Ludicrous Kill!

Ico and Shadow of the Colossus HD Collection

2012-01-25T20:10:00.000Z

You might not have heard of these games before, but I assureyou that you should have. Ico and its spiritual successor Shadow of theColossus are held by many to be two of the finest games ever made. Both developed by the imaginatively named Team Ico andoriginally released for Playstation 2, they have been remastered andre-released on the Playstation Store, and can be bought separately or as abundle at notable discount. In truth, it’s difficult, maybe even futile, for meto try to adequately explain the experiences that these games provide. Theseare the two examples most commonly trotted out when the validity of the videogame medium as an art form is being debated, and with good reason; theatmospheric storytelling and emotive power on exhibition are second to none.

Ico follows the exploits of a young boy named Ico, who isimprisoned in a castle due to being born with horns, seen as a bad omen by hispeople. Breaking free of his chamber, he tries to escape, encountering alongthe way Yorda, a girl also imprisoned in the castle. Together, they seek toescape the castle, pursued at every turn by the shadowy minions of thefortresses fearsome queen. In terms of gameplay, it’s a pretty straightforwardpuzzle-platformer; the player controlled Ico must escort and protect thevulnerable Yorda to progress. What makes this game real special is thebeautifully crafted atmosphere, and the developing bond between the twocharacters. Despite the language barrier between them, they come togetherthrough handholding and their mutual wish to get away from the castle. Obviously,I’m far too fucking macho to be easily affected by such things, but even I wasa little touched by the simple friendship and trust they share. The queen’sshadowy minions will take any opportunity to seize Yorda, and I found myselffiercely protective of her- “Unhand her, you shadowy ruffian!” I would howl, asyet another smoky apparition tried to make off with the frightened girl. Thatalone is noteworthy- Yorda has to be constantly protected and literally guidedby the hand. She is defenceless against enemies and lacks Ico’s climbing andswinging abilities, meaning you have to make lengthy detours to accommodateher. In most games, this kind of escort mission is insufferable, a total painin the arse; here, I felt genuinely responsible for my charge.

Shadow of the Colossus offers a very different experience.Players assume the role of a lone warrior, Wander, who seeks to raise his lostlove from the grave by defeating sixteen fearsome monsters known as Colossi.These inhabit a barren, hopelessly bleak and forbidden land which Wandertraverses on horseback. That’s it, really- sixteen boss battles, punctuated bythe journeys from one to the next. It’s an unusual formula, and one that couldhave fallen flat were it not for the brilliant design of the foes, the uniquethrill of each combat and the haunting beauty of the world the player crosses.The colossi are all great lumbering monsters, seemingly made from stone, so theonly way to harm them is by climbing over their exteriors and stabbing them incertain weak spots. They’re all unique from one another, and each requires adifferent strategy to get at the vital spot. A huge amount of work has goneinto making these monsters feel just right- the way they move around, thebelievably heavy thumps of their footfalls and their behaviours in theirenvironments are all brilliantly realised. Maybe the most significant factor inmaking the colossi feel like real living things is the way they seem to really not want to die. The way theythrash around as you climb over their exteriors, the otherworldly moans of painwhen they are injured, the way their big sad eyes look at the camera as youfinish them- god damn. I mean, mylawyer has instructed me to state that I am no expert in the matter, but thisgame makes you feel like a real fucking murderer. The inter-battle explorationsegments are similarly believable. The howling of the wind, the rolling, untamedterrain and the drab, bleak colour scheme conspire to evoke the feeling oftrue, deep wilderness. This isn’t Skyrim or Liberty City, bursting with sidemissions and secrets, but that’s the point;the lack of life and artefacts on display enhance the lonely wasteland feelingthat this world is built to give, and on the occasion that you do find something interesting, it’s allthe more so as a result.

The games are from the same developer, and though thestorylines are only related by the flimsiest of threads, there are a lot ofsimilarities- the lonely atmosphere, the mystery and otherworldliness. Theyalso share many of the same flaws. There’s a certain clumsiness to thecontrols, particularly in Ico, that can see you miss vital jumps or strikes.Puzzles in both games often have one and only one solution, which can sometimesbe really opaque, especially when you can see a way to progress which isinexplicably ineffective. On more than one occasion, too, the solution isevident but the execution is aggravatingly, infuriatingly and artificiallydifficult- after spending about ninety minutes in the company of the fifteenthcolossus, chipping away at its health eternally while the vulnerabilitiesstared me in the face, I was ready to snap the fucking disc, which would havebeen really difficult since this was a digital download. Though the HD remastertreatment has been kind, and the artstyle in both games is great, you can tellthey were both originally PS2 games, and, indeed, that Ico was for much of its developmentintended for the original Playstation- animations and textures are definitelyfar from cutting edge. Additionally, I found myself dissatisfied with bothendings- they felt a little forced, and didn’t give quite the closure I’d haveliked, but that might just be me. Nevertheless, these are both fantasticexperiences overall- Shadow of the Colossus probably edges Ico out in overallquality, but I would really recommend them both as games everyone in the worldshould play. The PS3 owners among you should pick this bundle up from the onlinestore, failing that, see if you can pick up a copy for the PS2, since everyonehas one of those- hell, ask me nicely and I might dig my PS2 copies from thevault for you.

As for whether or not these games are bona-fide works ofart, as for whether or not any gamescan be works of art; I’m not sure if I can properly comment. I know a hell of alot about videogames, and not a lot at all about art. What I will say is this- these games demonstratethe unique ability of games to give the player a deep and genuine involvementin a narrative, something I’ve always been convinced of. I always thought thatthe complicity and interaction a video game requires of a player makes him apart of the story; it’s not just happening to a character, it’s happening to you. This makes the whole thing thatmuch more effective, and, for my money, is not something other media can doanything like as well. I’d like to think that, if nothing else, lends themedium at least a measure of artisticvalidity; but, like I said, I don’t know much about art. Certainly, though,these games and others offer experiences that cannot be matched anywhere else.

Shit, look at me all serious-faced, talking about “thevalidity of the medium as an art form”. What am I thinking? I’ll stick to poopjokes in future. Next up- Crysis PS3. Stay tuned.

Modern Warfare 3 Review

2012-01-10T15:22:00.001Z

Another November, another Call of Duty title. The businessmodel of this huge military-fps series is as regular as my bowel movements, andalmost as stinky. Nonetheless, I picked up this year’s release, Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 3, along with maybe eighty percent of the human population. Idid so with some trepidation, considering my dislike for last year’s, and theworrying events at developer Infinity Ward since the last game, but I washopeful that it would once again capture the hugely compelling action of theolder games.

some scrubs I'm gonna kill later

Nobody plays these games for the singleplayer, obviously, but since it’s part of the packageI played through it, so let’s mention it and get it out of the way. Thenarrative is mostly stupid, Michael Bay movie shit. It’s the near future, andthe big baddie Makarov has, through the events of the past two games, playedthe powers against one another to cause all out world war. Russia has invadedmainland USA, somehow, as well as most of Europe. The player switches betweencharacters, variously fighting the regular Russian military and Makarov’spersonal terror cell. Not a bad setup- a little overt, perhaps, a far cry fromthe relatively muted, Clancy-style narrative of the original Modern Warfare,but plenty of scope for the high action set-pieces the series is famed for. Andaction there is, relentless action, with the standard infantryman playinterspersed with decent turret sections- exactly the gameplay formula we’vecome to expect. Which is fine, really; it’s a competent formula, and though it’sa little stale by this point, there was no real call for a hotbed of gameplayinnovation. That said, I don’t think it comes off as well as the older games.Modern Warfare was never The Elder Scrolls in terms of freeform gameplay, butthis game approaches monorail levels of linearity- you follow your boss fromsetpiece to setpiece, and stray not afucking inch or you will die. The dreaded quick-time event makes a few appearancesas well, perhaps surprisingly a series first. This definitely gets grating- thecampaign is not long, clocking in at about six hours on the higherdifficulties, but I was bored as all hell by the end. In terms of gameplay, it’snot terrible- it works without any huge bugs I can recall, and everything is atleast as polished as a game this heavily recycled should be.

Special mention goes to the finer details of thesingleplayer narrative for being the most unrelentinglyretarded crap I’ve experienced in years. I’m not asking for Pulitzer Prizeshit, here, but holy god damn! Call of Duty 4 set the bar for a storyline thatwas thrilling without being overtly overt. This game flies an F-22 into the bar,blows up the stadium, and then escapes to Hogwarts on a rocket jetski. I getthe feeling the developers were given a list of landmarks to shoehorn in at allcosts, and the result is a game that is more like a sightseeing tour than aspecial operation. Turn your brain all the way off for this one, otherwise itwill ask annoying questions, such as-

Why is the roof of the New York Stock exchange agood place for jamming equipment?
Why are the Paris Catacombs a good place tostage an invading army?
Why is there an army of terrorists aboard theRussian president’s plane mid-flight?
Why does a 30 second segment need to show dozensof union flags, a red bus, the Houses of Parliament, a football, a red postbox,a red phonebox and Tower Bridge to demonstrate that it takes place in London?
Why does the chopper pilot fly into dangerousconditions with no co-pilot to assist him or to operate the cannon, but insteadhave the player character remotely control the gun using some sort of iPadwhile fighting on the ground?
Why did the developer think that in a post-TeamAmerica world it would be okay to, without irony, blow up the Eiffel Tower?
Why did I buy this stupid fucking game?

There are no answers to any of these, or the dozens of otherhead scratching moments, more satisfactory than “because it was kind of cool”.

me headshotting some scrub

Multiplayer is what everyone who’s anyone cares about, ofcourse. Again, it’s outwardly similar to past games- the same progression system,the same weapon mechanics, the same killstreak reward system- veteran playerswill be immediately at home. It’s the finer details that really let it down.The design of the all new maps is genuinely heinous- they are all small,single-level affairs, highly cluttered with very limited sightlines and anemphasis on spamtastic point blank engagements, nothing like the complex arenasof past MWs. The slight tweaks to weaponry have also had, in my eyes, anegative effect; damage is up, recoil is down. High fire rate weapons are depressinglyeffective as any gorilla can mindlessly spray his way to victory. Weaponcustomisation has been needlessly simplified such that instead of completingspecific challenges to unlock different upgrades, players simply unlockeverything through scoring points with the weapon. The “perk” system thatallowed players to choose from a selection of bonus abilities has beenreshuffled once more, and it seems to me to no longer offer quite the playstylevariety as in the past. Killstreak rewards, too, have been reorganised. Thereare now distinct “strike packages” that offer different rewards with differentacquisition methods- the Assault package gives the player offensive rewards,typically attacks from aircraft, for the traditional kills without dying model,the Support package grants team-friendly bonuses, without resetting afterdeaths, and the Specialist package gives the player access to extra perks basedon his performance. These fresh features are pretty cool, but between the easeof dying to some lucky scrub and the bizarre skyline clutter that blocks thesightline of support aircraft, killstreaks aren’t nearly as reliable oreffective as in MW2. All in all, I think this is the worst Modern Warfare yet,with nothing over its predecessors other than a few UI improvements. Thosegames were crack cocaine for me, but this shit is like Vege-Crack.

I was pleasantly surprised by the ‘Spec-Ops’ cooperativesegment of the game, especially compared to the poor showing from the morestaple singleplayer and competitive multiplayer parts. Split into Missions,where players must complete a set task or scenario, and Survival, where theyfend off ever more ferocious waves of enemies for as long as possible. Playablesplitscreen or online, it’s very competently executed, and quite compelling.Missions are usually under ten minutes long, but if you die you are put back tothe very start. There’s a really strong one-more-go mentality with these, andyou’ll find yourself discussing tactics and manoeuvres to get to the finish. I’mnot sure if there’s quite the same variety as MW2’s coop missions, nor the samesteady increase in challenge, but there’s plenty of fun to be had with these.Survival mode is also really cool, doubtless an acknowledgement of the Treyarchgames’ hugely popular zombie mode. It’s the standard waves-of-foes gameplay you’dexpect, with weapons, equipment and air support requisition points to summonextra gear with the cash you earn for killing enemies. These are linked to anunlock system akin to multiplayer- what you can call in depends on yourexperience level. I’m not sure it works as well here, especially in thesplitscreen context- I had giant machine guns and automated sentries while mybuddy was forced to make do with only an ancient shotgun. Still, it adds a bitof depth, and replayability, which might otherwise be lacking. The survivalmode is let down a little by being stuck on the same horrible maps as multiplayer,however. Seriously, these maps are shit.

me killing some other scrub

There’s also the Call of Duty Elite thing, I guess? It’slike a stat tracker, I think, and also a delivery system for CoD relatedcontent. I had a look at it, though I don’t really see the point. You can lookat some really detailed statistics, and watch policemen play MW3 with firemen,apparently. You can also buy a subscription that unlocks enhanced features andincludes access to all the map packs and other DLC as they become available,which they haven’t at the time of writing. I don’t really know what to sayabout it. It works fine, with a smooth if a little confusing interface in theconsole application, so maybe it’s of use to someone?

Modern Warfare 3, then, is about what I was expecting. It’s prettycompetent in design, if flawed in places, full featured and pretty well polished. Theengine tech was a little dated when it was used in CoD4, and there’s not beenmuch changed since then- it’s definitely not cutting edge technically,especially compared to competition like Battlefield 3. It’s a by the numbersModern Warfare game, basically just this year’s instalment. Personally, I don’t like itnearly as much as I did the first two. Those felt like games the creatorswanted to make; this feels like one the accountants wanted. That’s not exactlysurprising- while it’s possible that the creative talent at Infinity Wardremained in their comfy jobs during the staff exodus, and the jobsworthhangers-on jumped ship to the newly founded and unproven Respawn, my money’s onthe reverse. Frankly, there is a pervading stink of playing it safe, simplificationand of pandering to the low-skill, casual player who has become the targetaudience. CoD4 multiplayer was enjoyed by the casual gamer as it wasstraightforward and compelling, but also by the hardcore neckbearded assholelike me because of its depth and variety. MW3 will be enjoyed by the casualgamer because it was made purely with him in mind.

In Which I Get Real Excited About Something Probably Meaningless

2011-12-03T13:09:00.001Z

BREAKING: some guy wore a t-shirt. The ramifications arepotentially huge. What? Oh yeah, sorry. A Valve employee wore a t-shirt, andthat t-shirt says “Half-Life 3”. Now it’s a big deal, right? Spotted by anemployee of Uber Entertainment, developers of the rather good Monday Night Combat, at an industryevent, the offending garment is pictured below.

Half-Life news gets me very excited, no matter how totallyinconsequential it is. Four goddamn years have passed since fans were left hangingin the middle of an unresolved narrative by the last game, and Valve have saidabout twenty words about the future of the franchise in that time. It’scomplete fucking radio silence on one of gaming’s most beloved series, it’sbecome a joke, the new Duke Nukem Forever; I think a little excitability isexcused.

This is weird, though. Why the fuck does this guy have aHalf-Life 3 shirt? The game hasn’t been announced, they haven’t even finishedwith Half-Life 2’s episodic expansions. Did he make it himself to wear aroundthe office, get a laugh from his coworkers while they continue to not make it?If it’s official HL3 merchandise that raises even more questions, chiefly- why does official HL3 merchandise exist?Valve are incredibly tight-lipped whenever anyone asks them about the future ofHalf-Life, and this is the closest to official word there has been. They’re notabove simply messing with the fans, but to do so with Half-Life 3 would becruel; there’s a huge amount of love out there for these games, and theircontinued absence hurts everyone that cares.

Putting my analytical hat on for a second, since I rarelyget to do so for my paranormal detective agency, the shirt looks strikinglysimilar to one they sell already, bearing the official HL2 logo. There’s a notabledifference, though- on that one, the iconic lambda is within the circle and the2 is without, but here the big ol’ 3 is centre-stage- whether it’s official orotherwise, the designer didn’t want it to be mistaken for the old logo, theywanted people to see that three. I’m no artist, but that makes sense- it’s stilldistinctly HL, but the emphasis on the three gets nerds like me all excited.Not sure what that actually proves, though. I guess it shows a little more workthan simply swapping the number has gone into the logo, which means that if it’sa fake it had at least a moment’s thought given.

It’s hard to tell what to make of this, but I’ll hopeagainst hope that there’s something big coming. Four years is a long-ass time,after all.

Grander Than Ever

2011-11-06T20:28:00.000Z

Contrary to popular belief, Rockstar Games’s Grand Theft Auto is not just a series aboutstealing cars and murdering prostitutes. These are, of course, vital gameplayelements; but there’s a little more to the thing than the tabloids, thosebastards who get paid for writingstuff, would have you think. They’re games that create a living world, one fullof people and attention to detail, of believability and finger-on-the-pulseparody. They’re games that give the player freedom to do as he pleases, andthat provide plenty of things to be free to do. They are games that tell astory; one of mobsters, drug deals and psychotics, but also one of comedy, withdark humour oozing from every pore. They are games, as should be obvious, ofwhich I am rather fond. And I felt the closest a miserable bastard like me getsto joy when I found that there was to be another.

While it might not be surprising in and of itself to knowthat one of the biggest series in entertainment would be updated, there is, Ithink, a crucial conceptual leap from “sooner or later there will be a new GTA”to “GTA5 is a real thing that is being made, and there is a trailer embeddedbelow”. Announced, in typical Rockstar fashion, with a single cryptic tweet,the latest instalment in the crime-action franchise has been revealed to theworld with this first trailer.

A nice trailer, undeniably. But what does it tell us? Speculationon the internet is already rife about the game, but here are the details ofwhich we can be certain- GTA5 is taking the series back to West Coast USA,centring in Los Santos, the game universe’s mirror of Los Angeles, and is setin the present day. We’ve been here before- 2004’s Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had you play as a young street thugfrom one of Santos’s criminal gangs on a wild adventure around the state,battling with rival gangs and corrupt cops in the pursuit of money and ofstreet justice. While that Los Santos was one of three in-game cities andrelatively cramped, looks like the GTAV rendition, given that it seems to bethe main event this time around, will be far larger and hugely more detailed,much like the reimagining of Liberty City between GTA3 and 4, which had it muchmore closely resembling real life New York. The fan-favourite fixed-wingaircraft seem to be back, and I’ll wager they can be player controlled giventhe outpouring of entitled whining when GTA4 omitted these from its vehicleroster. The shots of mountains and fields confirm that the countrysidesurrounding Los Santos will be featured in some capacity, too.

Why go back to Los Santos? GTA: Vice City was very popular with its ‘80s faux-Miami setting;why not return there? For the answer to that, we need only listen to the firstline of the trailer. “Why did I movehere? I guess it was the weather. Or, ah, I don’t know, that thing, that magic.” As well as being the words of a jadedformer mobster/federal agent who may or may not be the player character, thisis a message from Rockstar to the fans. Setting is as mission-critical to thesegames as Hellfire missiles are to an attack chopper. New York City is anamazing place, and so was its replication in GTA4’s Liberty City- the capitalof the world, the great melting pot, the gateway to the new world and all theother lame-ass clichés. Los Angeles, maybe thanks to its mystification throughHollywood and the media, has a similar magic of its own, an enduring and uniquecharm. Miami is a superb place for an ‘80s setting, yes; shit, I think Miamiwas where the ‘80s started and spread forth, the source of all the world’seighties. But Rockstar doesn’t tend to go over old ground, and outside thatgrubby decade, what is Miami? Some greasy town in Florida; nothing compared tothe City of Angels. Additionally, while the rampant gang culture around innineties LA has subsided somewhat, I think much of it is still a dangerous-assplace to be, too; this is a game named after a criminal act, after all. I’mreal excited to see what Rockstar brings to the table with this game world; they’rethe best in the industry at making a world that feels like a real place and notone that revolves around the player, and every game they’ve brought out sinceGTA3 has improved in this area.

Trailer doesn’t give us too much info about characters.Rumour is there might be multiple protagonists this time around, which is conceivable-GTA4’s episodic expansions each had their own player character, whose tale wasdistinct from but overlapping with the others, and I could see a similarstructure being put into this game. There’s a streetwise looking black guy whoappears a few times in the sort of positions a GTA protagonist finds himselfin, but it’s hard to be sure. One real interesting thing is the older lookingfella at forty seconds in. That face matches the voice somewhat, which is cool,but what’s got the rumour mill working overtime is the noticeable resemblanceto Vice City’s Tommy Vercetti. I’m not entirely convinced by that one; Rockstarare perfectly capable of making new characters without dragging up old ones. It’snot inconceivable- dude does look a lot like how Tommy might look aftertwenty-five years aging and ten of graphical enhancement, and it could be niceto give an aging mobster character that sort of familiarity twist- but the onlyreason I’m entertaining the idea of that being an older Tommy Vercetti is thefact that, well, it looks a lot like an older Tommy Vercetti. Character designis another thing that has been improving steadily, so this is likely to betop-notch.

Couple other interesting things to note. There’s a dog visiblein the first shot, which, combined with the plenty of countryside shown,suggests that the game will have a variety of animals á la Red Dead Redemption. There’s an electric roof animation, hinting ata deeper vehicle system, and the dudes in masks robbing something have assaultrifles fitted with suppressors, possibly indicating some degree of weaponcustomisation. The jet that screeches past the camera looks to be a fighter,and my guess as your friendly neighbourhood military nerd is that it’s a newversion of San Andreas’s Hydra jetbased on the real-world F-35. There’s probably stuff I’ve missed, I can’t seeworth a goddamn- maybe you should mention it in the comments.

Maybe I’m just a dribbling fanboy, but this one trailer hasme really stoked already. GTAV should be one to watch. Tune in sometime vaguelysoonish for a review of Battlefield 3, and, if I can be arsed buying the samegame for the fifth time, maybe Modern Warfare 3 too.

Tanks, World of

2011-07-11T00:55:00.001+01:00

Do you have any idea, any idea, just how interesting the history of tank combat is? I'll tell you; shit is incredibly interesting. Did you know, for instance, that the differences in Soviet and NATO tank tactics can actually be observed in the design of the tanks themselves? The ruskies favoured aggressive, advancing-under-fire doctrine, and consequently, the tanks are low-profile and manoeuvrable. NATO didn't play that way, oh no. NATO doctrine dictates that you roll up on the crest of a hill, exposing just your turret, depressing the gun and blasting on fools from behind the protection of geography. The extra gun mobility needed by this approach requires a taller turret, giving the vehicle an increased target profile, though one that is ideally hidden in a hull-down position of cover. Ain't that interesting? No? Well, shit. Guess I'll skip the ten thousand word essay on armoured warfare. Fortunately, the knowledge isn't required to enjoy World of Tanks, an interesting free-to-play game from wargaming.net.

It's not easily genre-able, this one. It's probably an action game, firstly- standard battles pitch teams of 15 tanks up against one another on a variety of maps. To succeed in battle, you need to employ some degree of strategy, since it's just a little more complex than your average Black Ops match, though the same could maybe be said of . In addition to the rootin' tootin' shootin' side of things, we have some RPG-style progression out of battle- you buy tanks and upgrades for them with credits earned in battle, and watch your crewmen increase in skill like some kind of militarised Pokémon. An unusual game, then, but a good one? Maybe.

A garage brimming with my totally sweet vehicle selection.

You start off with three frankly heinous little wagons in your garage, one from each of the Russian, American and German lines. After a few battles in these poorly armed, slow, paper-armoured deathboxes, you might have scraped up enough funds and experience to upgrade. In terms of vehicles offered, World of Tanks is certainly impressive- there are five classes of vehicle- agile Light Tanks, versatile Mediums, powerful Heavies, long range SPG (self-propelled gun) artillery wagons and ambush-focused Tank Destroyers, with each nation having intersecting lines for each class in ten tiers of increasing potency. There's a whole lot of historical accuracy here, with tanks from the inter-war period through to the early '50s, though dozens of the tanks available seem to have been prototypes that never saw combat. Nonetheless, the attention to detail is commendable, almost alarming- each tank has realistic options for equipment and meticulously detailed models, including the positions of crewmen and essential parts with regards to incoming fire. I saw a thread on the (well-trafficked) official forums where digital tankers were genuinely digging up blueprints and design documents for these sixty or seventy year old machines to find the ideal spots to place that killing shot.

Into the fray! I took a screenshot before the enemy appeared because I did not wish to put virtual lives at risk.

The progression system is solid. Players spend experience to to unlock new parts for their tank, which also unlocks further research- the classic 'tech tree' approach. There's a lot of depth, here; researching appropriate advancements is vital to keep your tank competitive, and there are a hell of a lot to choose from. Engines, turrets, guns, suspensions and radio units can all be swapped out. Most of the parts available are straight upgrades, but each tank generally has a range of guns available with variations in rate of fire, accuracy and firepower. There is an awful lot of fucking grinding, though, which can prove a real pain. I wanted to get into the Russian Medium tank line, which includes the legendary T-34 series and ultimately the venerable T-54, arguably the first true Main Battle Tank; a delicious prospect, as I'm sure you would agree if you knew what that meant. However, to get even as far as the T-34 (a vehicle without which your sorry ass, reader, might well be speaking German), I had to progress all the way through the light tank line. Light tanks suck man balls, though, and grinding through was a real drag. Because there is so much grinding (this is an MMO, after all), I worry that it would be all too easy to stick a whole lot of man-hours getting locked into a line that isn't as much fun as you thought it'd be. This is reduced a little with recent additions to the tree whereby you can move more easily between classes, but it remains a concern.

The pre-round period is filled with tension, motivational speeches and shit-talking.

The actual gameplay is pretty fun. Two teams of fifteen vehicles line up against one another on about a square kilometre of semi-accurate historical battlefield. To win, a team must either destroy all enemy vehicles (there are no respawns) or capture the enemy base. A lot of work has gone into the combat; intricate mechanics are present for spotting enemy vehicles, shell penetration and tank damage. There's a potent one-more-match mindset the game invites you into, probably because of the one-life system, reminiscent of Counter-Strike. To survive in combat, you must be fairly thoughtful- positioning and movement is key. Speeding out into the open battlefield will almost certainly leave you with thirty tonnes of burnt out paperweight in short order. Unfortunately, some of the tactics are nullified by the relatively compact maps. These play too much into the hands of the heavy tanks; their crazy armour and god-like firepower is quite a bit more helpful than the extra mobility of the light and medium vehicles. It’s not that badly balanced, (though the developers are Russian, so the Soviet tanks have characteristics between ‘exaggerated’ and ‘nightmare death chariot’) and they are working on it, but the issue is present. Another balance issue comes from matchmaking. Since the available tanks range from inter-war experiments to two-hundred ton prototype tracked mountains, there’s a tier system, and you theoretically get matchmade with tanks around your own tier. I think you can end up with too many extreme-tiered tanks; it’s not much fun to play in a team with five tier-fives against one with five tier-eights, but this seems to happen all too often. It’s not crippling, and if you find the wrapping paper of your mid-tier tank torn asunder by the berserk child at the controls of some steel monster, you can just leave the battle and start one in a different tank, but too often I see a tier-four light matchmade with some tier-nine heavies, and pity that fool.

This guys about to taste some hurt. Or he would be if i hadn't got a bloody ricochet.

For a free game, the production values are great- tanks are meticulously modelled, and a whole lot of effort has clearly gone into their recreation. In fact, for a free game, what faults it has are pretty minor. That said, for a free game, there are an awful lot of ways to spend money on it. You can buy a premium subscription, increasing your credit and experience income, premium vehicles if your time is too precious to grind through the trees to get tanks the proper way and premium ammunition to penetrate thicker armour. You start with a (fairly healthy) five garage slots, and more can be purchased for real money, stuff like that. The devs have, I think, struck that difficult freemium balance where paying real money is both worthwhile and non-essential; even the extra-penetrative shells don’t give much ingame advantage since they don’t do more damage than the standard ammo- essentially they just mean you are less hosed against tanks tougher than your own. At higher levels, the income bonus from a premium subscription is the surest way to make any kind of progress, yes, but at no point is it essential, which is very agreeable.

So, if you find yourself with a desire for some WW2 armoured action, but no desire to pay for it, I could not, in good conscience, recommend any game over World of Tanks. Since various goverments and school boards have rejected my calls for the art of tank combat to become a mandatory part of primary education, it might be the only way you can learn this vital skill.

Portal 2 Review

2011-05-13T21:09:00.000+01:00

Back again, long after the last post, long after the release of the thing in question, but hopefully not long after my few readers have withered and crumbled to dust awaiting more of my exquisite prose. More video game shit; I don’t know if the few people that I know read this want that or other stuff, but this one’s a biggie. Portal 2- the latest release from industry legend Valve Software- came out, er, embarrassingly long ago, in a time when the Playstation Network was still a thing people talked about as something that worked, and now you get to read my thoughts about it.

Surely everyone knows what Portal is? That first person puzzler bundled in the Orange Box alongside Half Life and Team Fortress as filler, but became a smash hit. You know, the game where the player used a special gun to apply mind and physics bending portals, functioning as tunnels through spacetime to one another, to surfaces and solve increasingly inventive puzzles, set within the bowels of dubious corporation Aperture Science’s enormous research facility. There was that supercomputer, GLaDOS, whose coldly delivered lines were so constantly entertaining, those charming but deadly robotic turrets, that companion cube thing. Yeah, I knew you’d remember. This is the sequel, promising to be a full-length experience to the original’s taster course.

There might be some spoilers, but it’s so damn long since it came out I doubt that bothers you.

Portal 2 begins an indeterminate but seemingly quite long period after the original- Chell, mute, jumpsuit-wearing heroine has, after defeating GLaDOS, been seized by one of the laboratory’s robotic caretakers and placed in long-term stasis; too long, as it turns out. Aperture has been falling apart in the interim without its supercomputer overlord keeping the place neat and tidy, despite the efforts of various other automated personality systems. One such system is Wheatley, a little white sphere with a big blue eye, who awakens Chell on the basis that they could work together to get free of the facility. Voiced by Stephen Merchant, long-time collaborator of Ricky Gervais and all round funnyman, Wheatley busts Chell out of her stasis chamber and the adventure begins.

Wheatley is an amicable, if breathtakingly incompetent, little fellow.

I have to admit, I wasn’t so great a fan of the original Portal. I enjoyed it, sure; it’s a clever little game, but I didn’t go as wild as some of the rest of the world about it. Portal 2 is a big step up as far as I’m concerned, I’m happy to report. The puzzles have retained the entertainment value, a commendable feat, given the considerable novelty value of the original and the sequel’s vastly increased length. The new elements to the puzzle play are all welcome- gravity defying excursion funnels, movable light bridges and motion-inducing gels are all fun and add more depth to the portal-based gameplay. One complaint more professional reviewers than myself noted was that many puzzles had far fewer portal-able surfaces than counterparts in the original, giving a notion that the player was simply carrying out a prescribed solution rather than finding their own. While this is at least partially valid, it seems to me that most of the original game’s puzzles were similar, but just allowed more goofing around. The challenge level could maybe be higher- only a couple took more than a little thought on my part, but I still enjoyed them, and even though this was a far longer game than the original, the core mechanics didn’t get tiresome, a good indicator of their solidity.

While the puzzling was good, to me the real charm of the game came from the storyline. Portal had GLaDOS’s taunting throughout but most of the storyline coming in the last half hour or so, but P2 has brought in a whole lot more. Ellen McLain reprises her role as the icily polite GLaDOS, but she’s joined by some celebrity names in the form of the brilliant Stephen Merchant, playing Wheatley, the venerable J. K. Simmons of J. “PARKER I NEED PICTURES OF SPIDERMAN” Jonah Jameson fame, voicing the charismatic, shoot-from-the-hip CEO of Aperture Science, Cave Johnson, and legend of video-game-voice-acting Nolan North voicing various robots and such like. The presence of such talent shows the extra attention to narrative. Characters are chattering away often, really making them come to life; GLaDOS, understandably upset at having been torn asunder and partially incinerated, is on murderously cutting top form, Wheatley’s general babbling, though sometimes inane, is amusing and endearing. I’d like to give a special nod to the Cave Johnson character- I was genuinely moved (as well as hugely amused) by the voice recordings he’d left behind in an older part of the facility, charting his fall from fame and fortune to bankruptcy, deathly illness, and, worst of all, obscurity. At the risk of sounding like some sort of pretentious literary nerd, there was a distinct Heart of Darkness-y vibe to witnessing the downfall of this brilliant, but ultimately monstrous, individual. Portal 2’s excellent voice acting and inspired writing conspire to make it one of a very few genuinely funny video games.

Aperture's janitorial standards have gone way down in our absence.

The voice actors are only half the story as far as story is concerned, however; Valve, masters of atmospheric storytelling, have included so much detail in the game world itself. In the early stages, chambers are overrun with vegetation, walls fall apart at your approach, and what automated systems persist are on post-apocalypse self-preservation mode; as GLaDOS regains control of the facility, the walls are alive with movement as hundreds of robotic arms try to repair themselves; later, when Wheatley has assumed operational control, the sheer scale of Aperture is revealed as he smashes the facility’s huge movable chambers together in a fairly ghetto attempt to construct functional test chambers. It’s all very clever and very cool, but, honestly, I’d expect nothing less from Valve.

Something totally new to Portal 2 is the cooperative mode- here, two players team up as a pair of portal-gun toting robots for cooperative test chambers. I’ve played this twice, in splitscreen due to the PSN’s continued nonexistence, and it was damn good. While it wouldn’t be unfair to say that some of the original game’s puzzling purity was exchanged for enhanced narrative in the singleplayer, the coop campaign, while noticeably shorter, probably has more puzzling value; while GLaDOS is still present, the story format is far closer to the original’s. We have here a seriously well-designed mode, where the two players must use their four portals together to find a solution. Despite the very streamlined suite of interactions, such as a ping tool to mark out a portal location for a partner and a three-second countdown shown to both players for those timing critical puzzles, some of these are definitely trickier than anything found in the singleplayer. One had my buddy and I totally stumped for almost an hour, and when we finally looked up the solution we, naturally, kicked ourselves- seems to me like that’s good puzzle design. The final chamber in this mode is a masterpiece, the staged design and multiple elements taking a solid but hugely enjoyable bit of work to get through. I’m not normally all that wild for cooperative gaming, being a lone-wolf/anti-social narcissist type, but this was a damn good one.

Portal 2 uses the same Source engine that has been Valve's workhorse since Half-Life 2 way back in 2004, albeit souped all the way up. Despite the almost archaic tech under the hood, the game manages to look good. It's not stunning, but the engine has aged very gracefully, not least due to the constant updates and tweaks Valve has been adding with every new release. The clever art direction definitely contributes to the game's visual appeal- I've always held that a game doesn't need to be a technical powerhouse to be graphically pleasing, and I think Portal 2 proves it.

Complaints with Portal 2 are few and far between. A little extra challenge to some of the puzzles would have been welcome, but it was still no cakewalk. I’ve not felt too compelled to replay, though the presence of heaps of easter eggs and a developers’ commentary will probably tempt me to doing so eventually. In truth, my only real issue is a petty and possibly even irrelevant one; despite being within the setting of Valve’s benchmark Half-Life franchise, Portal 2 includes precious little reference to the overarching events of the HL games. Aside from a nod to the Borealis, Aperture’s mysterious research ship set to be featured in the possibly non-existent Half-Life 2: Episode 3, and a cursory mention of Black Mesa, the shared universe is barely mentioned. I realise criticising a game because it isn’t a different game from a different series really shows the HL fanboy in me, and I can understand Valve’s apparent wish to keep the two series distinct, but come on! It’s been four god-damn years since we had any Half-Life, Valve, throw us a fucking bone. I hope and pray that we see something from the series at next month’s E3, but that’s by the by. Portal 2, standing on its own, is damn good.

You weren't there, man!

2011-02-18T22:00:00.000Z

Another expansion to review. This one's only what, three months old? I'm getting better at this, most definitely. This time, instead of the grim darkness of the far future, we are heading to the jungles of Vietnam, with the aptly, if rather extensively, named DLC for Battlefield: Bad Company 2- Battlefield: Bad Company 2- Vietnam.

No screenshot utility, I'm afraid, so it's blurrycam time.

My fondness for the original game has already been discussed, and my love of combating communists is no secret, so I was super excited for this expansion, awaiting eagerly its release in December. A week beforehand, however, possibly in protest at being forced to play the abomination that is Black Ops, my PS3 gave up, the disc drive failing and denying me my prize. Now it is repaired, and the first thing I did upon retrieving it was download BFBC2-V. Loading up the base game, I saw the new main menu option and highlighted it. Upon doing so, the whole menu twisted and reshaped itself- the crisp, modernistic aesthetic of Bad Company 2 shifting to a dirtier, brownish theme, the militaristic background music giving way to Creedence Clearwater Revival. This thematic shift is representative of the whole expansion, really- Bad Company 2 was very definitely a modern combat experience, with its homing missiles, optical sights and high-tech vehicles. Vietnam, however, strips this away- in my first match (where I was top player, naturally) I was struck by how crude and brutal the combat was in comparison- without red-dot sights and motion sensors, fighting is done at close range with nothing but rifles and brawn. It's refreshing, in a perverse way, to have this almost rustic style of game, especially in comparison to Call of Duty, where being set in the Cold War instead of near future changed... nothing at all. BFBC2V does it right, though, with '60s style news reports playing over hippy riffs at the loading screens, it feels like a 'Nam game.

The gameplay of the expansion is similarish to the base game- it's still a squad based shooter, with different classes bringing different equipment and abilities to the fray, and an emphasis on vehicles and objectives. The base game's much-vaunted destructible environments feature, but are less prominent. Though this is, I suppose, thematically suitable (and y'all know how much I like stuff that is thematically suitable), with a limit to how much destruction can be done on a map consisting of some flimsy wooden huts and a hill, it would have been nice to see this feature return more prominently- one of my fondest memories of Bad Company 2 was tearing out the back wall of a building with a Black Hawk's minigun, collapsing the whole structure and crushing the enemies and objective within for an extraordinary number of points, but such a thing is not really possible here.

I love the smell of clichés in the blog post.

As you would expect, the equipment available has lapsed to what GIs and Viet-cong would have had access to- you've got your M16s and AK47s as well as the thunderous M60 machine gun and notorious M14 battle rifle. Vehicles have gone back a few numberplates, too, though the tanks and jeeps are really different only aesthetically to their modern counterparts. The new chopper, the UH-1 Iroquois, known affectionately as the Huey and iconic for its extensive service and appearance in limitless 'Nam flicks, has undergone some changes, though. Bad Company 2's Havocs and Apaches were, essentially, winged fortresses of fire and steel, spitting high-explosive death from above, but the Huey lacks the armour and avionics of these beasts. The lighter bird is more maneuverable and feels less clumsy than these, but small arms fire will damage it and heavy machine guns will tear it apart like paper. While its rocket pods and door mounted machine guns pack a punch, the Huey's coolest weapon is the speaker rack- as it swoops over the battlefield these blare out '60s classics, as well as Ride of the Valkyries, which is, frankly, awesome. Lamentably, you rarely hear the whole track, as every NVA regular for several miles will take a pot shot at it. Maybe they want the chopper destroyed; maybe they just really hate '60s music.

I have to say, I have hugely enjoyed my tour in Vietnam. The classic Battlefield gameplay is extremely solid, more so, I think, than people realise; maybe even better than the great Call of Duty leviathan. It's a game that lends itself to fantastic moments- once, on the NVA side, squatting in the bush with a sniper rifle I spied an incoming 4x4 with three GIs about to ford a river into our base. Quickly, I shot the driver- my exquisite marksmanship ensured the shot went right between the eyes- and the vehicle drew to a halt. The passenger, realising what had happened, leaped out and dived into the roadside trees, while the machine gunner fired wildly in the hope of neutralising the threat. Another precision shot brought him low, and a third killed the third American even as he desperately tried to spot me from his partially concealed position. Aside from being a demonstration in my consummate skill, it was a scene straight from a war film, and it felt very, very cool. I have more of these tales- charging wildly towards an endangered objective surrounded by NVA with naught but a shotgun and emerging the victor, smashing a Huey from the sky with a one-in-a-million shot from a tank's main gun- and I'm sure any Battlefield player would too.

I have it on good authority that chicks go wild for aircraft disguised as sharks.

I can't claim to have many complaints, apart from the aforementioned unwieldy title. There are a couple graphical issues, most notably a very noticable pop-in effect with objects far away- when the detail on that chopper suddenly and obviously ramps up as it approaches, it does rather spoil the moment, if not the bastard's aim. Additionally, there are fewer vehicles in this installment. Vehicles were always my favourite part of Battlefield since I am essentially a child, and their relative lack, especially on the NVA side (though crafty commies can redistribute them if they are sneaky), and the complete disappearance of mounted weapons, is a little disappointing. In the final (free) map pack for the base game they brought a map where both sides spawned with a gunship chopper, a transport chopper, two tanks, a couple 4x4s and some quadbikes- there were far more vehicle seats available than players on the map, and it was glorious- no such armoured affray is available. Sure doesn't spoil the game, though- it's a lot of fun, and even my black heart soars each time I strafe the socialists while blasting out Hendrix. While I'm not sure why DICE didn't release this as its own downloadable game in the vein of Battlefield 1943, it's certainly a welcome addition to a franchise that is going from strength to strength.

Chaos Rising, but how high?

2011-02-14T22:40:00.000Z

Greetings, reader; I trust this fresh solar cycle finds you well. I have come this day to tell you a little something of the expansion to Relic’s grim, dark future strategy-RPG Dawn of War II- an expansion by the name of Chaos Rising. I am fully aware that the expansion is a year old, and that a second expansion is almost upon us, and I have no real excuse for the late date of this. Take solace from the fact that you are getting this at all.

Dawn of War, as you really should know, is a series of strategy games set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe, a universe with far more horrors and staunch warriors than hope. It’s a science-fantasy setting, where humanity has spread out among the stars, and discovered that the whole galaxy is full of unpleasantness, the mighty Imperium of Man beset from all sides by daemons, aliens and traitors, and held together by the efforts of the superhuman Space Marines and stalwart Imperial Guard.

I spoke of the original Dawn of War 2 some time ago- I was impressed with the way they handled the universe (a universe of which I am fond), of the clever use of the wealth of lore. I liked the gameplay, too, the player needing to make cunning use of cover and specialised troopers to succeed. I liked the story elements, the Space Marines of the Blood Ravens chapter battling to save their recruiting worlds from the barbaric Orks, the enigmatic Eldar and the all-devouring Tyranids. Recently, and with the assistance of a Steam buddy, I managed to finally complete the single-player campaign of the original game, and so moved on to the expansion, which, perhaps foolishly, I had purchased on release date, on the admittedly shaky basis that my future self would thank me.

The sequel is set a year after the events of the original, your Blood Ravens returning to sub-sector Aurelia to investigate the re-emergence of a planet thought lost to the warp (an alternate reality overlapping ours, dangerous but critical to the setting due to its use in faster-than-light travel) and the apparent distress signal sent from the surface of a world that should be devoid of life. Fairly quickly, the marines discover the presence of the Black Legion, Space Marines who have turned from the light of the Emperor of Mankind and devoted themselves instead to the ruinous powers of the Chaos Gods. It comes to light that there is treachery within the ranks of the Blood Ravens, with traitors in the very command of the chapter and within the player’s force itself.

All this is well and good, but what does it mean for gameplay? Well, the introduction of the Chaos Space Marines means a new faction in single and multi-player games. These are similar to their loyalist brothers, but their millennia of exile brings a few notable differences- they lack some of the new and specialised technology available to loyalists, but their experience and the favour of their patron gods lends them an edge in battle, allowing them to summon daemonic creatures and auras to crush their foes.

The corrupting element of Chaos, an important element to the setting, plays a significant role in the campaign, too. The squads under the player’s command have a new “Corruption Meter”, a sliding scale marking the purity of their souls. Corruption is gained by failing objectives, such as rescuing beleaguered scout marines from foes, or using the new “tainted” wargear, items of weaponry and armour that usually have some sort of dark history, offering spectacular power at the cost of damnation. Your marines can redeem themselves by going above and beyond the call of duty on missions, completing additional objectives like assassinating an enemy commander, or taking “penitent” items that have negative effects on their combat prowess to remind them of their duty to the Emperor. Your Marines get additional abilities based upon their level of corruption, too- totally pure squads might have an enhancement to the use of healing items, those with just a little corruption swapping this for gaining health from the killing of foes, and totally corrupted units go to battle with a daemonic bloodthirst. It’s quite cleverly done, with corruption being just slightly easier to attain than redemption, tempting a struggling player to corrupt his force by degrees. Brilliantly, the total accruement of corruption is used to determine which of the player’s allies turns out to be the traitor betraying the Blood Ravens at every turn, a nifty twist in the storyline.

Terminator armour, lightning claws, personal teleporter and orbital bombardment beacon. Is he underdressed? I wouldn't tell him.

In addition to the modifications to the formula brought by the appearance of a corrupting foe, there are some simple additions made as one would expect from an expansion. The maximum level of characters has been raised from 20 to 30, letting players who had maxed their characters in the original still get a sense of progression. New types of weapons have come, too- marines can now use ‘lightning claws’, bladed gauntlets surrounded with an energy field, deadly to armoured infantry, ‘lascannons’, the setting’s iconic anti-tank weapon, projecting a beam of energy that deals ruinous damage to everything but fires about once a week, and ‘melta’ weapons that spray a short ranged stream of superheated matter to cut through anything you can imagine. These are all fairly nifty additions offering the player a little more tactical choice, which is nice in a game where this is a selling point. There’s a new controllable unit, too- a Librarian marine named Jonah Orion. Marine librarians, like the ones found in libraries, are entrusted with the preservation of knowledge and history. Unlike those, however, these ones are also deadly combatants, destroying enemies with blasts of psychic power rather than just stern looks if they are noisy. Jonah has a broad range of abilities, and as such can be used in a variety of battlefield roles- he can smite foes from afar with the power of his mind, slip through the warp to emerge within the matter of an enemy and engage his terrified squadmates in close combat, or use healing powers and protective barriers to take a more passive, defensive role in proceedings. This unit can be very effective, but does require micromanagement of his range of abilities. Lamentably, I suspect to get the most from the Librarian would require more attention and patience than I am prepared to give him.

Loyalist Predator battletanks form an armoured spearhead to be thrust to the heart of the traitorous foe.

The original game’s missions took place on three planets; a lush jungle world, a harsh desert planet, and an urbanised hive-city planet, with a couple map variants on each to keep the player entertained. With the endless randomly-generated missions, these could get tiresome if the player progressed as slowly as I did. The new game has added a couple of settings, first a frozen ice planet, the base of operations for the Chaos forces. This place plays in a fairly similar fashion to the worlds of the last game, but there are a few nice snow effects and suchlike that give it visual appeal if nothing else. The second of the new settings is awesome, though- a Space Hulk, a huge, drifting space vessel forged from the crushed remains of a number of unfortunate ships that slips semi-randomly through space, often containing secrets, always containing nasties. Drawing inspiration from the tabletop game of the same name, missions on the space hulk have the player driving his force through the maze of narrow corridors against a sneaky and deadly foe. Here, I think Relic has outdone itself. Enemies appear from anywhere, bursting from pipes or leaping from overhead, giving the whole thing a tense atmosphere. Adding to the tension, the warp-tainted nature of hulks imposes a time limit on how long your marines can remain before the corruption has a dangerous effect. There’s a real feeling of pressure on the hulk missions as you hunt through the twisted corridors for the relics you seek- your marines combat tangible horrors at every turn even while they whisper and gibber at those within their mind. It was genuinely unnerving to hear the utterly dependable Tarkus rant about how some imagined thing was his and his alone. Unfortunately, the missions aboard the space hulk are precious few, a real shame given their quality.

Chaos Rising, then, is a worthy expansion to a game I enjoyed. It has made many pleasing additions to an already solid formula. I liked the extra wargear options brought in, the storyline with its betrayal and treachery and the thrilling missions on the space hulk. Things I wasn’t so happy with included the fairly short length of the campaign, though I’m not sure whether that’s better or worse than having a hundred new randomly-generated defend missions each day. Relic did give a slightly broader mission range this time, which is also sweet. All in all, I liked Chaos Rising, and not just as a 40K fanboy, and I await the sequel, Dawn of War 2- Retribution, with eagerness.

Tune in next week/month/time I post to see my thoughts on one or more of: Dead Space 2, Bad Company Vietnam, Gran Turismo 5 and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit. I can’t wait, can you!? If you know but one thing, know this- it is gonna be rad.

Poker For Dummies

2010-11-30T00:26:00.000Z

Some months ago, there was a cryptic trailer from downloadable games purveyor Telltale Games. It suggested that, unlikely as it may seem, it was indeed possible for characters like Team Fortress's Heavy, Sam and Max's Max, Homestarrunner's Strong Bad and Penny Arcade's Tycho to feature in a single media item that wasn't terrifying and poorly written erotic fan fiction, and that such a project was actually underway. Fairly quickly, the internet realised that the trailer showed each character holding playing cards, and that this meant a poker game instead of the epic universe merging adventure for which we all hoped. The official reveal reinforced this notion- the game was to be called Poker Night at The Inventory.

The game was released a couple weeks back, now- I don't know exactly when because I am not a professional reviewer who knows such things. Exactly as promised, it features the four fine fellows, playing poker, in a club by the name of The Inventory. The player assumes the role of a fifth gambler, imaginatively named "The Player", who joins the table for some cold war action. Wait, sorry, that was last week. You play Texas Hold 'Em.

I must admit, I was not intimately familiar with poker. The extent of my knowledge was that some dudes with grim expressions sat at a table and attempted to rob one another with the veneer of a gentlemanly card game over proceedings. As such, it might have been a rash move to preorder this game the moment it became available. I can't rightly recall why I did so, now- perhaps I was still expecting that incredible and hypothetical adventure game, perhaps I just wanted to see those characters together, or perhaps I had some eldritch premonition of the nature of the finished product and decided I wanted in on that. Regardless, it turned out to be a wise decision.

The actual gameplay is fairly unexceptional. You are playing poker, single player poker. As such, there is nothing spectacularly innovative in the way the game actually plays out. There are a couple interesting additions to the gameplay- winning tournaments unlocks new tables and decks, as well as items for spectacularly entertaining multiplayer shooter Team Fortress 2, but nothing to drop the jaw. What makes the game interesting, then, is not the actual game. No, Poker Night's strength comes, perhaps unsurprisingly, from who you are playing with.

The handful of people who read this post may or may not know the characters featured in Poker Night, so I will explain. We have Max, of the Sam and Max series of games- a rabbit, bipedal, capable of speech and of questionable sanity. Also at the table is Strong Bad from Home Star Runner- a small but macho man, dressed or possibly formed as a Lucha Libre wrestler. The third player is Heavy Weapons Guy, the minigun toting Russian bear-man from Team Fortress 2. Finally, there is Tycho Brahe, from excellent gaming webcomic Penny Arcade- suave, eloquent and profane. They are all humourous characters from gamer culture, and they come together marvellously- the dialogue interactions between them are hilarious. I was more familiar with Tycho and the Heavy than with the others, but, though knowing the characters is helpful, the comedy is not exclusive- anyone can laugh at Max's explanation of his learning the game (involving, apparently, a mobster and a tire iron), or the Heavy's constant hunger for "sandviches". Very quickly, I settled into the game, despite not really knowing how to play, just listening to these fours' banter. It's not just dialogue, either; in a genius move, the personalities extend to the playstyles. Hyperactive Max makes brave bluffs, too excitable to fold anything but the worst of hands, while cool-headed Tycho plays conservatively, with the occasional big bluff to grab some riches. All this contributes to a sense that you are really playing with these characters, their joking and taunting immersing you in a game that on first glance is unremarkable.

I know just enough poker to know that Tycho's smug smile won't last long.

This is an interesting concept, and, to me, an exciting one. This game is entertaining despite the actual gameplay being unspectacular, if solid. To my mind, this is a vindication for those (myself included) who feel that games offer new prospects as an art form. While I'm sure the core rules of Texas Hold 'Em predate the proud state of Texas, this game adds a new dynamic to the experience. I've long thought that, properly formed, video game characters gain an extra solidity as the one experiencing the game, unlike the one reading or watching a story, is interacting directly with them. In Fallout 3, just watching the Lone Wanderer's childhood friend exile him from their home wouldn't have anything like the effect as actually having that happen to you as the player. Similarly, though watching these four characters play poker would doubtless be enjoyable, I think the extra complicity required of the player in proceedings adds something rather wonderful.

Admittedly, there is not enough of the funny dialogue, and on a couple of occasions I have felt certain that I have lost a hand I should not have, but that could be because I don't know a damn thing about poker. I gotta say, though, these flaws really aren't enough to make this unique experience worth missing, especially at the low price.

So! I suggest you give Telltale Games' Poker Night at The Inventory a look, if only to utterly refute my weird ideas about it in the comments section. Go get it!

Something Approximating to a Black Ops Review

2010-11-17T09:22:00.001Z

*checks watch*
*checks calendar*
*checks mysterious stone circle used by the ancients to measure the passing of aeons*

Six months? Time for a blog post!

Hello again, reader, if, contrary to my suspicions, you exist. After six months, one would assume I had been preparing some unstoppable megapost bursting utterly with fresh content, and one would be at least partially wrong. Y'all know I don't prepare posts; the actual time between decision to write one and it appearing on your screen is often a single day; that is simply how I roll. So, to the meat of the post.

As anyone with something that could be described as consciousness is doubtless aware, there is a new entry in the Call of Duty franchise. This is a fairly momentous event in the games industry, given the series has consistently sold numbers of copies approximately twice the population of Earth. So, being a blogger (and a fanboy), it is my duty and requirement to buy it and bore you with my opinions on it.

Named Call of Duty: Black Ops, this latest entry in the series ditched both the modern setting of the more recent games and the traditional WWII aesthetic in favour of exploring the grimy world of Cold War espionage. Instead of the usual heroism and apple pie, players would experience denied operations- assassinations, sabotage and mutually assured destruction. The single-player campaign promised to centre around one of the aforementioned assassins and saboteurs, being tortured for information, with the playable missions following his flashbacks as the interrogation slowly draws what is needed from him. The set up, then, was excellent, and the game looked ready to take on last years leviathan Modern Warfare 2, one of my personal favourites and the best selling game or possibly thing in the course of human history. But how was the execution? The game was developed not by Infinity Ward, creators of the Call of Duty franchise and later its excellent Modern Warfare subseries, but Treyarch, secondary developer and annualisation puppet of the Activision overlords. Could the game hold up to the hype? Well, no.

Completing the campaign of Black Ops was a bit of a chore, in truth, with a few notable exceptions such as the Vietnam missions, but that's probably more to do with my pathological love for the Vietnam War than anything. Perhaps it was nostalgia from the first Modern Warfare, but MW2's characters interested and entertained me so much more than Black Ops, though, admittedly, Woods is badass and awesome. The Cold War theme fails to quite hit home- at no point did I really feel like radioactive Russians were under my bed, as I understand was the norm in the ‘60s. Gameplay is standard CoD fare- shooting people, blowing up things. The covert nature of the so called black-operations also seemed ill-explored. The first Modern Warfare had an interesting duality going on- there were the US Marines, very much in the media eye, subject of news bulletins played over loading screens, and also the SAS- the hyper-competent, ultra-covert killers, battling the Russians without anyone apparently realising. There was a similar deal in MW2- bearded man’s man Captain Price remarks that the epic suicide revenge mission he planned would go unremembered, for instance. This all served to remind you of the global significance (or not) of the events portrayed in the game. Black Ops didn’t do the same, at least for this reviewer. It could be the repetition, but the set-pieces in Modern Warfare's storylines excited me more, the missions gripped more, the single-player maps were more interesting to me. Though I never thought of MW2's single player as its strongpoint, it managed to entertain me significantly more than BO's.

The almost comically awesome Frank Woods.

As for multiplayer, well; I loved Modern Warfare 2. I loved it despite the quickscoping, and the lightweighting, and the noob-tubes, and the nuke boosting. Again, maybe it was just me, maybe I naturally evolved my play style to the point that these things ceased to affect me overtly, but in any case, though they bothered me, they did not break the game. I loved the pace, I loved the killstreak rewards, I loved the challenges and rank progression, I loved the maps. Though I consider myself a serious gentleman and hardcore gamer, I rank this mainstream shooter among my favourite games of all time. As such, when I heard about Treyarch's attempts with Black Ops to remove much of the, frankly, bullshit, prevalent in MW2's multiplayer, I was ecstatic- the game I loved, streamlined, purified, and with a sweet Cold War setting to boot!? I was stoked beyond belief. I went to a midnight launch for Black Ops, which is not something I have done previously, and was among the first to buy the game. From here, however, everything went downhill.

The maps seem overcomplicated and poorly designed- sometimes, a minute can go by before a shot is fired in a standard match, as the maps simply do not allow the free flowing, fast paced action of MW2. I may be imagining it, but the core gunplay seems to have been altered, and, to me, ruined- the perfect gunplay the series has had since the beginning, gone. The progression system has been tampered with, too; but the new "CoD Points" system simply lacks the compulsion to achieve and improve that the challenge-based system of MW2 and its precursor had for me.

A Huey, swinging in to minigun most of downtown Havana to the ground.

The new, watered down killstreak rewards also fail to hold up for me- while I realise the cumulative element of MW2's rewards irked many, I felt it really enhanced the gameplay- the greater amount of choppers and fighters buzzing overhead made possible by this approach making the match that much more spectacular. Black Ops, by contrast, seems to have lost that exciting element of support. Now, we have legions of ridiculous, slightly childish, and damn near unstoppable toy cars screeching after dismayed Special Forces operatives, with the odd spy plane or attack chopper swooping in to lend some credibility to the notion that this is an actual conflict between factions armed with machines more threatening than those given to children. Being awesome, I am familiar with some of the more unobtainable rewards, such as the Blackbird (actually a good idea, giving real time information of enemy position and facing), Chopper Gunner (this time a bloke hanging out the door of a Huey with a minigun instead of MW2's monstrous Apache/Havoc chain gun) and Gunship (granting full control of an Mi-24A Hind attack helicopter to the player) and they just don't excite like the hovering Harrier, lumbering Pave Low or earthshaking AC130 on offer in MW2. Incidentally, the reward vehicles are the same for all multiplayer factions. While MW2 was not perfect in this regard (why some Brazilian gangsters were in a position to employ special operations gunships and bombers used only by the US Air Force always puzzled me), the Russians using a Hind where the Americans used a Cobra was at least a nod to the military aircraft enthusiast section of the playerbase, which might be populated by me alone. Here, doubtless aware that most players couldn’t tell a UH-1 from an F-15E (cretins), Treyarch has used the same visuals for every killstreak for every faction, a reminder of the apparent laziness I observed in my very first review feature.

My hard-earned Chopper Gunner being shot down by some mouthbreather with a missile launcher.

The game is not utterly bereft of virtue. What Treyarch has messed up has been unable to totally overpower all that Infinity Ward originally did so well- the game is still recognisable as Call of Duty, whether that name fills you with a fanboy’s excitement or a game-snob’s dread, and therefore the experience is intense and memorable, though, perhaps, not to the same extent as one of Infinity Ward’s offerings. Some of Treyarch’s additions are actually rather nifty, such as the Theater mode- unoriginal, but still entertaining, and very useful for adding screenshots to a blog post- and the Wager matches, where players are given some fairly obscure weapons and made to fight to the death. The single player, while a little railroaded, does have a compelling Cold War action thriller at heart, and a couple of delightful badasses in the form of Frank Woods (straight talking Commie slayer) and Jason Hudson (ice-cool, shades wearing CIA operator), and the occasional shining set-piece. The Zombie mode is fun, too, and the semi-secret level where players assume the roles of Kennedy, McNamara, Nixon and Castro to fight of the horde of undead is simply hilarious.

There's me! Defending my care package from a Cuban like a good capitalist should.

The conclusion that I am forced to draw in the end is that Black Ops is the product of a franchise that has become a victim of its own success. Obviously, I am no corporation-hating-commie-liberal, but I am truly concerned about what the dark council at Activision is doing to my beloved Call of Duty series. In a better, kinder world, Infinity Ward would produce astounding games at the rate they desired, and Treyarch would not be forced to produce annual entries into blockbuster franchises. Black Ops is a game that drives fellas like me to write long-winded blog rants, not because it is so bad, but because it should be something better.

Updates everywhere in this bitch!

2010-05-19T16:11:00.000+01:00

Well, looks like I'm back here again. Only three months since last posting, too; what a treat for you. Perhpas you are wondering why I would return now. Boredom? Guilt? Desperate desire to uphold the pretence of being a functional blogger? Maybe one of those; maybe all of those. In truth, I know not myself, though I suspect the reason is linked to the combination of my consideration of myself superior to mere mortals due to being a writer and contempt at my own hypocrisy in possibly writing less than people who do not purport to write anything. It matters not; on with the update!

Recently (in reaction to a strip from the wonderful boys at Penny Arcade, who need not a link from me in the same way Gandalf needs not recommendation by a simpleton hobbit) I bought and read Frank Herbert's epic Dune, or possibly DUNE. Curiously, despite stipulating delivery as close to instantaneously as possible, I did not read it straight away upon reciept of the package. Instead, I let it sit on my desk for a week or two prior to actually commencing it. This was not due to being in the middle of another book, or reluctance to read it, as I was in neither position. I simply felt that, based on what I had heard and read of the book, it was not necessary for me to actually read the book itself straight away. I knew it was going to be good, as it is ranked among the best science-fiction tales ever told and I knew I was going to enjoy it thoroughly as a result. This lended me a sort of comfortable apathy regarding it; I would read it when I was good and ready. When I finally did so, it was, predictably, very good indeed. As a nerd, I have inevitably encountered much literature and fiction inspired by Dune, and it was interesting to me to consider the book in terms of its derivative works as I progressed. The setting of the desert in any fiction has always fascinated me, from the Old West to Tattooine, the desolation and hardship of characters in such a setting lending them some considerable fortitude and strength, and I do feel that Dune epitomises this. I'd recommend it, if far future sci-fi is your kind of thing, as it indubitably should be.

Also; I finally did it- I bought a DS. This was purely and simply because of the release of Pokémon Heartgold and Soulsilver Versions; Pokémon Silver was one of the most enjoyable experiences of my young life, so there was no way I was missing out on this. I played through the whole thing, picking up a Cyndaquil all the way to the cataclysmic ultimate battle with Red, and let me tell you, it was gooood. I long felt the Gold/Silver storyline was fantastic, a real coming-of-age adventure. Reliving it, with the added understanding of my more advanced years, battling and befriending Pokémon and their trainers, honing my own party into six battle hardened demigods- hot damn I love it. I may not buy another DS game until Black and White versions are released, but I regret not a damn thing.

Red Dead Redemption; awesome, but, possibly due to the unusual heat we have lately being experiencing, riddled with crashes. That's all I'm going to say about that, for now.

Played some Warhammer 40,000 last week, not often that I get a game. My breathtaking Evil Sunz Orks ripped apart the Blood Angels in a frenzy of melee combat. I had not been expecting to play, and doing so was a real treat. I may take the hobby a little more seriously this summer, though, as you and I both know, my word on here means precious little.

Content, content... Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was released, as I said it would be in my last post. As anticipated, the multiplayer was highly enjoyable, however, the singleplayer I did find wanting. Though this is perhaps to be expected in a franchise so multiplayer focused as Battlefield, they could at least have given it a proper ending. As I mentioned, all facets of the multiplayer game are enjoyable- footsoldier, tank commander, chopper jock, though in my opinion, too many maps place too much emphasis on the relatively mundane foot combat.

That's all I can think of right now. Maybe I'll post again, but no promises.

World in Battlefield or Why the Swedes are Gods of Gaming

2010-03-03T19:29:00.000Z

It was an otherwise ordinary day in the blogosphere when the wanderer returned; trolls were trolling, noobs were whining and pwners were pwning. All of them stopped, however, when the wanderer revealed himself upon the hillside, his golden armour radiant in the morning sun. Looking down upon the masses, he sneered, and whispered: "I am returned, slaves of mundanity; and I bring VENGEANCE."

Well, here we are again; both ignoring the fact that I have barely thought about blogging for the last few millenia, or at least months. I was inspired to this by an anonymous commenter on my last post mocking my inactivity- WELL, Mr No Name, I will tolerate my own impossible laziness, but I will not tolerate people reading my blog and asking for more content! What is this, some sort of good, professional blog!? Jesus!

Since I appear to be here again, allow me to give my approximately quad-monthly update. This is started (Emperor only knows when it will be finished) two days before the release of Battlefield: Bad Company 2; the demo for which, interestingly, I played and enjoyed like no demo since the first Bad Company's. From the demo, I feel confident in saying that this game will be off the chain. It seems to me that what they have done is taken some of Modern Warfare's rather excellent controls and gameplay mechanics, and added them to the already tried and true Battlefield formula. The result? A game with the outstanding vehicular/infantry combat and epic scale of a Battlefield game, but the ultra-tight mechanics and pace of a Call of Duty title; a recipe, I'm sure you'll agree, for southern-fried awesometude. There is a great deal of fun to be had in all aspects of gameplay; fighting as infantry is exhilarating, laying down support as a tank commander empowering and acting like the god of thunder in his war chariot in an attack chopper downright spectacular. The improved environmental destruction now allows for the complete levelling of some buildings, opening a whole new realm of tactics- instead of attacking an objective or enemy directly, bring their cover down around them like an earthquake-whisperer. Truly, I am counting down the hours.

On a slightly related note, I recently purchased Massive Entertainments RTS title World in Conflict. This, too, is a high-quality modern combat game developed by Swedes about Russians invading everything. Perhaps they know something we don't. At any rate, the games portrayal of epic, superpower versus superpower war (it's set in 1989, when the Soviets invade Europe then the US and cause World War 3) is extremely effective both as a gameplay and a story-telling environment. Thanks to the wallet-womping Steam deals, I got both the original game and the Soviet Assault expansion in one fell swoop, so I experience the additional missions viewed from the Soviet side interspersed among the American/NATO campaign of the original game. Both put you in the uniform of a faceless, mute lieutenant, so the stories unfold by the communications within missions of your fellow officers and the start, end and inter-mission cutscenes. Both campaigns have interesting characters- the Americans have the brave, determined colonel and the enthusiastic-but-limited-aptitude captain, while the Soviets have the world-weary, patriarchal commander and the young, zealous and patriotic lieutenant. On both sides, you've got enough military hardware to make even a gun nut like me back down, in the form of infantry, vehicles, tanks and choppers, but, not unlike my beloved Dawn of War 2, the game does away with basebuilding and resource gathering in favour of pure kickass combat. What distinguishes it from other games in the genre, however, is the "Tactical Aid" menu- this is a bar that allows you to call in support in the form of air or artillery strikes of varying magnitude and occasionally airdroppable units, based on your mission performance. This is initially entertaining, but the first time you carpet-bomb the heart out of a Soviet armoured column, you realise the tactical possibilities offered by the tool. Aside from the fact that I am a sucker for any opportunity to stomp some socialists, I reckon this is a damn good game.

I'm not gonna make some sort promise to post more; we both know I've lied to you before. So all I will say is make sure you read this one good, could be a while until you get another.

MAN VERSUS ALIEN IN DESPERATE BATTLE

2009-09-23T11:51:00.000+01:00

So, as I mentioned in a previous post, I have bought a copy of the third edition of Space Hulk. Doubtless, as you fail to read this you are desperate to learn of my thoughts on it. Well, having played a few games over the weekend, I can tell you this: Space Hulk is awesome.

If you are cool enough never to have even heard of Space Hulk, then here is a brief introduction. The game, set in my beloved Warhammer 40000 universe, centres around a small force of Space Marine Terminators, the elite of humanity's elite, as they board an ancient interstellar vessal/wreck, the titular Space Hulk, in search of relics or technology thought lost. Inside the hulk, they must do battle with the alien Genestealers, vile, six-limbed creatures as numerous as they are ferocious. The game is one of turn based strategy, with one player assuming command of the Marines and the other the Genestealers. It is also one of GW's oldest products, first released in 1989 (the new, third edition was released for the 20th anniversary), and one of the nerdiest things ever.

So, when the giant box arrived on, well, my neighbour's doorstep since I wasn't in, I tore it open with all the relish of a genestealer butchering a hapless terminator. The box was not merely large, but dense, containing two playing manuals (a rulebook and a mission book), several miniature frames, and the veritable flood of cardboard, for the playing area as well as legions of tokens representing the status of marines, the position of aliens currently out of direct sight, flamer effects and reserves of ammuntion (for the monstrous assault cannon) or psychic might for the powerful marine Librarian.

As I have mentioned, players control either marines or xenos in a series of missions outlined in the mission book, included in the (vast) box. These have objectives ranging from simple, team deathmatch style showdowns to complex scenarios requiring marines starting at point A to retrieve an objective at point B before making their escape at point C. I have attempted only two of the twelve, but both proved entertaining from both sides. Unfortunately, both I and the only person I could convince to play with me are massive Imperial fanboys, so we fought violently over sides prior to any actual combat. Perhaps this is that fanboy speaking, but I genuinely felt the marines were the more enjoyable side; since there are so few and they each have names displayed on the side of the box, there is a real narrative feel to the gameplay from the marine side, in addition to the murderous joy of an assault cannon holding overwatch a 'stealer infested corridor. That's not to say play on the home team is dull; shifting blips and attempting to flank the marines is a tricky game of hide and seek- the marines will annihilate you at range, so you have to get close enough to bring the razor claws of your brood to bear. Asymmetrical gameplay is always interesting in a strategy game, and I feel it has been implemented well here. As far as balance goes, the marines won two of the three games we played, but I feel the genestealers may have an advantage in the hands of more experienced players.

A "review", as I suppose this is, is worthless, firstly as nobody reads this, and secondly for it has been so long since release that anyone who cared about it has already bought at least one copy of the strictly limited editions. However! I like writing, but, as my post history shows, I am lazy. I resolved to complete this post in an attempt to counter this fact. With a bit of luck, I will seriously actually totally begin posting with renewed vigour having done this. Wish me luck, you psychopaths!

I am returned!

2009-07-20T20:27:00.000+01:00

Lookee! I'm here! I'm posting! Been a while, hasn't it. But, if you, dear reader, are prepared to forgive me that, I will forgive you for not reading this. In fact, I may even go so far as actually posting on a weekly basis or more, as I once claimed I would. Now, to business; I promised myself that I would never post solely to apologise for not posting, so it seems you are owed some actual content.

So, what to write? Well, for a start, I never bought a DS, as I said I would. Had I done so, it would solely have been to play Pokémon, and possibly Tetris DS. Regrettably, what rationality I possess overruled the slavering Pokémaniac within. I think it was for the best- Pokémon deserve a kind, caring trainer, and, especially with the addition of online play, that is not something I could be.

In other news, I have relapsed- I'm back to playing Call of Duty 4 all the god-damn time. I managed to break free for a year, but one day, and quite innocently, I thought: "I know what I haven't played in a while!" I take some consolation in the knowledge that I'm even better than I thought I was- I completed Veteran difficulty in a matter of days, and in multiplayer I am popping heads like a strange man playing some sort of obscene carnival sideshow, which is essentially what I am, so the simile was a bit redundant.

Team Fortress 2 is still close to my heart-Valve's marvellous game design never fails to bring joy to my soul and vigour to my limbs. Closely reading all of the update posts at steampowered, I can't help but feel that they are pouring themselves into continually building and improving upon the foundations they set almost two years ago. That sort of developer support for a title really is a model the industry could do with following.

Recently, I managed to obtain copies of both Warcraft 3 and Starcraft, along with its Brood War expansion. Both are pretty premium as far as strategy gaming goes. Starcraft, being essentially a less bleak version of Warhammer 40000, by which I mean a version where there is any hope at all for anyone, is obviously particularly appealing to me.

Speaking of 40k, I have (almost ceratinly foolishly) purchased for myself a copy of Games Workshop's glorious Space Hulk remake. Although initially the idea sounded a little dull to me, having seen the game and watched it in motion, I couldn't resist grabbing a part of it. I'll report more (seriously) when I actually recieve the damn thing.

I think that's probably it for now. I really promise I'll post again this time, seriously.

Valve are just too amazing

2009-05-16T14:33:00.001+01:00

I had only ever dreamed of this; Valve actually disguised the spy update. Top shelf!

Ludicrous Filler Post! or: Deathadder Review (of sorts)

2009-05-03T06:32:00.000+01:00

Acutely aware of the recent post drought, I am going to attempt a review feature of my current mouse, Razer's lovely Deathadder. Stand back, citizens, this may be horribly unprofessionally written.

I mentioned in a previous post (not that anyone read that or will, indeed, read this) that I own and use for my daily browsing and nightly pwnage a Razer Deathadder mouse. If you remember, I claimed it was like a Space Marine's trusty chainsword. Although this may have seemed merely an idle bit of Games Workshop geek's classic excessive devotion (a right, nay, duty held by all those who have played any Warhammer tabletop game), there is a grain of truth in it. Like that chainsword, it is my ever-present companion. Like that chainsword, it has joined me for countless battles. Like that chainsword, it serves to defeat my foes, whatever form they come in, be it alien, terrorist, zombie, gangster, or, indeed, large russian man with minigun. The comparison was not as minor as it initially appeared (not least to myself).

So, Razer. Razer have been making gaming mice for uberpros (like myself) since the Boomslang, way back in 1998. This was the first ever 1000dpi gaming mouse and was, in many ways, responsible for the emergence of professional gaming as a phenomenon. Chaps like f4tal1ty basically became what they became thanks to the sponsorship of Razer and the pwnage channeled through their mice. Since then, Razer have been making sweet looking, high performance mice for gaming. One of the more recent examples is the Deathadder.

I bought my Deathadder shortly after getting a new computer and thinking to myself, "Novelty car shaped USB mice are entertaining enough, but something more effective would perhaps be appropriate." So, to Microplay, my local LAN centre and purveyor of tools of pwnage, where I picked up both the mouse and a corresponding Goliathus mat. To be honest, I am very pleased indeed with both. Admittedly, I have never owned a gaming mouse before, but as far as I can tell, the Deathadder is a goodun. The mouse will run out of the box, but it is rather sensible to install the supplied driver software. This installation was painless, and vastly empowering- it allows for customisation of the buttons, including the two side buttons. On mine, one is set to doubleclicking (purely due to laziness on my part) and the other is set to adjust one of this mouse's most intriguing features- on-the-fly sensitivity adjustment.

I say this is interesting, because it is something that had never occurred to me as necessary, but having it, seems a very good idea. On-the-fly sensitivity allows you, with the press of a side button and a scroll of the wheel, to change the sensitivity of the mouse. Upon doing so, a small, unobtrusive bar appears at the side of the screen, showing the current sensitivity setting, and allowing you to change it whichever way you fancy. This can be done at any time- on the desktop, in the midst of a firefight or even while writing a blog, with such great ease that it seems foolish not to adjust it. Switching between high-sensitivity for gaming and lower sensitivity for normal use is staggeringly simple. This is not the limit of the use, however- if, playing Scout in my beloved Team Fortress 2, I decide to switch class to Sniper, I can crank the sensitivity right down from the maximum (as needed for the rapid Scout's Scattergun) to a medium sensitivity (allowing me to miss headshots with huge precision). This is what makes this feature so useful to a gamer (obviously it does not only apply to TF2). My one gripe is that not all games will display the sidebar correctly- some show it with considerable flicker, for example. This does not render the feature unusable- it merely hinders the use.

Yeah, we got pictures now. This one shows how little effect adjusting your sensitivity has on batting people to death.

Onwards, brothers, to aesthetics. Allow me to assure you, reader (yes, I mean there is but one of you), that I would be prepared to stand up before a jury of my peers and assert that this mouse looks freakin' sweet. The rubberised palmrest arches gracefully up into two oversized buttons around the blue glow of the scroll wheel. Also glowing away is the three-headed snake of the Razer logo, bang in the centre of the palmrest. The steady pulse of this suggests to me a relaxed but great power, like the engine flares of an interstellar battleship at high orbit. This is never anything other than cool as hell, though, unless you have had a nasty accident, it is not visible while the mouse is in use.

Glowing merrily away.

The scroll wheel offers good grip for all your weapon switching needs, but is a click action type rather than a smooth one, betraying this mouse as a tool for gamers. Some may prefer a smooth scroll, but they aren't writing this, are they? Another matter of preference comes in the very shape of the mouse- it's for right hands only. This does not strike me, a left hander, as an issue- neither I nor any of the multitudinous lefties I know use their mouse in their left hand, but I felt I owe my readers the truth in these matters. The rubberised palmrest gives good grip, too, although the side buttons are glossy plastic and do not share this quality. This transition from gloss to matte does, however, add to the striking nature of the mouse's appearance.

Finally, performance. This is pretty impressive. The mouse is equipped with an 1800dpi 3G infrared sensor. Coupled with the high quality mat, this offers unparalled precision. Well, that's what a professional reviewer would say. I am not one, so I don't see enough mice to draw parallels. I can say, however, that since buying this mouse, I have not once felt that it has let me down. From a gamer, that is, someone prepared to blame failure upon mice, keyboards, routers, hacks or even the dreaded lag, that is endorsement.

En conclusion, if you are in the market for a tool of pwnage so comfortable, so precise, so downright potent that lesser beings will quake at your approach, you could do a whole lot worse than a Deathadder.

Aw hell, it's been a MONTH!?

2009-04-09T19:07:00.001+01:00

That's right, sports fans, it's been more than a month since last I blessed you with my writings. Miss me? Yup, that's a trick question, you're not reading this! Don't worry, noone else is. I can't justify the drought, but by way of reparation, accept this!

Been playing a bit of Dawn of War: Dark Crusade lately. I posted previously about Dawn of War 2, which is still wonderful, but thanks to some madman in Relics patching department, I am denied playing it by what seems to be an overheating issue. So, I turn to its younger brother, Dark Crusade.

There were many who complained about Dawn Of War 2's radical change in gameplay from its predecessor. The combat focus, with the complete elimination of basebuilding and the reduced scale of the strategy threw some DOW fans, as well as many RTS veterans. However, playing the first game, I can't help but wonder if this was the approach Relic wanted all along. Comparing Dawn of War to other RTS games before it, we see... well, reduction in scale and simplification of basebuilding. Although Dawn of War retains the same basic system of workers, structures and technology research as its forebears, there are certainly signs of the combat focus creeping in. Though the traditional elements are all there, they serve no higher purpose than cogs in the machine of killing the other blokes troops. There are worker units, sure, but there is none of this girly resource harvesting we get from Age of Empires and the like- no, these guys build places for soldiers to come out of. Or turrets to shoot other soldiers. Or places to research bigger guns for your soldiers. Looking at it this way, it seems hopelessly convoluted when compared to Dawn of War 2, which removes all the frippery and leaves the pure combat. Playing Dark Crusade, I feel that it craves this purity.

On a further note of 40K, I have begun reading the Black Library's Horus Heresy series of novels. These are, by my reckoning, bloody good. I suspect and fear that a fanboy like myself simply CANNOT report objectively in these matters, but the quality of the literature itself seems to be at the very least sturdy. The Horus Heresy, for the uninitiated, is the broad term for the events surrounding the cataclysmic civil war that nearly destroyed humanity. The books tell the considerable saga of how the the Emperor (of Mankind)'s favourite son and commander of the Great Crusade into the galaxy, Horus, falls to the dark powers of Chaos, and turns against his father. It would be madness for anyone into 40K not to give these a look, but I would reccomend them to anyone interested in sci-fi.

What else? Ah yes, a little more before they haul me back to the padded cell. Upon finding my rather dusty Game Boy Advance SP and discovering it had a miraculously high level of battery charge, I began playing Pokémon Ruby. It amazes me how good the Pokémon series remains. It is still hugely entertaining to capture, train and battle the creatures, even in a world of PSP-3000s, DSis and, though it pains me to say it, iPod/Phones. My faithful Combusken is now level 27, and kicks quite a lot of ass. I have a half-formed plan to buy a DS Lite or, possibly, DSi once my exams are dispensed with and get stuck in to the upcoming Platinum Version. Whatever happens, I will no doubt write of it, but know this- Pokémon rules now and always.

We can't stop here, this is bat country!

2009-03-01T19:54:00.000Z

Last Wednesday, the obscene marvel that is Team Fortress 2 recieved its fourth class specific update, for the Scout. In case you are reading this (unlikely) and have not encountered Team Fortress 2 previously (inexcusable), I shall attempt to explain. Team Fortress 2 is a class-based objective-focused teamwork-centric multiplayer FPS from the sterling gentlemen at Valve, creators of the vastly successful and critically acclaimed Half-Life series. The game involves a great depth of teamplay coupled with a Pixaresque art style to make the 9 classes available to play distinct and amusing characters, as well as representing different playstyles. Players must work together to accomplish various objectives, such as stealing an inteligence briefcase, capturing/defending territory, or pushing a cart of explosives into the opponents base.

Of late, Valve has been releasing updates to the PC version focusing on specific classes, and most recently this was for the Scout, the hyperactive, baseball-loving smartmouth from Boston, specialist in flag capture and rapid attacks. The Scout has been given alternate weaponry and achievements through which to obtain it. As something of a fan of the little fellow, I was quite excited. But there is a side effect to suddenly giving love to one class in particular: everyone will play that class. The usual variety of classes found in a server has become alarmingly skewed. Unfortunately, this means that the intricate teamwork and interaction between classes has gone out of the window.

As players of Team Fortress can see from my avatar, I LIKE the scout. I like the smartassed attitude, the speed and agility, the point-blank lethality of the Scattergun, the sheer bloody cheek of the bat (BONK!). I also like to think I'm quite good at playing Scout.

Unfortunately, my accursed team mentality forces me to pick a different class from the one labelled as having six players of a team of ten. So, on a Badlands match, I play Soldier, far from my favoured class, but one that seemed entirely necessary to remove the sentryguns that blocked our advance. Curiously, this rocket-jumped me to MVP in short order, despite my lack of experience. This suggested that most of the people playing Scout weren't actually very good at it. Why did they play, then? I could be generous, and propose that they were all practicing in an attempt to become a more rounded player. I might suggest they were all feverishly trying out newly acquired unlockables- selfish, perhaps, but understandable. I fear and suspect, however, that in reality, they pursued something darker- the achievement.

For me, Team Fortress's acheivements are merely a barrier between me and unlocks, a barrier that is needed to make owning the unlockables feel satisfying. To some people, the achievements seem to actually BE the goal. Fair enough, a token of your skill seems worth having. But, as seemed to be the case for these people, if no skill is present, then why force other people, who DO like playing Scout and ARE possibly capable of obtaining the achievements, to switch class?

I leave this with you.

Slipknot and the Perception of Taste

2009-02-24T19:34:00.001Z

On the recommendation of a chum, I am going to attempt a post about something other than games, as apparently such things exist (who knew?). Here, I shall examine the social consequences of listening to a particular type of music.

Habitually, I am at best a sometime music listener. As far as I am concerned, this operates in my favour, as I only listen to music I actually want to listen to, rather than music everyone else does. I have a particular taste for rock, but I will happily lend an ear to any artist that I take a liking to. Most recently, this has been the oft-maligned metal band, Slipknot. Having heard and enjoyed a couple of tracks from their third album, The Subliminal Verses, I elected to make a purchase. I should perhaps explain that I only ever purchase full albums, as I feel this helps to broaden my taste- I regard downloading single tracks as a mite on the philistine side.

Having now listened to the album in its entirety, I quite like the intensity of the songs and the grim nihilism of the lyrics (a stark contrast with most chart toppers), but I am aware that I, overweight nerdy teen, am not the standard listener profile. Indeed, I realise that my newly acquired penchant for this band may alter people's perceptions of myself. The question I now ask is why?

Why should a person's musical taste affect other people's thoughts about them? I am all too aware that many people regard bands such as Slipknot and the like as "just noise". I do not think this is because of the actual music- I think many of Slipknot's nine members are rather talented musicians, except perhaps the chap who is commissioned to hit beer drums with a baseball bat- but a collective perception of such music as being for big hairy blokes wearing hoodies and swearing. In my experience, people rarely listen to such bands, loitering on the edge of the mainstream, before passing judgement upon them. Although there is a particular liking for heavy riffs and half-screamed vocals, there is, contrary to popular belief, a tune, and the sound is (to me at least) rather pleasing, but I only know this because I was willing to give them a chance. Most people would not, as they percieve music as not a matter of personal taste, but too often as an indicator of the social circles within which one moves, an accessory rather than an interest. I feel that this should not be the case. In fact, I fear that people are missing out, not just on Slipknot, but on a whole world of music, that they percieve not to be for them. So, to both my readers- I urge you, broaden your horizons, give bands you've never heard a chance! And listen to Duality, it's quite good.

Dawn of War II Single-player Impressions

2009-02-21T20:08:00.000Z

I tend not to be very good at RTS games. I feel that I don't have the attention span for the basebuilding and resource management necessary in the typical empire-builder, and as a result am crushed by whatever enemies confront me. The nuances of large scale combat similarly escape me, as I see that I have brought far too few units, or too few of the type I need, or too many of the wrong type, to the battlefield. Superweapons are little comfort, for as a huge fan of mutually assured destruction I tend to proliferate rather than annihilate. My foes, however, have no such reservations, and gleefully rain nukes/vacuum imploders/virus bombs onto my (poorly built) base.

Conversely, I seem to have something of an affinity for small-scale strategy. In Team Fortress 2 and Call of Duty 4, I have a sort of mental heads-up display, denoting enemy team positions, flanking routes, the opposing team members to watch out for and such, and do my best to help with team organisation (no easy task in the wilds of a public server). Setting up lethal crossfires in Socom: Tactical Strike came very naturally to me.

With this in mind, coupled with a lingering love of the Warhammer 40000 universe, I hotly anticipated Relic's newly released Dawn of War II. Here was promised the near-complete obliteration of basebuilding. Here was promised small numbers of small squads, gaining experience and attaining wargear as they progress, using cover and special abilities to engage enemies. Here was promised, in other words, exactly the sort of small scale, intense strategy that I crave.

Upon completing the Steam download, I promptly loaded up. Watching the opening movie, the anticipation grew. Presented with the main menu, with its display of a Space Marine, with the classic chainsword in hand, surveying the field before him, I felt a little pang of joy, an unfamiliar sensation for my grim mind. I selected start new campaign, and was prompted to enter a name for my Force Commander. Often in these matters I go for comedy value (Big Steve of Vault 101 can testify to this.) Not here. This man was to be my representative in the battles to come. The Space Marines under his command deserved a properly named leader. I named him Crucius, for the pain he would inflict on the enemies of the Emperor. And so, with a Deathadder for my chainsword, I dropped into the battlefield.

First of all, the game plays very nicely. As promised, basebuilding is all but nonexistent. You select the squads to drop onto the field before combat and they are who arrive. Occasionally you must build turrets or capture structures, but there is no actual unit production. The squads available to you are based around a named squad leader. These leaders level up as they are used in combat, with each having different specialisations- a versatile Tactical Squad, heavy-weapons wielding Devastators, Assault Marines with jetpacks and close combat weaponry, and stealthy Scouts. Only 4 of these can be taken on missions, including the commander, giving something of a tactical element before the battle even begins in your choice of squads. Personally, I usually have the tactical squad attack while the Devastators set up, before jumping the Assault Marines into the fracas, along with the commander, but there is a huge amount of choice in tactics used. These squads gain experience and level up as they are used in combat, allowing them to gain new traits and abilities, but the real point of interest is wargear.

Wargear is equipment obtained through missions. Your choice of wargear is what really generates attachment to the units, and what can give an edge in combat. You will regularly have to choose between different items, depending on what role you allocate to each squad, and on the mission objectives. Frequently, I pore over the wargear selection screen, allocating the kit for maximum effectiveness; some items of wargear are unique, and as such offer some sort of bonus along with a little backstory regarding the reason you should be excited about carrying this relic into battle. This is particularly intersting for a fanboy like myself, but I'm sure will hold some degree of interest for a novice to the world.

The campaign is lengthy- I have put in over 15 hours playtime since release, and am still in the thick of it on Sergeant (the second hardest) difficulty. Story is as per usual as far as these games are concerned, obviously particularly appealing to fans of Warhammer 40000, but not unintelligible to other individuals either. Interestingly, as is becoming common with RTS games, cooperative campaign is available. Only briefly have I played this, but the deal seems to be different players control different squads- player one controls the commander, while player two operates the tactical squad etcetera. This should make for interesting play, but as mentioned, I have but dipped a toe here.

Multiplayer impressions coming soon.

Why Call of Duty: World at War Doesn't Compare

2009-02-11T08:00:00.000Z

I would like to make this very clear from the beginning- I loved Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare. Everything about it was wonderful- the single player campaign was brilliantly put together from start to finish, and as for the multiplayer, well, I'm sure everyone and their companion cube has played and loved it, not least me and mine, who were hooked on it and played almost nothing else for several months after its release. It did almost everything right. And precisely because of this perfection, I was loath from the beginning to pick up its successor, Treyarch's World at War. I knew from the first press releases that it would lack its elder brother's brilliance, that the tanks would imbalance the mutiplayer and that the singleplayer would lose its sparkle. This was enough to prevent me from making a purchase, that is, until Christmas rolled around again.
The spirit of the season must have lifted some of my leaden cynicism, for I thought to myself: "Well, it's had favourable reviews across the board, and my friends who do have it say it's good, so why not?" As a result, on Christmas morning, there sat a copy of Treyarch's latest. Eagerly, I set about the playing of it. Which was fun. Really. For a little while, anyway. Before I realised that all my gripes and suspicions were confirmed. Since I've just noticed the toolbar at the top of the post composer, shall we have a numbered list of its shortcomings? Oooh, let's!

Singleplayer- As I have already said, Modern Warfare's single player mode was marvellous. It wasn't just the bread and butter gameplay (which was mostly fairly standard- but highly polished- FPS fare), but the entire atmosphere of it, and how well it pulled off such a variety of scenarios. Defending an immobilised tank from legions of Kalashnikov-brandishing terrorist types into the night felt authentic, but so did creeping through the irradited countryside around Chernobyl hunting an arms dealer. There was a genuine feeling of being there. Immersive, in a word. This is, unfortunately, missing from World at War. The missions feel bland by comparison, not least because many were basically rehashes. COD4's lovely Chernobyl sniper mission, wherein you and an amusingly accented Scottish (yay!) captain sneak about with rifles evading superior numbers of foes rather than engaging directly in the bleak environment of the abandoned town of Pripypat has become, well, you and an amusingly accented Russian captain sneaking about with rifles attempting to avoid superior numbers of foes in the bleak abandoned town of Stalingrad. The seat of the gunner of an AC-130 gunship in COD4 where you sat blasting away at people below has become the seat of the gunner of a Black Cat flying boat, blasting away at boats. It feels a little lazy, if truth be told.
Multiplayer- This was undoubtedly the jewel in COD4's already splendid crown. Tight controls, well-designed maps and wonderfully balanced weapons combined for a multiplayer experience that was so good that my friends list was always full of people playing it even six months after release. The offspring has tried to mess with the formula, however, and things have gone awry. The change of setting back to WWII has meant that the beastly assault rifles have died something of a death due to not really having been born, but they haven't been properly replaced. The new rifles lack the punch to rival the submachine guns, which are at least as lethal as their modern-day counterparts. I was going to suggest people would complain that "I'm just a n00b and can't use the rifles" , but I don't suppose anyone's actually reading this. At any rate, in COD4 I had a great love for the M14, the single shot assault rifle, so that can go out the window. These guns are not merely ill-suited to me but poorly balanced. The maps too have lost the design flair. COD4 had such well placed sightlines and corners and balconies and such that playing was always intense. World at War's offerings are less so. They are too big for a start, but they seem poorly designed too. Houses may have windows that seem like they should be useful but offer little advantage, there are no places from where to watch some streets and churches have pointlessly high spires. The whole experience, theoretically superior to COD4's, failed to hold my attention for more than a couple of hours in total. The Nazi Zombies mode is amusing, but really it's not as good as Left 4 Dead, so there's no real reason for me to play it.

It occurs to me that that was not really a list, but I'm new to this blogging lark, gimme a break.

F1rSt p0$T!!

2009-01-17T11:05:00.000Z

Gentlemen...
You are now reading the blog of me, that is to say, one Alan McKechnie of Glasgow, Scotland. This blog will likely contain my own tales of gaming madness, my own thoughts on the world's madness, or merely the grim rumblings of the madness behind my own eyes. At any rate, expect updates whenever I get bored, or maybe a few weekly, I dunno. At any rate, enjoy.