rear. Just try to survive. Soon the game introduces a similarly low-ranked American soldier as your second PC.

You become more involved as the game goes on, but you're never in charge and only occasionally do you have to take point if you don't want to. You're not a one man army a la Halo. You're just one of the guys. Albeit you're the guy that can't die. At least, that's what they want you to think. Let's just say that the way the American storyline ends is something I've always wished the writers of "24" had the balls to do.

One thing I wish is that the cover system was better--something along the lines of Gears, where integrated into the cover system are moves like SWAT turns, duck-and-run, etc. That said, there are few complaints which will ruin the immersion rating.

The graphics are amazing. This is one of the most beautiful games I've played on the 360. The sound is equally good--this is something you'll want 5.1 surround for. Trust me.

Replay Value:

The campaign is short and sweet. In IGN's review they estimated it took about 6 hours to complete, which sounds about right. But the story is so good and some parts are so challenging, this is something you'll want to replay several times. I finished the game on Normal, and need to go back and finish my game on Hardened. What I've found so far is that--like many shooters--there are parts that you can breeze through and there are others where you want to scream and pull your hair out. Every time.

The campaign, in my mind, is where COD4 shines. The multiplayer is very popular--constantly competing with Halo 3 for the top Xbox Live title--but it rubs me the wrong way. I think I'm just not a fan of class-based multiplayer.

In essence, before each match you can pick what class you want to start as--this determines your starting/re-spawn weapons and "perks". As you complete certain challenges and gain EXP, more weapons and perks unlock. Thus, at least in theory, the longer you play the stronger player you become.

This is all fine and good, but (unless there has been a recent patch which changed this) Infinity Ward has failed to offer any kind of matchmaking/trueskill system to ensure that players will be matched with other players who have similar experience/weapon arsenals. Which naturally makes it hard for noobs like myself to gain any exp and catch up.

I wouldn't mind the class-based multiplayer if it was like other games in which all or at least a majority of the weapons were already unlocked and it was simply a matter of choice. Almost all the time when I see myself dying in the pre re-spawn "kill cam", my killer is someone with a weapon and/or scope I have no access to. Which just pisses me off. It's hard enough in games like Halo 3 to beat significantly better players, let alone giving them an inherent advantage from the very beginning.

In essence it's a reverse handicap system, which in turn becomes the major pitfall of the title.

Balancing:

My heaviest critique of the title on this account would simply be a repeat of my diatribe against COD4's multiplayer. Needless to say I won't torture the reader by repeating it.

The single-player campaign is well-designed with a natural progression in the difficulty levels. Not only that, but while your starting weapon on any given mission is fixed, rest assured that another weapon will be available to pick up if you prefer. Which I often did.

As far as game mechanics go, the controls are pretty well laid out. This was the first title I've ever played where you have the choice between holding down the left trigger to aim down the sights (which makes your fire more accurate) and firing from the hip. This mechanic works well, though I like it better in Gears, where your integration behind cover is so important.

Another mechanic which grew on me is the ability to pick up a grenade and throw it back. At the beginning, I almost never did this and simply tried to run backwards. By the end, I didn't even need to see the grenade indicator on the HUD--when I heard the clink of the grenade hitting the ground, I pressed RB instinctively to throw it back.

Final Impressions: This is a must-have for those who like shooters. Other gamers need not necessarily apply, but trust me--it's fun. I'm mixed on the current COD game (World at War) bec. it's another WWII, but I'm eagerly awaiting Infinity Ward's next Modern Warfar game. My only gripe is the multiplayer. So, if I knew what I now know, I still would have bought it, but I probably would have waited for the price to drop after the multiplayer became less popular.

One final note: COD4 has spawned one of the best user-created videos of all-time:

Well, I've done it-- reviewed all three Halo games. Even though, of course, I finished these quite some time ago it's been fun. Now for the comparison necessary after the completion of any trilogy: which one is the best?

I realize this has been a popular article as of late, but hopefully I provide a unique perspective.

Story:

Halo: CE gets notable mention if nothing else because without it, the other two games cease to exist. The story of the Master Chief and Captain Keyes on Halo is a classic one, but the scenery remains ultimately the same throughout. The story writers definitely get props in my book, however, for the pseudo-horror movie-esque way in which the Flood were introduced. Creepy. . . .

Halo 2 takes the bank in my book, as I alluded to throughout my reviews of the trilogy. Not only do you start on the Cairo orbital defense station, then you take a trip down to earth, then a journey through Slipspace. The scenery continues to change throughout, keeping the action pumping without ever feeling stale. One exception to that is the annoying trip through the containment walls to greet the Flood--very reminiscent of the equally annoying Library level in Halo: CE.

Many Halo fans are conflicted over the split storyline in Halo 2 which follows the semi-parralel journeys of the Master Chief and Arbiter who ultimately meet in the lair of the Gravemind. I have to say that the opening cutscene of Halo 2 is my favorite of the entire series, hands down. Plus, the designers picked an excellent way to introduce the Arbiter to the player with the 'Heretic' mission.

Halo 3's storyline is nothing to shrug at, however. The initial trip to the jungle and through Crow's Nest is a great opening sequence--helped considerably by the orchestral score and the HD graphics. Halo 3's horror-movie re-introduction of the Flood almost tops that of Halo: CE's intro and I give the deigners props for using the Flood in a way that very rarely becomes repetitive until the penultimate level within the Gravemind.

Which is, of course, one of my biggest beefs with Halo 3. The second-to-last level, with all of its incredibly annoying Cortana interruptions just drives me up the wall. Enough said.

Another annoyance is the near absence of the Arbiter from the story except as your sidekick. He contributes almost nothing except his utility as a walking tank during the initial Flood levels. His absence is one of the reasons the Gravemind level is so freaking annoying.

A final gripe is the utter weakness of using the monitor as the final boss. How lame is that?

Edge: Halo 2

Balancing (Single Player)

Halo: CE sets the bar in my mind for difficulty level progression in a video game. Easy is just that. Normal is a decent challenge for most players (including myself). Heroic is manageable at parts and downright difficult on others. Legendary is simply insane (for me). I salute those who've beaten any of the Halo games on Legendary. You're my heroes. Not really, but still cool.

The weapon arsenal is nice, with the single coolest weapon for the single player being the zooming pistol. Easily one of the best videogame weapons of all time. The sniper rifle is nice too. Here's some advice: if you see it, pick it up. Ditto for the shotgun, a.k.a. "the boomstick". Why did Bungie have to weaken it in the later titles?

From where I sit, Halo 2 keeps the difficulty level progression unchanged. So, what are the changes? Bye bye, assault rifle, hello Battle Rifle and SMG (a.k.a. "bullet hose"). Bye, bye zooming pistol. Hello totally lame and plasma pistol uselessness. But wait, the plasma pistol is quite useful now with dual wielding, especially for multiplayer.

The battle rifle is another one of the coolest weapons. My only wish is that it had two firing modes: three-round burst and full auto (with an appropriate loss of accuracy). What I wish, though, is that the assault rifle had not been deleted.

Dual-wielding is a nice addition, but as I said in my Halo 2 review, I found it more useful in multiplayer. In the campaign, I preferred to keep a single weapon and hold on to my grenades, as those are far more effective in winnowing down large groups of Covenant.

Changes I particularly hate are the revised hunters and the 'bullet-sponges' a.k.a. known as the Brutes.

Halo 3 fixes some of the errors of Halo 2 but makes some of its own. Rather than leave the difficulty levels unchanged, Bungie considerably weakened the Normal. I have a sneaking suspicion that Heroic is half a notch lower too. Gameplay is further changed by the fact that you now have an AI sidekick in the Arbiter. He's useful primarily as a moving shield as he rarely kills enemies. With the notable exception of using him against the Flood. Holy crap. Nothing like having an energy sword with unlimited ammo. Which, of course, is one of the reasons why I hate the penultimate level--the Arbiter's not with you for that one. That results in the difficulty level being increased considerably, particularly for someone like me who was quite content to let the Arbiter score the vast majority of Flood kills, thereby conserving my precious ammo.

Changes I liked were re-introducing the assault rifle (which in turn makes the SMG almost as worthless as the Magnum). The Brute Spiker is a nice weapon and the Gravity Hammer is simply bad-ass.

I also particularly liked the revised Brutes. The Brutes as they were in Halo 2 were a MAJOR mistake when it came to balancing. The Brutes in Halo 3 are an enemy you love to hate. Their decent teamwork isn't the best enemy AI by a long shot, but it's the best of the Halo trilogy. Which makes them in some ways harder than the Elites of Halo: CE despite their lack of shields.

The basic Brutes are easier to kill than the Blue Elites of Halo: CE but appear usually in far greater numbers. The Captains are considerably more challenging than the Red Elites. And the Chieftains are just, well, insane compared to the Gold Elites. The Golds pretty much came at you alone and the simplest strategy for dealing with them was simply to tag them with a plasma grenade and run backwards. The Chieftains are far more aggressive and are always surrounded by their Brute pack. Finally the Covenant uses some teamwork against the Master Chief.

This is difficult to decide, but. . . .

Edge: Halo: CE

Multiplayer/Co-op

The only real difference between co-op in the three games is Halo 3's campaign meta-game where you can keep 'score' based on kills, headshots, deaths, etc. It's fun and a nice addition.

Multiplayer is where each Halo title surpassed the previous one with new weapons, maps, options for customized games, etc. Halo 3 is the easy winner here. Not only is the code considerably more polished, but the online matchmaking system is the pinnacle of multiplayer gaming in my book.

Not to mention the continually updated maps and playlist variants.

And the cool feature (though I don't have the patient for it) of the Forge, with the ability to edit maps and upload your own unique twist to the Halo 3 maps.

Another addition I really like is the Theater. After a particularly satisfying match (or a particularly frustrating one) you can rewatch the game from any player's perspective or take a bird's eye view of the action. And I'm amazed that the files only take up as much space as they do.

No contest

Edge: Halo 3

Replay Value

Every Halo game has at least two memorable levels. For Halo: CE and Halo 2, those were the opening levels. The Pillar of Autumn and Halo were awesome. In Halo 2, the Cairo Station, New Mombassa and Delta Halo were great. In Halo 3, I liked Crow's Nest, the desert level on the Ark and the final level (sans the boss fight). Even if I prefer to skip the Flood, each campaign has its moments.

Despite having the weakest individual level, Halo 3 ranks as having the most replayable campaign. It gets this result with the simple yet nice addition of the co-op metagame scoring and the ability to do co-op split-screen and over Xbox live from the same menu.

As multi-player goes, well, we already know which game is the most replayable. The constant addition and tweaking of content and code by Bungie keeps the experience fresh and challenging. For those with actual friends (unlike myself), having the File Share and Theater makes sharing your genius and/or stupidity very easy. The seamless integration of these features into the Bungie website is something all developers should emulate.

And for those with the patience, the Forge is a great addition and something which (correct me if I'm wrong) is something almost unheard of in console gaming despite its prevalance in PC gaming.

Edge: Halo 3

Final Decision

This is a difficult one, considering I'm a player who normally plays only the single-player campaigns of games but loves the multplayer of Halo 3. In many ways, the only game without major faults is Halo: CE. At the same time, however, the additions of its sequels outweigh their respective faults.

As biased as I am to the great story iof Halo: CE and the even greater one of Halo 2, I have to *gulp* admit that Halo 3 is the best of the trilogy.

This admission, however, is subject to change.

Especially since I need to get my wife motivated to sit down and play through the trilogy co-op. Maybe we'll even take a crack at Legendary *smiles*.

Halo 3 is the winner!

Easily one of the most anticipated games in my gaming lifetime. . . .

Did it finish the fight? Let's find out. . . .

Immersion: Much like buying the Xbox to play Halo, I held out on buying the 360 until Halo 3 came out. Which was great, because my wife and I pooled our Xmas money that year and bought the Halo 3 special edition 360 with it's cool, unique case. (No, I wouldn't call it puke green like some people out there). Plus we avoided the three red lights boogeyman which plagued so many of the initial release consoles.

Halo 3 was my first immersion into current-gen gaming--and even without an HDTV at that point, I was quite simply blown away with the graphics and the sheer beauty of the game. It was an awesome night when I first put that disc in. . . *sighs*. Definitely a high immersion rating, possibly even higher than Halo 2 in my book. At least when it comes to visuals and audio--though the score is possibly the weakest of the trilogy in my book. It's just a little too instrumental for my taste.

When it comes to storyline, Halo 3's is good, but probably the weakest of the 3, especially when it comes to immersion. The first level in the jungle is awesome, and Miranda Keyes does an admirable job of being the immediate face of the UNSC command. The thing I really hate are all the cryptic and just stupid Cortana immersions. Yes, some of them are interesting, but most of them would have much more place at home in a JRPG than a FPS. Especially. . . Especially in the penultimate level in the belly of the Gravemind. *fakes vomiting* Way too many interruptions--more annoying than MGS4, which is saying something.

Another gripe is that Halo 3's whole slogan was "Finish the Fight". Was the fight finished? I don't think so. But I don't want to spoil what the actual ending was.

Replay Value: The campaign is the least replayable of the three, but it's still quite replayable, especially with co-op available as both split screen and over Xbox Live.

Where Halo 3 really shines is its multiplayer. Halo 3 is the first game I put in when i got Xbox Live Gold and it remains pretty much the only multiplayer game I play online despite having tried others like COD4 and Gears.

One thing I really like about Halo 3 that so many other games lack is the combination of ranked and 'social' or unranked playlists. If I want the most even match possible, I'll play on ranked playlists. If I'm rusty or just want to have fun, I'll go on the social side. I've gotten (so far) up to 21 on Lone Wolves, but in pretty much any other ranked list I suck. Guess I'm not much of a team player.

Another thing I like is the way Bungie continually tweaks content--both maps, playlist content, and game variants as well as regularly adding maps. Not to mention the regular Double Experience weekends--my favorite being 'grifball'.

Bungie is up there as one of the best developers out there and with the Mythic Map Pack being released alongside Halo Wars in Feb '09 and Halo 3: ODST being released Fall '09, I see no reason for Halo 3 to drop out of the top two, let alone the top five 360 titles any time soon.

Balancing: I really disagree with Bungie's decision to make normal=pretty casual in the single player campaign. That's what easy has always been. I've finished every level on Heroic except the penultimate, which goes down in my book as the worst Halo level of the trilogy. Yes, worse than the fucking Library level in Halo: CE.

I haven't tried Legendary yet, but we'll see how that goes.

That said, I really like the de-emphasis on dual wielding in both the single player and multiplayer games. The addition of accessories is a mixed bag. I'm not a huge fan of it in multiplayer, but that may be just because I suck at it. I didn't use them much at all my first time through. My second time through the game I found them useful, but honestly more of a distraction from the classic Halo formula.

De-emphasizing dual wielding came with the price of making the SMG largely worthless, even as a dual-wield. The re-introduction of the assault rifle was a great decision on Bungie's part. The Brute Spiker is also nice and is somewhat useful as a multiplayer tool of destruction. Being able to use the gravity hammer is a nice touch.

I really like the re-design of the Brutes. A lot. When I saw the ViDoc before the game was released, I was psyched about the Brute pack and the relatively punishing nature of their AI. The basic brutes are pretty easy, even when in numbers. It's the yellow brutes (especially on Tsavo Highway when they have fuel rod cannons) that are challenging. And the chieftains, well, they're just insane. Three head shots with the sniper rifle to kill? That's just crazy. But crazy fun at parts.

One gripe about the AI--it's inconsistent in its aggressiveness. My first time through the game when I got to the long hallway in Crow's Nest with the huge brute pack (and your first chieftain) it took me 5 hours to beat because they rushed me in waves. Then, at random intervals the Brute Chieftain would all of a sudden charge (sometimes when there were still other Brutes standing).

The next time I came prepared. Tempted as I was to use the turret left over from the hanger on the Drones, I saved it and parked myself behind the bullet shield at the beginning of the hallway. And what--the Brutes, instead of rushing me just stood there and let me pick them off with the BR. They didn't even rush me when I went to go grab ammo when I ran out. And the Chieftain obliged me by running straight into the turret and dying at my feet.

That said, that's the only part I've noticed such a drastic change in the AI (perhaps because I was stuck for soooo long the first time).

Final Impressions: This is a must have for all 360 owners. Despite the really weak final boss and the lame final cutscene, it's a great game. In some ways it's the weakest of the trilogy, in others the best. Can I say more?

Let's continue onward with games I've played for quite some time, but still want to share my thoughts on. . . .

Immersion: Halo 2 continues the great tradition of its predecessor and in many ways exceeds it. Music remains the same--one of the best in game soundtracks of all time. Out of game, I find it the most listenable (is that a word?) to of all three soundtracks. Disc 1 (as released on CD) is full of more upbeat/rock music (including three tracks from Incubus) and Disc 2 is full of more of the creepy/ambient music Martin O'Donnell is quite good at.

Another aspect of Halo 2 that makes it a very successful sequel is that it takes cues from its predecessor and blends them with all new environments. The battle in New Mombassa ranks as some of my all-time favorite fighting in all three Halo games. Ditto for the first level where you play as the Arbiter on the heretic base.

Delta Halo remains probably my favorite Halo installation of the trilogy, especially the combination of very ancient feeling stone ruins early on with the usual hyper-technological Forerunner structures towards the middle of the campaign.

Many people have complained that the storyline of Halo 2, especially the fact it flips back and forth between the Master Chief and the Arbiter, ruined the storyline and made it feel like a fractured narrative--something which under my criteria would hurt its immersion rating. I disagree.

The way in which the opening cut scene flips back and forth between the Master Chief's award ceremony on the defense station and the Arbiter's trial on High Charity sets the stage masterfully. The player has to know what to expect going in and I found the Covenant perspective quite interesting--which of course is necessary to set the stage for Halo 3 where the Elites become uneasy allies with the humans. Plus getting to (finally) use the beam sword and the Arbiter's limited cloaking ability creates a different tactical situation to keep things spiced up.

Replay Value:

Like Halo, I never played online multiplayer, but I thoroughly enjoyed many games of local multiplayer in college with friends and afterwards with my wife. Can we say dual-wielding?

The campaign is very replayable, though except for the opening levels there is no one level I go back to replay over and over again. The Flood is just too repetitive after a while. One thing I definitely must say is that certain levels require a dark room. The first time I played the game it was in my old apartment with a bright sunny window shining on the screen--which makes the really dark Flood levels really difficult. Second time--no problemo. If I ever play a third with the HDTV, probably a big difference.

Balancing:

Probably the biggest different between Halo and Halo 2 is dual-wielding smaller weapons--this is very potent in multiplayer. Personally my favorite combo is the plasma pistol with the SMG--land the first shot with a charged pistol and 9 times out of 10 it's lights out.

I haven't had as much opportunity to play Halo 2 on high difficulty levels but for the most part the difficulty progression remains relatively similar. I have read, however, that Legendary in Halo 2 really ramps up the difficulty from Halo: CE *shudders*. Co-op continues to be quite a nice feature, especially when you're playing with a better player.

My one gripe (something which Bungie fixed with Halo 3) is that dual wielding is almost too powerful, especially with weapons like the Needler. Also, it's not as useful in the single player campaign when (at parts) conserving ammo is important. I personally found it far more effective to use the Battle Rifle or SMG with grenades than dual wield. Exceptions to that, however, I learned from multiplayer--pick up the plasma/SMG combo if you're facing several Elites in the same room without any of the annoying Grunts or Jackals.

Another gripe I just thought of is the re-design of the Hunters. They're bigger, slower, yet also more powerful. Probably the single most annoying new feature is their new attack where they swipe their shield behind them while you're trying to get to their soft spot. That said, I still think the Berserkers in Gears are far more annoying than the Hunters. With the notable caveat that Hunters always come in pairs.

Another thing I don't like are the Brutes. While it's cool to see how they take over from the Elites--especially the almost comical way in which they fight into the honor guard uniforms, they're almost as annoying as the Flood in my book. I like what one of the Bungie designers said in a Halo 3 ViDoc-- "they're basically bullet sponges."

Final Impressions: Many people might think that Halo 2 with its fractured storyline is the weakest of the trilogy. Part of me is inclined to say that--as with the original Star Wars trilogy--it's the best. It isn't the seminal game that Halo was simply because it is a sequel, but it's still a must have.

Yet another game I would never trade in--at least until my Xbox breaks and there's no way to fix it. But, by then, hopefully PCs will have good emulators for original Xbox favorites.