M3RC3tHeShOoTeR's GameSpot Friend's Reviews M3RC3tHeShOoTeR's GameSpot Friend's Reviews M3RC3tHeShOoTeR's GameSpot Friend's Reviews en-us Copyright (c)1995-2013 CBS Interactive. All rights reserved. http://www.gamespot.com 20 Sat, 18 May 2013 23:45:21 -0700 GameSpot M3RC3tHeShOoTeR's GameSpot Friend's Reviews http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/shared/promos/misc/gs_logo.gif http://www.gamespot.com 135 40 Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:34:36 -0800 loopy_101 reviewed Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD for the PC... http://www.gamespot.com/tony-hawks-pro-skater-hd/user-reviews/806567/platform/pc/ ...and gave it a 3.0.

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD is a weak ass attempt by the folks at Activision to bring the THPS series back to basics.

Featuring the "greatest hits" of the early games in the form of remade maps (e.g. School II, Warehouse, Downhill Jam etc) and a retro inspired soundtrack complete with music from the first two games, on paper this might seem pretty neat. Don't be deceived. Not only does this game feel unfinished, missing many maps that should of been included in THPS HD to begin with (e.g. Airport) but it is functionally broken. Robomodo clearly aren't as talented as their Neversoft forebearers. There are more than a few noticeable glitches that ruin play including bails that will send you rocketing into the sky and strange clipping/draw-in issues that plague many of the levels.

THPS HD looks and plays far worse than Project 8, a Tony Hawk's title released nearly six years prior. The controls in general also feel awful in this release, not half as responsive nor as snappy as you'd hope. Perhaps what upset me the most about this release is the lack of multiplayer modes. Tony Hawk's online was one of the first experiences I had playing over the internet and I imagine it still has people playing it via XLinkKai. To see the multiplayer missing in this release, even in terms of local splitscreen play, is a complete let-down as far as I'm concerned.

So should you bother with this release? Not really. If anything, this release is aimed at suckers to nostalgia such as myself. If you want to relive the memories of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater there are far better ways of doing it. Nothing is stopping you from getting any of the earlier releases in the series on PC so if you insist on running the likes of Tony Hawks Pro Skater 3 in actual high defintion, nothing is stopping you from doing that instead.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD for the PC..." was posted by loopy_101 on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:34:36 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/tony-hawks-pro-skater-hd/user-reviews/806567/platform/pc/ Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:14:53 -0800 coolkid93 reviewed NBA 2K13 for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/nba-2k13/user-reviews/805292/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 8.5.

I haven't bought a basketball game for my playstation 3 in forever but I will say that out of all of them, this one is the best. This is the best NBA game that I have ever played. I got it on Christmas day and I have been hooked on it. I have other games but this one receives the most play time out of all of them at the moment. It is an addictive game. When playing a game, it is really enjoyable. Heck even just watching the computer play while in coach mode is interesting.

NBA 2k13 is a great basketball game. It looks and also feels good to play. Using the right analog stick can even make the game more fun. You can pull off moves, shots, and even dunks by using the right analog stick. The controls are good.

I also like the design for the games menus. With that said, I must also state that for some users the menu interface may seem confusing and not user friendly. The graphics and animations are good as well.

I'm sure you've noticed something different about the cover of NBA 2k13. They've added "Executive Produced by JAY-Z". From what I have read, he designed how the menus in the game look. The music choices aren't bad either. So what is the deal about that? It's honestly nothing but hype. As gamespot stated on that part of the game, it's "overblown".

I can't really say too much about improvements because I haven't played the few previous games in the series. The only thing that I can tell you is that it is fun and if you like basketball (especially love it), YOU WILL enjoy playing NBA 2k13. It is worth $60 and I highly recommend it to those who like/love basketball games. It's worth playing.

I give it a score of 8.6 out of 10.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"coolkid93 reviewed NBA 2K13 for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by coolkid93 on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:14:53 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/nba-2k13/user-reviews/805292/platform/ps3/ Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:03:15 -0800 coolkid93 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified for the PlayStation Vita... http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-declassified/user-reviews/804554/platform/vita/ ...and gave it a 7.5.

After getting Black Ops Declassified and playing it, I must say that it is underrated if you ask me. It really is a good game. It has its problems of course like every game does but It is not that bad. If you do not want to read all of this, just scroll on down to the bottom and just read the "Bottom Line" portion of this review.

The Campaign is not your typical Call of Duty Campaign. It's just short missions that can be completed in under or around 5 minutes. Like some of the other reviewers have mentioned, it is like Unit 13 except it has only 10 missions. The difficulty selection is "Regular", "Hardened", and "Veteran". There are not a big amount of missions but for those like myself that play online mostly, it doesn't really effect us. However, for those who do not own a 3G version of the vita, really like playing those spec ops missions, and/or for any other reason, that sucks. I would still like to have more missions though. For when I can't play online, I would like to have the ability to play through plenty of missions.

NO THERE IS NO ZOMBIES IN CASE YOU ARE WONDERING. It does however have a horde mode where you fight through waves of enemies. You start off with a weapon and you get new weapons along the way via dead enemies or a care package that drops after every wave. The care packages vary so you may get either a new weapon or one of the killstreak rewards.

Now on to Multiplayer. It is just like the others so if you have played a CoD game online, this is familiar. You are able to either find a public match just for yourself or select party matchmaking to play online with a party. In order for you to use Party Matchmaking, you have to form a Party using the Vita's Party App. I've never used that so I cannot explain how well it works (etc, keeps kicking friends out or whatever).

The create a class is the same as the other CoD versions that are on the other consoles. There are a total of 28 weapons. You are able to add a maximum of 2 attachments on a weapon. Another neat feature that you can use is "near" Classes. You are able to download other users class setups and share yours as well. You have to go through 40 ranks in order for you to select that "Prestige" option on the screen.

The game has only 6 maps which are small. You can also only have 4v4 multiplayer. But honestly, this works great. Remember THIS IS A HANDHELD CONSOLE VERSION. Do not treat it as if it is a PS3 version or a 360 version whereas they are capable of having 12-16 players online. I don't really experience much lag (I use Wi-Fi, not 3G). I honestly thought that it would lag worse. I won't lie it does have its moments where it is terrible but other than that, it is not so bad til it ruins the game. There are killstreaks and perks as well.

The Controls aren't the smoothest but they work. They aren't bad. If anyone has played Call of Duty before, they would feel right at home. the only difference is that your are missing some buttons. "Well how in the heck do you melee without an R3 button or throw a grenade or flashbang without the L2 or R2 buttons?" you may be asking. Those 3 are on screen. Works pretty good. However, when you are throwing a lethal or a tactical grenade, you can sometimes end up hitting the knife button. Also you only use the rear touch pad for steadying the scope on a sniper rifle.

Now I will tell you the issues. First off, with the Campaign, there are no checkpoints. So if you get killed when you are 99% done with the mission, you have to start all over again. That sucks because sometimes the games problems (like movement) can end up getting you killed. I've had it where I stood in a door for an X amount of time and my player couldn't go through it all the way, making me having a jump out of the door way in order for me to get out. And it's not like you can move the fastest either. It really sucks when you are getting shot at.

When it comes to the classes, there seems to be a glitch. When I you boot the game up and are over the required rank to customize a class, at first it will show that Create A Class is locked. Even when you click on find a match or barracks and back out, it will then show that the option is unlocked but it will not display all of your unlocked weapons or attachments. And at first, after every first game I would play after booting the game up, I would have to set up my classes all over again which became annoying.

The multiplayer is actually fun. It isn't bad but I find it annoying when I am in the middle of the match or I am trying to find one, all of a sudden I lose connection. It has been doing that a lot lately. Another thing is sometimes if you try to find a match to get into, the game stays in the same spot where you see nothing but the guy that is on the cover of the game case. When that happens, you have to reboot the game.

Sometimes when you activate UAV and after it is gone, the map will not display the right locations where a person is at times. It will display where someone was recently, especially after an enemy has shot their weapon. Not a big deal to me but it is something that should get fixed and especially for the price they are asking for.

Bottom Line-
Black Ops Declassified for the PlayStation Vita is good but it could use some patches to make it even better. Even without them, it is still enjoyable. Is it worth $50? No. I got my copy for $25. It's worth no more than $30. I'd say $25 well spent. Call of Duty Black Ops Declassified is worth playing.

I rate Black Ops Declassified for the PlayStation Vita a score of 7.5 out of 10. Really this is the best FPS on a handheld. I'd recommend it.

Get the full article at GameSpot

]]> http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-declassified/user-reviews/804554/platform/vita/ Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:55:48 -0700 loopy_101 reviewed Blade II for the PlayStation 2... http://www.gamespot.com/blade-ii/user-reviews/799896/platform/ps2/ ...and gave it a 6.0.

From the offset, you'd assume Blade 2 is like any other movie licenced tie-in: generic, buggy and overall missing out on the potential of the property in which it's based on. While Mucky Foot's interpretation of of this series definitely has a fair few tricks up it's sleeve (aside from the usual garlic, silver and sunlight) it could have been better endmost.

So before any of that let us make it clear that Blade is a Marvel property focused on a half-human vampire hunter. During the late 90s, Hollywood seemingly recognised the potential of the character by having him cast as Wesley Snipes and star in several surprisingly spectacular mature rated action flicks. They were violent, gory and as it would appear, converted into the interactive medium on Xbox and Playstation 2. Although in actuality, Mucky Foot's Blade 2 is set somewhere between the second and third films in the franchise. Most of the missions don't infact coincide with the events of Blade 2 the film yet do include characters (namely the carriers) that are central to the core of it's proceedings. As an action movie, the story of Blade 2 isn't particularly profound and it's light science fictional tones are fortunately cast aside rather tastefully in the game's visceral design. Instead the structure is spread out into straightforward mission load outs revolving around three campaigns.

Following a perfunctory tutorial and lackadaisical briefing from Blade's mentor, Whistler, you're whisked into the thick of your objectives and in effect the game itself. And truth be told, this is for the better as Blade 2's action is heavily invested in martial arts and hand to hand fighting. It's very old school, clearly taking alot of influence from older 2D brawlers like the Capcom CPS1 arcade game: Final Fight and Sega's own Mega Drive classic: Streets of Rage. Mucky Foot have taken their own artistic credit into establishing Blade 2 as this and have included a complicated combo system as a result, complete with a multi-tiered fighting system that makes it not only possible to fight several foes at one time but with natural and caustic controls. Blade 2's fighting controls are left entirely to the right analogue stick. At first, the method of using the right analogue stick would seem daunting, not to mention confusing, but with careful timing and placement it swiftly springs to be a very intuitive means of fist fighting, rewarding good players with adrenaline boosts and Blade's own katana for temporal periods and slick looking execution kills.

To already draw up a minor issue though, it completely subdues any other style of play and physical weapons in the form of the pistol, shotgun and especially the glaive aren't developed in nearly the same manner for close-quarters combat. The reality of the Blade 2's quality is largely dependent on the beat 'em up fighting system mentioned prior. What makes this one so bothersome is how the mission structure gets exploited. There are mixed messages as to what Mucky Foot were trying and while on one side it would appear that they wanted an arcade, score-line built brawler in Blade 2 however on the other it would seem that the non-linear level design and oddball capture and retrieve mission layouts are contrarian to this.

A single playthrough of one such mission can extend from fifteen minutes to twenty minutes because of this, often with some limited checkpoint starvation except on the mission preluding the eventual boss fight at the end of each campaign. It all becomes too formulaic and repetitive. Combine this problem with an irregular difficulty curve that makes some levels easy, some levels extraordinarily hard and you're bound to leave Blade 2 atleast fuming on one occasion or two. As with Oni also, the way projectile weapons work make it difficult to escape fights without being hit or being able to counter the hail of gunfire which can lead to a familiar scenario in which you're doing great up until you stumble on someone else's bullets.

While Blade 2 tonally captures the fighting and attention to detail on Blade's abilities as seen in the Hollywood pictures, the art-design, voice acting and music do not resonate the same way. It isn't surprising that Activision couldn't provide convincing replacements for Whistler, Blade or even the "suckheads" you get the kill in this late 2002 release but a complete lack of any licenced music featured in either film is an insult to fans of the series. Sound effects are unsurprisingly your stock choices for weapon sounds and hefty attack sounds, nothing out of the ordinary. Blade 2 does finally have a bright, cartoon-like sheen to its aesthetics. The prosaic city and nightclub scenes are replicated faithfully from the source material as are the sterile prison and laboratory environments seen later on. Characters may appear to be too angular, The blood and violence isn't as intense as it should be but Blade 2's engine looks and plays smooth as it should which is suitably solid for all it's worth. Unfortunately there is no 16:9 or 60Hz support either on the PAL version played.

Atleast Blade 2 is a competent enough action game to consider for a late night rental, the three campaigns would probably take you a good five to seven hours in gametime to complete for that matter. It is clear that Mucky Foot had venerable intentions with the beat 'em up layout as evidenced in the right analogue stick controls, but hampered with inconsistent and monotonous mission design besides lackluster presentation values, Blade 2 refrains itself from being anything more than something to sink your teeth into on a long weekend.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Blade II for the PlayStation 2..." was posted by loopy_101 on Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:55:48 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/blade-ii/user-reviews/799896/platform/ps2/ Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:40:02 -0700 coolkid93 reviewed Counter-Strike: Global Offensive for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/counter-strike-global-offensive/user-reviews/799047/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 7.5.

I downloaded the game a few days ago and I think it's pretty good. When I first started playing it, it took me a few minutes to say "hey this isn't bad". I wouldn't consider this the best FPS but it's good.


When it comes to the controls, I feel like i'm gliding across the map when running. Basically how the controls feel when playing duke nukem 3D. It doesn't feel like the other games I have played. But however, one thing I really like about this game is that you can use different controllers for the game, as in, PlayStation Move, PlayStation Sharpshooter, the regular PlayStation Controller AND... a keyboard and mouse. Yes I just said that. KEYBOARD. AND. MOUSE.


This isn't your usual FPS where you can Aim Down your Sights (ADS). You can't in this game. The only time you can is if you have a scope and that makes the whole screen zoom in. You can't see the outside of your scope like you can in other FPS games. I'm not sure if all scopes will zoom in and will do so in that way but I have to say that it does sucks a little bit that you cannot really ADS. I feel like I'm praying and spraying sometimes but it's good.


It's not that much of a big deal where it will make me stop playing though. In fact all of those that I've listed above isn't going to stop me but from what I have seen, that could possibly be a deal breaker for some.


It has a few gaming modes. Classic Casual, Classic Competitive, Arms Race, and last but not least, Demolition. If you are a person that loves to play TDM (Team DeathMatch), where your only objective is to kill and be the first team to reach the score limit for the match, they do not have that mode in this game. Just a heads up.


This is my first Counter Strike game. For veterans, it may be great. But to new comers of the series like my self, we would possibly feel otherwise do to us being used to MW3, BF3, KZ3, and other FPS shooters out there (as in how they played) . And to be honest, compared to them, I'd rather be playing any of the other FPS out there. I'll play it a couple of times to get my $12 out of it but it's really nothing but hype. I don't see anything spectacular about it. I'm not saying the game sucks by any means but I have played better and for less money at that (Modern Combat: Domination).


Is it worth playing? It's worth a try. Is it worth $15 ($12 for plus)? It's all up to you on this one. I really wouldn't recommend it but if you're thinking "well it's only $15/$12" then go ahead. I may do so for a CS vet but other than that, no. I give it a score of 7.6 out of 10.


It may have almost 5 stars on the playstation store but don't believe the hype. This game is overrated.

Get the full article at GameSpot

]]> http://www.gamespot.com/counter-strike-global-offensive/user-reviews/799047/platform/ps3/ Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:47:54 -0700 biggest_loser reviewed Max Payne 3 for the PC... http://www.gamespot.com/max-payne-3/user-reviews/797162/platform/pc/ ...and gave it a 7.0.

"When you're looking down the barrel of a gun, time slows down," Max Payne once said. But time has not stopped for the Max Payne series. In the nine year ceasefire between the second Max Payne game (2003) and this latest entry, many changes in the gaming industry and this iconic franchise have taken place. With the departure of the original creators Remedy, who chose to develop Alan Wake instead, Grand Theft Auto developer Rockstar took over this much anticipated and equally troubled project. Rockstar was originally a publisher on the first two games and share a basic understanding of the series. Max's poetic language is more overwrought and colourful than ever before and the slow-motion gunplay, complete with violence amped up to sickening levels, is intense over the game's minor duration.

However, despite the efficiency of the combat model, this is the weakest entry in the series. The game is lacking the moral complexity of its predecessor's narrative and bizarrely omits any pop or literary references, integral to strengthening the themes of the narrative. Instead, someone at Rockstar decided that Max Payne needed a sunny, overtly military-themed setting in Brazil, some speedboat chases, car chases, rail sequences and a lot more gore. The idiosyncratic feeling of the original games is missing, along with the series' unique stylistic identity. The old bloke is inches away from calling in a UAV but a long way from New York City.

From the start, the game's narrative attains a visceral charge and some interesting formal choices, but it gradually deteriorates under its own convoluted labyrinth. Maturely, the previous titles are fixated on the failure of the American Dream. Max is a symbol of American accomplishment, a person so dogged and determined in the face of overwhelming odds. Yet for all the bloodshed and any scarce resolutions he finds, Max remains a tragic figure, tortured and isolated by his past. His bravery to fight the underworld, like an unstoppable winter blizzard over a city, is more of a symptom of madness and revenge, than righteous justice. He is like a classic Noir detective, modernised as man who is pushed one step too far. However, this compelling internal conflict is largely resolved at the end of the second game, The Fall of Max Payne. The follow-up offers little means of adjoining or reference the second game and its resolutions in any detail. Did Max not say that his dreams no longer haunted him?

Neglecting Max's development means that his sudden reliance on booze and pills again offers the game a convenient dark edge, rather than a plausible sense of continuity between the games and the protagonist. Additionally, this is the first game in the series not to use a graphic novel to tell its story. There are now frequent cutscenes to tell the story, seamlessly interwoven between the game play, but it also means that Max is detached from his roots in pulp fiction. It's strange how a developer like Rockstar, so attuned to pop culture and satire, would fail to address either Max's Film Noir or comic book symmetry, refusing to include in-jokes, film references, or just the graphic novel itself, favouring a supposed gritty realism, with speedboat chases.

The game's visceral nature is at times overcharged but often quite affecting too. The story opens gratuitously in Brazil, with a dismembered torso on the ground, not a sight I ever want to relive, but more intense is the raid on the party. Having left America and the police force, Max is now a bodyguard for a private company, protecting a spoilt family. The reasons for this are revealed in scarce flashbacks to New York. While Max is boozing at a party he is meant to be overseeing, the place is raided scarily by armed thugs who kidnap one of the girls in the family. What is problematic about this opening is that little time is taken to establish the side characters beyond caricatures of spoilt brats, before the bullets start to fly. There is also little identification with the villains, even when they are revealed late in the game, which means that their inevitable demise at the hands of Max is far less powerful and meaningful than it was in the other games.

A part of this anonymity in Brazil is deliberate. One of the most successful ideas of the game is Max's sense of disorientation and isolation. The game uses a number of clever techniques, smartly including native Brazilian dialect with no subtitles (a beautiful touch), copious amounts of screen blurring and superimposing key words, so that Max's senses are diluted. There is a fantastic scene early in the game where Max enters a club to protect the family. The amplification of the music and the blurring is tremendously effective in sharing Max's dislocation with the player. Yet true to the lack of development in Max's story, these techniques eventually feel overused. Right up to the final moments in the game, the blurring is still in effect, which weakens its stylistic meaning. Rockstar has not reigned in Max's narration either. The amount of voice-over, self-loathing, swearing and poetic language ("I'd killed more cops than cholesterol") seem to be working in overdrive but not with any purpose. Sometimes Max's quips are achingly blunt and funny but by the end it's forced so heavily and frequently onto the player, trying to convince you of Max's damaged soul, that it feels like he's become a parody of his own cynicism, rather than someone who is selectively witty.

What is also integral to a crime story, painfully missing here, is a plausible motive. If Max is so dispirited, what drives him to keep pursuing these baddies when things become really messy? If it is guilt, I think some dream sequences could have neatly asserted that emotion but they have also been removed too, which means that Max's actions of mowing down cops (or are they?) seems baseless. The overall trajectory of the plot is also a shambles. With two mysterious gangs to fight, an unnecessary subplot about selling organs, characters randomly showing up to explain plot points and scarcely defined personalities, I could not make any sense of the story. This is coupled with awkward jumps in the narrative's timeframe. Max and the family decide to put together money for a ransom payout and in the next scene they've already got the bag in the middle of a stadium. Similarly, a flashback to New York is abruptly dumped right in the middle of an important transition period in Brazil and feels unresolved.

For many of the weaknesses in the narrative though, Max Payne 3 is most successful and fun as a pure shooter. It retains the original bullet time game play but now Max is more fragile than ever: he can die in just a few shots and you must rely strictly on a checkpoint system. As with many modern games now, you also have a cover system to protect yourself from bullets. To play the game at exciting levels though it is best to forget the cover and dive into the action, using shootdodging and bullet time collectively. You can spectacularly dodge bullets and move in slow motion, watch individual rounds wiz straight past you as you return fire. I found this was the game at its most thrilling, with many intense and incredibly exciting gun battles. The downside is your fragility because it removes a lot of the elegance and the transcendent beauty from the original games. The previous games allowed you choreograph your own Matrix-like gunfights, as you waded across environments in slow motion, with superhuman grace. Now you can only sporadically use bullet time, which does force you to be more strategic, but some of the fun is lost.

There are a few handy touches, including being able to stay prone on the ground and keep firing and also a final kill move, which gives you a brief period of time to make a last ditch effort to kill an attacker before you die, restoring some of your health too. This removes a lot of the frustration from your limited pain threshold. There's also a wide variety of locations, such as warehouses, factories, rooftops, apartment blocks, city streets and glimpses of New York. All of these levels rely on a checkpoint system: you can't save your game individually anymore, which is challenging but not overly so. Only in the final stages of an airport, including a ridiculous boss battle, does it become very frustrating. Many of these environments are well detailed, with appropriate levels of graffiti, debris and ample panes of glass to shoot through, but the atmosphere and the feel of the game seems remote for this series.

Setting the game anywhere but America, especially sunburnt Brazil, away from the ice and snow of New York, was always going to be problematic. Brazil is colourful, vibrant, noisy and alive. As a series, Max Payne is not. Where is the sense of cold dread, the slums of an icy city, alit through short bursts of gunfire? This sequel offers a different sense of isolation, successful in its own right, but not as haunting as the brooding Noir universe we once knew. Returning briefly to New York, I rejoiced in seeing the dark shadows, the thick layers of snow and the deliciously morbid gothic architecture, all hallmarks of the series. Also deterring from the Noir atmosphere is the reliance on gimmicks like rail sequences. There are moments Max will attach himself to a cable line, or flying fox, and drift across the top of a room in slow-motion, firing bullets on baddies below. These aren't very challenging but provide a harmless diversion.

That is also where I draw the line. But Max is required to man turrets on the back of a speedboat, gunning down baddies along a river, or lean out of a train window to blast gangsters parallel to him. Even more ridiculous is a late sequence where he leans out of a bus to take aim, followed most stupidly by an end chase where he fires a grenade launcher off at various speeding jeeps. It detracts sharply from the classic Noir feel of the original games, if only so that Max Payne can now resemble recent military shooters.

Max Payne 3 features solid and sometimes exhilarating bullet time game play but it is not a true sequel to The Fall of Max Payne. The convoluted story lacks the same ambition and creativity as its predecessors, failing to assert Max as a character who is more than just a killing machine. Also, in spite of the quality of the gunplay, there are too many moments and design choices that feel misplaced. Brazil is a miscalculated setting, too far removed from 'Noir York City', and the games reliance on big set pieces, is detached from the contained mood and isolation of the rest of the series. This game had plenty of fun action moments for me but it feels like Rockstar was preparing for Grand Theft Auto V, instead of making a true Max Payne game. I felt this was a missed opportunity to build on the foundations of an outstanding series and I worry that Max's time might have finally run out.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"biggest_loser reviewed Max Payne 3 for the PC..." was posted by biggest_loser on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:47:54 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/max-payne-3/user-reviews/797162/platform/pc/ Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:29:22 -0700 coolkid93 reviewed Battlefield 3 for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/battlefield-3/user-reviews/791897/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 7.5.

BF3 is a game worth playing. I love and hate this game. It's not the best but it's certainly not the worst. I'd really recommend renting this game first before you buy it. The story is good and I've played a little bit of the co-op and that's pretty good too but the multiplayer... it's great at times but it's problems are really annoying and ruins the game at times.

Story- Good but short as expected.

Co-op- After playing it for a little bit, it's fun. Not only can you complete objectives, if you rack up enough points, you can unlock some new weapons for you to use in multiplayer mode.

Multiplayer-

CONS:

The multiplayer mode is great... when it works. If you don't get killed by the enemy, the game itself will. You will have it where out of no where, your player will just drop dead. It happens sometimes. Not a lot but still, it sucks. If you throw a grenade or even noob tube someone and the grenade lands 2 feet away from your enemy, it will do some damage but it will not kill them. There's a list of problems that I can write on here that this game has. There are a lot of campers on here. I've been running into them a lot lately, as in almost every game.

There was recently a patch released that kind of made some things a little bit worse. It was already hard enough to kill people but the patch made it a little bit harder. That has been happening a lot to me lately. The patch also created problems that wasn't even there before, which made the game a little bit more annoying. It did fix some things of course.

These are things that sometimes happens (they have been happening to me lately) but still it can be VERY annoying. I'd really recommend renting it first.

Another thing that sucks is that it does not have a practice mode. It sucks when your practice time is in the middle of a game and you end up killing yourself, a teammate, and/or destroying a helicopter within seconds of trying to fly it because you're not that good at flying yet. You can get into a private match... but you have to "Rent A Server". Yes that does cost.


PROS: When the problems do not mess with the experience too much, the game is extremely fun. Jets, Tanks, and everything else that would make you feel like you are in a actual war. Unlike some FPS games that has it where even when your enemy is moving 100mph running across your screen, you can aim directly at them, shoot and kill them, BF3 of course has it where you will have to lead the player. And when you are sniping, not only do you have to do that, you have to also keep bullet drop in mind. So yeah it's pretty realistic in some ways.

In this game, it's best to use teamwork. You have 4 classes to choose from. You have the Assault, Engineer, Support, and Recon classes. Each class is useful (the first 3 mostly). For example, if your teammate is low on ammo, all you have to do is throw out a ammo crate and your teammate receives more ammo. You also get points for doing so. So yeah it's not like you choose a class just to only be able to play with a certain weapon and not do what an actual engineer does... which is repair things with your blowtorch.

BF3 is a fun game and it's worth playing but again, rent it first before you buy . I give this game a score of 7.7 out of 10.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"coolkid93 reviewed Battlefield 3 for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by coolkid93 on Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:29:22 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/battlefield-3/user-reviews/791897/platform/ps3/ Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:26:16 -0800 coolkid93 reviewed L.A. Noire for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/l-a-noire/user-reviews/785434/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 8.5.

I just got LA Noire 3 days ago and I must say that I do like it. I'm not disappointed. However It's not going to be one of those games that I will keep playing for a while.
After finishing the story in just 3 days, it's actually good. It kind of reminds me of a movie except it's a very interactive one. The story actually has a nice little twist to it.

If you've played any gta game, you should know that with a tap of a button in a police car, you can initiate a mission where you track down the suspect and kill them. In this game there's more to it (of course) than just chasing the suspect, doing a drive-by on them and getting rewarded a couple of bucks for eliminating the them. You get to interrogate, interview, find evidence and just do things you would do to find and convict someone. It can however get a little repetitive. You'll have to ask questions and do things to try to get the right guy but be careful though. Choose the wrong choice and you could end up getting the wrong guy. Not having enough evidence also affects interrogations and interviews.

At some time, you'll probably want to have some gta type of fun even though you're a cop. Well it won't happen. You can't run over pedestrians, damage property, and you can't shoot or fight the peds. The most you can do to them is push them down by simply running into them (when out of a car). It is possible to hit a ped and kill them but majority of them will dodge out of the way and those kind of actions can mess with your rep or rank or whatever it said it would affect. The only thing you can do is run around solving cases and do side missions. That's about it. You can replay the story missions and yes it does have a free mode.

Wondering if this game will let you customize your character? Well yes it will but there's not many options. You can't go to a store to buy a suit or outfit but if you go to the menu, you can choose from 4 different suits in the game. And if you are wondering if you can buy a weapons, then no, you can't. Can you use other weapons? Sure... if they're laying on the ground after killing an armed enemy. The DLC that you can buy gives you some guns you can use and a new suit but other than that, that's it when it comes to customizing your character.

LAN is a good game. This game is not a 9 but it's not a bad one to play. But like I said earlier, it's not something that I will keep playing for a while. It's also not something that I would say is a must have. I'd recommend renting before buying it. I got my copy for $20. It's worth that much but anything over $30, no. I give this game an 8.3 out of 10.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"coolkid93 reviewed L.A. Noire for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by coolkid93 on Mon, 09 Jan 2012 02:26:16 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/l-a-noire/user-reviews/785434/platform/ps3/ Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:49:16 -0800 MASTERJ6 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the PC... http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/783543/platform/pc/ ...and gave it a 9.5!

I've been highly addicted to Black ops, my guilty pleasure. I enjoyed the killing ;) Played for 100 hours of more.. I dont think this games was hard but it was just right. Expect if you play it on Vet mode. lol.


I was quiet impressed with the classic story line.. Made me wondering what happen that the end..I completed it a number of 3 times just for the thrill of it. The sad part was I had to push my computer to extreme performance the graphics in this games Is Just "real life like" you can see the sweat On the guys faces.. the blood spills. The wide range of guns :D :D (pleasure) LMAo. Anyways over all it's a great game.. And this was my first review. So idk what to write. So i decided to keep it as short as possible. :P UMm thank you Activision :D can't wait to see what next will happen in COD. XD

Get the full article at GameSpot

"MASTERJ6 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the PC..." was posted by MASTERJ6 on Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:49:16 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/783543/platform/pc/ Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:03:59 -0800 coolkid93 reviewed Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/user-reviews/783178/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 7.5.

MW3 is fun at times but it's mostly annoying. Same thing, nothing new as usual but I expected that. Don't believe the hype. I've had this game since day one and haven't really touched it for a while. Lets get on with the review. And I'm no fanboy from Battlefield and I'm definitely not a fanboy of CoD.


The story is short of course. It's good in my opinion and it's filled with action. It's part 3 of the MW series. Gets a thumbs up from me.
There's nothing really new about the online mode however. It's the same thing as the last one. It has a few new things but nothing big though. I did expect that to happen tbh.

The only thing that's new is the maps. Some may say they've paid $60 for a few new maps, some may also say that they bought MW2 again. I honestly can't really deal with the online mode. It lags, seems that almost every game I got in had a bunch of people wanting to hide into corners but that's just me, and there's still some problems. It's fun for a bit but majority of the times it's just a headache.

If you're a CoD fan, go right ahead if you'd like but really I wouldn't even recommend this to a fan. If you're not, I wouldn't really recommend doing so. I would probably recommend a rent but it's not a must buy. Oh and if you're looking for realism, you won't find it in this game.

I give this game a 7.7 out of 10. REMEMBER: DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE.

Get the full article at GameSpot

]]> http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/user-reviews/783178/platform/ps3/ Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:43:36 -0800 loopy_101 reviewed Bulletstorm for the Xbox 360... http://www.gamespot.com/bulletstorm/user-reviews/782822/platform/xbox360/ ...and gave it a 6.0.

Bulletstorm is a dumb game. Not saying this is a bad thing, Bulletstorm isn't abominable or anything to that degree. On the contrary, Bulletstorm is one of the few surviving arcade focused shooters: a score-line built, full tilt shooter its developers People Can Fly could only deliver. Even so, it falls slightly wide of the mark. The reason for this is that it tries too hard being something else. The game is healthy in story and cut-scenes, which really shouldn't be present in the gameplay at all. Because of the main premise and game-type Bulletstorm rests itself in, I find it difficult to give even a rat's ass about the main character, Grayson, his journey for vengeance, redemption or anything slotted in on the side. And the game's half-arsed attempts at humour and plain bad-assery, well, come off a little short and weak.

Maybe it's due in part to Epic's instance on Bulletstorm having a shoe-horned story that it all backfires. The narrative focussing on bad potty mouthed, toilet jokes are one thing but making it unskippable entirely in parts is another, and simply unnecessary given how the game pans out. The most frustrating thing about this is that Bulletstorm's credentials are fantastic, with high quality voice talent from the likes of Steve Blum and writing courtesy of Marvel Comics Rick Remender. Many of the better, more dynamic moments in the frantic combat of the game are interrupted by specific set-pieces and, more annoyingly, cut-scene interaction such as quick time events. This is all incredibly ironic given a large part of the hype surrounding Bulletstorm was credited to it being separate from the majority of the saturated FPS market (as parodied, infamously, with "Duty Calls").

But Bulletstorm does have some solid gameplay pieces that keep it from mediocrity, one being the "skillshots" system, which is obtained within the first half an hour of gametime. This system rewards the player points based on specific kills and chaining of attacks. It's a dynamic system. Chaining specific kills up and racking up points is surprisingly addictive, with the method in which you unlock these skillpoints stretching out into dozens, even hundreds of interpretations by Bulletstorm's climax. The weapons in Bulletstorm are also comparably decent to Epic and People Can Fly's previous games with outlandish looking designs and absolutely visceral feedback, the most unique of these being apparent with the aptly named drilldo: a powerful harpoon-like rifle, which has many appropriate skillshot specific awards it must be said. Besides this there are combo boosting moves you can perform. Grayson can slide, kick and whip out his energy leash which makes allocating difficult killshots in theory, such as ones including traps and environment focused kills, all the more easier to obtain.

Yet like most first person shooters today, Bulletstorm is also a strictly linear, surprisingly tame and ultimately prompt experience that can be completed in less than five hours, and without a truly memorable multiplayer to back it up. The game simply lacks replayability value. By Bulletstorm's end, which is left at a teasingly predictable cliffhanger, there isn't much motivation in starting the game up from scratch, especially if you finished it on the highest difficulty. The biggest failure aside from this comes from the developers decision to not include competitive online play, a curious choice given Epic's prior success in the genre, it is a completely wasted area in general. The potential for a high-stakes, action packed multiplayer was there, even if it meant just in the basic team deathmatch and capture the flag playsets, yet somehow they blew it. Instead, Bulletstorm has a co-op horde type game mode called Anarchy, in which waves are won based on reaching a high score in a set amount of time. This mode, while fun, is no decent substitute to Black Ops' Zombies or even Halo Reach's Firefight. Like horde, it grows old fast. The lifespan of Anarchy is reliant on how much you trust your buddies. Skillpoint chaining isn't as easy online, not with your friends also attempting to get similar combos, and on peer to peer server hosting, lag is inevitable, yet with saying that, Gears of War had the same problem concerning latency issues.

Bulletstorm operates on Epic's in-house Unreal 3 engine. If you've ever played Gears of War or Unreal Tournament 3, the washed out colour scheme and dull, Warhammer inspired weapons and armour may leave more to be desired in the game's art department. Bulletstorm runs at a rock solid 30 frames per second on Xbox 360 which is more than playable but realistically not best suited to the flat-out combat of such a game. Regardless, the screen effects, particularly lens flare, look impressive on occasion. The PC port of Bulletstorm, while certainly above average in terms of optimisation and performance, has a number of oddities that keep it from being as seamless as it should be. The biggest fault is most apparent in the function placement of the controls, where most actions are reverted to one key – which might make sense on a Playstation 3, but having kick, use and slide all on one key for a WASD setup is more than uncomfortable. It gets better though: auto-aim is automatic no matter what, which when using a keyboard and mouse, is completely bewildering.

To put it blunt, Bulletstorm isn't the game it should have been. Undoubtedly it plays a blast, with some fascinating ideas put to the test, but it's not even close to the quality we've come to expect from either People Can Fly or Epic Games. Bulletstorm's look and style is uninspired and forgettable, allocable to the worse trends of this generation of gaming. That doesn't mean it is bad because of this, after all, it is a relatively glitch free release and fun, but the lack of an engaging multiplayer or an enduring campaign makes Bulletstorm's forgettable character and plot the focus of unnecessary narrative driven first person shooter. Consider this release for purchase only at a budget price.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Bulletstorm for the Xbox 360..." was posted by loopy_101 on Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:43:36 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/bulletstorm/user-reviews/782822/platform/xbox360/ Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:39:34 -0800 loopy_101 reviewed Bulletstorm for the PC... http://www.gamespot.com/bulletstorm/user-reviews/782821/platform/pc/ ...and gave it a 6.0.

Bulletstorm is a dumb game. Not saying this is a bad thing, Bulletstorm isn't abominable or anything to that degree. On the contrary, Bulletstorm is one of the few surviving arcade focused shooters: a score-line built, full tilt shooter its developers People Can Fly could only deliver. Even so, it falls slightly wide of the mark. The reason for this is that it tries too hard being something else. The game is healthy in story and cut-scenes, which really shouldn't be present in the gameplay at all. Because of the main premise and game-type Bulletstorm rests itself in, I find it difficult to give even a rat's ass about the main character, Grayson, his journey for vengeance, redemption or anything slotted in on the side. And the game's half-arsed attempts at humour and plain bad-assery, well, come off a little short and weak.

Maybe it's due in part to Epic's insistence on Bulletstorm having a shoe-horned story that it all backfires. The narrative focussing on bad potty mouthed, toilet jokes are one thing but making it unskippable entirely in parts is another, and simply unnecessary given how the game pans out. The most frustrating thing about this is that Bulletstorm's credentials are fantastic, with high quality voice talent from the likes of Steve Blum and writing courtesy of Marvel Comics Rick Remender. Many of the better, more dynamic moments in the frantic combat of the game are interrupted by specific set-pieces and, more annoyingly, cut-scene interaction such as quick time events. This is all incredibly ironic given a large part of the hype surrounding Bulletstorm was credited to it being separate from the majority of the saturated FPS market (as parodied, infamously, with "Duty Calls").

But Bulletstorm does have some solid gameplay pieces that keep it from mediocrity, one being the "skillshots" system, which is obtained within the first half an hour of gametime. This system rewards the player points based on specific kills and chaining of attacks. It's a dynamic system. Chaining specific kills up and racking up points is surprisingly addictive, with the method in which you unlock these skillpoints stretching out into dozens, even hundreds of interpretations by Bulletstorm's climax. The weapons in Bulletstorm are also comparably decent to Epic and People Can Fly's previous games with outlandish looking designs and absolutely visceral feedback, the most unique of these being apparent with the aptly named drilldo: a powerful harpoon-like rifle, which has many appropriate skillshot specific awards it must be said. Besides this there are combo boosting moves you can perform. Grayson can slide, kick and whip out his energy leash which makes allocating difficult killshots in theory, such as ones including traps and environment focused kills, all the more easier to obtain.

Yet like most first person shooters today, Bulletstorm is also a strictly linear, surprisingly tame and ultimately prompt. The campaign can be completed in less than five hours, and without a truly memorable multiplayer to back it up, the game simply lacks replayability value. By Bulletstorm's end, which is left at a teasingly predictable cliffhanger, there isn't much motivation in starting the game up from scratch, especially if you finished it on the highest difficulty. The biggest failure aside from this comes from the developers decision to not include competitive online play, a curious choice given Epic's prior success in the genre, it is a completely wasted area in general. The potential for a high-stakes, action packed multiplayer was there, even if it meant just in the basic team deathmatch and capture the flag playsets, yet somehow they blew it. Instead, Bulletstorm has a co-op horde type game mode called Anarchy, in which waves are won based on reaching a high score in a set amount of time. This mode, while fun, is no decent substitute to Black Ops' Zombies or even Halo Reach's Firefight. Like horde, it grows old fast. The lifespan of Anarchy is reliant on how much you trust your buddies. Skillpoint chaining isn't as easy online either, not with your friends also attempting to get similar combos, and on peer to peer server hosting, lag is inevitable.

Bulletstorm operates on Epic's in-house Unreal 3 engine. If you've ever played Gears of War or Unreal Tournament 3, the washed out colour scheme and dull, Warhammer inspired weapons and armour may leave more to be desired in the game's art department. Bulletstorm runs at a rock solid 30 frames per second on Xbox 360 which is more than playable but realistically not best suited to the flat-out combat of such a game. Regardless, the screen effects, particularly lens flare, look impressive on occasion. The PC port of Bulletstorm, while certainly above average in terms of optimisation and performance, has a number of oddities that keep it from being as seamless as it should be. The biggest fault is most apparent in the function placement of the controls, where most actions are reverted to one key – which might make sense on a Playstation 3, but having kick, use and slide all on one key for a WASD setup is more than uncomfortable. It gets better though: auto-aim is automatic no matter what, which when using a keyboard and mouse, is completely bewildering.

To put it blunt, Bulletstorm isn't the game it should have been. Undoubtedly it plays a blast, with some fascinating ideas put to the test, but it's not even close to the quality we've come to expect from either People Can Fly or Epic Games. Bulletstorm's look and style is uninspired and forgettable, allocable to the worse trends of this generation of gaming. That doesn't mean it is bad because of this, after all, it is a relatively glitch free release and fun, but the lack of an engaging multiplayer or an enduring campaign makes Bulletstorm's forgettable character and plot the focus of unnecessary narrative driven first person shooter. Consider this release for purchase only at a budget price.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Bulletstorm for the PC..." was posted by loopy_101 on Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:39:34 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/bulletstorm/user-reviews/782821/platform/pc/ Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:08:10 -0800 loopy_101 reviewed Half-Life: Blue Shift for the PC... http://www.gamespot.com/half-life-blue-shift/user-reviews/781804/platform/pc/ ...and gave it a 6.5.

As the Sega port of Half-Life was dropped, it's remains were scalvaged for the PC owners who might otherwise benefit.

The result? Half-Life: Blue Shift.

Although Blue Shift plays like a fairly average mission pack, it is infact a stand-alone release, not needing the original Half-Life to play. Even so, it is only a couple of hours long in length and doesn't deliver much new content. There is included a HD pack which benefits players of Half-Life in general with more detailed character and object models however it's fairly glitchy, especially on the Half-Life mods. Yet Blue Shift does atleast give some fitting closure to Barney, that guy who owed us a beer in Black Mesa, while going into a little more depth into how the science team escaped following the Resonance Cascade.

It is doubtful if the plot can still be called canon by this point, but it is still nice to experience Blue Shift even so. Give it a try.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Half-Life: Blue Shift for the PC..." was posted by loopy_101 on Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:08:10 -0800
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/half-life-blue-shift/user-reviews/781804/platform/pc/ Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:24:55 -0700 masterhalo43 reviewed Batman: Arkham City for the Xbox 360... http://www.gamespot.com/batman-arkham-city/user-reviews/777749/platform/xbox360/ ...and gave it a 9.5!

When Batman: Arkham Asylum came out in 2009, fans of the famous hero were blown away on how developer Rocksteady made their favorite heros into one of the best superhero games ever. It's been two years since Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham CIty has not only out matched it's predecessor, it surpasses many games that have come out since Asylum. The game is bigger, better and more epic than ever. It keeps you thinking of the game every minute you're not playing. It sucks you in from opening to close. It really is one of the best games ever.
The story of Arkham City is all the inmates of Arkham Asylum have been moved to the city. The boss of the place is Hugo Strange, an archenemy of Batman. The worst part is he knows who Batman really is. There is also Joker who also poisoned you. The game revolves around what Hugo Strange's "Protocol 10" really is all about and trying to find a cure to the poison. Praise here is to Paul Dini who wrote the game. He wrote Arkham Asylum, the prequel comic to Arkham City, and the game itself. He has written a dark, bold and suspensful tale filled with twists nobody will see coming. He also wrote one of the best openings and endings to game ever. There is also a great cast of familiar characters such as Catwoman, Robin and Penguin. All are a lot of fun to encounter.
Batman is a very rich hero which means he has a lot of connections for high tech gear. Well, you get a the best of the best. Every gadget feels like something Batman would use, not some gadget that the developers thought would look cool. The best is the Cowl Vision. With this on, you can see enemies through walls, track blood stains of criminals and scan evidence to lead you to your next enemy. It looks very high tech and you might actually have it on the whole game because it looks that cool.
Enemies give a good challenge. They have knives, guns and stun batons. Luckily, combat is excellent. It's brutal, violent, in-your-face, and fluid. Each punch let's out a big WHACK and every finisher is very brutal. The best part of combat is the stealth. Some areas have you hanging from gargoyles or hiding behind corners to takedown enemies armed with rifles. It's a lot of fun to plan each attakc as you wait for an enemy to become alone to takedown without anybody knowing you were there. Enemies now have technology to give you a challenge such as thermal goggles, proximity mines and jammers. It throws in a good challenge to really test your stealth work. The boss battles are also fun to do. Each villian gives up a good fight. The sad thing is, some boss fights are either really easy or cheap. I felt like if I was actually Batman, I would have no problem taking them down myself.
Possibly the best part about the game is the city itself. It's always alive with with eneimies, side missions and riddles. When I say riddles, I'm obviously talking about the Riddler. In Arkham Asylum, you had different Riddler trophies to find or riddles to solve. This time, he really gets in your head. There are hundreds of things to find. Each give a new challenge and riddles are very perplexing to solve. This will lead you to come back to the city to try to find every one. If you need help finding them, some enemies are marked with a green aura around them. This lets you interogate them to find out hints to where all the Riddler items are in the area.
The city also has various side missions such as rescuing endangered officers, find out who is following you in the city or help a poor soul dying from a certain villian. Each mission is a lot fun to find, play and complete. With every side mission or action you do, you get XP. This lets you upgrade your armor, gadgets, different moves and others. Each upgrade is very useful to your survial against the city's inhabitants.
Batman: Arkham City is an amazing game. It's that simple. It offers a tale worthy of one of the best in games, an atmosphere that drags you in (sometimes literallly), fast paced action, and great detective work. It really does let the player really feel like Batman like no other game has before. It has raised the bar for both licsensed games and superhero games for years to come.

Score 9.5
The Good
- incredible story
-great combat
-actully feel like Batman
-a setting that feels dark and mysterious
-great stealth gameplay
-excellent choice of characterss

The Bad
-bosses are easy and sometimes cheap
-different dimension level can be very diffifcult and really not that well designed

Get the full article at GameSpot

"masterhalo43 reviewed Batman: Arkham City for the Xbox 360..." was posted by masterhalo43 on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:24:55 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/batman-arkham-city/user-reviews/777749/platform/xbox360/ Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:00:17 -0700 loopy_101 reviewed Duke Nukem Forever for the PC... http://www.gamespot.com/duke-nukem-forever/user-reviews/777656/platform/pc/ ...and gave it a 6.5.

Reading this review is unlikely to make much a difference if you've already got a clear mindset on Duke Nukem Forever. I suppose, given the fourteen years' worth of hype and anticipation, the writing was on the wall for 3D Realms' notorious sequel to Duke Nukem 3D. Yet Duke Nukem Forever has got boobs, unique weapons, dozens of pop culture references and a dirty sense of humour that keeps it afloat atleast for originality's sake. In many ways, the game is fan-service, and to top it off, Duke himself is once again voiced by Jon St. John, returning with the very zenith of one-liners. Had you expected any less of a game in this franchise then you would have been na–ve. Although part of the problem surrounding Duke Nukem Forever is that it's a release catered to an entirely different generation of gamers, mainly those fixated with PC shooters of the late 90s.


Atleast in that respect, it shows the game has been in the works for as long as ten years though. People often forget to point out that the engine Duke Nukem Forever was developed on had swapped various times, originally moving between each new revision of the Quake and Unreal engine respectively. With that said, Duke Nukem Forever has probably been two or three different games by this point, with the planning of this present version definitely looking a far-cry from what you might of seen in the 2001 E3 trailer. The story does resonate the time-gap gamers have felt with the absence of Duke, but the way the levels are built feels as if a mish-mash between old gaming sensibilities with new.


Duke Nukem Forever opens up with barely any gunplay. The first scene is a much stylised recreation of the encounter with the Cycloid emperor, made true to Duke formula, but following this the setting is established rather calmly and slowly. The developers chose to embellish the world Duke exists in. There are many distractions in the form of interactive environments, including fully playable pinball machines, whiteboards, consumables and ermm less amicable objects like lady toys and toilet waste. It comes part in parcel with Duke's ironically immature but R-Rated content, which probably now has an acquired taste if that. In anycase, a good thirty minutes to an hour can be wasted on the lead-up towards Duke's first genuine encounter with the aliens, even then Duke's arsenal is limited to a basic laser and pistol for a while.


It's often said that the run 'n' gun aspects to Duke Nukem Forever are fairly limited because of this with large spells of gameplay spent not firing a single bullet to work out puzzles and get your head around the various navigation quirks that would otherwise be irregular in any other shooter. For example, some sections of Duke will shrink him and it's up to the intuition of the player to figure out how to reach the opening of a door which can be done by let's say climbing the sofa, moving boxes to build a platform to jump to. Logic based puzzles, effectively something you'd expect in the more fog filled levels of Turok: Dinosaur Hunter on Nintendo 64 or the crate dominated factories of Quake 2. It's an old school approach to the first person shooter genre, which isn't particularly bad but not what people expected. Although ironically I enjoyed the platforming sections of Duke Nukem Forever more than anything else in the game. If anything should have been different, without going into the convulded technical side of things, it should have been that EVEN MORE of these sections existed in the game. It makes me miss the San Andreas fault level of Duke 3D so very much.


A further departure from Duke Nukem 3D that needs to be mentioned are the vehicle sequences dispersed throughout Duke Nukem Forever. Now these sequences are surprisingly well coded, if a tad too long, with Duke's monster truck mid-way through the game handling how a powerhouse vehicle like it should, and naturally you'll feel an urge to mow down the aliens and use the boost when possible. The RC version of the same truck feels light and springy which made many of the jumps and manoeuvring a joy to experience. Truly if Gearbox had any part in Duke Nukem Forever's development this would be it, as their history of programming vehicles into games would figure (go see Borderlands, Borthers in Arms and their work on the PC conversion of Halo as evidence). It pays off.


The campaign of Duke Nukem Forever unravels to a grand total of ten hours or so overall, making it somewhat longer than the average FPS. To tell the truth, it was still long into the eighth and ninth hour of the game too that I was still discovering new weapons and challenges presented by the game. This sort of design is rare of an FPS. Besides that, the introduction of series standard weapons like the shrink ray and the freeze gun are flexible to adapt to and understandably fun to use. To this day, few shooters have either weapon to be found so its fantastic to be reunited with both at long last.


Yet Duke Nukem Forever is often too brash, too ballsy and too aware of it's place that it becomes sickening in this regard. It might of worked ten years ago but now it's curious that Gearbox were ever sure of sticking by such a provocative design. It's safe to say this game is an acquired taste and a lot of people would (and did) quickly cry foul at the shortcomings of 3D Realms' creation. As suggested, the hate is aimed large in part at the dated visuals, long loadtimes and fairly unpredictable, if tedious, core of the game. I could cry to the heavens about Duke Nukem Forever's graphics with it's rigid animations, low quality textures and often bland or inactive backdrops... But they're not terrible given the software 3D Realms was playing with. Besides of which, the game runs happily on nearly any computer. The time it takes for a level to start although is a whole other matter with short levels and accidental deaths leading to frequent, and relatively long, loadscreens. On a bad day these can stretch out to a minute long in length: the problern with sticking by an out of date game engine.


It was said long before the Duke Nukem Forever's release, that the game had been anticipated so highly that there was simply no way 3D Realms could deliver a game worthy of their fans patience. In the time we waited for Duke Nukem Forever, the first person shooter has gone leaps and bounds. Online interactivity, which was a feature often cast aside in Duke's heyday, is now mandatory for any shooter, and the realistic yet cinematic experience that the HD generation is famous for is prized more highly than ever in the industry. Duke Nukem's humble origins never really demanded either of those key components in a shooter and it's clear that Gearbox made some very shaky adjustments to make it more modern in approach.


Duke Nukem Forever regrettably features a number of fairly common first person shooter tropes because of this There is now: a sprint button, regenerating health and, most controversial of all, the ability to only hold two weapons. This all makes the experience far less enjoyable to play as an old school Duke Nukem fan. Furthermore Duke Nukem Forever has an equally tacked on multiplayer mode which, besides being fairly generic, follows the COD era levels system for unlocking items and bonuses as you level up your character. It's just not suited to Duke Nukem. And naturally the game itself is lacking in depth.

The shooting mechanics are a bit bland at times, on occasion feeling clunky even, the pistol, shotgun and ripper all fire how you expect them to but the enemies don't quite respond to the gun-fire as you'd expect unless you're simpy using explosives. What's more, Duke Nukem's boss fights are monotonous and actually frustrating to play, you're given barely any room for cover when taking them on and the only ammo supplied is via crates in the open. This makes the game's difficulty a whole lot cheaper than it should be. Besides of which, some sequences in Duke Nukem Forever drag on for much too long, for example, one portion of the game early on, has you on a turret taking down an Alien mothership and this can extend to ten or fifteen minutes in length – not counting checkpoint restarts from shooting down the same continuous pattern of enemy ships that drain your help. It makes the game's core predictable.

I think it's clear that really Duke Nukem Forever's a case of an entirely confused shooter, caught in major development hell from a whole bunch of insightful yet egotistical ideas that sound good but couldn't be written down in code; not in 1998 and certainly not in 2011. It's a wonder what the game COULD have been if 3D Realms decided on releasing Duke Nukem Forever as it were back in 2001, or 2002 even, but did people care enough about the game's development news even by that point? There was a reason George Broussard, and his company, became the laughing stock of the gaming industry.


To outsiders, Duke Nukem Forever will remain as a curious but tainted piece of video entertainment history: comparable to John Romero's 2000 flop Daikatana or the Atari 2600 version of Pacman. However Duke Nukem is such an iconic figure in the gaming industry that to his fans, the fact that this game even exists is testament to the cause. Without the character, there is sly doubt Duke Nukem Forever would even exist, and given what we have, 3D Realms and their associates through Gearbox Software have done what they can to rescue this otherwise damned product. I praise Duke Nukem Forever in the very least for this alone; even with its technical faults, dated gameplay and forgettable multiplayer – this game is immensely playable and entertaining as can be.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Duke Nukem Forever for the PC..." was posted by loopy_101 on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:00:17 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/duke-nukem-forever/user-reviews/777656/platform/pc/ Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:31:28 -0700 loopy_101 reviewed New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis for the Wii... http://www.gamespot.com/new-play-control-mario-power-tennis/user-reviews/771220/platform/wii/ ...and gave it a 6.5.

The biggest problem with Mario Power Tennis lies in the price-tag. Originally released on Gamecube back in 2004, this Nintendo exclusive is part of the long-line of sport related Mario bros. Titles. Considering the Nintendo mascot's passion for Golf, it wouldn't be a wild guess to assume he has a taste for other physical activities and hey presto, Miyamoto called upon the moustached plummer to use a tennis racket and go crazy with it on the courts.


Like Mario Golf, it's fair to say that crazy is exactly what Mario Tennis delivers in parts, allowing for powerful smash attacks or finishers that almost certify a game's victory and gimmick courts that play host to various stage effects, which are appropriately relevant to the Mario world (e.g. ghosts in the haunted mansion). They're fun little changes but have their flaws. Mario Power Tennis functions much how you'd expect a tennis game would with a series of tournaments to play and exhibition modes available for whenever you feel the need to play competitively against a friend. Naturally to begin with, you have a limited choice in characters and stages to choose from but they all unlock with gradual play.


Despite being close to five years of age on release, Mario Power Tennis plays remarkably smooth and agile for a sports game of it's type. It's comparable to Sega Superstar Tennis with the controls operating in a similar waggle manner for strikes, lobs or whatever else terminology you might use to describe hitting a ball with the racket at startling speeds. All movement is done using the nunchuck's analouge stick and the remote performs all the racket based commands. Moving your wiimote in the direction you wish to send the ball works as you'd hope and it's possible to make good of smash victories with a quick flick of the wiimote when the opportunity arises. Matches in Mario Power Tennis do grow vigorously difficult as you progress, so making use of any sort of advantage can either have you screaming for joy or whaling in frustration, and Mario Power Tennis will do tremendously in frustrating.


As you might of guessed, the gameplay modifiers of the gimmick courts and smash finishers act as double edged swords to the level of enjoyment that can be experienced with Mario Power Tennis. It isn't that I'm a tennis purist or that I'm used to being without such things, on the contrary, it helps divert the game from being repetitive and makes it stand-out from the competitors, yet they're as infuriating as they are fun. In a lot of ways the gimmick courts can be simply tedious in how they operate, their design is unoriginal, with the changes most often being in how the ball and movement of the characters are altered rather than anything else.


This comes of a bit of a shame because the concept is truly fascinating and could have been realised better. Although I don't suppose it pales any worse to the power smash attacks. These finishers are detestably lacking in balance – characters like Diddy Kong have terrible finishers when you contrast the flaming hellfire that Bowser produces with his own. It's madness. Furthermore they're too often and jeopardise the flow of play. The game pauses everytime a power smash is commenced, and when playing a team game, it isn't uncommon to go through four finishers sequentially in one round. It ironically can cause games to grow drawn out and dull.


Had Mario Power Tennis been a new game it probably would have been forgiveable at best that such flaws were made but the bottom line is it isn't. For a nearly five year old game, the only different thing about Mario Power Tennis on Wii is that it has the funky and innovative motion controls exclusive to the system. While it is nice that finally there is a Mario alternative to Wii Sports' almost bafflingly version of tennis, this release could of sponsored the other possible upgrades via the Wii's capabilities and extra development time. I'd happily take an expanded list of characters and stages that the Mario universe has added over the past five years. It would be more than welcome of Nintendo to implement Wi-Fi support so I can play my buddies from the United States and beyond.


Maybe this is a cheeky request but would it kill Camelot to include both Mario Power Tennis AND Mario Golf on one DVD? Bearing in mind the Wii has a vastly expanded disc storage capacity to the Gamecube, such things are plausible. A 2-in-1 tennis/golf package ensures I never have to bother with Wii Sports again. I guess my request isn't so cheeky though when you find out that Nintendo tried charging suckers into buying Mario Power Tennis on Wii for the full retail price of –29.99. It's insane that they even bothered. Without forgetting only a portion of the cost can buy you the original Gamecube Mario Power Tennis or the recent Sega Superstar Tennis on Wii. Bizarrely Mario Power Tennis on Wii lacks any sort of Classic or Gamecube controller support also.


Concluding, this repackaging of Mario Power Tennis isn't worthwhile, despite the fun factor the game provides. The new controls are pleasant to use and the tennis itself feels crisp. Swift gameplay and greased up animations are promising but the quirky modifiers are hit and miss. There is the glitzy charm of Mario and friends that obviously makes the game more welcome, Mario Power Tennis' presentation and cinematics are still as high quality as you'd expect from Nintendo. The recognisable voice talent is additionally there to provide audible grunts and cries for each character in the Mushroom Kingdom and the effective bright, bold colour scheme and graphics of Mario Power Tennis hold up magnificently on Wii, much to my own surprise. However this game lacks originality, it lacks value. For a re-release to have so little and to be sold so high is disgusting, it really is. If you ever do happen across Mario Power Tennis, do check it out but be wary of it's condition only as a re-hash and nothing more.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis for the Wii..." was posted by loopy_101 on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:31:28 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/new-play-control-mario-power-tennis/user-reviews/771220/platform/wii/ Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:17:56 -0700 loopy_101 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the Wii... http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/770519/platform/wii/ ...and gave it a 8.0.

The resounding success of Modern Warfare 2, both critically and commercially left no room for error as Treyarch unravelled Call of Duty Black Ops. It could easily represent the most ambitious entry into the series, disregarding the upcoming Modern Warfare 3 ofcourse. Treyarch battled hard to convince fans that this experience would be better than the last, merging the greater concepts of Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, or atleast it seemed. It has to be said that Black Ops initially did well to impress, especially for a COD cynic gamer like myself (just go read my review for Modern Warfare 2 and need look no further).


Call of Duty Black Ops is the first in it's series to be told nearly through it's entirely in flashback. For the majority of the campaign you play as Mason, a captured CIA agent, interrogated by unknown individuals over a numbers conspiracy. As we see him first hand being tortured, strapped to a chair, he recounts each mission from the Bay of Pigs in Cuba to Laos, Vietnam. The story goes through the most notorious and controversial periods of the cold war but, with many of the greater plot twists and action set-pieces made famous by the Call of Duty series.


If you came to Black Ops expecting the same engrossing developments and plot twists of Modern Warfare 2 then you won't be disappointed. The game is littered with explosions, full-auto gunfire and those imperturbable moments of slowdown, just to reel in those sweet kills. Call of Duty has always teemed in awesomeness and flair in how it depicts such Hollywood inspired action, Black Ops couldn't be more unashamedly gung-ho and macho without trying. It has style evident all the way to reloading your rifle like the Terminator while riding on a Harley – which coincidentally happens in a chase sequence little more than within an hour of play. Yes, I really do like Black Ops' single player. It has to be experienced first hand however otherwise it'll be spoilt.


As with Modern Warfare 2 I have mixed opinions of Black Ops' online play. It is strange thinking about it because technically it is an accomplishment when compared to Infinity Ward's 2009 hit. Host transition is no longer an issue: finding a new leader on the consoles is done almost instantly on Xbox 360/PS3 and on PC it never becomes an issue with dedicated servers. The number of available game modes is as high as ever. Black Ops even offers various barebones and COD 4 influenced game modes under the guise of "classic", which cogently makes it so that the killstreaks are only limited to UAV, Airstrike and Helicopter attacks (corresponding to 3, 5 and 7 kills). And as killstreaks go, it is worth mentioning that they all saw a number of amendments.


The removal of the tactical nuke for example would come of some huge relief to those who had their experiences of Modern Warfare 2 let down by cheating players. Another positive change worth putting under the spotlight would be the return of two World At War killstreaks: Artlitery and Attack Dogs, both of which can tip the match in one team's favour dramatically, used tactically. Treyarch also wisely removed attachments like the thermal scope that made hiding from a sniper's scope nay impossible. I took much delight in noticing that the broken perks of Modern Warfare 2, such as commando pro, danger close and the deathstreaks – particularly painkiller, had all been removed for the refined system Treyarch designed. It makes the experience far more raw and down to player expertise, which Black Ops certainly doesn't kid around with, as it's tough beginner's weapons and level progression demonstrate.


It would be impossible to delve into the chasm of Black Ops' multiplayer without drawing attention to the notorious COD points scheme and what exactly this entails for the experience. As fascinating of a concept it is, I believe it was a decision for the worse. Originally when you levelled up on Call of Duty it entitled you to a whole series of new perks, weapons, attachments and the ability to alter your available classes (which could be expanded as you re-start your levelling upon reaching the highest level to prestige mode). This worked as it gave you instant access to whatever you unlocked, allowing for trial and error and some thinking outside of the box as to what weapons work on what maps, under set conditions. Cod points restricts the practice.


I also have a problem with the weapons themselves. They all feel awkward to use and in a lot of ways are as broken as they are in Modern Warfare 2. For starters, the basic weapons themselves are weak. The M16 is beyond under-powered, the Olympia is inefficient with two shot rounds followed by a looooooooooooooong reload and the MP5K fires far, far too slowly for a sub-machine gun. Most of the weapon sets are now redundant. The shotguns are useless, the pistols have been notably nerfed as a secondary and rockets still are separate from noobtubes when they shouldn't be. I can't get over how the Famas and all subsequent assault rifles have absolutely perfect range, accuracy, damage, etc, etc and how firing from the hip is now entirely useless . Truth be told though, Treyarch did fix some of the weapons in Black Ops. The noobtube is at last the final unlock for weapon attachments, and besides that, they made it impossible to no-scope with a sniper, atleast easily anyway.


What upsets me the most about Black Ops' online multiplayer is that it fails to fix upon Modern Warfare 2's major quirks – sort of enhancing them instead. It is only the WIDELY complained, and I mean widely complained, features that have seen some sort of amendment or removal. There are dozens of design quirks I could write about such as the stupidly over-powered semtex, the ability to carry three forms of grenade in one set-up and the stupidly large hitbox of napalm. It's still a load of fun but the same could be said of Modern Warfare 2. Despite how absorbing it might be to work your way up the ladder in Black Ops, how gratifying it might be to kill a randomer online or score victory in a close match of search & destroy on Black Ops, it lacks that near perfect balancing and succession found with Call of Duty 4. It's not like it's hard to understand, World at War sustained itself under the same conditions as Call of Duty 4, with it's slight quirks layed in place. The only factual benefit lies in Treyarch's high quality servers and host locating compared to the often still-born matches that can be experienced on any pre Modern Warfare 2 Call of Duty.


There finally needs to be some acknowledgement of the third portion of Black Ops' gameplay: Zombies. The incorporation of Zombies in Black Ops is, without giving it too little credit, a curiously praised segment of the Call of Duty package. If unaware of it originally, and undoubtedly many Wii gamers might be, zombies was an unlockable extra in World at War which essentially played out as survival mode akin to Gears of War 2's Horde mode. While fun – serving somewhat of a nice break to matchmaking online, the game mode of zombies was repetitive and lacking depth. This is still the case in Black Ops, but Treyarch have done their best to atleast make zombies more compelling with unique weapons, bosses and objectives set to the two levels of "Five and "Kino Der Toten". Admittedly the design, featuring witty one-liners and pop-culture references to the likes of Ghostbusters, is humourous but the mode once again has appeal as a time-waster above all else.


There are many other secrets and easter eggs that Treyarch put in place Black Ops does terrifically in benefiting from. The game has a much bolder presentation than any Call of Duty before it, debatably being one of the best looking games on PS3 and 360, even appearing more aesthetically appealing than Modern Warfare 2. As ever, it runs on the super smooth, with near unmatchable animation, realistic blood and effects besides world physics for a shooter of it's type. Treyarch don't mess around with the gore of this COD either with dismemberment and decapitation being the enivtiable consequences of killing enemies during the game. It is a mature rated release for a reason. But as hinted at earlier, Black Ops has a vougish approach to cinematics making elegant use of slow-motion, blur and multiple camera cuts when necessary. Call of Duty could pass for an action movie if it wanted to.


The differences between each version of Black Ops is minimal but noticeable. Obviously the PC version benefits from having the higher quality net play due to the placement of dedicated servers. It is, in theory, is easier to find matches because of it's preference of a browser rather than searching for close games and merging lobbies as it would on consoles. The PC version additionally benefits from modding tools and the ability to lean which deserve some praise. Although it is a still a poor port as it is poorly optimised to computer hardware demanding powerful processors and plentiful amounts of ram besides suffering from horrendous stutter and lag. To this day there is no fix. Between the two, Xbox 360 and PS3 barely have any major flaws that betters one over the other. That said, the PS3 Black Ops has a number of performance trip-ups, especially while the game is playing in splitscreen, that Xbox 360 owners are without.


By far the most intriguing version of Black Ops is on Wii. Under Treyarch, Nintendo Call of Duty has always been able to hold up solidly against the Xbox 360 and PS3. With Modern Warfare Reflex, they were able to make a near 1/1 copy of the campaign and multiplayer with impressive visual presentation values, fantastic controls and minimal lag issues online. Black Ops continues this tradition of accurately restoring COD on Wii and it even features zombies, besides headset and classic controller support. Treyarch wisely used their own Wi-Fi service aswell which makes adding friends an easier process than in any COD game prior to Black Ops. The game even allows for patches and updates on occasion to routinely regulate the servers from any malicious hacks that could otherwise hamper the experience. All in all, the experience of Call of Duty on Wii is a supremely positive one, and considering the lack of Modern Warfare 2 on the system, the void for such a gripping shooter is partrially filled for the time being.


Concluding this review, Black Ops does well to meld the better elements of Call of Duty's engrossing, picturesque quality campaign and provide an addictive, structured multiplayer. Not bad for a company that ten years prior would be better known for porting various other Activision games over to the Dreamcast. But Treyarch could only do so much with the Call of Duty licence and it is difficult to push the envelope when working towards such a tight annual deadline provided by such a demanding audience. In this condition it is hard to say Black Ops is a bad game. However it isn't hard to say that it could have been more. It very well could have been more on the PC and with so much going on with Black Ops' multiplayer, many might find themselves more comfortable sticking to the classic alternatives of Modern Warfare or even Treyarch's now better forgotten Call of Duty 3. The similarities between Call of Duty 3 and Blacks Ops though probably aren't that wide envisioning the way they came to be, which isn't good. Both games sort of just extended the experience had in the last Call of Duty. Then again, the scale of Black Ops to Call of Duty 3 is much wider.


Once again the campaign is what saves Call of Duty, which is why it is bewildering that they're always so short. Black Ops has an 6-8 hour long playthrough which can be enthusiastically be played on veteran difficulty without too much worry. The game's difficulty however is mostly balanced with the choke points propping up through the use of pesky checkpoints and on-rails sequences that heighten your vulnerability. Although even with a solid campaign, Black Ops has a mixed experience online that ultimately lets down it's high production values and quality presentation. I ironically found Black Ops to be most impressive played on Wii, despite being the least invested as Treyarch did a lot with the system's limitations. Bearing in mind the Nintendo Wii is almost entirely without mature rated games, nevermind shooters, the fact that one like Black Ops was developed with such tenacity is an uplifting experience to any Nintendo owner. I would recommend it for this machine, especially since it lacks Modern Warfare 2


On the HD platforms though, it's an odd one to say. EA's Battlefield Bad Company 2 does the FPS genre so many more favours than Call of Duty Black Ops and has as competant of a single player experience as it does online. Taking exclusive examples, the same can be equally said for Halo Reach on Xbox 360 and Killzone 2 on PS3. These are all older titles, cheaper and still widely played – sharing the common trait of being better than Black Ops. Taking Treyarch's side, you could argue they worked bloody hard to cram as much as they had done in the year's space they had following Modern Warfare 2. Halo Reach and Killzone 2 certainly had a lot longer development time than Black Ops and thus HAD to have better online features because of this.


The fate of Call of Duty rests with how Activision deals with this revelation because Modern Warfare 3 needs to go places in order to battle the heightening competition and resentment for the Call of Duty series in the core gaming audiences out there. Sales might disagree but people will grow fed up with Call of Duty and the downward slope is already in motion. Atleast for the time, with Black Ops, we can emulse ourselves in an overboard singleplayer and multiplayer experience and enjoy the ride while we can.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the Wii..." was posted by loopy_101 on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:17:56 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/770519/platform/wii/ Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:14:32 -0700 loopy_101 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the PlayStation 3... http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/770518/platform/ps3/ ...and gave it a 7.0.

The resounding success of Modern Warfare 2, both critically and commercially left no room for error as Treyarch unravelled Call of Duty Black Ops. It could easily represent the most ambitious entry into the series, disregarding the upcoming Modern Warfare 3 ofcourse. Treyarch battled hard to convince fans that this experience would be better than the last, merging the greater concepts of Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, or atleast it seemed. It has to be said that Black Ops initially did well to impress, especially for a COD cynic gamer like myself (just go read my review for Modern Warfare 2 and need look no further).


Call of Duty Black Ops is the first in it's series to be told nearly through it's entirely in flashback. For the majority of the campaign you play as Mason, a captured CIA agent, interrogated by unknown individuals over a numbers conspiracy. As we see him first hand being tortured, strapped to a chair, he recounts each mission from the Bay of Pigs in Cuba to Laos, Vietnam. The story goes through the most notorious and controversial periods of the cold war but, with many of the greater plot twists and action set-pieces made famous by the Call of Duty series.


If you came to Black Ops expecting the same engrossing developments and plot twists of Modern Warfare 2 then you won't be disappointed. The game is littered with explosions, full-auto gunfire and those imperturbable moments of slowdown, just to reel in those sweet kills. Call of Duty has always teemed in awesomeness and flair in how it depicts such Hollywood inspired action, Black Ops couldn't be more unashamedly gung-ho and macho without trying. It has style evident all the way to reloading your rifle like the Terminator while riding on a Harley – which coincidentally happens in a chase sequence little more than within an hour of play. Yes, I really do like Black Ops' single player. It has to be experienced first hand however otherwise it'll be spoilt.


As with Modern Warfare 2 I have mixed opinions of Black Ops' online play. It is strange thinking about it because technically it is an accomplishment when compared to Infinity Ward's 2009 hit. Host transition is no longer an issue: finding a new leader on the consoles is done almost instantly on Xbox 360/PS3 and on PC it never becomes an issue with dedicated servers. The number of available game modes is as high as ever. Black Ops even offers various barebones and COD 4 influenced game modes under the guise of "classic", which cogently makes it so that the killstreaks are only limited to UAV, Airstrike and Helicopter attacks (corresponding to 3, 5 and 7 kills). And as killstreaks go, it is worth mentioning that they all saw a number of amendments.


The removal of the tactical nuke for example would come of some huge relief to those who had their experiences of Modern Warfare 2 let down by cheating players. Another positive change worth putting under the spotlight would be the return of two World At War killstreaks: Artlitery and Attack Dogs, both of which can tip the match in one team's favour dramatically, used tactically. Treyarch also wisely removed attachments like the thermal scope that made hiding from a sniper's scope nay impossible. I took much delight in noticing that the broken perks of Modern Warfare 2, such as commando pro, danger close and the deathstreaks – particularly painkiller, had all been removed for the refined system Treyarch designed. It makes the experience far more raw and down to player expertise, which Black Ops certainly doesn't kid around with, as it's tough beginner's weapons and level progression demonstrate.


It would be impossible to delve into the chasm of Black Ops' multiplayer without drawing attention to the notorious COD points scheme and what exactly this entails for the experience. As fascinating of a concept it is, I believe it was a decision for the worse. Originally when you levelled up on Call of Duty it entitled you to a whole series of new perks, weapons, attachments and the ability to alter your available classes (which could be expanded as you re-start your levelling upon reaching the highest level to prestige mode). This worked as it gave you instant access to whatever you unlocked, allowing for trial and error and some thinking outside of the box as to what weapons work on what maps, under set conditions. Cod points restricts the practice.


I also have a problem with the weapons themselves. They all feel awkward to use and in a lot of ways are as broken as they are in Modern Warfare 2. For starters, the basic weapons themselves are weak. The M16 is beyond under-powered, the Olympia is inefficient with two shot rounds followed by a looooooooooooooong reload and the MP5K fires far, far too slowly for a sub-machine gun. Most of the weapon sets are now redundant. The shotguns are useless, the pistols have been notably nerfed as a secondary and rockets still are separate from noobtubes when they shouldn't be. I can't get over how the Famas and all subsequent assault rifles have absolutely perfect range, accuracy, damage, etc, etc and how firing from the hip is now entirely useless . Truth be told though, Treyarch did fix some of the weapons in Black Ops. The noobtube is at last the final unlock for weapon attachments, and besides that, they made it impossible to no-scope with a sniper, atleast easily anyway.


What upsets me the most about Black Ops' online multiplayer is that it fails to fix upon Modern Warfare 2's major quirks – sort of enhancing them instead. It is only the WIDELY complained, and I mean widely complained, features that have seen some sort of amendment or removal. There are dozens of design quirks I could write about such as the stupidly over-powered semtex, the ability to carry three forms of grenade in one set-up and the stupidly large hitbox of napalm. It's still a load of fun but the same could be said of Modern Warfare 2. Despite how absorbing it might be to work your way up the ladder in Blacks, how gratifying it might be to kill a randomer online or score victory in a close match of search & destroy on Black Ops, it lacks that near perfect balancing and succession found with Call of Duty 4. It's not like it's hard to understand, World at War sustained itself under the same conditions as Call of Duty 4, with it's slight quirks layed in place. The only factual benefit lies in Treyarch's high quality servers and host locating compared to the often still-born matches that can be experienced on any pre Modern Warfare 2 Call of Duty.


There finally needs to be some acknowledgement of the third portion of Black Ops' gameplay: Zombies. The incorporation of Zombies in Black Ops is, without giving it too little credit, a curiously praised segment of the Call of Duty package. If unaware of it originally, and undoubtedly many Wii gamers might be, zombies was an unlockable extra in World at War which essentially played out as survival mode akin to Gears of War 2's Horde mode. While fun – serving somewhat of a nice break to matchmaking online, the game mode of zombies was repetitive and lacking depth. This is still the case in Black Ops, but Treyarch have done their best to atleast make zombies more compelling with unique weapons, bosses and objectives set to the two levels of "Five and "Kino Der Toten". Admittedly the design, featuring witty one-liners and pop-culture references to the likes of Ghostbusters, is humourous but the mode once again has appeal as a time-waster above all else.


There are many other secrets and easter eggs that Treyarch put in place Black Ops does terrifically in benefiting from. The game has a much bolder presentation than any Call of Duty before it, debatably being one of the best looking games on PS3 and 360, even appearing more aesthetically appealing than Modern Warfare 2. As ever, it runs on the super smooth, with near unmatchable animation, realistic blood and effects besides world physics for a shooter of it's type. Treyarch don't mess around with the gore of this COD either with dismemberment and decapitation being the enivtiable consequences of killing enemies during the game. It is a mature rated release for a reason. But as hinted at earlier, Black Ops has a vougish approach to cinematics making elegant use of slow-motion, blur and multiple camera cuts when necessary. Call of Duty could pass for an action movie if it wanted to.


The differences between each version of Black Ops is minimal but noticeable. Obviously the PC version benefits from having the higher quality net play due to the placement of dedicated servers. It is, in theory, is easier to find matches because of it's preference of a browser rather than searching for close games and merging lobbies as it would on consoles. The PC version additionally benefits from modding tools and the ability to lean which deserve some praise. Although it is a still a poor port as it is poorly optimised to computer hardware demanding powerful processors and plentiful amounts of ram besides suffering from horrendous stutter and lag. To this day there is no fix. Between the two, Xbox 360 and PS3 barely have any major flaws that betters one over the other. That said, the PS3 Black Ops has a number of performance trip-ups, especially while the game is playing in splitscreen, that Xbox 360 owners are without.


By far the most intriguing version of Black Ops is on Wii. Under Treyarch, Nintendo Call of Duty has always been able to hold up solidly against the Xbox 360 and PS3. With Modern Warfare Reflex, they were able to make a near 1/1 copy of the campaign and multiplayer with impressive visual presentation values, fantastic controls and minimal lag issues online. Black Ops continues this tradition of accurately restoring COD on Wii and it even features zombies, besides headset and classic controller support. Treyarch wisely used their own Wi-Fi service aswell which makes adding friends an easier process than in any COD game prior to Black Ops. The game even allows for patches and updates on occasion to routinely regulate the servers from any malicious hacks that could otherwise hamper the experience. All in all, the experience of Call of Duty on Wii is a supremely positive one, and considering the lack of Modern Warfare 2 on the system, the void for such a gripping shooter is partrially filled for the time being.


Concluding this review, Black Ops does well to meld the better elements of Call of Duty's engrossing, picturesque quality campaign and provide an addictive, structured multiplayer. Not bad for a company that ten years prior would be better known for porting various other Activision games over to the Dreamcast. But Treyarch could only do so much with the Call of Duty licence and it is difficult to push the envelope when working towards such a tight annual deadline provided by such a demanding audience. In this condition it is hard to say Black Ops is a bad game. However it isn't hard to say that it could have been more. It very well could have been more on the PC and with so much going on with Black Ops' multiplayer, many might find themselves more comfortable sticking to the classic alternatives of Modern Warfare or even Treyarch's now better forgotten Call of Duty 3. The similarities between Call of Duty 3 and Blacks Ops though probably aren't that wide envisioning the way they came to be, which isn't good. Both games sort of just extended the experience had in the last Call of Duty. Then again, the scale of Black Ops to Call of Duty 3 is much wider.


Once again the campaign is what saves Call of Duty, which is why it is bewildering that they're always so short. Black Ops has an 6-8 hour long playthrough which can be enthusiastically be played on veteran difficulty without too much worry. The game's difficulty however is mostly balanced with the choke points propping up through the use of pesky checkpoints and on-rails sequences that heighten your vulnerability. Although even with a solid campaign, Black Ops has a mixed experience online that ultimately lets down it's high production values and quality presentation. I ironically found Black Ops to be most impressive played on Wii, despite being the least invested as Treyarch did a lot with the system's limitations. Bearing in mind the Nintendo Wii is almost entirely without mature rated games, nevermind shooters, the fact that one like Black Ops was developed with such tenacity is an uplifting experience to any Nintendo owner. I would recommend it for this machine, especially since it lacks Modern Warfare 2


On the HD platforms though, it's an odd one to say. EA's Battlefield Bad Company 2 does the FPS genre so many more favours than Call of Duty Black Ops and has as competant of a single player experience as it does online. Taking exclusive examples, the same can be equally said for Halo Reach on Xbox 360 and Killzone 2 on PS3. These are all older titles, cheaper and still widely played – sharing the common trait of being better than Black Ops. Taking Treyarch's side, you could argue they worked bloody hard to cram as much as they had done in the year's space they had following Modern Warfare 2. Halo Reach and Killzone 2 certainly had a lot longer development time than Black Ops and thus HAD to have better online features because of this.


The fate of Call of Duty rests with how Activision deals with this revelation because Modern Warfare 3 needs to go places in order to battle the heightening competition and resentment for the Call of Duty series in the core gaming audiences out there. Sales might disagree but people will grow fed up with Call of Duty and the downward slope is already in motion. Atleast for the time, with Black Ops, we can emulse ourselves in an overboard singleplayer and multiplayer experience and enjoy the ride while we can.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the PlayStation 3..." was posted by loopy_101 on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:14:32 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/770518/platform/ps3/ Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:13:40 -0700 loopy_101 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the Xbox 360... http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/770517/platform/xbox360/ ...and gave it a 7.0.

The resounding success of Modern Warfare 2, both critically and commercially left no room for error as Treyarch unravelled Call of Duty Black Ops. It could easily represent the most ambitious entry into the series, disregarding the upcoming Modern Warfare 3 ofcourse. Treyarch battled hard to convince fans that this experience would be better than the last, merging the greater concepts of Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, or atleast it seemed. It has to be said that Black Ops initially did well to impress, especially for a COD cynic gamer like myself (just go read my review for Modern Warfare 2 and need look no further).


Call of Duty Black Ops is the first in it's series to be told nearly through it's entirely in flashback. For the majority of the campaign you play as Mason, a captured CIA agent, interrogated by unknown individuals over a numbers conspiracy. As we see him first hand being tortured, strapped to a chair, he recounts each mission from the Bay of Pigs in Cuba to Laos, Vietnam. The story goes through the most notorious and controversial periods of the cold war but, with many of the greater plot twists and action set-pieces made famous by the Call of Duty series.


If you came to Black Ops expecting the same engrossing developments and plot twists of Modern Warfare 2 then you won't be disappointed. The game is littered with explosions, full-auto gunfire and those imperturbable moments of slowdown, just to reel in those sweet kills. Call of Duty has always teemed in awesomeness and flair in how it depicts such Hollywood inspired action, Black Ops couldn't be more unashamedly gung-ho and macho without trying. It has style evident all the way to reloading your rifle like the Terminator while riding on a Harley – which coincidentally happens in a chase sequence little more than within an hour of play. Yes, I really do like Black Ops' single player. It has to be experienced first hand however otherwise it'll be spoilt.


As with Modern Warfare 2 I have mixed opinions of Black Ops' online play. It is strange thinking about it because technically it is an accomplishment when compared to Infinity Ward's 2009 hit. Host transition is no longer an issue: finding a new leader on the consoles is done almost instantly on Xbox 360/PS3 and on PC it never becomes an issue with dedicated servers. The number of available game modes is as high as ever. Black Ops even offers various barebones and COD 4 influenced game modes under the guise of "classic", which cogently makes it so that the killstreaks are only limited to UAV, Airstrike and Helicopter attacks (corresponding to 3, 5 and 7 kills). And as killstreaks go, it is worth mentioning that they all saw a number of amendments.


The removal of the tactical nuke for example would come of some huge relief to those who had their experiences of Modern Warfare 2 let down by cheating players. Another positive change worth putting under the spotlight would be the return of two World At War killstreaks: Artlitery and Attack Dogs, both of which can tip the match in one team's favour dramatically, used tactically. Treyarch also wisely removed attachments like the thermal scope that made hiding from a sniper's scope nay impossible. I took much delight in noticing that the broken perks of Modern Warfare 2, such as commando pro, danger close and the deathstreaks – particularly painkiller, had all been removed for the refined system Treyarch designed. It makes the experience far more raw and down to player expertise, which Black Ops certainly doesn't kid around with, as it's tough beginner's weapons and level progression demonstrate.


It would be impossible to delve into the chasm of Black Ops' multiplayer without drawing attention to the notorious COD points scheme and what exactly this entails for the experience. As fascinating of a concept it is, I believe it was a decision for the worse. Originally when you levelled up on Call of Duty it entitled you to a whole series of new perks, weapons, attachments and the ability to alter your available classes (which could be expanded as you re-start your levelling upon reaching the highest level to prestige mode). This worked as it gave you instant access to whatever you unlocked, allowing for trial and error and some thinking outside of the box as to what weapons work on what maps, under set conditions. Cod points restricts the practice.


I also have a problem with the weapons themselves. They all feel awkward to use and in a lot of ways are as broken as they are in Modern Warfare 2. For starters, the basic weapons themselves are weak. The M16 is beyond under-powered, the Olympia is inefficient with two shot rounds followed by a looooooooooooooong reload and the MP5K fires far, far too slowly for a sub-machine gun. Most of the weapon sets are now redundant. The shotguns are useless, the pistols have been notably nerfed as a secondary and rockets still are separate from noobtubes when they shouldn't be. I can't get over how the Famas and all subsequent assault rifles have absolutely perfect range, accuracy, damage, etc, etc and how firing from the hip is now entirely useless . Truth be told though, Treyarch did fix some of the weapons in Black Ops. The noobtube is at last the final unlock for weapon attachments, and besides that, they made it impossible to no-scope with a sniper, atleast easily anyway.


What upsets me the most about Black Ops' online multiplayer is that it fails to fix upon Modern Warfare 2's major quirks – sort of enhancing them instead. It is only the WIDELY complained, and I mean widely complained, features that have seen some sort of amendment or removal. There are dozens of design quirks I could write about such as the stupidly over-powered semtex, the ability to carry three forms of grenade in one set-up and the stupidly large hitbox of napalm. It's still a load of fun but the same could be said of Modern Warfare 2. Despite how absorbing it might be to work your way up the ladder in Black Ops, how gratifying it might be to kill a randomer online or score victory in a close match of search & destroy on Black Ops, it lacks that near perfect balancing and succession found with Call of Duty 4. It's not like it's hard to understand, World at War sustained itself under the same conditions as Call of Duty 4, with it's slight quirks layed in place. The only factual benefit lies in Treyarch's high quality servers and host locating compared to the often still-born matches that can be experienced on any pre Modern Warfare 2 Call of Duty.


There finally needs to be some acknowledgement of the third portion of Black Ops' gameplay: Zombies. The incorporation of Zombies in Black Ops is, without giving it too little credit, a curiously praised segment of the Call of Duty package. If unaware of it originally, and undoubtedly many Wii gamers might be, zombies was an unlockable extra in World at War which essentially played out as survival mode akin to Gears of War 2's Horde mode. While fun – serving somewhat of a nice break to matchmaking online, the game mode of zombies was repetitive and lacking depth. This is still the case in Black Ops, but Treyarch have done their best to atleast make zombies more compelling with unique weapons, bosses and objectives set to the two levels of "Five and "Kino Der Toten". Admittedly the design, featuring witty one-liners and pop-culture references to the likes of Ghostbusters, is humourous but the mode once again has appeal as a time-waster above all else.


There are many other secrets and easter eggs that Treyarch put in place Black Ops does terrifically in benefiting from. The game has a much bolder presentation than any Call of Duty before it, debatably being one of the best looking games on PS3 and 360, even appearing more aesthetically appealing than Modern Warfare 2. As ever, it runs on the super smooth, with near unmatchable animation, realistic blood and effects besides world physics for a shooter of it's type. Treyarch don't mess around with the gore of this COD either with dismemberment and decapitation being the enivtiable consequences of killing enemies during the game. It is a mature rated release for a reason. But as hinted at earlier, Black Ops has a vougish approach to cinematics making elegant use of slow-motion, blur and multiple camera cuts when necessary. Call of Duty could pass for an action movie if it wanted to.


The differences between each version of Black Ops is minimal but noticeable. Obviously the PC version benefits from having the higher quality net play due to the placement of dedicated servers. It is, in theory, is easier to find matches because of it's preference of a browser rather than searching for close games and merging lobbies as it would on consoles. The PC version additionally benefits from modding tools and the ability to lean which deserve some praise. Although it is a still a poor port as it is poorly optimised to computer hardware demanding powerful processors and plentiful amounts of ram besides suffering from horrendous stutter and lag. To this day there is no fix. Between the two, Xbox 360 and PS3 barely have any major flaws that betters one over the other. That said, the PS3 Black Ops has a number of performance trip-ups, especially while the game is playing in splitscreen, that Xbox 360 owners are without.


By far the most intriguing version of Black Ops is on Wii. Under Treyarch, Nintendo Call of Duty has always been able to hold up solidly against the Xbox 360 and PS3. With Modern Warfare Reflex, they were able to make a near 1/1 copy of the campaign and multiplayer with impressive visual presentation values, fantastic controls and minimal lag issues online. Black Ops continues this tradition of accurately restoring COD on Wii and it even features zombies, besides headset and classic controller support. Treyarch wisely used their own Wi-Fi service aswell which makes adding friends an easier process than in any COD game prior to Black Ops. The game even allows for patches and updates on occasion to routinely regulate the servers from any malicious hacks that could otherwise hamper the experience. All in all, the experience of Call of Duty on Wii is a supremely positive one, and considering the lack of Modern Warfare 2 on the system, the void for such a gripping shooter is partrially filled for the time being.


Concluding this review, Black Ops does well to meld the better elements of Call of Duty's engrossing, picturesque quality campaign and provide an addictive, structured multiplayer. Not bad for a company that ten years prior would be better known for porting various other Activision games over to the Dreamcast. But Treyarch could only do so much with the Call of Duty licence and it is difficult to push the envelope when working towards such a tight annual deadline provided by such a demanding audience. In this condition it is hard to say Black Ops is a bad game. However it isn't hard to say that it could have been more. It very well could have been more on the PC and with so much going on with Black Ops' multiplayer, many might find themselves more comfortable sticking to the classic alternatives of Modern Warfare or even Treyarch's now better forgotten Call of Duty 3. The similarities between Call of Duty 3 and Blacks Ops though probably aren't that wide envisioning the way they came to be, which isn't good. Both games sort of just extended the experience had in the last Call of Duty. Then again, the scale of Black Ops to Call of Duty 3 is much wider.


Once again the campaign is what saves Call of Duty, which is why it is bewildering that they're always so short. Black Ops has an 6-8 hour long playthrough which can be enthusiastically be played on veteran difficulty without too much worry. The game's difficulty however is mostly balanced with the choke points propping up through the use of pesky checkpoints and on-rails sequences that heighten your vulnerability. Although even with a solid campaign, Black Ops has a mixed experience online that ultimately lets down it's high production values and quality presentation. I ironically found Black Ops to be most impressive played on Wii, despite being the least invested as Treyarch did a lot with the system's limitations. Bearing in mind the Nintendo Wii is almost entirely without mature rated games, nevermind shooters, the fact that one like Black Ops was developed with such tenacity is an uplifting experience to any Nintendo owner. I would recommend it for this machine, especially since it lacks Modern Warfare 2


On the HD platforms though, it's an odd one to say. EA's Battlefield Bad Company 2 does the FPS genre so many more favours than Call of Duty Black Ops and has as competant of a single player experience as it does online. Taking exclusive examples, the same can be equally said for Halo Reach on Xbox 360 and Killzone 2 on PS3. These are all older titles, cheaper and still widely played – sharing the common trait of being better than Black Ops. Taking Treyarch's side, you could argue they worked bloody hard to cram as much as they had done in the year's space they had following Modern Warfare 2. Halo Reach and Killzone 2 certainly had a lot longer development time than Black Ops and thus HAD to have better online features because of this.


The fate of Call of Duty rests with how Activision deals with this revelation because Modern Warfare 3 needs to go places in order to battle the heightening competition and resentment for the Call of Duty series in the core gaming audiences out there. Sales might disagree but people will grow fed up with Call of Duty and the downward slope is already in motion. Atleast for the time, with Black Ops, we can emulse ourselves in an overboard singleplayer and multiplayer experience and enjoy the ride while we can.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the Xbox 360..." was posted by loopy_101 on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:13:40 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/770517/platform/xbox360/ Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:01:21 -0700 loopy_101 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the PC... http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/770516/platform/pc/ ...and gave it a 7.0.

The resounding success of Modern Warfare 2, both critically and commercially left no room for error as Treyarch unravelled Call of Duty Black Ops. It could easily represent the most ambitious entry into the series, disregarding the upcoming Modern Warfare 3 ofcourse. Treyarch battled hard to convince fans that this experience would be better than the last, merging the greater concepts of Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, or atleast it seemed. It has to be said that Black Ops initially did well to impress, especially for a COD cynic gamer like myself (just go read my review for Modern Warfare 2 and need look no further).


Call of Duty Black Ops is the first in it's series to be told nearly through it's entirely in flashback. For the majority of the campaign you play as Mason, a captured CIA agent, interrogated by unknown individuals over a numbers conspiracy. As we see him first hand being tortured, strapped to a chair, he recounts each mission from the Bay of Pigs in Cuba to Laos, Vietnam. The story goes through the most notorious and controversial periods of the cold war but, with many of the greater plot twists and action set-pieces made famous by the Call of Duty series.


If you came to Black Ops expecting the same engrossing developments and plot twists of Modern Warfare 2 then you won't be disappointed. The game is littered with explosions, full-auto gunfire and those imperturbable moments of slowdown, just to reel in those sweet kills. Call of Duty has always teemed in awesomeness and flair in how it depicts such Hollywood inspired action, Black Ops couldn't be more unashamedly gung-ho and macho without trying. It has style evident all the way to reloading your rifle like the Terminator while riding on a Harley – which coincidentally happens in a chase sequence little more than within an hour of play. Yes, I really do like Black Ops' single player. It has to be experienced first hand however otherwise it'll be spoilt.


As with Modern Warfare 2 I have mixed opinions of Black Ops' online play. It is strange thinking about it because technically it is an accomplishment when compared to Infinity Ward's 2009 hit. Host transition is no longer an issue: finding a new leader on the consoles is done almost instantly on Xbox 360/PS3 and on PC it never becomes an issue with dedicated servers. The number of available game modes is as high as ever. Black Ops even offers various barebones and COD 4 influenced game modes under the guise of "classic", which cogently makes it so that the killstreaks are only limited to UAV, Airstrike and Helicopter attacks (corresponding to 3, 5 and 7 kills). And as killstreaks go, it is worth mentioning that they all saw a number of amendments.


The removal of the tactical nuke for example would come of some huge relief to those who had their experiences of Modern Warfare 2 let down by cheating players. Another positive change worth putting under the spotlight would be the return of two World At War killstreaks: Artlitery and Attack Dogs, both of which can tip the match in one team's favour dramatically, used tactically. Treyarch also wisely removed attachments like the thermal scope that made hiding from a sniper's scope nay impossible. I took much delight in noticing that the broken perks of Modern Warfare 2, such as commando pro, danger close and the deathstreaks – particularly painkiller, had all been removed for the refined system Treyarch designed. It makes the experience far more raw and down to player expertise, which Black Ops certainly doesn't kid around with, as it's tough beginner's weapons and level progression demonstrate.


It would be impossible to delve into the chasm of Black Ops' multiplayer without drawing attention to the notorious COD points scheme and what exactly this entails for the experience. As fascinating of a concept it is, I believe it was a decision for the worse. Originally when you levelled up on Call of Duty it entitled you to a whole series of new perks, weapons, attachments and the ability to alter your available classes (which could be expanded as you re-start your levelling upon reaching the highest level to prestige mode). This worked as it gave you instant access to whatever you unlocked, allowing for trial and error and some thinking outside of the box as to what weapons work on what maps, under set conditions. Cod points restricts the practice.


I also have a problem with the weapons themselves. They all feel awkward to use and in a lot of ways are as broken as they are in Modern Warfare 2. For starters, the basic weapons themselves are weak. The M16 is beyond under-powered, the Olympia is inefficient with two shot rounds followed by a looooooooooooooong reload and the MP5K fires far, far too slowly for a sub-machine gun. Most of the weapon sets are now redundant. The shotguns are useless, the pistols have been notably nerfed as a secondary and rockets still are separate from noobtubes when they shouldn't be. I can't get over how the Famas and all subsequent assault rifles have absolutely perfect range, accuracy, damage, etc, etc and how firing from the hip is now entirely useless . Truth be told though, Treyarch did fix some of the weapons in Black Ops. The noobtube is at last the final unlock for weapon attachments, and besides that, they made it impossible to no-scope with a sniper, atleast easily anyway.


What upsets me the most about Black Ops' online multiplayer is that it fails to fix upon Modern Warfare 2's major quirks – sort of enhancing them instead. It is only the WIDELY complained, and I mean widely complained, features that have seen some sort of amendment or removal. There are dozens of design quirks I could write about such as the stupidly over-powered semtex, the ability to carry three forms of grenade in one set-up and the stupidly large hitbox of napalm. It's still a load of fun but the same could be said of Modern Warfare 2. Despite how absorbing it might be to work your way up the ladder in Black Ops, how gratifying it might be to kill a randomer online or score victory in a close match of search & destroy on Black Ops, it lacks that near perfect balancing and succession found with Call of Duty 4. It's not like it's hard to understand, World at War sustained itself under the same conditions as Call of Duty 4, with it's slight quirks layed in place. The only factual benefit lies in Treyarch's high quality servers and host locating compared to the often still-born matches that can be experienced on any pre Modern Warfare 2 Call of Duty.


There finally needs to be some acknowledgement of the third portion of Black Ops' gameplay: Zombies. The incorporation of Zombies in Black Ops is, without giving it too little credit, a curiously praised segment of the Call of Duty package. If unaware of it originally, and undoubtedly many Wii gamers might be, zombies was an unlockable extra in World at War which essentially played out as survival mode akin to Gears of War 2's Horde mode. While fun – serving somewhat of a nice break to matchmaking online, the game mode of zombies was repetitive and lacking depth. This is still the case in Black Ops, but Treyarch have done their best to atleast make zombies more compelling with unique weapons, bosses and objectives set to the two levels of "Five and "Kino Der Toten". Admittedly the design, featuring witty one-liners and pop-culture references to the likes of Ghostbusters, is humourous but the mode once again has appeal as a time-waster above all else.


There are many other secrets and easter eggs that Treyarch put in place Black Ops does terrifically in benefiting from. The game has a much bolder presentation than any Call of Duty before it, debatably being one of the best looking games on PS3 and 360, even appearing more aesthetically appealing than Modern Warfare 2. As ever, it runs on the super smooth, with near unmatchable animation, realistic blood and effects besides world physics for a shooter of it's type. Treyarch don't mess around with the gore of this COD either with dismemberment and decapitation being the enivtiable consequences of killing enemies during the game. It is a mature rated release for a reason. But as hinted at earlier, Black Ops has a vougish approach to cinematics making elegant use of slow-motion, blur and multiple camera cuts when necessary. Call of Duty could pass for an action movie if it wanted to.


The differences between each version of Black Ops is minimal but noticeable. Obviously the PC version benefits from having the higher quality net play due to the placement of dedicated servers. It is, in theory, is easier to find matches because of it's preference of a browser rather than searching for close games and merging lobbies as it would on consoles. The PC version additionally benefits from modding tools and the ability to lean which deserve some praise. Although it is a still a poor port as it is poorly optimised to computer hardware demanding powerful processors and plentiful amounts of ram besides suffering from horrendous stutter and lag. To this day there is no fix. Between the two, Xbox 360 and PS3 barely have any major flaws that betters one over the other. That said, the PS3 Black Ops has a number of performance trip-ups, especially while the game is playing in splitscreen, that Xbox 360 owners are without.


By far the most intriguing version of Black Ops is on Wii. Under Treyarch, Nintendo Call of Duty has always been able to hold up solidly against the Xbox 360 and PS3. With Modern Warfare Reflex, they were able to make a near 1/1 copy of the campaign and multiplayer with impressive visual presentation values, fantastic controls and minimal lag issues online. Black Ops continues this tradition of accurately restoring COD on Wii and it even features zombies, besides headset and classic controller support. Treyarch wisely used their own Wi-Fi service aswell which makes adding friends an easier process than in any COD game prior to Black Ops. The game even allows for patches and updates on occasion to routinely regulate the servers from any malicious hacks that could otherwise hamper the experience. All in all, the experience of Call of Duty on Wii is a supremely positive one, and considering the lack of Modern Warfare 2 on the system, the void for such a gripping shooter is partrially filled for the time being.


Concluding this review, Black Ops does well to meld the better elements of Call of Duty's engrossing, picturesque quality campaign and provide an addictive, structured multiplayer. Not bad for a company that ten years prior would be better known for porting various other Activision games over to the Dreamcast. But Treyarch could only do so much with the Call of Duty licence and it is difficult to push the envelope when working towards such a tight annual deadline provided by such a demanding audience. In this condition it is hard to say Black Ops is a bad game. However it isn't hard to say that it could have been more. It very well could have been more on the PC and with so much going on with Black Ops' multiplayer, many might find themselves more comfortable sticking to the classic alternatives of Modern Warfare or even Treyarch's now better forgotten Call of Duty 3. The similarities between Call of Duty 3 and Blacks Ops though probably aren't that wide envisioning the way they came to be, which isn't good. Both games sort of just extended the experience had in the last Call of Duty. Then again, the scale of Black Ops to Call of Duty 3 is much wider.


Once again the campaign is what saves Call of Duty, which is why it is bewildering that they're always so short. Black Ops has an 6-8 hour long playthrough which can be enthusiastically be played on veteran difficulty without too much worry. The game's difficulty however is mostly balanced with the choke points propping up through the use of pesky checkpoints and on-rails sequences that heighten your vulnerability. Although even with a solid campaign, Black Ops has a mixed experience online that ultimately lets down it's high production values and quality presentation. I ironically found Black Ops to be most impressive played on Wii, despite being the least invested as Treyarch did a lot with the system's limitations. Bearing in mind the Nintendo Wii is almost entirely without mature rated games, nevermind shooters, the fact that one like Black Ops was developed with such tenacity is an uplifting experience to any Nintendo owner. I would recommend it for this machine, especially since it lacks Modern Warfare 2


On the HD platforms though, it's an odd one to say. EA's Battlefield Bad Company 2 does the FPS genre so many more favours than Call of Duty Black Ops and has as competant of a single player experience as it does online. Taking exclusive examples, the same can be equally said for Halo Reach on Xbox 360 and Killzone 2 on PS3. These are all older titles, cheaper and still widely played – sharing the common trait of being better than Black Ops. Taking Treyarch's side, you could argue they worked bloody hard to cram as much as they had done in the year's space they had following Modern Warfare 2. Halo Reach and Killzone 2 certainly had a lot longer development time than Black Ops and thus HAD to have better online features because of this.


The fate of Call of Duty rests with how Activision deals with this revelation because Modern Warfare 3 needs to go places in order to battle the heightening competition and resentment for the Call of Duty series in the core gaming audiences out there. Sales might disagree but people will grow fed up with Call of Duty and the downward slope is already in motion. Atleast for the time, with Black Ops, we can emulse ourselves in an overboard singleplayer and multiplayer experience and enjoy the ride while we can.

Get the full article at GameSpot

"loopy_101 reviewed Call of Duty: Black Ops for the PC..." was posted by loopy_101 on Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:01:21 -0700
]]> http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/user-reviews/770516/platform/pc/