Com_Meister32's GameSpot Friend's Reviews Com_Meister32's GameSpot Friend's Reviews Com_Meister32's GameSpot Friend's Reviews en-us Copyright (c)1995-2013 CBS Interactive. All rights reserved. http://www.gamespot.com 20 Tue, 21 May 2013 22:10:24 -0700 GameSpot Com_Meister32's GameSpot Friend's Reviews http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/shared/promos/misc/gs_logo.gif http://www.gamespot.com 135 40 Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:57:34 -0700 Elite29 reviewed Shift 2: Unleashed for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/shift-2-unleashed/user-reviews/798944/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 7.0.

'Shift 2' is not a bad game, by any means. It's a pretty decent sim-style racer that has a pretty long single player career, good online play, nice graphics, and is fun to play......most of the time. It is not fun to play, however, when you are dealing with the very loose & inconsistant handling and the horrific CPU driver AI.

'Shift 2' is a game that really wants to be a 'Gran Turismo' or 'Forza Motorsport'. While those two franchises are the pinnacles of sim-style racing, it is nice to see another developer throw their hat in the ring. And to be honest, 'Slightly Mad Studios' did a good enough job that you will feel like you are playing one of those two other games........until you get slightly bumped by an AI opponent which sends your car into a tailspin that just wasted 3 laps of perfect driving.

The CPU AI is very aggresive, even on the easiest difficulty. And the punishment for any sort of collision is usually severe. When you combine that with the flighty handling, it can make 'Shift 2' very frustrating to play.

Combine the above two problems, with the smaller list of vehicles, unskippable cut-scenes that are extremely cheesy, terrible music, lack of track variety, & "been there, done that" feel to the career mode, & you have a game that screams 'rental'. It is fun to play and looks nice, but it never does anything that makes it a much purchase.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed Shift 2: Unleashed for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:57:34 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/shift-2-unleashed/user-reviews/798944/platform/ps3/ Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:06:03 -0700 Elite29 reviewed Demon's Souls for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/demons-souls/user-reviews/798418/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 5.0.

Let me just start out by saying that I do love difficult games. I have been playing games since the Atari days & have had my fair share of games that have put my patience to the test. But 'Demon's Souls' is a different animal. Much has been made about how hard this game is. That would be an accurate assessment. The game is punishingly difficult......for all the wrong reasons.

The game isn't that difficult because of the enemies being smart or cunning. Generally, they run right at you or shoot you from afar. The game is difficult because of moronic game design that punishes the players at every turn in many unneccesary ways.

Why do I play through a level for an hour only to die in 3 sec. from a random mob of lackeys & lose every soul (the game's only currency) I earned &, essentially, waste all of that time? Because, apparently, 'FROM SOFTWARE' wants me to. Then why I am shipped all the way back to the beginning of the level (there are no checkpoints), only to be forced to backtrack through the whole damn thing, fighting the same enemies (they all respawn), to grab the stuff the game forced me to drop.......only to get killed again because of the broken lock-on feature decided not to work properly? Oh and you can't even pause the game. Yes, you read that correctly. YOU CAN'T EVEN PAUSE THE GAME.

That is just one example of the masochistic game design that is 'Demon's Souls'. The game is extremely difficult just for the sake of being extremely difficult. It's frustrating to the point where I was screaming at my TV. Like I said earlier, I don't mind a challenge. But when the game is just senslessly hard for no reason, it's pure crap.

Because of these problems I mentioned earlier, the game becomes a repetitive slog. You start a level, you die, get sent back to the beginning, slog through the same level again trying to get back to where you died to get your souls back. Then you venture on, only to die and repeat this same horrible process. You take on the same enemies over and over. Finally, you get to a gigantic boss character that usually kills you within a couple hits. Oh and then you get to do this AGAIN. See where I am going with this?

On top of that, the presentation is average at best. The graphics are ok, but the sound and voice acting are terrible. And with this being an RPG, you would think you would get a good story to follow. Well, you would be wrong there because there isn't much story here & what is here isn't that interesting.

Like the rest of the game, the leveling of your character becomes boring after awhile. And if you are used to any in-game help of any kind (as most people are these days), I have a surprise for you......there is VERY little. Most of the time, you are just thrown to the wolves without any explanation at all.

So why is this game getting all of these great reviews? It's because this is the type of game that critics love and it will appeal to a certain kind of gamer. I kinda figured that going in & I also kinda figured I was that kind of gamer. Apparently, I was wrong. I guess I just expect a videogame to be several things, but one of them is......FUN. This game is not fun.

In my opinion, Japenese companies have taken a real step back in this generation of consoles with one disappointing game after another. Unfortunately, 'Demon's Souls' falls right into that category. It's Japanese gaming with all of the bad traits & very little of the good. Unless you are willing to put hours & hours into grinding your character through boring levels over & over while dealing with bad controls, lame story, & average presentation.....then stay away from this game.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed Demon's Souls for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:06:03 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/demons-souls/user-reviews/798418/platform/ps3/ Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:15:57 -0700 Elite29 reviewed Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/resident-evil-5-gold-edition/user-reviews/790851/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 8.5.

I am a HUGE Resident Evil fan. I have played every game in the series (many multiple times) and consider myself an expert on the series itself. Ever since I first played the original RE, I have been a huge supporter and defender of the games (even when some were sick of the clunky controls and camera). I consider the original game and RE4 the pinnacles of the series. And I still consider the GameCube remake of the original, the scariest game I have ever played.

The problem with having a series that goes on for as long as the RE series has is do you continue doing what you have already done? Or do you try out new things in an attempt to keep things fresh? Well with RE4, Capcom decided to ditch the whole 'zombie' & horror storyline and go with something more action & tension filled. They also FINALLY introduced new gameplay elements that fans of the genre had long been asking for. Improved controls, camera, and inventory management were nice changes. My only problem was they left something behind that was important to the series in the past: the game didn't scare me.

I gave RE4 a great review and consider it to be one of the best games of the past generation. But apparently Capcom decided it wanted to take the action gameplay a step further and here we are with 'Resident Evil 5'.

While many people don't seem to like RE5 as much because of the lack of scares, I still think it's a great game. It just isn't what you might be expecting going into a RE game. It feels much more like a version of RE4 with heavily upgraded visuals. It has lots of tense moments, but it will rarely scare you. And the emphasis on CO-OP gameplay has clearly been inspired by the 'Gears Of War' franchise.

Is this such a bad thing? Well if you are looking for a horror-filled game, then yes it is. If you are looking for a great & intense action game, then RE5 could be for you. The problem is sometimes the game is too stuck in the past in terms of design flaws to be a competent action game.

The game will throw many enemies at you and, contrary to games of the past, you will not have much problem finding ammo. The enemies in this game are very similar to the ones found in RE4. It does make it easier to have full control of the camera now, but the system still doesn't lend itself perfectly to an action game. It may work great for 'survival horror', but this isn't 'survival horror'.

And there is the main problem with this game. It feels like it can't make up it's mind whether it wants to a be a 'survival horror' or all-out action game. I can see that's why it's getting some mixed reviews and I can understand that opinion. I still think it's a great game that any fan of the series should play. It has a lot of familiar faces and it has a pretty good story. I think RE5 tends to get a bad rap, but I can see why many people are frustrated by the road this series seems to be taking. Hopefully, with RE6, Capcom will go back to delivering an actual 'survival horror' experience and let the action fans go back to playing 'Halo' or 'Gears Or War'.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:15:57 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/resident-evil-5-gold-edition/user-reviews/790851/platform/ps3/ Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:05:04 -0700 Elite29 reviewed Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/command-and-conquer-red-alert-3/user-reviews/790850/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 8.5.

ip EA more than most people. But you have to hand it to them for being stubborn about bringing a real-time strategy game to the consoles.

I have played many real-time strategy games (RTS) on the PC. One of my favorite development companies is 'Blizzard' solely due to the fact that I grew up loving the 'Warcraft' & 'Starcraft' games. One of the unfortunate problems with being a console gamer now, is that I rarely get to play one of my favorite genres (the RTS) anymore. Or I should say I rarely get to play a GOOD RTS.

While I liked EA's 'Lord Of The Rings' RTS, it wasn't near as good as a PC game. Then I tried the 'Command & Conquer 3' games that they ported over to the Xbox 360 and I didn't like them much at all. I felt the problem with the games was that they didn't lower the difficulty and slow the game down a bit for us console gamers who are stuck using a game controller as opposed to the mouse/keyboard setup. In my opinion, they were frustratingly difficult due to the controls not letting you keep up with the gameplay.

Now we get 'Red Alert 3', which I was excited about since I loved the series on the PC. I had the same trepidation going into this game as I did the others, but at least I would get the crazy fun of the 'Red Alert' series. This series has always been a bit looney (in a good way), in my opinion, because it really doesn't take itself seriously at all. The units, cut-scenes, voice-work, etc. is in a fun & campy style. The gameplay is basically the same, but the series has a lot of character that many can't match.

So how does the game fare on the PlayStation 3? Surprisingly well, in fact. The controls aren't much different that the previous Xbox 360 games I mentioned, but the game is much easier overall. The maps are smaller and the difficulty isn't as high, so the frustration level stays at a minimum. There is less scrolling around the map which is always welcome. This still isn't even close to replicating a PC RTSm however. To me, that's ok if you know that going in. There are LOTS of options here for maximizing your controller, but most of them I didn't even use. It is nice to know that they are there if you want to use them though.

Another problem console RTS's have is the fact that you are playing on a TV. Now having an HD resolution helps, but it's still not as good as a monitor. There are many very tiny units in the game and sometimes they are very hard to click on individually. With that said, this is another area where the game is improved on over the other C&C games for the 360. Units are a bit larger here and it makes a big difference when trying to control them.

The game looks very nice for a console version and there is no slowdown at all. Even when you have huge armies on the battlefield, the game never hiccups. That is a HUGE improvement over EA's 'Lord Of The Rings' RTS. That game was so bad it was almost un-playable at times. Thankfully, it seems that is a problem of the past.

And how could I write a 'Red Alert 3' review without mentioning the incredibly cheesy cut-scenes. Yes, they are bad. But they are bad in a good way. It's filled with B & C list actors and are done in a very fun and 'hammy' sort of way. And any game that features Gemma Atkinson as much as this game does, gets a lot of credit from me.

The game isn't going to win any 'Game Of The Year' awards, but the flack this game is getting from critics is shocking. Previous C&C games for the 360 received very positive reviews, and I have no idea why this one was rated lower. Maybe I am just more of a fan of the 'Red Alert' series than most, but if you are looking for a fun and crazy RTS for your PS3.......this is game you have to check out.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:05:04 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/command-and-conquer-red-alert-3/user-reviews/790850/platform/ps3/ Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:44:28 -0800 Elite29 reviewed Braid for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/braid/user-reviews/787899/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 6.0.

How would I sum up 'Braid', a game that has received critical acclaim from ALMOST every website or magazine that has reviewed it? Well I think Gamesradar.com says it best:

"Boring. Full-of-itself. Distilled snobbery. Tedious, frustrating and filled with laughably emo prose.

That's how I feel about Braid, a game I excitedly bought and downloaded the very first day of release. I have made three separate attempts over the last seven months to give the game a fair shake, but its pretention and obliquely maddening puzzles turned me off every time. I realized I was forcing myself to like something just because everyone else loved it.

That's the biggest problem with Braid: you're not allowed to hate it. I think many gamers and journalists honestly love this game, but I also believe that many jumped on a "games as art" bandwagon. Add to that all the press Braid's creator, Jonathan Blow, got as the poor little auteur making it all by himself and, suddenly, you look like a cruel monster for criticizing it.

Braid may have fooled the world into liking it, but the avalanche of praise stops here. Not because I'm not getting the dense meanings of it - oh, the guy lost a girl, but in reality he is chasing this girl in reverse, accidentally making himself the hero and the villain of his own game! And oh, isn't the stage layout just so chic with the Donkey Kong and Mario Bros. references!

Blargh. I may be glad that this game exists more than, say, a new Army Men title, but it needs to get over itself big time."

Yea couldn't have said it better myself. I think the game looks and sounds fantastic for a PSN game. But it's WAY overpriced at $15, too short, & has very little re-play value. Braid is extremely pretentious, frustrating, boring, and just because critics loved it when it was released, doesn't make is god's gift to indie gaming. I wish I could go back in time and get my $15 back.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed Braid for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:44:28 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/braid/user-reviews/787899/platform/ps3/ Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:34:08 -0800 Elite29 reviewed Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/user-reviews/785062/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 9.5!

As with millions of other gamers on the planet, I really like the 'Call Of Duty' games. Or I should say I really like the Infinity Ward-developed 'COD' games. The last game we received in this series was 'COD: World At War' from Treyarch studios. The game sold very well, of course, but got some mixed reviews and I thought it was a shoddy product. Of course, a good cure for Treyarch's crappy 'COD' games are to play Infinity's Ward's games. They are the original developer and if Activision wasn't so greedy, they would be the ONLY developer. Infinity Ward are clearly the caretakers of this series and deliver an excellent game every time out.

The reason for that is the amount of detail that they put in their 'COD' games. The games look amazing, usually have a good story (more on that later), have huge action set-pieces that are very exciting, have excellent online multi-player, and tend to push the first-person shooter genre forward to new levels. One of those new levels is the new, 'Special Ops' mode. But more on that in a bit.

Let's start with the campaign. 'COD:MW2' takes place 5 years after the original 'Modern Warfare'. To go into all the twists and turns that this game takes would take me an hour and ruin the plot surprises for you. Instead of doing that, I will just say that I have yet to play a game with so many, "Wow, wtf?!!" moments (in a good way, of course). The storyline can be dis-jointed at times and is the typical Tom Clancy-esque tale mixed with some FOX's '24' tv show. The game really sets the pace early on in the game with a very unexpected level where you play as an undercover russian terrorist going into an airport. If you are lucky to avoid the hype of this level and haven't heard about what happens (I did avoid the spoilers on the internet), it will be a shocking and disturbing level for some. So much so that the game even asks you if you want to skip the level during the campaign.

The level of production here is absolutely top-notch and that helps with the storytelling aspect of the game. The music and visuals really bring the first-person view storytelling technique to powerful levels. And nobody does it better than Infinity Ward. Like I said, the story can get convoluted and it jumps from character to character which I can't stand. But in the end, the game has so many crazy moments that it draws you in regardless of the confusing 'Tom Clancy-esque' plot that we have seen in countless other games & movies. Unfortunately, the game is very short. The campaign won't take you more than 8 hrs. to finish. The game is fun to play for those hours, but I just wish their was more of it.

Thankfully, even after you finish the campaign, you have barely scratched the surface of what this game has to offer. To anybody who played the original 'Modern Warfare', you will be happy to hear that the excellent online-multiplayer is back and better than ever. It's still as addicting as it was with it's experience points and perks system. There are TONS of different things you can unlock and outfit your character with. There are also tons of different game-modes to jump into, so there will be something for everyone. So if you are into online-FPS' and haven't given this series a shot yet......well, you are in for a treat. Go get this game now.

The third aspect of this game is the brand new, 'Special Ops' mode. This is an excellent mode where you are thrown into different situations and earn stars depending on what difficulty you complete them on. The first one has you running through the training mission again. The 2nd has you defending an area from waves of enemies, trucks, etc. The 4th has you as a sniper trying to sneak past patrol units with dogs in a snowy forest. Those are just a few of the examples, but the mission variety makes the mode fun. You can also play it with another person in co-op fashion. In fact, some missions require you to play with a partner.

The addictive nature of the 'Special Ops' mode involves collecting stars that unlocks more levels as you move forward. You can go back to previous levels and play on harder difficulties to gain additional stars. While the mode is not anything revolutionary, it is fun and a welcome addition to the series.

Whenever Infinity Ward makes a new 'COD' game, it's always going to be in the running for 'Game Of The Year' and 'Modern Warfare 2' is no different. My only complaints on the game would be that the campaign is too short and is a bit convoluted at times. Other than that, this game is almost perfect. It looks and sounds fantastic, has great online multi-player, a really fun campaign, and a great new mode ('Special Ops'). If you are a fan of first-person shooters at all, this is about as safe a purchase as you can get. The decision on whether to add this to your collection should be a no-brainer.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:34:08 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/user-reviews/785062/platform/ps3/ Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:37:46 -0800 Tomdogg reviewed Halo: Reach for the Xbox 360... http://www.gamespot.com/halo-reach/user-reviews/780262/platform/xbox360/ ...and gave it a 5.0.

Halo: What has this franchise withstood?

An elaborately crafted false history surrounding it, making it out to be the very game that created the FPS genre?

Check.

Support from millions of fan around the globe that take it to the point of making one think they'd give their lives for the series and its creators?

Check.

Games that promise the world and end up being utterly crushed under their own weight through a combination of highly stylized trailers that show absolutely nothing relevant with clever cinematography that makes them seem larger than life and most importantly; underwhelming end results?

CHECK!

Now just to at least marginally defuse the tidal wave of backlash I can already hear coming at me like a horde of angry elephants; I don't entirely hate this franchise. The first game, despite the fact that I've disproved every claim this game has to being innovate and revolutionary, still remains a child-hood favorite of mine and I'm quite looking forward to the release of Anniversary. I also enjoyed Halo Wars and ODST, despite the fact that I consider those two games to be the turning point of the public's opinion of the franchise. I just feel as though these games receive far too much credit and praise where other games deserve it. Games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake II, even a little game called Iron Angel of the Apocalypse on the 3DO have everything this game claims to have invented and they were all released years before this game was even thought of.

Don't get me wrong, the level of support is nowhere near as over-zealous and insane as Call of Duty but it's still enough to irk me every-time someone says that Halo is one of the most innovative, revolutionary shooters of all time. Let's also not forget Halo's 2 and 3, the former being one of the biggest POS sequels I've ever played and the latter being one of my greatest disappointments ever in gaming.

But enough of that, let's fast-forward to September 2010. It's a time where excitement and religious sacrificial support for Halo has cooled off to almost normal levels and it shows with the reviews. Not the score, but the content of the reviews greatly surprised me. For the first time ever, the self-proclaimed "professionals" weren't getting down and opening their mouths for another Halo game. Many of them actually gave the game some serious, legitimate criticism(s). However, I don't feel as though they were being harsh enough because trust me, the game has far more issues than they let on and that's where I thankfully step in to correct this.

The story for one is my biggest issue with the game. Yes, the game is all about the Fall of Reach but despite that there's a perfectly good book Bungie could have followed, it was decided to completely shut it out of even the likes of consideration and instead go with the typical style of Halo story-telling, i.e. Hardly any. You see, Bungie always liked to go with a minimalist approach throughout the course of the Halo series. They would cleverly lay out small tid-bits of information to the player whilst keeping the fiction that there lay a deep, rich story buried somewhere down the line, perfectly preserved. What spawned from this was the belief that the Halo universe held just that but when the time to reveal this deep, rich universe dawned upon them…nothing. This worked in the first game only because the series was new and there was much story to be told. What I didn't realize though is that what Bungie laid out in the first game was all there was to the story. Granted, we got a good game…then we got Halo 2, the game that made me hate sequels to begin with.

As for Halo 3, we were promised vast improvements across the board but what we got was quite possibly the most anti-climactic ending ever. By the end of the game, I was left with these questions on my mind:

That's it?

What just happened?

Did I miss something?

Is it over?

When I killed truth, did all the covenant just magically disappear?

Were all the flood on that last Halo ring?

Are there any surviving bad guys left out there or was every.last.one on that ring?

Wait a minute, if all the bad guys are dead, how come Halo Legends says otherwise and takes place after Halo 3?

How did anything survive the last Halo firing?

Can someone explain to me exactly what I just played?

Now I admit, Bungie had me fooled for a good while there. They actually had me thinking that there actually was a story to this mess and that the franchise wasn't just floating on hot air. By the time Halo 3's release was imminent, they had me thinking that earth would be hanging in the balance, the covenant would be inches away from eradicating the human race once and for all and the only way that there could be any hope and salvation for all that is good and right in the universe, would be for the Master Chief to go on a journey stretching from the slums of Venezuela all the way to the furthest galaxy beyond the stars, where he would find the "Save the day key" whatever that may be and he would return with the grace and awe of a god and save the universe!!! Parts would fly, flames would flail and there would be many many bodies as we wrapped up what would essentially be the return of Jesus Christ, all wrapped up in one little DVD while the soundtrack from god's ipod played in the background.

What's even sadder about all this is that tsunami's of people actually believe this to this date, due to the fact that they were so lobotomized by the hype that their brains had completely melted and seeped out through their ears. Instead we get some lame cutscene or two that's supposed to symbolize everything with a few pieces of imagery despite the fact that they only really show a whole lot of nothing in a very stylized manner. No, don't show us any of the other battles that are taking place. Don't tell us what's going on whatsoever. Just show us a couple oil paintings and let us all imagine that something cool just happened. Bungie was always exceedingly efficient at that.

Now I'm no stranger to using my imagination and I even encourage those around me to use it more. Hell, I'm a guy who, back in the day, played Runescape to the point where I was ready to write my own novel based around the adventures of me and my companions, the only thing stopping me was that I forgot most of what had happened.

However, sometimes I don't want to utilize my imagination. I simply want to be entertained by someone else's. Yet Halo ODST fixed this. I got to play out some of the battles on earth. The story was good, the characters decent and I actually got some hint as to what the f--- was going on in the Halo universe.

Yet, here we are, back to the ways of Halo's 2 and 3 with the release of Reach. The story does elaborate somewhat on the book but mostly goes with its own version. It starts off ok pertaining to how the covenant are found on reach but by the time it gets to the nitty gritty, again, nothing happens. The game shows some potential in the first few levels and by the time level five comes into play, we're treated with an absolutely engrossing cutscene that depicts a huge battle is about to occur and that we're going to be part of it. That turns up fruitless but in the very next mission we're treated to space combat where we can actually fully control our ship, along with boarding and destroying a covenant super-carrier. Then, just when all hell is about to break loose, we got right back to the 'Use your imagination' scenario that Bungie is so famous for, effectively smashing any remaining hope the story had left.

I got an idea Bungie, why not pull a Call of Duty? Actually let us be part of the major battles. Let us play from the perspectives of multiple soldiers. Tell us the state of affairs every step of the way. Show us short CGI movies of the major battles even, y'know, some Metal Gear length FMV's. You started the game out with some momentum but then went right back to the old ways. Why you feel the need to do this, I may never know but in case you haven't noticed, you kinda butchered a series that had the potential to be great in the process.

Characters aren't any better. All are hollow as ever, even more so than Halo 2 and 3 and when any of them do show signs of personality, they typically devolve into one or more stereotypes. We got the bad-boy renegade, the big teddy bear giant, the gruff cookie cutter commander, the tech-girl, the silent but deadly, etc. One particular character named Kat was so utterly annoying and misused (She the tech of the team yet she goes with you head-first into every major battle?) that I actually cheered when she was killed.

Moving on…Audio/Visual presentation thankfully is actually pretty darn good. Bungie finally brought in a full motion capture camera (Nothing wrong with hand-drawn animations) resulting in more life-like animations and the new overall look gives the game a much more metal look/feel in comparison to the plastic-like nature of the previous two games. It's quite appropriate too, given the location and the game looks on par with modern titles overall. The new soundtrack isn't bad, the new sound effects are decent in their own right and the voice acting is just there.

Gameplay is a mixed bag. Thankfully, Halo isn't like Call of Duty where every new release is the exact same gameplay from the previous ten iterations. No, Bungie actually tweaks gunplay mechanics, grenade physics, vehicle handling, etc. It's not always for the better though and has many times spelled disaster for the series.

The game starts off good. At first, Bungie accomplished what they set out to do: Make the covenant seem like a superior, more resilient fighting force. Human weapons do far less damage than covenant weapons and even then, it takes a considerable effort to take down even a single Sangheili, never-mind when they attack in teams. The appropriate attributes extend to all the other covenant races; Grunts are cannon fodder, Jackals are scavengers, fast and agile but fall easily if hit right and hunters are walking tanks. This continues for about five levels until we're treated to space combat which is a nice little treat. It's not fantastic, but it's entertaining nonetheless. Then, we board a covenant ship, get to see a human frigate taken out at close range, which was spectacular by the way, and we end up destroying the ship. Bungie also added the ability to use your custom avatar in the campaign mode which I had been hoping for ever since Halo 3 so that's definitely a plus.

All in all: Save for the false promises of being able to take part in the massive battle at the beginning of tip of the spear and the rather weak level that follows, not a bad first half of the game.

Then, the brutes come into play. I'll be straightforward: I hate these things.

They're un-original, uncreative and flat-out boring to fight. They serve no other purpose but to disrupt the balance and continuity of the game. They're stupidly strong, you waste all your ammo on them due to them being almost super-absorbent to anything and everything and they're just an irritating mess. What Bungie also failed to remember is that the Brutes gained no dominant fighting role until the events of Halo 2. Coupled with the fact that they are no brutes in the original (and this is supposed to be a prequel of all things) and you've got a helluva contradiction on hand. Sadly, they're also the main fighting force for the second half of the game. Even after the Sangheili are reinstated, it doesn't fix anything, the damage is already done.

Oh and let's not forget the "revamping" of the game i.e. going back to the "old" design, back to the Halo 1 pistol, the health bar, no dual wielding, etc once they realized the "new" design sucked big time. It all started with ODST and while I welcome the return to the old-school health system and all, I find Bungie's reasons behind this absolutely laughable. Saying they wanted your character to "feel and play more like a human rather than an unstoppable super soldier" and taking away dual wielding and limiting grenades in reach yet the ODST's could carry MORE grenades than the chief as well as rip a chain gun off its mount no problem and run faster with it than the chief ever could. Again, no ODST hate intended, just the marketing behind it.

I also find the "equipment" downright retarded. Sprinting? Really…you're turning what should be a staple element of FPS games into a "special" ability? Jet-packs are useless, the tweaking of the stealth camo has rendered it useless too and the shield drop is almost as useless. Armor lock's not bad though…

That and the game just isn't fun. Sure, Bungie tweaked a bunch of elements but it doesn't really make a difference in the end. There are no wow moments or anything truly new or diverse to make it attractive or enticing. The game still feels like the same old Halo we've played for years. Between the gameplay here and in Halo 3, I can't find any major difference. Save for the increased amount of ammunition required making a kill, they feel nearly identical and there's simply not enough variety of new features to detract from that.

However, it was mainly the Brutes entry that compromised the campaign. The game wasn't anything new or interesting but it was a challenge. Every enemy has a distinct strength and weakness and there was an effective way to combat and not combat them using every single weapon just like the original and that's what made me love the original. When the brutes were introduced however, the game almost instantly turned in a bullet spraying fest across the board.

As for multiplayer, I don't bother much in general and I certainly didn't with this game but I am fond of the new Battlefield-esque scoring system and armor permutation unlocking system. The gameplay itself isn't anything special but the game offers an insane amount of customization options. Maps aren't half bad either and I am impressed with what the community has created for they serve as great machinima pieces though I will say, forge world isn't nearly as huge or robust as the previews made it out to be. Sure, it's bigger than any other Halo map that came before it, but the maps in many other games, most notably Battlefield 2 easily trump it in size and robustness.

Forge, once a simple, easy to use tool has taken a complete 180 and is now cumbersome, overly-cluttered and flat-out confusing to use. I had to look up and watch an entire series of videos on youtube in order to be able to grasp how to use. Thank the world theater mode remains unchanged.

Halo Reach definitely had potential but somewhere along the development line; it was somehow all shafted and flushed down the toilet. At this point I can't really even begin to make sense of all these games. Each feels like they're their own separate world, sharing nothing in common with one-another except the name. Bungie is one of the most schizophrenic developers I've ever seen in all my years of gaming. None of the Halo games have any continuity or flow with one-another in both story and gameplay elements and every game feels like a hodgepodge of various, dissimilar elements from all the previous games mixed in with new elements that don't help matters at all. I mean, we got Halo anniversary on the rise, hell it may even be released by the time this review is but that game doesn't have any continuity to itself either. The campaign is a direct remake of the original game yet the multiplayer is a modified Reach multiplayer? I rest my case.

The way I see it, Bungie had no long-term plan when they started this series. Combine that with no knowledge of how the gaming times or communities and their tastes worked and a great deal of publisher intervention and that's my best explanation of how this franchise got so screwed up. Nowadays, all they seem to be able to do is generate an aura of epicness and mysticism around their games, when in reality they're generating a mediocre product. Sure, I give Bungie credit for at least trying something new as trying and failing is far better than not even bothering to try but as I said, all the tweaking didn't exactly help the series too much and did more harm than good in the end. I also find the public's view of this series in recent years equally jarring and yet, at the end of the day, entire generations of gamers seem to have nothing but love and infinite praise for this series for reason I will never even begin to remotely comprehend…ah well, must be the hype.

Y'know maybe one day, if I ever have kids (and trust me, I don't want any…ever. They're nothing but trouble 99% of the time) and my kid asks me "Dad, what's Halo?" I'll say to him "Well, it was a popular game back in 2001 when it was released and a pretty darn good one at that but I'm not sure if it ever got a sequel…" Then he'll show me a copy of Halo 2 and say "Oh yeah? Then what's this?" and I'll reply "Haha…that's not a sequel, it's a derivative spiritual sequel of sorts. No, the day that Halo gets a true sequel, that'll be the day…that'll most certainly be the day."

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Tomdogg reviewed Halo: Reach for the Xbox 360..." was posted by Tomdogg on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:37:46 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/halo-reach/user-reviews/780262/platform/xbox360/ Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:19:54 -0700 Tomdogg reviewed Turok for the Xbox 360... http://www.gamespot.com/turok/user-reviews/771659/platform/xbox360/ ...and gave it a 8.0.

Dinosaurs are awesome, simple as that. Know what's even more awesome though? Killing Dinosaurs, that's what. Know what's even more awesome than that? Killing them with a knife Tarzan style.

Ok enough of that, Turok 2008 as I like to call it was billed as an effective reboot of the franchise because when Acclaim died in 2004, many people thought the franchise did as well…until Propaganda games came along and proved us all wrong. The game was in development for the longest time and finally hit the shelves in February 2008 and it was quite the pleasant surprise.

Before we begin though, just as a little disclaimer, I know nothing about the Turok franchise and the only other game I played was Turok Evolution which I only played for maybe an hour and wasn't too crazy about.

That being said, this game is awesome. First off, you got Dinosaurs and they're always more fun to kill than humans; this game proves it and no, they don't just rush recklessly all the time, many of them like to hide in the foliage and pull sneak attacks on you and they blend in real good too. They also don't just drain your health when they attack you, many of them will pounce on you, jump on you back even pick you up and throw you all over the place and try to kill you that way. When that happens, a button mashing sequence occurs as your health quickly drains. If you can't get em off, you're dead. Overall, the AI is brilliant. Combine that with the wide variety of Dino's you fight and this effectively makes them a real, dangerous threat. Later on, you get to fight giant scorpions and they're pretty neat too.

Now as for your weapons, you can carry your bow, knife and two guns all of which can be dual-wielded in any combination you choose. You have the bow which includes explosive arrows and thanks to some great sound effects, the bow looks, sounds and feels like a force to be reckoned with. I tell ya, when I shot an explosive arrow at a raptor and it erupted into a meant fountain, I felt like Rambo. The same satisfaction comes when Killing humans with it too though they sadly don't explode. The knife is equally awesome and there's nothing more satisfying than sneaking up behind a human and slitting their throat or grabbing a raptor by the neck and cutting him open. It's an execution tool in every sense of the word and it's just as awesome in multiplayer too.

As for guns, you get a pistol, SMG, a plasma rifle, shotgun, sniper rifle, a sticky bomb gun, chain gun, flamethrower, grenades and an RPG. All the guns function the way you'd expect them too but their secondary functions are what make some of them unique. The pistol has a 3-round burst, the rifle fires grenades, the sniper can zoom in, RPG fires a homing missile and the flamethrower fires a napalm grenade but the SMG has a silencer you can attach as opposed to a scope or grenade launcher. The shotgun carries a flare launcher which can used to distract dinosaurs or you can even tag humans with one and the dino's will effectively attack them, offering many opportunities to thin out the numbers on both sides and the chain gun can be deployed as a turret. Finally, the sticky bomb gun or blackfly can fire mines that will stick to enemies and explode shortly after or can fire mines that can stick to anything and can be detonated remotely.

Level design is linear but every once in a while there are multiple options for which to attack your enemies with. There are some set-piece moments and all-in-all, it's not bad. There are also boss battles, a rarity into today's shooters. You fight a T-rex, a giant sea monster, a spider tank and the big bad menace Kane himself, whom you're trying to kill throughout the game. The game is also of considerable length and there's even a level select option as well in case you wish to replay your favorite levels.

Speaking of which, the story isn't half bad either. This time around, Turok is a space marine who has joined up with a military unit called Whiskey Company that is sent to a random no-name planet to kill a man named Kane who is an AWOL soldier and former leader of a military unit called Wolf-pack. Turok, being a former member of the team, is here to help track him down. Nobody likes him at first, most notably the other main character, Slade, but that changes as the game goes along, as to be expected. One thing I was surprised at is that there's an actually an explanation as to why the planet is crawling with Dinosaurs: Terraformation with a hint of genetic engineering. Not exactly original but it'll do. There's also an all-star Hollywood cast behind the characters such as Ron Pearlman, Powers Boothe, Timothy Olyphant, etc.

Now for the bad. Humans don't hold a candle to Dinosaurs. Sure they look cool (A lot like Helghast actually) but they're simply uninteresting. They don't have any unique behaviors and they're not as smart as the Dino's either yet the moment you kill one, even if concealed, everyone automatically knows where you are. Sure it's funny sticking them with a flare and watching a raptor gorge them to death but that's about it. One particular moment of mediocrity though is where you're on an elevator trying to get to the top of a base and soldiers are attacking you from every direction. The sequence is long and tedious and if you die, it's back to the start. Your AI buddies are equally useless.

Secondly, there are a few areas where a T-rex is either guarding an area you need to pass through or is chasing you. Meanwhile, every dino and their mother is after you as well. This is where the camera shake and getting thrown 10 feet when hit mechanic got on my nerves due to the fact that it always stalled me long enough for the T-rex to catch up to me and kill me. I got through finally but not before nearly breaking my controller in infuriation.

Third, the game was marketed as a game where you could use stealth or guns blazing to kill your enemies. Let me just say the former is absolute BS. Stealth isn't worth two cents in this game. As stated before, the moment you kill an enemy, even if you're concealed, everyone automatically knows where you are. Doesn't matter if you're using the bow or even the silenced SMG for that matter you will be spotted. Sure, stealth can work in a few isolated spots but it's ultimately useless and the game doesn't even give you a chance to use it for the most part.

Lastly, there is no in-game volume control. This is the first time I've encountered a game with no built-in volume control. Main reason I'm bringing this up is that most of the time, the aspects of a game's sound are uneven (Music is louder than the cutscenes, etc) and this is sadly the case. Voice acting is drowned out by everything else, forcing me to turn up the volume and there's almost always a loud sound or an explosion right after, which isn't exactly good for the ears if you know what I mean. No excuse to not have this in the game.

As for multiplayer, didn't play it much but I already stated that it's just as fun to pull knife kills as it is in campaign. You can only carry three weapons however as the slot for the bow is inactive. The maps aren't bad and dinosaurs will even attack you at random intervals. There are even co-op scenarios but you're limited to a few lives which are jointly shared and the enemies are ridiculously tough.

Audio/Visual presentation is fantastic. At the time, it was one of the best if not the best rendition of the Unreal Engine 3 outside of Epic's own work. Dinosaurs, characters, foliage all look awesome and the animations are no slouch either. The color palette too actually some color to it and not just the random grey-brown military base/warehouse we've all come to expect these days. Voice acting is solid, and the music sets the tone perfectly.

Turok is a great game. It's a shooter that has you shooting something other than humans or aliens for a change and gives you some badass weapons to do so. It's beautifully crafted, solidly programmed and challenging too. Yeah it has some annoying segments and tries to include useless stealth mechanics into the tactical options but these are minor hitches and by no means, ruin the game. Overall, Turok is different and anyone who's sick of the modern military shooters of the modern era and is looking for a shooter with a bit more variety should definitely check this one out.

Sadly, this may be it for our dinosaur hunter. You see, the sequel was cancelled shortly into 2009 and no less than 2 years later, Propaganda games went bankrupt. Its future uncertain, don't hold me to this but I think it's safe to say that we'll probably never see another Turok game again for the foreseeable future.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Tomdogg reviewed Turok for the Xbox 360..." was posted by Tomdogg on Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:19:54 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/turok/user-reviews/771659/platform/xbox360/ Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:47:28 -0700 Tomdogg reviewed Crysis 2 for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/crysis-2/user-reviews/771151/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 8.5.

Editor's note: I have not played the PC version. I'm sorry everyone…

Why does everyone get so stoked about the first Crysis? It's nothing special or unique save for the fact that it was released as a high-profile PC exclusive during a time where that was and still is almost non-existent and PC gaming is a slowly dying breed. Aside of that, it's nothing to write home about and downright poor in many respects, mainly due to how it was marketed. We were told that Crysis was a completely non-linear game where you could anywhere on the island at any given time and complete any objective in any order you wished (Kind of like Far Cry 2 but that actually turned out to be true) and that even if you only did the absolute minimum, you could still complete the game no matter what. It was billed as "A different kind of FPS."

What we got instead was a super linear game hiding behind a non-linear mask, a mask which was easily removed not one level into the game. Sure the levels looked open and expansive but most of it was just eye candy. In fact, the game was so linear that the path to get through every level was laid out right before you. Yeah there were secondary objectives but you didn't even need to complete them. If anything, they were more a waste of time that a valuable asset to assist you. But hell, you could go in guns blazing or play is stealthy! That's awesome…and just like Deus Ex which was released more than half a decade before which also included the options to hack and/or talk your way through and use them all in any combination you desired with true non-linear level design.

The only things this game had going for it were the interesting premise of an alien invasion and its visuals which looked nowhere near as good as the previews. Yet every PC gamer views Crysis as the second coming of god himself and treats every copy as if it's Jesus Christ reincarnated in a disk. The only reason for this is that (as stated above) it was a mainstream game released as a PC exclusive during a time where that was and still is almost non-existent and PC gaming is a slowly dying breed. Now I too would be grateful if I got a high-profile release on my platform of choice if it was dying but I wouldn't glorify it to the extent that every PC head is.

No, I'm not saying Crysis is a bad game (despite what many of you may now have stuck in your minds at this point) but it's greatly flawed and suffers from an extreme identity crisis. It does have its good points but the execution is flawed enough to detract from the enjoyment considerably.

Enter Crysis 2; the sequel that made headlines when Crytek announced they were releasing it on consoles as well as the PC. Fan-tards cried out in agony and outrage as if their sacred church had been irredeemably defiled and dishonored and acted as if the anti-Christ had just made his way to earth. After three years of speculation, rumor and a massive war that wedged a six foot hole in the internet, how is Crysis 2?

In short: Pretty darn good

I'll say this just to get it out of the way: The story flat-out sucks. It completely ditches the original game's story and characters save for a brief appearance of Prophet in the beginning and instead focuses on a silent marine grunt who somehow gets the nanosuit (I won't spoil it) and then all of a sudden he becomes humanity's last hope. The game offers no real explanation of the events that happened in between the two games or what happened to any of the characters or the sudden change of costumes for the aliens either. Little references are made here and there but for the most part, it feels like a reboot in many respects, almost to cater to the new group of console goers. What the story does offer however is yet again, another dumb, clich… tale of the whole one-man army saves earth with super suit and blah blah blah. Stupid and nothing that anyone who's even remotely into sci-fi hasn't seen before.

That out of the way, let's move on to the good. The first aspect that has been fixed and probably the most important is the identity crisis that the first game suffered. Crysis has finally found out what it wants to be. This is done by removing all false promises and assumptions of non-linearity and focusing on delivering a fun action game instead. The game's levels are linear but offer multiple branching paths to get through each scenario. It even goes as far as to highlight "tactical options" every time you come across such a setup. Not to mention there's also a tactical visor mode now which lets you highlight anything of interest, be it enemy positions, weapons, ammo pick-ups, etc. This effectively takes what Crytek was trying to achieve with the first game and make more sense with it rather than crafting a linear game, throwing a lame random secondary objective which didn't connect with the rest of the level, then saying there were two whole ways to play the game and calling it "non-linear."

So what is Crysis 2? It's an action game, simple as that. You go through the level, take out anything in your way and choose how you want to do so and Crytek gives plenty of options for that. There's a decent selection of guns all of which can be customized and the nanosuit powers make a return, all greatly improved from the first game. The game is pretty much your standard modern war FPS with some vehicle sequences and aliens but the suit is what makes the game stand out from being so. Offering four powers consisting of speed, strength, armor and stealth, the game provides plenty of incentives to play otherwise and even throws in plenty of objects, setups, etc to vary the gameplay further. Want to kick a car and crush an enemy soldier? You can. Feel like speeding by a blockade because you don't want to fight your way though? It's risky but you can. Pretty much the same as the first game but the powers are much more balanced and fleshed out this time in terms of functionality, usage and energy consumption.

As far as PS3 controls go, all the powers are seamlessly integrated into the control scheme. You can utilize strength by either holding down the jump button or the right analog stick to charge up a powered up jump/melee attack and the game tells you when you can make use of this. Simply hold down the left analog stick when running to trigger the speed function. Armor and stealth are mapped to the L2 and R2 buttons. Functions are swapped on the Xbox 360 version.

Crysis 2 even adds a few RPG elements to the mix. At some point in the game, your character collects a tissue sample of the aliens and is somehow able to upgrade the suit using more tissue samples afterwards. The upgrades range from simply reducing the energy consumption rate of a certain power to cloaking and de-cloaking faster to adding a few new moves to your hand to hand combat arsenal. The cool thing about this though is that you can turn the upgrades on and off if you want to use a different one. You can have up to four upgrades active at a time (one for each power) but you have to "buy" them first before you can use them.

I could go on but it's really best that you play the game to find out for yourself. Still, the main strength of Crysis 2 comes from putting players on a straight path and giving them the tools and options to deal with each encounter however they so wish, as well as balancing out the nanosuit powers and giving some of the less utilized powers of the previous game more usefulness. This allows Crytek to give players the ability to make the game their own while still allowing themselves to tell their own story. It's a huge improvement and makes for a very satisfying and fun game.

My views are not completely positive however. I do have some quirks. For one, the AI is a little stupid. I once had an encounter right at the beginning no less where two enemies spotted me. I killed one of them and then his partner went right back to his routine patrol as if nothing ever happened despite the fact that I was within spitting distance of him. The AI has always been like this in Crytek's games. Thankfully it's not nearly as bad here but I personally found that incident quite laughable. Secondly, the alien art design, aside of being a complete "WTF?!" is very lacking. There's only about four enemy types grand total and the only real way to tell the difference is by their physical size. There are some enemy vehicles but they're not really anything special. There are also no bosses to speak of and the last enemy encounter is a group of four black and silver textured standard enemies with super health, yet they can all be killed through your one-hit kill sneak attack melee function.

The last thing that made me scratch my head in confusion was the weapon customization system. Say you find a SCAR with standard iron sights. You can add a laser or a red-dot scope but not an assault scope? You have to find a SCAR with an assault scope in order to use it and then you're locked out of the attachments you could use on the other SCAR? This is a downgrade from the first game. In the first game, you had to find weapons with certain attachments if you wanted to use them but you could then attach said peripheral to any gun of that class (i.e. SCAR and AK, etc) This makes absolutely no sense. You also can't throw grenades freely anymore. You have to manually select them using the special weapon menu controlled by the D-pad. Again, makes no sense but probably done due to lack of buttons for the function.

Now to wrap up the last few loose ends…

Audio/Visual presentation: Not going there. It'll only start some stupid debate. All you need to know is that it looks great and that it's one of the best looking games out there across all platforms. The music too is great.

Multiplayer: It's Call of Duty 4 with nanosuits. You figure it out, MP ain't one of my interests.

I'm probably missing several pieces of the puzzle here but in short: Having been a born and bred PC gamer during the Clinton years, I've played every PC shooter out there almost. I don't care for the first Crysis but I love the second one and I wholly recommend it, especially to those who have not been able to play a Crysis game before and are wondering what all the fuss is about.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Tomdogg reviewed Crysis 2 for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Tomdogg on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:47:28 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/crysis-2/user-reviews/771151/platform/ps3/ Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:36:22 -0700 Tomdogg reviewed Killzone 3 for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/killzone-3/user-reviews/766800/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 5.5.

Editorial note: The number grade that comes with this review is not my actual score. It's the subtitle below it (i.e. Abysmal, terrible, etc) that reflects my overall views of this game.

I know I sound like a fanboy for saying this but Killzone 2 was as close to perfection as first person shooters could get. The game was in development for three and a half years and it showed. Not only was nearly every aspect of the game expertly crafted and polished to a mirror sheen but the whole weighted feel of the controls made the game feel surprisingly different from every other shooter on the market. Throw in the ability to fantastically capture the chaos of war (So good to the point that it actually made me care about the hollow, cardboard cut-out characters) and a surprisingly superb villain along with some well balanced multiplayer (And I normally don't care for multiplayer at all) and you had a near perfect game on hand, in sequel form no less which is a miracle all in itself as I never expected it to surpass Liberation as well as it did, yes Liberation is the first sequel to the original game, not this one. Now if only it could have introduced a gameplay element to call its own…

Fast forward 2 years later and after numerous apocalyptic flame wars waged on the internet, a near unimaginable amount of mystery surrounding it, and far too much secrecy on the closed beta, Killzone 3 finally hits store shelves and the end result…is sadly lackluster across the board. However it's for vastly different reasons this time around pertaining to why Killzone 3 fails as a sequel.

I'll say this much before I delve into its flaws: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the gameplay itself. The true weighted feel of Killzone 2 has been lost in translation but the end result is fun nonetheless and does give it a wider variety of accessibility. If you're a casual gamer, you won't find this an issue. The game itself is still competent, especially the big set piece moments and the AI is no slouch either. It actually surprised me at times with how smart it could be. Furthermore, a few of the weapons from the original game return and the new ones aren't half bad either. Unfortunately this is the only real meat of the positives I can say about this game as everything else is either underwhelming or simply forgettable.

To start out, I really loved the weighted feel of Killzone 2 and to this day, I am completely perplexed as to why so many people had so many issues with it. I've run several theories but I won't go into that right now. Really though, all that needed to be done in my eyes was tune up the response time of the controls. That would have provided the answer GG needed to accessibility whilst keeping the unique essence intact. Instead, the weighted animations which gave the game its unique feel and distinctness from every other shooter on the market are gone and replaced with more contemporary animations. This effectively removes the key ingredient from the Killzone formula and while it's still competent, it ultimately makes Killzone 3 feel just like every other shooter out there. Even with everything it blows up, decapitates, stabs in the neck with a knife, etc, it doesn't help it any, especially those weak on-rails segments.

The technical presentation both audio and video is still above average but the shorter development time span shows here. The game does have loading times that are mercifully shorter than Killzone 2's 2 minute + loading screens but the game itself is loaded with pop-ups, sound hitches and line repeats everytime the game loads the next segment of a level during gameplay as the game struggles to keep everything going while streaming the game along and it mars the overall enjoyment of the game. Voice acting is still terrible, the soundtrack doesn't hold a candle to the previous games while simultaneously failing to incorporate any memorable piece and on the whole, the game doesn't look nearly as good as Killzone 2 did. I can't put my finger on it but everything simply looks duller and not nearly as crisp or sharp as Killzone 2 did, the texture presentation being the highlight of my point.

The technical shortcomings are nothing however when compared to the laughable art design. Not only is this now completely over the top in terms of pretty much everything but it goes 100% against the Killzone lore and continuity. You see unlike the previous three games which depicted Helghan as being a being a poor, war-torn, industrialized struggling nation that had to rely on the most bottom of the barrel technology, use breathing masks just to be able to live, and give it all they got to survive another day, Killzone 3 depicts them as a futuristic, prosperous, super-advanced star wars esque empire with technology that would make even the most diehard trekkie go nuts. We're talking everything from super-intelligent troop carriers that can navigate any kind of terrain like nobody's business, is equipped with a full onslaught of weapons for a full-fledged defense and even has a coffee cup holder to boot, to standard infantry that now have full tactical visors behind those menacing red eyes. That's nothing however when compared to the new "irradiated petrusite" that can smartly navigate anything and everything and take out any target it wishes with unerring accuracy and massive explosions while simultaneously killing anything living around it. Yes radiation + electricity = a fully sentient being that will follow any orders you give it as suggested by one cutscene early on in the game. Not to mention energy shields, yes I said that correct…energy shields. Now all we need are phasers, yet the Helghan ships curiously still use missiles.

These are only the humble beginnings of this game's problems as I delve into the absolute disaster that is the story and writing. Now someone like me needs a goal when one plays a game. This is why I don't delve into multiplayer that much as there's no goal in sight. I can't 'just play' a game, something to set my sights on is a necessity for me and Killzone 2 had that. By capturing the aspect of war perfectly and putting its characters through situation after situation that got worse and worse with every passing moments, I was drawn to them, concerned for them. I actually wanted to see what happened to them. In this respect, the atmosphere itself became a character and that right there was my initial motivation for playing the game. I wanted to see just how dark the path the game had taken would get…until Radec showed up. I immediately knew that he was trouble when he first walked on camera and several appearances later, I was primed and ready to put him through a wall. Those two elements were my motivation for seeing the game through to the end despite the main characters being completely and utterly uninteresting and the ending spelled out the phrase "We're screwed" perfectly.

Killzone 3 has neither the atmosphere nor the villain anywhere near the level of quality Killzone 2 possessed nor does it provide anything to effectively take its place. The main issue with the story so far is that too many characters have died and even more unfortunate; all the interesting ones were in that bunch. Templar, Evelyn, Garza, Radec and Visari are all dead. Lugar and Hakka are nowhere to be found and Natko doesn't show up at all except during co-op so that doesn't count either. Even characters like Metrac and Cobar who would have made adequate replacements for Radec and made fantastic villains by themselves are dead too. Making matters worse are that the new characters are completely uninteresting and/or likeable due to multiple factors…

Jammer: The new female of the group that curiously never appeared before. You learn absolutely nothing about her whatsoever. She only appears in a few brief shots and says maybe ten lines of dialogue grand total. She's only there for sex appeal and nothing more.

The ISA General: Hmm…strange…I thought Colonel Templar was in charge of the ISA fleet…and I also thought that a Colonel was a lower rank than a general too…oh well, he dies 30 seconds after he appears anyway so it's not like that matters much but still, just saying.

Visari's daughter: Appears in one shot and says one line in the opening FMV. Complete waste of space. Period.

The Senate: A dictatorship has a Senate? Please…

Jorhan Stahl/Admiral Orlock: The two new main villains and the ones who are competing for Visari's throne and have different ways of winning over the hearts of their suspiciously democracy-like function. Orlock wants to crush everything with his giant robot but Stahl keeps telling him to rely on tactics. However Orlock is the one dressed like a real Killzone character and not some overly glorified storm-trooper so everyone clings to him like a last hope but Stahl has a mole in the ground to sabotage Orlock and that's all you need to know about them for absolutely none of their dialogue, character or conflicts are even remotely interesting. These two are arguably the worst of the bunch and what makes this worse is that these are the two that get the most screen time out of the new batch. They are nothing like Radec or Visari or even Cobar for that matter. They're two grumpy old men endlessly bickering back and forth over who gets the cake. At times, I felt like they were there for comic relief, that is when the art design wasn't providing enough of that and the only thing that keeps these two from being labeled worst villains ever is that Malcolm McDowell does a decent job of voicing Stahl.

But let's not forget the SUPUR AWSUM EMOSHINAL IMPACK that Guerrilla Games wanted to introduce to their story. What was that again? Oh right…F@@K YOU COMMANDER!!! I DON'T HAVE TO OBEY ANY ORDERS EVER!!!!!!!1ONELEVEN

Oh and did I mention that the game is frequently interrupted by cutscenes that like to chime every two minutes. You'll be playing the game for about two minutes, get tossed into a cutscene for about 30 seconds, go back to playing the game for another two minutes; rinse, repeat.

The ending though is what completely seals the deal for me. There's no boss to speak of and the it all ends on the "Five guys left, invade enemy base, blast their way through ten million bad guys, blow everything up" Hollywood ending with all the main characters who are left surviving.

LAME!!!

What I find really funny though is that Guerilla Games brought in actual Hollywood writers to write this story. It definitely shows and that is not a good thing either as anyone who even remotely frequents the theaters knows of the quality of Hollywood's writing nowadays.

I could delve further into the elements of the campaign design and even go into the multiplayer (and trust me I got plenty to say on that) but by the time I was done processing the god awful story, characters, defiling of the lore and setting, I had already set the world record for throwing up more than anyone in recorded history so I figured I'd refrain from further torturing myself.

What is barely palatable for a standard FPS game is a complete disaster for a sequel. Killzone 2 had the ability to perfectly capture chaos and war along with a superb villain and a unique style of controls that separated it from the rest of the crew. Killzone 3 has none of this and what it does put in its place completely destroys the storyline and lore in the process. After so many years of disappointing sequels though, I wasn't as let down by this game as I should have been. Sure I didn't expect it to be this bad but I expected it to fall flat on its face nonetheless and it did.

There are still good elements to be had here. It's just that the bad overshadows the good to the point where the good can only be enjoyed in very small quantities, if at all depending on who you are. At its best, it's not a bad game by any means but even at that, there's no wow factor like there was with Killzone 2. It's just another game.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Tomdogg reviewed Killzone 3 for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Tomdogg on Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:36:22 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/killzone-3/user-reviews/766800/platform/ps3/ Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:27:57 -0700 Tomdogg reviewed Medal of Honor Frontline for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/medal-of-honor-frontline/user-reviews/762249/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 8.0.

As many of you may be aware of, a new medal of honor game was recently released in October of 2010. Intended to be a successful reboot of the franchise and billed as "The most authentic shooter around" yeah…we all know how that turned out.

*Crowd Boos*

Ok ok…it wasn't that bad a game but for what it was billed as, it most certainly did not deliver and at the end of the day, it wasn't a very good game either though it does have a 1up on bad company 2 i.e. the ability to literally purchase every gun in the multiplayer in the online store. For just $10, you can instantly have an arsenal that'll automatically put you on even terms with all those gamers that have no life and just sit there playing the game 24/7. That's the main reason why I stopped playing BC2. I kept getting spawned sniped from across the map because the game had no level balancing system and thus I kept getting put into games with the lvl 28 M95 crazies.

But I digress, that's not what I'm here to talk about. What I am here to talk about is that certain little extra that was included with the PS3 version of the game. You see Sony was able to secure an exclusive deal with EA that granted them a "digitally re-mastered" version of the classic Medal of Honor Frontline and that right there was pretty much the sole reason for me picking this game up. So after a 4GB HDD install and the requirement of having the Medal of Honor disc in the PS3 to play this game, despite such a large HDD install, how does this almost nine year old game stack up?

Well to be fair, MoH Frontline is still a fantastic game and still manages to be better than 90% of the games that are haphazardly tossed onto the market today. I remember playing this as a kid and there was always one mission that kept me coming back to this game: The Normandy mission aka, the first level of the game. Just to let you know, the audio was not enhanced for the PS3, what you hear in this game is the PS2 audio itself and it's still some good stuff. If someone were to throw in a 7.1 surround sound function, this game would be on par with nearly all modern shooters audio-wise and this was 2002 no less. The mission variety was great, the game was very challenging but equally rewarding at the same time and overall it was just a superb quality product in many ways. However, it does have a few flaws in it that have prevented it from successfully withstanding the test of time; flaws that have not been addressed in this so called "re-mastered" version.

First off, the aiming mechanics are terrible by today's standards. You see this was back when most console fps's did not have competent aiming mechanics and PC's still had a clear advantage over them. While there were a few that could compete somewhat, most could not and the end result were aiming mechanics that required a lot of strafe aiming to compensate. Frontline was and still is one such game. In short, the sensitivity is too high and there's no way to turn it down. A new control scheme has been implemented, cleverly titled "MoH-dern" which is actually quite different from most console fps control schemes and it's strangely the only scheme that allows you to aim down the iron sights with all your weapons. None of the other schemes which are actually far superior in terms of function placement have this ability. Still, at the end of the day, the MoH-dern control scheme isn't that bad once you get used to it and the aiming down the sights mechanic does give a greater degree of control in terms of aiming but even at this, there's still no perfect balance. Aiming is either too quick or too slow just when you need it the most and could cost you a good chuck of health in intense gunfights.

Secondly, don't play this game with an HDMI cable unless you feel like turning up the brightness on your TV. This so-called "re-mastering" is hardly a re-mastering at all. The only real difference between the PS2 and PS3 versions was the amount of color in the visuals, namely the dark shades and in the PS3 version, it's just overkill. When playing with an HDMI cable, the oversaturation of color makes it damn-near impossible to see anything when playing a nighttime mission and considering this was back in the era where the enemy AI could spot you a mile away as well as hit you with pinpoint accuracy, this could and probably will inevitably lead to numerous cheap deaths for inexperienced fps players. My recommendation: Use component cables.

However, despite what I just said don't let that deter you from checking this game out. The two flaws I just mentioned can hamper the experience somewhat but are by no means game-killing flaws. They're just two elements that I described at length which I feel were not properly addressed in this rather poor conversion of what is otherwise still a fantastic game.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Tomdogg reviewed Medal of Honor Frontline for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Tomdogg on Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:27:57 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/medal-of-honor-frontline/user-reviews/762249/platform/ps3/ Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:24:36 -0700 Elite29 reviewed The Darkness for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/the-darkness/user-reviews/761031/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 9.0!

When I first heard about 'The Darkness', I wasn't all that interested to be honest. Then I heard that Starbreeze was the development company behind it, and I instantly couldn't wait to play this. As most of you probably know, Starbreeze is responsible for the excellent Xbox FPS 'The Chronicles Of Riddick'. That game combined great FPS action with an excellent story, which is driven by an anti-hero type of character. Well, I basically just explained 'The Darkness' with that last sentence.

The first thing that drew me into this game was the story. It's a very interesting tale about the main character, Jackie, who is a hit-man for the mob. His uncle is currently in charge of the business in their area. Jackie has a girlfriend and it's his 21st birthday. Then while on a hit, he finds out his uncle thinks he double crossed him and tries to blow him up. Then Jackie goes to get payback. It's a revenge tale that gets even more intense as the game moves along. Of course, I don't want to reveal spoilers.....but there was one moment where I actually wanted to kill the villain in the game myself!
Maybe the biggest draw of the game is the use of your Darkness powers. You see, early on in the game you are infested by some demon. This demon gives you great power, but it has it's own agenda. The powers are quite fun to use and by the end of the game I wasn't even using the actual guns in the game much anymore. In fact, by the end of the game you will feel very overpowered and it almost makes the climax too easy. And like I mentioned, the regular guns aren't very impressive. I know the main draw here is to use the Darkness powers, but the firearms that they give you are an average lot, at best.

So that's about the gist of the game. You can partake in some side missions, if you so choose. These will get you some unlockables that will get you some "accomplishments" (in-game rewards, since this game has no trophies). But for the most part, you will be following along with the excellent story and killing a bunch of bad guys. It sounds simple, but there is so much meat in the story that you never feel like the game doesn't go anywhere. And a nice touch is the fact that you can build up your Darkness powers over time. After you kill an enemy, your demon can eat the heart of the victim right from his chest. If you collect enough of these hearts, you're Darkness powers level up. It's a fun thing for awhile, but I had my powers maxed out way too early on in the game. Don't get me wrong, you won't confuse this with some RPG-type of character progression. But I just thought I would mention it, as it does play a big part in the game and it gives you a little bit of incentive to kill every bad guy you see.

The graphics are incredible and the voice acting is even better. In fact, the whole presentation and visual style of the game is off the charts. It really immerses you into the game, and of course, that is essential when a game is trying to tell a great story. It's like playing a movie, which is never a bad thing. 'The Darkness' does have a multi-player mode, but it's not all that great. There are countless other FPS for the PlayStation 3 that excel in that area WAY more than this game, so I can't really recommend spending too much time in that area.

'The Darkness' is one of the best story-driven FPS I have played for the consoles. The single player game is too short, but it's mostly because you don't want it to end. Just like their previous game ('The Chronicles Of Riddick') has crafted a unique and cinematic FPS that any fan of the genre owes it to themselves to check it out.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed The Darkness for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:24:36 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/the-darkness/user-reviews/761031/platform/ps3/ Sat, 02 Apr 2011 19:00:17 -0700 Elite29 reviewed Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-double-agent/user-reviews/760941/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 8.0.

The Splinter Cell series has always been my favorite of the 'Tom Clancy' games. The first one was an excellent game that I rank only behind the great Metal Gear Solid, as the best stealth-action game I have ever played. 'Pandora Tomorrow' was a bit of a disappointment for me, due to the single-player game being more of the same. That game did introduce the addictive and very cool multi-player game that really gives this series some lasting power even to this day. 'Chaos Theory' really took care of a lot of my single-player game worries and I still consider it to maybe be the best in the series. So how does 'Double Agent' fit into all of this? Well, I think it's a great game that any fan of the series should check out. It's just not that 'next step' that I was hoping the series would take. But, of course, it certainly has it's moments.......

If you have played any of the previous three Splinter Cell games, then you will have no problem picking this up and playing it right away. There are a couple of tutorial levels for the newbies, but veterans of the series can just move to the main game. When you first start the story, Sam Fisher is in rough shape. Since the story is actually pretty good in this game, I won't ruin the game with spoilers here. But as the game advertises, you end up joining an underground terrorist organization called the JBA. While undercover, your job is too get enough evidence to take these guys down, stop any terrorist attacks they are planning, and basically save the day.

Double Agent basically breaks down into two parts. Most of the time, you will be doing missions, just like you did in every other Splinter Cell game before this one. That part of the game is still fun, but it shows that this series needs a jumpstart. Thankfully, the developers threw in a few daytime missions so you won't just be running around with your night-vision goggles on the whole time. These missions are a nice change of pace and hopefully we will see more of them in the next game of the series.

The other part of the game has you inside of the JBA headquarters. When you start one of these missions, you have about twenty-five minutes to accomplish whatever task your boss has given you (assemble bombs, un-encrypt an email, etc.) and the rest of the time is yours to freely roam around. This is where the best parts of the game come to play. Sneaking around trying to uncover files, information, and other stuff is a lot of fun. Just don't get caught.......

You also have a couple 'trust meters' that you have to keep your eye on. Basically, you have to keep both the JBA and the NSA happy or it's game over for you. So between the in-game missions & the missions at the JBA headquarters, there is a constant ebb & flow to the game. To go even further, there a few times in the game where you are given a 'moral' choice of sorts. I won't spoil them for you here, but they are cool when they happen. Unfortunately, there are only a few of them.

What all of this amounts to is this is the same Splinter Cell game that you have played before, except with the 'Double Agent' theme running throughout the game. There isn't much in the way of new weapons, moves, controls, sounds, etc. The graphics look nice, but like a lot of other games that are made multi-platform, they could have been better.

The multi-player remains intact here and is as fun as ever. This is my first foray into actually playing this series online and it was a lot of fun. It's a nice mix of strategy and gunplay and certainly breaks up all of the FPS I play online. Playing as a spy is a blast and I can hardly wait to see how they improve this in the next game.

With this being the PS3 version, I should mention the differences that entails. This game was, clearly, made to run on the Xbox 360 best so there are some frame-rate issues here. It's not a deal-breaker, but if you have a choice, I would go with the Xbox 360 version.

Splinter Cell: Double Agent is a game that if you liked the other entries in the series, I would recommend picking it up. The series hasn't evolved as quickly as I would have hoped by now, but there are definate signs of improvement on the horizon. With the multiple endings, tough moral choices, daytime & undercover missions, and great multi-player........this is a game that should satisfy even the biggest Splinter Cell fan.

Get the full article at GameSpot

]]> http://www.gamespot.com/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-double-agent/user-reviews/760941/platform/ps3/ Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:35:41 -0700 Tomdogg reviewed Alan Wake for the Xbox 360... http://www.gamespot.com/alan-wake/user-reviews/759366/platform/xbox360/ ...and gave it a 6.0.

7 long years I've waited for another game from Remedy. Know how long that is? When I finished Max Payne 2, I was just starting my second year of junior high. Now had I gone the way of college (instead I opted out for the military) I would have just finished my second year of college by the time Alan Wake was released. That, for lack of a better phrase, is one helluva wait. Was it worth it? Absolutely not and it's saddening to see, considering that the Max Payne games are two of my favorite games of all time in both storytelling and gameplay. Granted Alan Wake does fit the almost legendary bill of Remedy's storytelling adequately as does the audio/visual presentation but it's the gameplay aspect where this game nearly falls apart.

To better explain, the story concerns a writer named Alan Wake who is arguably the most famous writer in the world. No matter where he goes he can't escape the insurmountable level of fame and attention he receives on a daily basis. To get away from it all he and his wife, Alice go on a vacation to Bright Falls Idaho, hoping to escape their life back home for a while. This lasts all of two minutes as literally, two minutes after you take control of him, someone discovers who he is and just a few short minutes later the whole town is informed about it. This quickly becomes the least of his worries as later on at the cabin Alan and his wife are staying at, they get into a fight over Alice trying to help him write. As he storms out of the cabin, the lights go out, Alice freaks out due to her fear of the dark and Alan quickly races back inside only to see that she's being dragged to the bottom of the lake. He dives in after her and the next thing he knows, he sitting in a wrecked car, missing the past week of his memory.

As Wake attempt to solve the mysterious disappearance of his wife and get his missing week of memory back, the story will take you across the whole of Bright Falls, spanning about 6 hours in total. Along the way, you'll meet a wide variety of characters including a would-be kidnapper, a doctor obsessed with studying Wake's writer's block/mindset, a mysterious and downright creepy old woman, Wake's best friend, a female sheriff who's surprisingly a calm and collected person and not the trigger/arrest happy female cop stereotype, a drunken FBI agent who's the exact opposite who's not only also obsessed with Wake in terms of arresting and convicting him it seems but also has a really bad habit of attempting to insult Wake by calling him the names of various famous writers from the past (i.e. Dan Brown, HP Lovecraft, etc) and failing miserably at that and a cast of other characters as well.

The story also deals with a wide variety of themes, the most prevalent one being the ongoing war between light and darkness. It also begs the question of whether or not everything Wake is experiencing is either a dream or very real. The game gives clues to both and the ending does leave it all open for interpretation and in the end, it's quite the mysterious, suspenseful thriller that will appeal to just about anyone who either wants or needs a good story in a video game.

Still, there is one major flaw: The Pacing. The intro alone from the time the opening FMV starts playing to when you see the title is less than 30 seconds and the game itself has a really bad habit of almost rushing players through nearly everything. Even certain FMV's feel like they go by at break-neck speed which can seriously damage the viewers/players enjoyment of the story elements at times and doesn't allow players to stop and appreciate the game visual set-pieces when they're set up to be so…which by the way…

Audio/visual presentation is also very good. Alan Wake is easily one of the best looking games on the Xbox 360 to date with a great amount of attention paid to detail and especially to the lighting, although the animations aren't exactly first rate but still get the job done quite nicely. The town of Bright falls and numerous forests and animal life is also a nice break from the constant drab, dull, khaki war-torn environments that mainstream gamers have been shown non-stop for the past 3+ years.

Audio however is a little weaker. Voice acting isn't up to par with the likes of Max Payne, the game even re-uses sounds effects from Max Payne for the exact same purpose they served in those games and apparently the sound department didn't take the time to make sure all aspects of the sound presentation were balanced with one-another. Ergo, the voice volume by default is very soft and low while the primary sound effects (i.e. Gunshots, fighting SFX, etc) are extremely loud and easily overpower anything else. This can be very frustrating, especially for those who actually care about the story and are trying to listen in on what's happening. There are two fixes for this: One, enable subtitles or two, tinker around with the sound settings until you balance everything out, which is what I did and I spent about an hour doing so.

I normally wouldn't complain about these things, especially since this issue has been present in many games I've played in the past but those games were either total piles of garbage (T3 Rise of the machines) or it didn't really make a big different. This is the opposite in both cases and it's sad to see, especially since Max Payne was so excellent in the sound department.

That's not to say the audio is terrible. Once you get it going properly, it is quite nice. The ambience is quite nice, especially when in the middle of a forest in the night, voice acting is solid enough, the guns definitely sound ferocious and the music isn't bad either. Poets of the Fall even shows up and plays a new tune and there are a few other licensed songs which are also good.

Gameplay however is where Alan Wake becomes almost entirely unappealing. Level design for one is uninspired garbage. Each of the six "episodes" start out with an FMV, then it takes you to a room with a few character models (who exhibit very few animations and have a few lines of dialogue before they repeat the same line indefinitely) and a few objects to interact with. The game doesn't move forward until you either head into a certain room of interact with a certain object, which then triggers another FMV where the "darkness" is guaranteed to attack yet again unless you're in a flashback, then the actual game begins.

Sound like Max Payne? Don't worry, we're about to take a huge departure. You see, unlike the sleek, stylish and awesome bullet-time gunfights from Max Payne, Alan Wake prides itself on forcing players along an almost straight line level design, fighting the same two or three enemies time and time again as they pop out of every nook and cranny with an occasional mini-boss who's almost always destined to become the new replacement for one of the standard enemies in the next "episode" of the game. Yes, that is all you do: Run along an almost straight line, fight two or three bad guys that mysteriously pop out at you using the same monsters jumping out of the closet tricks every single time, rinse, repeat. There's a few extras here and there like a manuscript page or a coffee thermos but they're not really worth picking up. You fight every single enemy using the exact same method which entails pointing a flashlight at them until they either disappear or the dark shield dissipates which allows you to finally kill them. You can carry four weapons; your standard revolver, either a shotgun or hunting rifle, a flare gun and your "grenade" -esque weapon which is either a flare or a flash-bang grenade. The flashlight itself also has multiple variants and requires batteries like your guns require ammo, both of which are in plentiful supply and thankfully placed in believable locations.

Which brings me to the second crippling flaw of the gameplay…This time around though, the pacing of the story comes into play. Because the combat becomes so undyingly repetitive after the first 30 minutes and the level design is such uninspired garbage, the formula of the gameplay is forced to resort to its final trick. Now since I don't know the appropriate term for it, we'll call it "The Drag-out Method." What do I mean by this? Here's an example: You're trying to get into a warehouse with two companions. You reach the door and all of a sudden there's a huge battle that rages for 10 minutes. You finish and realize the door needs to be opened manually. Unsurprisingly, you are the one chosen to undertake this task. You open the door, your buds go through and as you race to get though the slowly closing door, the good ol' darkness comes along and destroys it shut. Up to the top of the mountain you go and that's just the tip of the iceberg as everything and their mother is trying to stall you for as long as possible.

Alan Wake uses every single trick in the book (and I'm not over-exaggerating when I say Every. Single. Trick.) to draw itself out as long as it possibly can. You name it, this game uses it. Dead Space used this same method as well and I HATE dead space for this reason. Only difference between Dead Space and Alan Wake is that the latter has a really good story from start to finish but that was the only thing that kept me going though this game. If it wasn't for that, I most likely wouldn't have gotten more than 2 hours into this game. What we have in the end is a great story with fantastic atmosphere, that's almost completely ruined by an overly-clich…, irritating mess of a game.

What I find more insulting though is that the first version of Alan Wake (which was supposed to be a free-roam game) was scrapped yet the finished product is still marketed as such. You can find it right on the back of the game case itself where it claims to be a sandbox game, yet is one of the most linear, annoying action games to come along in years. Way to false-advertise Remedy.

You guys seriously disappoint me.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Tomdogg reviewed Alan Wake for the Xbox 360..." was posted by Tomdogg on Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:35:41 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/alan-wake/user-reviews/759366/platform/xbox360/ Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:47:20 -0800 Elite29 reviewed Far Cry 2 for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/far-cry-2/user-reviews/755817/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 8.0.

First off, I have no idea why this game is called 'Far Cry' at all. Other than an obvious attempt to cash-in on the original game's name and notoriety, there is no reason this game should have 'Far Cry' in the title. There is NOTHING that carries over from any version (PC, Xbox, etc.) of the excellent original. The storyline, characters, setting, everything has changed. While that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's something that people should realize before purchasing the game thinking it's a sequel.

In this new game, you play the role of a mercenary searching for a mysterious arms dealer in Africa. Your goal is to find him and kill him. This arms dealer is providing weapons to two different factions fighting it out for power in a fictional country. When you start the game, you will find out you have malaria and you have no idea where this man you are supposed to kill is. So you will be working for the two factions, doing missions, hoping those missions draw you closer to your target. You will also be working for an underground group that is your only source for pills that control your malaria.

The storyline and mission structure plays out VERY similar to how Grand Theft Auto works. You open up your map, go to a destination of your choice to get a mission, do that mission, get paid, and move along the storyline a bit. This is an open-world FPS and what you do next is usually up to you. There are a bunch of side-missions you can do to make some extra diamonds (the in-game currency) so you can upgrade & buy new weapons. Or you can do missions for your 'buddies' and gain their respect which helps build your reputation.

It is nice to have a choice on what mission to do next and how you want to go about doing that mission. The problem is that due to the open nature of the game, the storyline falters big time. It starts off very interesting and seems like it has lots of promise. Then after a few hours, the narrative starts to jump all over the place as you meet more people with names you can't pronounce. You never learn any background on any of these characters. Most of them lack any sort of personality and are basically just there to tell you what to do, where to go, and who to kill.

One of the nice things about the game is how HUGE the game world is. It's very impressive and you could get lost very easily just driving around and looking at how beautiful Africa looks. This game is a visual treat and I caught myself just stopping to look at the environment many times. It really is amazing what developers can do with graphics these days.

But all this open land comes with a price. Since there is a huge world to explore, obviously you also have to travel to each of the destinations. And here is where Far Cry 2's biggest problem rears it's ugly head. You have do drive to each location or take a bus that will teleport you to different locations on the map. But there are not many bus stops, so you will spend most of your time with the game hopping into a vehicle and driving from place to place. For some reason, the developers chose to put guard stations with armed militia all over the place and you will be fighting these enemies over and over and over........

To be honest, it wasn't as bad as I had heard but it's irritating nonetheless. Once you clear out a guard station, the enemies respawn in a very short time and that can be annoying beyond words. It's even more annoying when they chase you around in a truck with a mounted machine gun. Even MORE annoying is the fact that you can only save your game by completing a mission, taking a bus, or by using one of your safehouses. So if you are out on a mission, you have been playing for 20-30 min. and you happen to get killed by one of these respawning militia....well, you will be reloading and save and redoing those 20-30 min.

Now I didn't have as much of a problem with this as some other people did, but it's certainly not enjoyable and didn't have to be like that. I hate respawning enemies in any game, especially games like this. Once you get used to it, you can find other ways to avoid these guard stations like going out of your way to go around them. But you shouldn't really have to do that. It just wastes time and makes the game seem longer then it should be.

Most of the missions have you going to some location and assassinating some enemy. There are a couple change of pace ones, but the missions themselves can get a bit repetitive. I read lots of reviews complaining about this, but those same people didn't seem to complain when you were doing the same thing in GTA 4. And that's what the mission structure really reminded of: a GTA game.

Unfortunately the game lacks the personality that makes GTA a great game. This game looks fantastic. The firefights are mostly fun and are very intense. The enemy AI is very good for the most part. And having a huge open world to explore any way you want is nice. But there is a fine line between having an open world game with a great storyline and structure & having a game that lacks a cohesive narrative, interesting characters, and a decent storyline. There are some great twists in the story I didn't see coming, but most of those come at the very end of the game. If this game had more personality and less driving around it would be better off.

That's not to say this game is all bad, of course. I obviously thought it was very good since I gave it an '8' score. Like I said before, the game looks amazing. It's one of those games people who are walking by your TV might stop and look at. I really liked how the game handled healing your wounds. You stick yourself with a healing syringe to get health back, but it's when you get really low on health and you have to do things like snap a dislocated finger back into place. Or take a bullet out of your leg with pliers. There are a bunch of different animations that are really fun to see.

The weapons are all fun to use and can be upgraded. You can only carry three at a time (your machete is always with you) and switching between them is a breeze, as you use the d-pad. Thankfully, the vehicles handle WAY better in this game than they did in the original Far Cry. While the premise doesn't really go as deep as I would have liked it to, the ability to make 'buddies' was welcome. They are good to have around as they can pull you out of battle if you are about to die. And they also give you alternative ways to handle the storyline missions you get in the game. And I have to mention, once again, that this is the most beautiful game-world I have ever seen. You really do feel like you are in Africa while playing this game. The sense of immersion here is top-notch.

Far Cry 2 could have been one of the best & most original FPS to come out in years. Instead we get a game that has some big flaws and tries too hard to be like 'GTA in Africa'. I have to give the developers credit for trying something different, but I think not making a real sequel to the orginal Far Cry hurt this game a bit. If you are looking for a game that will suck up a lot of your time and you like open-world games, then I would recommend giving this game a shot. It's not a must buy for everyone as it has some really annoying flaws that you have to deal with/overlook to get the full enjoyment out of it. But in the end, the game just kept drawing me back to it somehow and I am happy I saw it all the way through.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed Far Cry 2 for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:47:20 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/far-cry-2/user-reviews/755817/platform/ps3/ Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:42:25 -0800 Tomdogg reviewed F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin for the PC... http://www.gamespot.com/f-e-a-r-2-project-origin/user-reviews/755535/platform/pc/ ...and gave it a 3.0.

Editors note: I'm reviewing the PC version of this game, hence the reference to steam though I have played the console versions too. Not much of a difference if any…

Also, the score given here isn't exactly the score I'd give the game numerically, rather how I feel about the game (i.e. Bad, poor, etc)

F.E.A.R was, and still is to this day, a superb game in every sense of the word. If it wasn't the brilliant enemy AI which is one of the best I've seen in a video game bar none, it was the scares that Alma constantly pulled on you, all of which felt genuine and unique and didn't needlessly repeat themselves as they do in so many other horror games. The sound design didn't hurt it either. Combat and scares were pulled off extremely well and not once, did either one disrupt the flow of the game. The weapon variety, which while not that original, was healthy enough and all were fun to use and had some fantastic sound effects to make it feel like you were firing a gun. The game itself was also of considerable length, about twice as long as most shooters nowadays and that's on the normal difficulty.

All of these elements were backed by some top-notch visuals (which required a PC to match) all of which came together to give it a very atmospheric look and feel but one vastly over-looked element was the story which, in my eyes, was the highlight of the game. The point man may have seemed like a hollow, lifeless character initially but as the story progressed, he eventually molded into one of the deepest, most engrossing characters created since Gordon Freeman. The story itself was presented in a very creative manner via recorded messages left on phones and various data scavenged from various laptops. This forced players to decipher not only the story at hand but the story surrounding the events, since all the data collected was scattered bits and pieces at best and really gave no straightforward answer. Once all pieced together though, it formed a very intricate and interesting universe. Almost no game to this day comes even remotely close to building such a complex universe while leaving it all for players to figure out themselves and is nearly unheard of in the first person shooter genre. This alone, was what set F.E.A.R apart from all the rest and it was what makes it one of the greatest games of the 2000's.

Fast-forward 4 years later though, and after a longer then what should be necessary development cycle, you'll most likely wonder what Monolith did doing those 4 years (save for condemned) as FEAR 2 is, alongside Resistance 2, one of the absolute worst sequels I've ever played to any great game.

To begin with, the story of this game is more or less a crime against humanity committed towards those that loved the original for the story. The original characters are nowhere to be found whatsoever and since the Day 1 games are considered non-canon, we're still stuck with an unresolved cliffhanger as to what happened to the first FEAR team. A couple of characters from the first game make minor appearances but when they do appear, it's so minor and insignificant (and at times confusing) that you either won't care or will be left scratching your head as to why they even showed up.

As for the main character, whose name is Michael Beckett (Very original) he's strangely a silent protagonist as well. Now this wasn't a bad thing in the first FEAR game but considering that this new character has no background and no connection to anything in the FEAR universe (save for being "The chosen one" for another mysterious project that's never really explained yet all of a sudden makes him the only hope of stopping alma which is also never explained) this makes giving him a name almost entirely pointless. His squad is equally forgettable and hollow. You've got the girl, the black guy (not racist) the hick, the silent-but-deadly, the moron and the van driver stereotype. All are completely forgettable, half of them will be dead in the first hour of the game and the rest of them are completely separated from you for the remaining 80% of the game. The moron bears the same name as Jankowski, the guy whom you never quite found out what happened to in the first, yet he's ironically the first to die. There's even a point early on where the moron and the hick are scoping out a dead body and momentarily switch personalities. This scene alone oddly enough makes these two the most interesting out of the squad.

Now aside of this other huge project codenamed Harbinger that you'll learn about, the rest of the story isn't anything remotely interesting or entertaining and that goes double for all the new characters that are introduced since they're always killed off not more than 30 seconds after you meet them. The tid-bits of back-story are now handled via text pads and not voice messages or laptop data bases which in turn fail to provide some kind of mood or setting now that you're merely reading text instead of listening to an actual voice. To top it all off, it's also given to you in such a miniscule overall quantity, that it's impossible to grasp exactly what the hell is the going on in the world around you. It never allows you to form some kind of image about all the surrounding events and instead focuses itself on setting the stage for the inevitable sequel which hopefully can make something out of all this mess.

Overall, the story is an uninteresting, unentertaining, jumbled mess that is absolutely insulting to any fan of the first game's story.

The visuals are ok albeit a little dated but they too have numerous issues. There's a horrid letterboxing across the top and the bottom of the screen if you don't play on a 16:9 display, meaning all monitors of 4:3 and 16:10 displays will be out of luck. There's also a layer of film grain which, when played at the highest resolutions, looks absolutely atrocious and mars the presentation at times. Shadows are glitchy at best: sometimes they appear for certain items, sometimes not and never in multiplayer and the HUD takes up almost the entire screen. Best part about all this? There's no way to disable or edit them.

Sound is alright. Voice acting is sold and the music really just drones in the background for the sake of being there but the sound effects are completely laughable. For some reason, all the guns look and sound completely different despite this game taking place in the exact same time-span as the original. Instead of a shotgun or an explosion sounding as such, everything now sounds like an airsoft gun or a cherry bomb save for a couple cool instances, like a plane crashing.

Gameplay is another insult to fans of the original. For starters, the AI pales in comparison to the original. At first I was disappointed that the ability to lean was gone (especially because the enemies can still use this forbidden feature) but then I realized that it was so easy to best the AI it didn't matter. Unlike the first game where they could lay down covering fire, throw a grenade to flush you out then ambush you and coordinate in teams, they now either rush recklessly into the open or simply stand there and mindlessly shoot at you. When using slow-motion, it now causes them to light up with a glow effect that makes them stand out like a solar flare further draining the difficulty. The new cover system? Might be helpful if anything you took cover behind actually completely concealed you. Instead, most of your body is still exposed…not that this really matters either. Overall, combat is a joke in comparison to the original.

Second are the scares: The game has absolutely no ability to hold any kind of tension during an Alma moment and instead relies the whole 'Monsters jumping out of the closet' tactic to scare you, very few of which had any kind of impact on me personally. I though Monolith was trying to avoid this when they created FEAR, not conform to it.

The game is also about half the length of the original even on the highest difficulty but hell, it's all about the multiplayer nowadays, right? Well FEAR 2 fails in this category as well. To start off, no dedicated servers or anti-cheat measures. That's right: a game which requires Steam to install and run has no real servers, merely hosted games running on other people's machines. This might be fine for consoles but it is completely unacceptable for a 2009 PC game. Now should you actually want to go in, the MP itself is a pretty forgettable experience. 16 players max, few game modes, load-out kits, no leaning, no slow-motion, no real difference between this game and any other shooter. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Killzone, even Crysis run in circles around what this games "multiplayer" claims to be.

FEAR 2 is a colossal letdown. The story is insulting, the characters are forgettable, the scares are garbage and the rest of the game doesn't stand out in terms of anything. Monolith, normally a reliable outlet, has destroyed what was arguably their best franchise they created. Day 1 is hard at work making FEAR 3 so there is a chance we'll see some salvation for the series but I personally am not holding my breath…

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Tomdogg reviewed F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin for the PC..." was posted by Tomdogg on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:42:25 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/f-e-a-r-2-project-origin/user-reviews/755535/platform/pc/ Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:45:49 -0800 Elite29 reviewed Resistance 2 for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/resistance-2/user-reviews/754632/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 8.5.

For early PS3 owners, 'Resistance: Fall Of Man' was the saving grace of the console. Back then, there wasn't a lot of quality games out for the PS3. For that reason, I think 'R:FOM' was always slightly overrated, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I really liked the game myself. I gave it an '8.5' in my review here at GameSpot. I just didn't think it was the big-time system seller that some claimed it to be. What it was, however, was the best reason to own a PS3 at the time. And for that reason, I feel it was one of the most important games in the history of the PS3.

So what does 'Insomniac' give us for the sequel? Well, there was a lot of hype & anticipation surrounding this release. Does it live up to those lofty expectations? Well, yes and no. It certainly delivers a game that is about just as good as the original, but in different ways. In the original, we got a great campaign, but the online multi-player was decent. Now that isn't all 'Insomniac's fault, as the PlayStation Network wasn't what it is today. It wasn't Nintendo bad, but it wasn't as good as Xbox Live. These days, that gap between the networks has closed quite a bit. In the end, it was a fun & functional shooter while playing online. The big sell, at least for me, was that the campaign was a lot of fun & told an interesting story.

Well for 'Resistance 2' (where is the sub-title this time around?), 'Insomniac' clearly wanted to improve the online multi-player, but I think the campaign got lost in the shuffle a bit. The single-player isn't necessarily bad in any way, it's just not as good as the first game. It's also a bit convoluted with too many characters that aren't fully developed. The pacing of the story is all over the place. One level you are in Idaho, the next you are in Iceland. Then it's back to the U.S. That's all well and good, but the cut-scenes and pacing of the story doesn't do a good job tying all of these locations together. For example, if this was a movie, the editor would have been fired.

The first game had some narraration between levels from one of the key characters. It helped fill in some story gaps that you may have missed while you were busy shooting 'Chimera'. That narration isn't here in the sequel and the story is told completely through Captain Hale's point of view. This made the story have a more 'Half-Life' feel, but 'Insomniac' wasn't as slick in it's execution as 'Valve' was with their shooter. In other words, yes I missed the sound of a British woman telling me what the hell was going on in the story from time to time.

Otherwise, the campaign is fun. There are a lot of huge battles in this one, as 'Insomniac' seems to be nodding towards 'Infinity Ward's 'Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare' series. The first time you see a boss the size of a skyscraper, you will be blown away. Like the 'Modern Warfare' series, this game has a lot of "WOW!" moments that you wish lasted longer because they are so much fun. The ending, in particular, was outstanding. I know some people hated it because it was a cliffhanger, but it had me yelling at my TV........in a good way.

While the campaign has it's issues (and I haven't even mentioned the stupid A.I. & having to find hidden 'Intel' to tell a lot of the story), the online multi-player has improved quite a bit. It may not get you to stop playing your 'Call Of Duty' or 'Battlefield' games for very long, but it can be a lot of fun. In addtion to the usual competitive online modes, there is a fun co-op campaign. When I say "campaign", I have to admit there isn't much of a story here. It's more of just teaming up with a bunch of buddies and mowing down some Chimera. You can choose between three classes of soldier and you can level up in each. Like many other FPS, you get rewards after leveling up to certain ranks and it keeps the gameplay fresh. Like I said, this isn't the greatest online game in the world, but it's a fun one and will keep you busy for some time if you want it to.

In the end, I wasn't expecting this game to revolutionize the FPS genre or anything. I was expecting a fun game & a good sequel, which is what I got. Am I a little disappointed with a game I am giving an '8.5' to? Well with me being more into single-player campaigns than I am online mult-player, then yes I am a bit disappointed with the story. But as a whole, this is a great game and it has me eagerly awaiting the inevitable 'Resistance 3'.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed Resistance 2 for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:45:49 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/resistance-2/user-reviews/754632/platform/ps3/ Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:46:25 -0800 Elite29 reviewed Fallout 3: Game of the Year Edition for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition/user-reviews/753881/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 9.0!

Since this is a review for the 'Game Of The Year' edition of Fallout 3, I will review each part individually. If you don't feel like reading the full review, I will have a quick summary of the total package to start:

As most gamers know, 'Fallout 3' is one of the best games of this generation. Coming off the heels of their previous masterpiece, 'Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion', 'Bethesda' created another RPG classic. This 'GOTY' edition contains the original game and all five DLC add-ons. This PS3 version is quite buggy and prone to freezing up your system. This mostly happens with the DLC, for some reason. I didn't have much of a problem while playing the main game or the DLC, 'Operation Anchorage'. But once I started playing 'The Pitt', I ran into all sorts of problems. To be fair, I did have problems with the Xbox 360 version while playing 'The Pitt' also. But I never had any problems with 'Broken Steel', 'Point Lookout', or 'Mothership Zeta' like I did on this PS3 version. I had a hard time even getting 'Mothership Zeta' to load up and thought it was unplayable at one point. The technical issues do hamper the game and I would have given this a '9.5' (like I did with the Xbox 360 version), if the game would just work properly.

To be fair, the game is still worth a purchase (especially now at $40) and should be in every gamer's collection. Here are my reviews for the main game and each of the DLC:


Fallout 3:

'Fallout 3' had a lot of hype to live up to. Coming off of the masterpiece (and my favorite game of this generation), 'Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion', Bethesda now gives us a game that is very similar to 'Oblivion' but differentiates itself by being a RPG/FPS hybrid of sorts.

While it's not fair to a game to compare it to the game that came before it, it's almost impossible to NOT compare 'Fallout 3' to 'Oblivion'. Many have called this game "'Oblivion' with guns", I think that is not giving the game enough credit. Fallout definitely borrows some things from it's bigger brother, but this is a game that holds it's own. And in some ways, it does things better.

In 'Fallout 3' you take the role of a character born into a "Vault" in a post-apocalyptic wasteland (Washington D.C. area). Before the bombs dropped, many people retreated into underground vaults and survived the nuclear war. As the lead character in the game, you take control right from birth. You can custom create everything about your appearance and you set your skills to determine what type of character you will be. Of course, this can change over time (if you so wish) by leveling up your character. Just like in 'Oblivion' there are many different ways to grow your character into just about anything that you would want to be. Choosing which skills to spend points on or which "Perk" to take each time you level up is very fun.

After you get a bid older, your dad decides to leave the vault (which is a big no-no, apparently) without even mentioning it to you and you go search to find him and find out why he left. To give anything else away about the story would ruin it, but it is a very intriguing tale. This is one area where I think 'Fallout 3' improves over 'Oblivion'. The main storyline is much better.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the side-quests. While the ones here are fun and are great to gather some loot on, don't go expecting anything near the quality of the 'Dark Brotherhood' quest-line in 'Oblivion'. Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun in the game, but none of the side-quests pulled me in like I thought they would.

Combat is an interesting mix of first-person shooter and role-playing game. When you encounter an enemy, you can hit R2 and go into a turn-based mode where you pick body parts of the enemy you want to shoot. It shows the percentage of each shot and how much damage you could potentially do. It's an interesting battle system, but it tends to make battles too easy later on in the game when you have built up your character. Of course, you can choose to forgo the firearms altogether and just go with melee weapons or hand-to-hand. And that's the beauty of the game.......everything is up to you.

One area that is a downer, but it's not really the game's fault is the environment. With this being a post-apocalyptic game, the environment features very little color and isn't much to look at. When you first start playing the game it's not a problem, but after awhile, you will be begging to see a green tree. Or some blue water. Or anything that ISN'T tan, brown, gray, or black. I understand that it goes along with the storyline, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the game isn't much fun to look at sometimes.

That's not to say the game isn't good looking, because the graphics are very nice. There is less pop-up, draw-in, and technical issues. I did have the game crash on me once and the frame-rate will chug every now and then. But it's never a deal breaker, until you get to the downloaded content. More on that later.

As you would expect, 'Fallout 3' is a long game. The world that you explore here is very large and should keep you busy for some time. The game isn't as big as 'Oblivion' and it's clear what Bethesda did here. 'Oblivion' was obviously designed for the PC first and ported over to the consoles later. 'Fallout 3' was made for both the PC and the consoles from the ground up so it's not as expansive as Bethesda's previous game. That's not a real knock on the game, however, as this is bigger than any other game you will play on this generation of consoles.

'Fallout 3' is a great game and one of the best of this generation of consoles. It's just another masterpiece of gaming from the folks at Bethesda and is deserving of every 'Game Of The Year' award that it received. This is one game that you will definitely get your money's worth from and should be owned by any PS3 gamer who likes RPG's.

'Operation Anchorage':

'Operation Anchorage' is the first piece of downloadable content for 'Fallout 3'. The story has you meeting up with a band of Brootherhood Outcasts. You then enter a simulation, where if you complete it, it unlocks a vault containing weapons, armor, etc. The simulation is set in Anchorage, Alaska and you take on the Chinese as they try to invade the area.

This DLC is all about combat. And that creates a couple of problems. By the time most players get around to playing this content, you will probably be at the level cap or very close to it. This makes the battles extremely easy for any characters that are strong at combat. My character, in particular, was a character built around combat so I breezed through this batch of missions quite quickly and easily.

A big difference from the original game is that you can't bring any of your items into the simulation with you. There is also zero item looting so you rely on health & ammo dispensers that are littered throughout the levels. That also leads to the game being solely about killing enemies. You do get a couple of nice pieces of armor to keep afterwards. And if you are an 'energy weapons' character, you will LOVE the 'Gauss Rifle', which is a much better sniper gun than the original one in 'Fallout 3'.

The best part of the DLC has to be the change of scenery from the dreary look of the wasteland to the icy world of Alaska. I spent over 60 hrs. seeing nothing but browns, grays, blacks, etc. in the original game. It was a nice change of pace, when you are outdoors, to see the winter of Alaska. Any interior part of the levels, still look like they do in the original game, however.

Overall, this is one of the weaker batches of DLC for 'Fallout 3'. On the bright side, it's the only chunk of DLC that I didn't have major techinical issues with, however, and rewards you with some great loot. The problem with it is that it's all about combat and strips away what makes a RPG like 'Fallout 3' so much fun.

'The Pitt'

While most people are excited to get any DLC for a game that they love, like 'Fallout 3', Bethesda hasn't really given us anything that great up to this point. While I applaud Bethesda for supporting their games post-launch, both of the DLC packs have been sup-bar.....so far.

Most people who didn't like the first DLC, 'Operation Anchorage', had a problem with the game being all action and very little RPG. I did think it was fun, but it certainly hurt the product to turn it into a poor man's 'Call Of Duty' instead of sticking with the core gameplay from the original game. 'The Pitt' takes care of that problem by going back to being the type of quest you would find in 'Fallout 3'. It causes another problem of having that quest be somewhat boring, glitchy, and it lacks the effort that we have come to expect from Bethesda.

The storyline of 'The Pitt' revolves around you taking on the task of entering Pittsburgh, PA to try to find a cure to the disease that is plaguing all of the slaves in the town. The town is being run by an overlord type of ruler who makes slaves out of the city's inhabitants. Another problem is that people are getting cancer or turning into mindless savages by all of the radiation in the area. You are hired to go into 'The Pitt', play the role of a slave, find the cure in the overlord's personal quarters and bring it back to the character who gave you the quest.

It sounds like a nice enough quest, but it's actually very standard and boring. And like 'Operation Anchorage', you lose all of your gear at the beginning of the quest. The problem is that here it just feels forced, as opposed to in 'Operation Anchorage'. At any rate, most of the time you will be running around this bleak environment (it actually manages to look more run-down and depressing than the wasteland) doing errands that aren't very exciting. You also get tossed into a gladiator-style pit where you have to fight other slaves to get your freedom. Once again, this feels forced and we have seen it in other games.

Once you get your gear back and get on to the ending of the main quest, the game picks up again. And the beginning of the quest is kinda interesting, so the problem lies in the middle and meat of the DLC. You do have to make a big moral decision at the end of the story, which is always nice. But you have to trudge through some basic & boring stuff in the middle to get to the end.

While there is some decent new loot here to collect, the best has to be the 'Auto Axe'. This has turned into my melee weapon of choice, as it is fun to use and quite powerful. Another annoying thing is that if you want to find everything the DLC has in it, you will have to spend the mind-numbing amount of time it takes to find TONS of steel ingots that are scattered around the map. There is nothing more lazy than making the player run around the map looking for pointless collectables. There is a trophy tied to it, but I chose to pass on it as I hate these sort of blatant attempts at padding the gameplay time.

Speaking of gameplay time, 'The Pitt' is also quite short. It's a little longer than 'Operation Anchorage' and will take you quite a bit longer if you want to collect all of the ingots. If you are just looking to get through the main storyline, you can blow through it in just a few hours. The game locked up on me a couple times and the frame-rate is atrocious at times. I have heard of this DLC causing all sorts of problems for other people. Unfortunately, this will not be the last time I have technical issues with the DLC for 'Fallout 3'.

While 'The Pitt' isn't a complete disaster, it isn't a must purchase by any means. I did like the fact that they went back to a more traditional RPG style for this DLC, but the quest isn't really that interesting to begin with. The environment manages to look worse than the wasteland and nobody likes pointless fetch quests. I did like the ending and this is worth playing, but with all the techincal issues and the boring middle part of the DLC, I wouldn't say this is "must play".

'Broken Steel':

The first two batches of DLC for 'Fallout 3' have been somewhat disappointing. In my opinion, 'Operation Anchorage' relied too much on the action part of the game and ditched most of the RPG gameplay. 'The Pitt' went back to how the original game played, but it was a lazy & boring storyline, had an even less enticing environment than the original game had, and just wasn't that much fun. And both of the DLC quests were very short, especially 'Operation Anchorage'.

'Broken Steel' changes all of that. To start this DLC, you have to complete the original game. That's because this is a continuation of the original storyline. Because of that, I can't really go into the plot too much as some of you reading this may not have finished the original game yet. Just know it has a more interesting story than the previous 2 DLC and is a bit longer.

The best thing about installing 'Broken Steel' is it raises the level cap to 30. This was a HUGE deal to me, as I had my character maxed out before the original game was even over. And yes, 'Broken Steel' will raise the level cap even if you haven't finished the main game yet. There are many new perks that have been added, as well.

Another nice bonus is that you get your hands on the Tesla Cannon. This is basically an energy weapon version of the Missle Launcher, but so much better. You do get some additional armor and other loot, but the Tesla Cannon steals the show here.

I will keep this review short, as I can't really give away plot lines of the story. However, if you are going to download ANY of the 'Fallout 3' DLC, THIS is the one to make sure you get. It's easily the best of the bunch, so far, and the benefits of a higher level cap and several new perks are huge. Not to mention it extends the original storyline from the main game.

Of course, I have to metion that this batch of DLC, like 'The Pitt', has some serious technical issues with the frame-rate and locked up on me several times. It's still worth playing, but it's definately something I should mention and it hurts the final product.

'Point Lookout':

The first two sets of DLC for 'Fallout 3' ('Operation Anchorage' and 'The Pitt') were met with mixed reviews. 'Broken Steel', however, proved that Bethesda can give us excellent DLC when it wants to. By raising the level cap, giving us many more perks, a great new weapon (Tesla Cannon), and continuing the main storyline, Bethesda delivered a must buy for 'Fallout 3' fans.

Whether 'Point Lookout' is a must buy is the real question. In my opinion, that would be a "yes". Even though there isn't much in the way of game changing gear or weapons. They didn't raise the level cap again. There aren't many new perks. But playing through this DLC makes me think this is what 'The Pitt' should have been: a great way to extend the original game while telling a new story in a brand new area.

The story of 'Point Lookout' is an interesting one. You take a ferry to an area where you will instantly realize you are in a much different environment then the Capital Wasteland. 'Point Lookout' is based in a swamp-like area of Maryland. There is a main plot line involving a pissed-off Ghoul who has an interesting background and after helping him defend his mansion from attackers, he gives you several quests to do. I can't give away too much about the plot without spoiling things, but this is a much more interesting plot line than the one found in 'The Pitt'.

The real treat here is the side-quests, of which there are several, including one where you have to investigate what happened to a Chinese spy. This is, easily, the most interesting quest in any of the DLC and is a real treat to play through. There are a few others, including one that has you searching for a very evil book.

Where 'Point Lookout' falters is in the lack of any great new weapons or gear. The double-barreled shotgun is nice, but you have to reload after every shot so it's not very practical to use. There is a rifle that is slightly better than the standard 'Hunting Rifle' found in the original game, but it's not that great. In fact, if you have the Abraham Lincoln rifle, you won't have any need for the new gun at all. You do get a very handy new energy weapon at the end of the main quest, but that's about it.

And a word of warning to people who are not around level 30......'Point Lookout' is WAY tougher than the original game or any DLC that followed. I had a very high level character who was best at combat and I ran into a couple times where I almost died. The enemies are much tougher, deal much more damage, and are very numerous. I welcomed the extra challenge, as I thought the other DLC was too easy for my character. I just thought I would throw it out there in case people decide to play 'Point Lookout' earlier than they should.

I am very happy with this add-on and would recommend it to any fan of the original game. It's light on new weapons, perks, etc. But if you are looking for a big, brand new area to explore, interesting quests, and some challenging combat, then 'Point Lookout' will be right up your alley. Unfortunately, like the previous two bits of DLC ('The Pitt' & 'Broken Steel'), 'Point Lookout' has some serious technical issues on the PS3. It locks up and chugs along at times which is, obviously, quite annoying.

'Mothership Zeta':

Make no mistake, 'Mothership Zeta' is a waste of time, money, and is the worst piece of DLC for 'Fallout 3.

'Mothership Zeta' was an interesting concept, in theory. To begin the DLC, you have to investigate a radio signal that is near a downed spacecraft. Upon arrival, you are beamed up to an alien spaceship orbiting the planet. At this point you have been taken prisoner by some aliens who want to perform all sorts of nasty experiments on you. During the DLC, you are tasked with trying to escape the ship with the help of several other characters.

Unfortunately, this interesting idea for DLC falls flat on it's face. What could have been a good RPG experience turns into a lame, sci-fi FPS wanna-be. Like their first batch of DLC, 'Operation Anchorage', Bethesda has made the mind-boggling decision to strip this DLC of most of the RPG aspects and focus in on the action. Apparently, Bethesda doesn't learn from their previous mistakes.

Combat was never the best part of 'Fallout 3'. And when you are playing a game that is one of the best RPG's of a generation and have most of the RPG aspects stripped away, you are left with a shallow and lousy FPS. There isn't much here in the way of great, new weapons or gear either. And the enemies are the typical, 'little green men' that you have seen a million times which was extremely disappointing.

Not to mention that the quests you embark on are mind-numbingly dull. Most of them involve running to one part of the ship, fighting any aliens in your path, and pressing three switches when you get to your destination. That's it. You do meet some interesting characters along the way, but you don't spend enough time with them to care about what happens to them at all.

I do respect the way Bethesda supported 'Fallout 3' post-launch. It's impressive when a company cares about a game so much that they release five pieces of DLC for it. But it's clear to me that 'Mothership Zeta' should have stayed on the shelf. After playing 'Broken Steel' & 'Point Lookout', a huge feeling of disappointment came over me shortly after starting this quest. Those hoping for a great send-off to one of the greatest RPG's of this generation should know that you won't be missing a thing if you decide to skip 'Mothership Zeta'. I did run into a huge techincal issue at the beginning of the quest (during the opening cut-scene, in fact) where the game kept freezing. After looking up the problem on the interent, I found that if you turn your PS3 off and back on, load the game up, it should work. It did work, but we shouldn't have to deal with these issues. I didn't have many other problems with this DLC after that opening, however.

Get the full article at GameSpot

]]> http://www.gamespot.com/fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition/user-reviews/753881/platform/ps3/ Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:17:40 -0800 Elite29 reviewed LittleBigPlanet: Game of the Year Edition for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/littlebigplanet-game-of-the-year-edition/user-reviews/752331/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 9.0!

When I first started playing 'LittleBigPlanet', I wasn't that impressed. The game does look nice and has great music. But the opening levels (designed to be a tutorial, of sorts) are a bit tame & boring. After the game gets going, however, you realize that you are really just hitting the tip of the iceberg on the potential here. Sure enough, after a few hours, I was hooked. 'LittleBigPlanet' is a game for everyone. If you want it to just be a single-player platformer, it can be that. If you want to play it with friends, you can do that too. If you want to use the game to create your own levels, that is also an option. And to top it off, there is a ridiculous amount of free levels to play online from the community.

When you first start playing the game, you are pushed through the story levels. This is almost mandatory, as this is where you collect a lot of the items you will use if you eventually want to create your own levels. While the story itself is completely ludicrous and a waste, it's the gameplay that will keep you coming back. And similar to the 'Lego' games, these levels are built for being played multiple times. There are tons of hidden items to find after you receive certain items in later levels that unlock those hidden items. It's a fun way to structure the story mode, even if it is way too short.

'Media Molecule' (the developer) have created some really fun platforming levels. I haven't had this much fun with a 2D platformer in many years. Each set of levels feels completely different than the last. It sure doesn't hurt that they all look fantastic, as well. I didn't really dig the art style, but all of the levels look sharp and have a distinct look to them. When you add in some excellent music, you have a game that excels in the presentation department.

If you are used to playing the 'Mario' games to get your platforming fix, then I suggest you attempt to forget eveything those games have taught you over the years. This is because the controls in 'LittleBigPlanet' are completely different. The whole game uses a physics engine that takes some getting used to. Jumping feels very "floaty" and it's sometimes hard to gauge where you will land. Of course, this can be incredibly frustrating when it causes a death. Thankfully, 'LittleBigPlanet' gives you many lives and checkpoints to use in a level. But this could be a major turn-off for some gamers. I myself, was still having issues with it even as I was finishing the game. I don't think it's something that prevents the game from being fun, but it's definitely something I should mention.

While the story mode won't take you long to burn through, there is almost unlimited re-play ability due to the ability to create your own levels. The level building tools here are somewhat annoying & complicated, but they are great to have. I didn't build much myself, but I did play a lot of free community levels that other gamers made. At this point in 'LPB's life-cycle, you can find many professional-type levels out there made by gamers. This extends the life of the game infinitely. And even if you never want to take the MANY, MANY hours it will take to create a level that people will want to play, it's interesting to see what other gamers have come up with. It's pretty impressive, actually.

The online experience doesn't just stop with creating and publishing levels. You can also play any level in the game with other people, which is always welcome for gamers who like a co-op experience. Like I said, this is a game that you could play for a very long time if you wanted to, or you could just play through the story and that's it. This game could be great for all kinds of gamers and for all different reasons. In the end, I think that is the greatest compliment you can give 'LittleBigPlanet'. In a time where most developers are just pumping out the next generic FPS, 'Media Molecule' has come up with an original game for all ages and all gamer types.

On a side note, this 'Game Of The Year' edition comes with quite a bit of downloadable content available for the game. It has some costumes, items, and (most importantly) the 'Metal Gear Solid' level & costume packs. Unfortunately, it does not contain the 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' or the 'Marvel Comics' level packs. If you want those two packs, you will have to purchase them seperately from the PSN store. While I can't complain about getting a bunch of content for free, it is annoying that (unlike most GOTY editions) 'LittleBigPlanet' left out some key DLC from their 'GOTY' edition. It's still a great deal either way though, and is well worth the $30 asking price.

Get the full article at GameSpot

]]> http://www.gamespot.com/littlebigplanet-game-of-the-year-edition/user-reviews/752331/platform/ps3/ Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:01:49 -0800 Elite29 reviewed Eternal Sonata for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/eternal-sonata/user-reviews/751414/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 6.0.

If you have been a gamer for as long as I have (since the Atari days), it pains me to see the way Japanese games have gone down hill. For most of my youth, most of the good games came from over-seas. That includes Mario, Zelda, Sonic, etc. And one of the main genres that Japanese developers had the market cornered on was the role-playing game. Companies like (what used to be) 'SquareSoft' gave us classics like 'Chrono Trigger', 'Secret Of Mana' and, of course, the Final Fantasy series. We gamers here in the U.S. wouldn't recieve every single RPG the Japanese got, but we definately got the big ones. I absolutely loved Japanese RPG's.

But then times changed. Western developers got into the mix with making their own brand of RPG. Games like 'Fallout' & 'Oblivion' are great examples of this. Gone were the random & repetitive turn-based battles, strange looking feminine male characters, horrendous voice acting, confusing & convoluted storylines, over-long boss battles, horribly overly dramatic cut-scenes, etc. In fact, when you really think about the definition of a "role-playing game", Japanese RPG's don't even fit the description. I don't know about you, but I can hardly relate to being a feminine 14 yr. old with spiky hair (and a voice like a woman) trying to save the universe from some feminine looking villain while forming a "party" with a bunch of annoying characters.

But it didn't matter. Those games were good back in the days of SNES, PlayStation, etc. Unfortuntely for Japanese gaming companies, times have changed. And for some reason, Japanese companies refuse to change with them. I hate to say it, but the Japanese RPG is the worst of the bunch.

So what does all of that mean for 'Eternal Sonata'? Well, what could have been a great game is bogged down by lousy design choices. In other words, stubborn, Japanese design choices. 'Eternal Sonata' tries to be different, but it ends up being the same Japanese RPG you have played a hundred times.

The late composer, Frederic Chopin, has an illness that has put him into a coma. The game itself takes place inside of a dream of Chopin's. All of the characters, dialogue, music, even the world itself is all a product of Chopin's imagination. While that sets itself up for a nice artsy beginning that critics tend to love (hence this game's review scores), in the end you will be playing through the same Japanese RPG story you always have.

There are the annoying band of characters that make up your party, the "evil" Count who is your nemesis, overly long cut-scenes where 14 yr. old girls are spouting off pretentious dialogue, a lack of save points, the most annoying battle system in the history of RPG's (more on that later), horrible voice acting, death for characters that we are supposed to care about but weren't developed enough for us to care, boss battles that seem to last for days only because of the enormous amount of hit-points they have (not because the battle is fun & challenging), and yes there are feminine looking male characters who are supposed to be heroes spouting off 'PG'-rated tough guy lines. Yes, this is pure Japenese RPG at it's "best".

While some people may give these games a pass just because they miss the days of 'Final Fantasy III', I will not. This is a generic RPG trying to be different by giving us an (depending on your tastes) interesting opening premise and a different battle system. I will give 'Tri-Crescendo' (the developer) credit for trying something different. This isn't the same old turn-based battles most gamers would be expecting from a Japanese RPG. Instead we get an annoying time-based system that is overly chaotic and robs the game of most of it's strategy. Don't get me wrong, I didn't mind seeing a change from me just pressing one-button over and over for every fight. But I didn't want to be given 4 lousy seconds to plan what I am going to do and then make my turn. And when I do make that turn, I end up just mashing one button over and over until I hit another button that launches a "special attack". Ugh.

And whomever was in charge of implementing the "block button" should take a long walk off a short pier. When your opponent attacks you, you can press the circle button to block. The trick is that you have around half a millesecond to time it correctly. If you don't, they slaughter you. They slaughter you to a point where timing this block is essential in staying alive in battle. Esepecially during the horrendously long and cheap boss fights. The problem is the game gives you very little room for error and you will end up re-playing fights a lot due to this. When you add in the annoying amount of hit-points the enemies have and the (previously mentioned), timed battle-system, you end up with a game that just isn't much fun to play.

Not to mention there is no way to customize the leveling of your characters. None at all. There are no side-quests or even an over-world map., In fact, there are no maps whatsoever, which is very annoying. And this is the first Japanese RPG, that I can remember, where I had a horrible time with the camera. And while the storyline comes off as trying to be "deep" and "meaningful", it really comes off as being boring and pretentious. Sure the cut-scenes that give you some backstory on Chopin's real life were interesting, but if you aren't a fan of his (and I am not) then you probably won't care. And for a game that is EXTREMEMLY linear in it's gameplay, why are the cut-scenes all over the place like the editor of the game watched too many Quentin Tarantino movies? Trust me, 'Tri-Crescendo', sometimes it's a good thing to have a straight-forward narrative.

So what are the good parts of 'Eternal Sonata'? The game looks & sounds (other than the voice acting) fantastic. Even in the dark & boring dungeons, the game has a certain visual charm to it. Even though I am not a fan, Chopin's music is well represented here. And in all honesty, if you NEED to play a Japanese RPG for the current generation consoles, 'Eternal Sonata' will cure that fix. For better or worse, this is a old-school RPG.

The problem is that it's just an average one, at best. It is shocking to see this game get great review scores. Because if these same critics were playing this game on their old SNES, they would have called it "generic" and it would have been lost in the shuffle of the great RPG's of the past.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"Elite29 reviewed Eternal Sonata for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by Elite29 on Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:01:49 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/eternal-sonata/user-reviews/751414/platform/ps3/