Man, I though people would understand that giving the government (or anyone for that matter) the right to just take down webpages without any legal procedure or recourse for wrongful action is incredibly bad for the private citizen.
Not because people don't have the right to protect their copyrights, because they do.
Not because counterfeit products aren't incredibly harmful to name brands and safety regulations, because they are.
Because SOPA is built on the idea that in order to fight copyright theft, and to fight online based counterfeiting, they want the power to control what is a part of the internet and what isn't.
I didn't really pay attention to the SOPA debate until I realized that it hadn't yet been shot down as unconstitutional (which I happen to believe it is). A few good members of congress filibustered the thing and gave us more time to contact our representatives about this.
The shut down and seizure of any personal or professional property without legal recourse or warning is tyranny.
When Net Neutrality became threatened by ISP's wanting the throttle connections to certain webpages, certain companies, or anyone based on who they were, We The People, said, "NO."
Now our very right to post topics even ABOUT copyrighted material (as I understand it, even including a simple copyrighted picture can put you under the cross-hairs of SOPA) your website can be taken down without warning or recourse.
The best analogy I can make is that you put up a sign on your lawn that includes some copyrighted material(say, the font used to make the sign just to be a little ridiculous) so the government is free to come and take your whole damn house from you. No warning, no recourse to get it back.
I'd give you links to all these articles that cover SOPA and what it means, what it does, and why it's good or bad, but I found out what I found out by a simple Google News search. I'm not linking to it because, well, according to the basics of SOPA, even mentioning it might violate the law and thus have my blogsite taken down.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Review: Da Blob
So, I was all set to deliver a review of The Call of Cthulhu, but I had an unexpectedly awesome game dropped in my lap from the Wii, Da Blob.
Now, for some game enthusiasts, myself included unfortunately, the Wii has been a little lack-luster for me as a relatively hardcore gamer. Most, if not all, of my free hours are spent playing games by myself as I tend to enjoy them as entertainment. That leaves the Wii as particularly unexciting for me as the vast majority of games for it are either exercise based (which, all things being equal I should play just for my health if nothing else) or party based (and I don't through a lot of parties). So when I was told about how fun Da Blob was I was rather skeptical.
All my suspicions were quickly laid to rest as one of the first fun game since Twilight Princess landed in my hands. Here is a quick rundown on the narrative: the world is a happy place and full of color and music, and everything is going quite swell until an enemy army called INKT move in and use their advanced technology to drain the world of color and the happiness that derives from it. That is to say, they turn this wonderfully happy place into a monotone of gray and enslave all the Raydians and turn them into Graydians. You, the hero named Blob, are charged by the small underground of resistance fighters to help repaint the world into a colorful place, and thus remove the INKT army from your world.
To do all that, you control the main character using the nunchuck attachment to the Wii to move around, and with a simply up-and-down motion of the Wii-mote to make Blob jump. The controls are so easy to learn, you that you can devote all of your attention to the myriad of ways you can run around the now grey-colored cities and recolor them back into a wonderful place. To do this, all you have to do is roll around and collect the paint canisters that have sucked the city of color, and then bounce into the surfaces you want to paint that color.
Simple, easy, and with a delicate touch of sound, surprisingly fun to play. The player is provided with three primary colors that it can use to build a total four additional colors. The primaries are Red, Yellow, and Blue and the secondaries are Purple, Green, Orange, and Brown. The interesting thing about the color of Blob is this, depending on the color you are, the different style of musical instrument you play. Depending on Blob's 'mood' (the style of music you pick at the beginning of each level) the colors will play different music as well.
In the first level I could rock out to electric guitar with Blue and hop a red (to turn purple) to switch out to a stylized and re-synthed guitar and base guitar. And it doesn't stop there, blast out with the brass of Green, or the electric organ of Orange, or the base bump of red or flute of yellow. Switch as you see fit, bounce around, and paint the town to the sound of music you make as you bounce from building to building, street to sleep, and rescue all of the Graydains from the evil INKT army.
This is perhaps the first game I've run into in a long time where the sound of play is more than enough to convince me to pursue wandering around and accomplish nothing other than enjoy the sound of me painting the town red (so to speak).
Now there are a couple of other mechanics that make a strong showing in the game and both are vital to the game's narrative gameplay. First, is the ink that is all over the planet as it was brought to replace all the color in the world with grey and black. The second is water which not only gets rid of color, but ink as well. Ink can kill Blob while water saves him from ink, but washes him of the ability to paint color back to the world.
Now each level starts the players with a certain amount of time, and that time can be expanded upon by completing challenges and freeing Graydians by turning them back into Raydians. You will face entire armies of INKYs who, with varying pieces of equipment, will try to stop you from recoloring the world back into a fun and music filled place.
In addition, there are ten different levels in which the player can explore, can color, and play music in, but there is also 2 different mini-levels that contain specific challenges for the player giving them a total of 30 different places and spaces for the player to roam around and paint. On top of all of that, Da Blob also contains two play modes in addition to the story mode. Free paint, which allows you to go through all unlocked areas and paint them to your heart's content and Multipaint which allows several people to play together to paint the town.
The multiplayer paint mode, one that allows the players to mix and match different music colors and styles to create a symphony of color that is just as compelling as the main single player paint mode. With all of this wrapped into a deceptively childish looking package, I was pleasantly surprised at how entertaining the game really was. It made me pick up the Wii again, and I hope I'll find another game such as this to encourage me to keep faith in the Wii.
Now, for some game enthusiasts, myself included unfortunately, the Wii has been a little lack-luster for me as a relatively hardcore gamer. Most, if not all, of my free hours are spent playing games by myself as I tend to enjoy them as entertainment. That leaves the Wii as particularly unexciting for me as the vast majority of games for it are either exercise based (which, all things being equal I should play just for my health if nothing else) or party based (and I don't through a lot of parties). So when I was told about how fun Da Blob was I was rather skeptical.
All my suspicions were quickly laid to rest as one of the first fun game since Twilight Princess landed in my hands. Here is a quick rundown on the narrative: the world is a happy place and full of color and music, and everything is going quite swell until an enemy army called INKT move in and use their advanced technology to drain the world of color and the happiness that derives from it. That is to say, they turn this wonderfully happy place into a monotone of gray and enslave all the Raydians and turn them into Graydians. You, the hero named Blob, are charged by the small underground of resistance fighters to help repaint the world into a colorful place, and thus remove the INKT army from your world.
To do all that, you control the main character using the nunchuck attachment to the Wii to move around, and with a simply up-and-down motion of the Wii-mote to make Blob jump. The controls are so easy to learn, you that you can devote all of your attention to the myriad of ways you can run around the now grey-colored cities and recolor them back into a wonderful place. To do this, all you have to do is roll around and collect the paint canisters that have sucked the city of color, and then bounce into the surfaces you want to paint that color.
Simple, easy, and with a delicate touch of sound, surprisingly fun to play. The player is provided with three primary colors that it can use to build a total four additional colors. The primaries are Red, Yellow, and Blue and the secondaries are Purple, Green, Orange, and Brown. The interesting thing about the color of Blob is this, depending on the color you are, the different style of musical instrument you play. Depending on Blob's 'mood' (the style of music you pick at the beginning of each level) the colors will play different music as well.
In the first level I could rock out to electric guitar with Blue and hop a red (to turn purple) to switch out to a stylized and re-synthed guitar and base guitar. And it doesn't stop there, blast out with the brass of Green, or the electric organ of Orange, or the base bump of red or flute of yellow. Switch as you see fit, bounce around, and paint the town to the sound of music you make as you bounce from building to building, street to sleep, and rescue all of the Graydains from the evil INKT army.
This is perhaps the first game I've run into in a long time where the sound of play is more than enough to convince me to pursue wandering around and accomplish nothing other than enjoy the sound of me painting the town red (so to speak).
Now there are a couple of other mechanics that make a strong showing in the game and both are vital to the game's narrative gameplay. First, is the ink that is all over the planet as it was brought to replace all the color in the world with grey and black. The second is water which not only gets rid of color, but ink as well. Ink can kill Blob while water saves him from ink, but washes him of the ability to paint color back to the world.
Now each level starts the players with a certain amount of time, and that time can be expanded upon by completing challenges and freeing Graydians by turning them back into Raydians. You will face entire armies of INKYs who, with varying pieces of equipment, will try to stop you from recoloring the world back into a fun and music filled place.
In addition, there are ten different levels in which the player can explore, can color, and play music in, but there is also 2 different mini-levels that contain specific challenges for the player giving them a total of 30 different places and spaces for the player to roam around and paint. On top of all of that, Da Blob also contains two play modes in addition to the story mode. Free paint, which allows you to go through all unlocked areas and paint them to your heart's content and Multipaint which allows several people to play together to paint the town.
The multiplayer paint mode, one that allows the players to mix and match different music colors and styles to create a symphony of color that is just as compelling as the main single player paint mode. With all of this wrapped into a deceptively childish looking package, I was pleasantly surprised at how entertaining the game really was. It made me pick up the Wii again, and I hope I'll find another game such as this to encourage me to keep faith in the Wii.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Forgive Me
For those of you who read this, I ask you to forgive me and my review schedule. With finials coming up and my time at Champlain College coming to a close, I have actually been too busy to acquire and test any new games recently. However, I have an older game sitting in the wings, The Call of Cthulhu, and it was made by Bethesda. I figured since Fallout 3 did so well, I'd see if there is some kind of pattern to the games they make so I can find out whatever kind of magic equation they seem to use.
Hopefully I will have time to write out my review of this older Xbox game soon.
-Jason
Hopefully I will have time to write out my review of this older Xbox game soon.
-Jason
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Review: Dawn of War 2
Dawn of War 2, another sequel this week; however, this time it may have improved on the original.
I've spent a considerable amount of time with the campaign mode these past couple of weeks, and a tiny slice of time with the multiplayer and I must start out by saying they are two completely different beasts. That said, the most important change of the Dawn of War franchise is their decision to reduce the amount of building micromanagement, and instead employ tactical unit strategy as the primary mechanic.
As oddly worded as all that may be, it is true. You no longer are required to spend the first fifteen minutes of any new game frantically building structures so you may produce whatever unit you wish en'mass. You are introduced to this concept by the campaign mode, where you control up to four units to complete missions.
In this new style of RTS, the most important part of gameplay is how well you work with what unit resources you have. That means each squad you control, each solider at your command, can make a difference. In campaign mode, you have to know when to retreat and when to attack. You have to know what your units can handle without you watching them, and what they cannot. You have to command them like any commander responsible for their actions would need to do.
Probably for the first time ever in a RTS, it pays to be responsible for your units during combat. It pays to know when to press the attack, and when to retreat, and yes, retreating does indeed pay quite well. You don't click on some point on the map and tell your cannon fodder food to go annoy people, you pay attention to what is going on because if you don't, you are liable to have your units murdered.
There are two modes to the game, and other than the fact that Dawn of War 2 has changed the importance of paying attention to the accomplishments and progress of your units, there is very little about them that is similar. However, considering how important paying attention to your units is in this game, I'd say there is still a strong connection.
The first mode, Campaign, is a fresh take on a RTS presented storyline. You follow the Blood Ravens once again, this time you are a Force Commander here to help save the recruitment worlds from being destroyed by an alien invasion. While I found the story compelling in its own right, the introduction of character skill development by way of experience points and levels was exceptionally well done.
There are four paths with which you can take any of the six squads down as you go from level 1 to 20. Each path contains a number of special abilities that can be used in combat during the campaign itself. Putting points in any of the four: stamina, ranged, melee, and energy, help the unit by either providing them additional strength/aptitude in that category that ultimately makes them more efficient on the battle field.
Not only can you take these characters any direction you wish to, but DoW2 even gives you the option to equip them as you see fit. Wargear that drops within the missions, or are rewards in of themselves, make your units stronger, fitter, and even stronger than their level would make them. Basically, campaign mode is a RTS and an RPG rolled into one efficient, coherent whole.
However, there are still some failures within this system. Primarily, some abilities you buy early on in the skill trees become useless as you get Terminator armor. As such, it becomes arguable whether or not you actually want to use Terminator at all since many of the epic quality standard armors are similar in stats, abilities, and overall usefulness as the Terminator armor. Really all the Terminator armor offers that cannot be matched in anyway to the normal armor is the complete suppression and knock back resistance. Basically, two negative effects that can be completely avoided with good, competent leadership of your units.
However, other than some choices within the trees being less useful than others as the game progresses, the only other place that campaign mode falls short is the repetitious nature of the missions. Once you know the dozen or so maps you fight on, you do the same kind of job over and over. While you are still leveling your characters this isn't much of an issue, nor is it while you are still getting the best gear you want to have for your squads, but it does feel a bit like grinding mobs in any standard MMO, a certain downside for an RTS. However, I found it to be a rather minimal downside considering the best part of campaign mode: Co-op.
Co-op has you work through Microsoft Games Live, the PC variant of Xbox Live that is actually mostly rolled into one coherent force nowadays. Anyway, it allows you to play through the co-op with a friend, with each of you in control of 2 units. This means you can take much better care of your two units, and micromanage their actions to the fullest extent. Ultimately, this means that your band of units will be able to accomplish far more than they ever would normally be able to do if controlled by yourself.
On top of all that, there isn't much better than playing through story mode of any game co-op. It is simply just more fun to play with a buddy on any and all missions. Now, whoever hosts stores the saved campaign locally, so they are required to host for every game after to continue the missions, but it doesn't change how fun it is on the overall. You can even continue this co-op trend on into multiplayer.
Now, multiplayer is a different beast entirely, with the exception of the fact that units are still more important than building buildings. The best thing about it, hands down, is the continued focus on the unit command and strategy being vital to successful gameplay. It feels like unit strategy instead of just building strategy. Something I find personally refreshing since my previous RTS plan of attack is dig a hole and wait to strike until I can use the super weapon that will own the face of anyone and everyone.
Obviously, that strategy is rather slow for any kind of competitive play. With the new system you don't have much choice but to go out and wage war. There isn't really a way TO dig a hole and wait to attack. You gain by striking and taking what you can take and knowing what battles to pick, and what battles to avoid. It feels like actual strategy of forces instead of strategy of management. This is something I can embrace.
Now I just have to figure out how to break my mindset of of the dig a hole routine. Maybe I should start by throwing out the shovel.
I've spent a considerable amount of time with the campaign mode these past couple of weeks, and a tiny slice of time with the multiplayer and I must start out by saying they are two completely different beasts. That said, the most important change of the Dawn of War franchise is their decision to reduce the amount of building micromanagement, and instead employ tactical unit strategy as the primary mechanic.
As oddly worded as all that may be, it is true. You no longer are required to spend the first fifteen minutes of any new game frantically building structures so you may produce whatever unit you wish en'mass. You are introduced to this concept by the campaign mode, where you control up to four units to complete missions.
In this new style of RTS, the most important part of gameplay is how well you work with what unit resources you have. That means each squad you control, each solider at your command, can make a difference. In campaign mode, you have to know when to retreat and when to attack. You have to know what your units can handle without you watching them, and what they cannot. You have to command them like any commander responsible for their actions would need to do.
Probably for the first time ever in a RTS, it pays to be responsible for your units during combat. It pays to know when to press the attack, and when to retreat, and yes, retreating does indeed pay quite well. You don't click on some point on the map and tell your cannon fodder food to go annoy people, you pay attention to what is going on because if you don't, you are liable to have your units murdered.
There are two modes to the game, and other than the fact that Dawn of War 2 has changed the importance of paying attention to the accomplishments and progress of your units, there is very little about them that is similar. However, considering how important paying attention to your units is in this game, I'd say there is still a strong connection.
The first mode, Campaign, is a fresh take on a RTS presented storyline. You follow the Blood Ravens once again, this time you are a Force Commander here to help save the recruitment worlds from being destroyed by an alien invasion. While I found the story compelling in its own right, the introduction of character skill development by way of experience points and levels was exceptionally well done.
There are four paths with which you can take any of the six squads down as you go from level 1 to 20. Each path contains a number of special abilities that can be used in combat during the campaign itself. Putting points in any of the four: stamina, ranged, melee, and energy, help the unit by either providing them additional strength/aptitude in that category that ultimately makes them more efficient on the battle field.
Not only can you take these characters any direction you wish to, but DoW2 even gives you the option to equip them as you see fit. Wargear that drops within the missions, or are rewards in of themselves, make your units stronger, fitter, and even stronger than their level would make them. Basically, campaign mode is a RTS and an RPG rolled into one efficient, coherent whole.
However, there are still some failures within this system. Primarily, some abilities you buy early on in the skill trees become useless as you get Terminator armor. As such, it becomes arguable whether or not you actually want to use Terminator at all since many of the epic quality standard armors are similar in stats, abilities, and overall usefulness as the Terminator armor. Really all the Terminator armor offers that cannot be matched in anyway to the normal armor is the complete suppression and knock back resistance. Basically, two negative effects that can be completely avoided with good, competent leadership of your units.
However, other than some choices within the trees being less useful than others as the game progresses, the only other place that campaign mode falls short is the repetitious nature of the missions. Once you know the dozen or so maps you fight on, you do the same kind of job over and over. While you are still leveling your characters this isn't much of an issue, nor is it while you are still getting the best gear you want to have for your squads, but it does feel a bit like grinding mobs in any standard MMO, a certain downside for an RTS. However, I found it to be a rather minimal downside considering the best part of campaign mode: Co-op.
Co-op has you work through Microsoft Games Live, the PC variant of Xbox Live that is actually mostly rolled into one coherent force nowadays. Anyway, it allows you to play through the co-op with a friend, with each of you in control of 2 units. This means you can take much better care of your two units, and micromanage their actions to the fullest extent. Ultimately, this means that your band of units will be able to accomplish far more than they ever would normally be able to do if controlled by yourself.
On top of all that, there isn't much better than playing through story mode of any game co-op. It is simply just more fun to play with a buddy on any and all missions. Now, whoever hosts stores the saved campaign locally, so they are required to host for every game after to continue the missions, but it doesn't change how fun it is on the overall. You can even continue this co-op trend on into multiplayer.
Now, multiplayer is a different beast entirely, with the exception of the fact that units are still more important than building buildings. The best thing about it, hands down, is the continued focus on the unit command and strategy being vital to successful gameplay. It feels like unit strategy instead of just building strategy. Something I find personally refreshing since my previous RTS plan of attack is dig a hole and wait to strike until I can use the super weapon that will own the face of anyone and everyone.
Obviously, that strategy is rather slow for any kind of competitive play. With the new system you don't have much choice but to go out and wage war. There isn't really a way TO dig a hole and wait to attack. You gain by striking and taking what you can take and knowing what battles to pick, and what battles to avoid. It feels like actual strategy of forces instead of strategy of management. This is something I can embrace.
Now I just have to figure out how to break my mindset of of the dig a hole routine. Maybe I should start by throwing out the shovel.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Review: Fable 2
Fable 2: a continuation and expansion on a fantastic concept that is unfortunately still not quite there.
Now, don't get me wrong, I've not been able to put Fable 2 down since I started playing it. The game opens up with a fantastic intro as well as a decent tutorial phase and contains all the bells and whistles of what made Fable great. However, that is just it, Fable 2 is an enhanced and improved version of Fable. Even the storyline feels like an enhanced or retooled version of the storyline of Fable. However, the game itself is not only solid, but fun. It's just it is a slightly retooled fun introduced in Fable that still doesn't seem to meet the dynamic character growth Lionhead Studios claimed it wanted to construct.
Good and Evil still exist and perhaps the best enhancement is that killing monsters doesn't provide "good" points any longer to make being evil nearly impossible. However, the quests don't provide a "choice" that brings dynamic character development to the table. The choices are all clearly good/evil. There are very few, if any, absolutely neutral choices either ending the illusion of character development rather swiftly.
There is now a pure/corrupt feature that has something to do with the way your character looks, however it is fairly arbitrary and quite often the player will be completely pure without any difficulty whatsoever. The easiest ways to be corrupt, with little benefit or detriment to show for it, is to either eat meat and drink alcohol, or to tax the life out of any tenants you have for the buildings you own. However, the system feels completely unnecessary to gameplay is it adds virtually nothing to the game other than an additional bar that depicts a minor aspect of the way your character's "alignment" is.
The combat system remains very similar to that of the original Fable, but there are a few tweaks in the system that change up the score. Will powers are now charged up over time. This change eliminated "mana" completely and makes the health bar even more important as the player cannot move, or dodge blows making each spell-cast a significant tactical consideration. I find this to be an odd way to treat a possible combat system. Will users are always faced with the difficult decision of fighting with their spells or running away because the enemies will chew them to pieces while they try to cast a spell. While there are ways to make Will more viable, they are all late game options making Will less fun to play early in the game.
The player is granted one significant improvement to gameplay over that of Fable, you have a companion that isn't out to get you the entire time: your dog. Personally, I found the dog to be one of the best, if not the best feature implemented into the game. Not only does he provide useful functions like helping you with quests and finding buried treasure, but his animations and actions feel so right that it almost feels like you actually have a dog there cheering you on to play the game.
This actually leads me to the end of the game. While satisfying to play to completion, the game's ending is so entirely lackluster that it was completely anti-climactic. Then you are confronted with a choice: sacrifice, love, or greed. Each has its own rewards, but the primary problem is the player only gets one dog, ever. In the final sequence, the player loses their dog to narrative delivery and the only way to get him back is to choose the "love" option. Good or evil in character alignment, having your dog is such a compelling reward that choosing this option feels mandatory since the rewards for the other two choices mean very little.
Choosing sacrifice awards your character with a trophy and a statue in the city. No benefits to continuing gameplay. Choosing greed gives your character money. Money that they will sink into real estate and earn all back in a day or less, making it pointless as well. Killing the dog end the entirety of an aspect of gameplay. There is nothing like having your dog around. He fights enemies with you, finds you treasure, and is an incredibly important game mechanic.
That said, Fable 2 is still incredibly fun. There are little niche aspects to gameplay that provide plenty of amusement and challenges. However, it is the same fun as Fable, with only a few new twists to spice things up. If you liked Fable, you'll like Fable 2. If you like playing a 3rd person hack and slash, shoot 'em up, and magic using adventure RPG, you'll like Fable 2. If you like watching a digital dog walk up and pee on someone you Pointed and Laughed at in the game, then you'll like Fable 2. Just don't look for anything groundbreaking about it other than the dog.
Now, don't get me wrong, I've not been able to put Fable 2 down since I started playing it. The game opens up with a fantastic intro as well as a decent tutorial phase and contains all the bells and whistles of what made Fable great. However, that is just it, Fable 2 is an enhanced and improved version of Fable. Even the storyline feels like an enhanced or retooled version of the storyline of Fable. However, the game itself is not only solid, but fun. It's just it is a slightly retooled fun introduced in Fable that still doesn't seem to meet the dynamic character growth Lionhead Studios claimed it wanted to construct.
Good and Evil still exist and perhaps the best enhancement is that killing monsters doesn't provide "good" points any longer to make being evil nearly impossible. However, the quests don't provide a "choice" that brings dynamic character development to the table. The choices are all clearly good/evil. There are very few, if any, absolutely neutral choices either ending the illusion of character development rather swiftly.
There is now a pure/corrupt feature that has something to do with the way your character looks, however it is fairly arbitrary and quite often the player will be completely pure without any difficulty whatsoever. The easiest ways to be corrupt, with little benefit or detriment to show for it, is to either eat meat and drink alcohol, or to tax the life out of any tenants you have for the buildings you own. However, the system feels completely unnecessary to gameplay is it adds virtually nothing to the game other than an additional bar that depicts a minor aspect of the way your character's "alignment" is.
The combat system remains very similar to that of the original Fable, but there are a few tweaks in the system that change up the score. Will powers are now charged up over time. This change eliminated "mana" completely and makes the health bar even more important as the player cannot move, or dodge blows making each spell-cast a significant tactical consideration. I find this to be an odd way to treat a possible combat system. Will users are always faced with the difficult decision of fighting with their spells or running away because the enemies will chew them to pieces while they try to cast a spell. While there are ways to make Will more viable, they are all late game options making Will less fun to play early in the game.
The player is granted one significant improvement to gameplay over that of Fable, you have a companion that isn't out to get you the entire time: your dog. Personally, I found the dog to be one of the best, if not the best feature implemented into the game. Not only does he provide useful functions like helping you with quests and finding buried treasure, but his animations and actions feel so right that it almost feels like you actually have a dog there cheering you on to play the game.
This actually leads me to the end of the game. While satisfying to play to completion, the game's ending is so entirely lackluster that it was completely anti-climactic. Then you are confronted with a choice: sacrifice, love, or greed. Each has its own rewards, but the primary problem is the player only gets one dog, ever. In the final sequence, the player loses their dog to narrative delivery and the only way to get him back is to choose the "love" option. Good or evil in character alignment, having your dog is such a compelling reward that choosing this option feels mandatory since the rewards for the other two choices mean very little.
Choosing sacrifice awards your character with a trophy and a statue in the city. No benefits to continuing gameplay. Choosing greed gives your character money. Money that they will sink into real estate and earn all back in a day or less, making it pointless as well. Killing the dog end the entirety of an aspect of gameplay. There is nothing like having your dog around. He fights enemies with you, finds you treasure, and is an incredibly important game mechanic.
That said, Fable 2 is still incredibly fun. There are little niche aspects to gameplay that provide plenty of amusement and challenges. However, it is the same fun as Fable, with only a few new twists to spice things up. If you liked Fable, you'll like Fable 2. If you like playing a 3rd person hack and slash, shoot 'em up, and magic using adventure RPG, you'll like Fable 2. If you like watching a digital dog walk up and pee on someone you Pointed and Laughed at in the game, then you'll like Fable 2. Just don't look for anything groundbreaking about it other than the dog.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Review: Farcry 2
Farcry 2 is a game possessed with the belief that the player is allowed to freely wander about this undisclosed African nation and perform whatever mercenary actions they feel like making. However, this is not the game that I was presented.
On first loading up Farcry, I was presented with a wide selection of choices for characters that was quickly turned meaningless by the first person perspective of gameplay. Then I enjoyed a wonderful ten minutes of "strapped to a rail" in the back of a jeep watching the only narrative delivery I would receive for the first half of the game: I caught malaria, my enemy knows I'm there, and he decided to spare my life for giggles.
Following this lovely sequence, I'm thrown into this fictional African nation and given so little direction on what I'm doing and how I'm going to do it that I am left holding the controller stating, "I'm so confused." I say this so many times that I think I temporarily lost the rest of my vocabulary over it.
After fighting through difficult to read instructions and a short combat sequence where I lose 3/5 of my health in less than two seconds, I am left to my own sandboxy devices. Now normally I don't mind being left to my own sandboxy devices as long as I can determine where exactly in the sandbox I am, and where I want to go. Here is where Farcry 2 met a significant failing.
The map system provided to the player is exceptionally unique, you have a digital map connected to an actually rendered GPS system. However, at any given time the GPS/map system cannot be seen unless it is specifically called up. Even when it is called up for viewing, it only takes up maybe 1/3 of the screen, making it exceptionally difficult to see and use.
The map swiftly becomes impossible to use efficiently. Ever try driving with a map paper map open in real life? Ever not have a clue where you are and really need to know where you are going, but the map is just not easy to see and drive with at the same time? If not you can experience this in Farcry 2.
Not only can you NOT see where you want to go without taking your eyes off the road, but it is quite likely that the moment you do one of three things will happen. One: you will run yourself off the road and crash your car, likely disabling it; two: you will run into a guard post full of people who want to kill you without hesitation and will do it within a matter of seconds if you are not careful; or three: you'll realize that the pretty landscapes and terrain distracted you sufficiently from your path, and that the road you needed to turn down was actually three guard stations back. Which, I might add, have all respawned their enemy occupants.
Here is where I felt Farcry 2 met another great failing, their combat isn't fair to the player. Not only is the CPU unerringly accurate, but unlike humans, it isn't hurt by the beautiful terrain actually providing cover. Cover doesn't exist for the CPU unless you happen to have bought a very expensive sniper camo suit. Which doesn't make any sense to me as a player because my enemies lack said expensive camo suit and I often could not find them in a stand of trees unless they were actively firing at me and broadcasting their locations with muzzle flashes. I found this highly realistic, but the realism came at a price.
In fact, much of the game is actually too realistic to be fun. Cars fail incredibly quickly when they are being shot at. My character would die within seconds if numerous enemies opened fire on me at once regardless of if I was in a car or not. Traveling anywhere is a long and tedious process because it is simply so hard to navigate the dirt roads of a jungle in this fictional African country. Gun jamming is included in the game, but it happens so frequently in the field because you don't always have the opportunity to return to your storehouse and pick up a fresh gun. Did I mention gun jams also usually happened at the wost possible moment?
And all the while I repeat to myself, "I am so confused." The messages being sent to me by the game kept contradicting itself. The game is about chasing down some gun baron, but not a single mission I performed had anything to do with getting me closer to my target, while being repetitive and boring at the same time.
Combat and travel were so realistic I dreaded crossing the massive map if I was told to do so, but healing and repairing a car were single button fixes. All resources were so limited that I had to ration bullets, healing and even on occasion my magical malaria pills that protected me from menacing and debilitating malaria attacks, but I could pick up a car, a mounted machine gun and one randomly selected resource (usually grenades or Molotov cocktails) at every single checkpoint.
Everywhere I looked I was confronted by a brutally realistic look and feel to the game only to be slapped in the face with something completely simplified, dumbed down and easy. You could spend ten minutes of real time hunting down and slaying 5 'terrorists' at any random checkpoint because it was necessary simply to protect yourself. Then you would drive away and be back less than two minutes later in real time to a completely respawned, renewed, rearmed, and equally annoying checkpoint that you may have left only moments before.
Ultimately, the game attempted to present itself as a gritty and realistic FPS RPG adventure in a fictional African nation, but all it presented was a game that was a frustrating, repetitive, and horrible in its implementation of realistic game qualities. Oh, and did I mention that the writing for the entire game was horrible? Yeah, its bad, I'm not even sure I want to go into how thoroughly they abuse the player with poor dialog and exceptionally poor voice acting.
On first loading up Farcry, I was presented with a wide selection of choices for characters that was quickly turned meaningless by the first person perspective of gameplay. Then I enjoyed a wonderful ten minutes of "strapped to a rail" in the back of a jeep watching the only narrative delivery I would receive for the first half of the game: I caught malaria, my enemy knows I'm there, and he decided to spare my life for giggles.
Following this lovely sequence, I'm thrown into this fictional African nation and given so little direction on what I'm doing and how I'm going to do it that I am left holding the controller stating, "I'm so confused." I say this so many times that I think I temporarily lost the rest of my vocabulary over it.
After fighting through difficult to read instructions and a short combat sequence where I lose 3/5 of my health in less than two seconds, I am left to my own sandboxy devices. Now normally I don't mind being left to my own sandboxy devices as long as I can determine where exactly in the sandbox I am, and where I want to go. Here is where Farcry 2 met a significant failing.
The map system provided to the player is exceptionally unique, you have a digital map connected to an actually rendered GPS system. However, at any given time the GPS/map system cannot be seen unless it is specifically called up. Even when it is called up for viewing, it only takes up maybe 1/3 of the screen, making it exceptionally difficult to see and use.
The map swiftly becomes impossible to use efficiently. Ever try driving with a map paper map open in real life? Ever not have a clue where you are and really need to know where you are going, but the map is just not easy to see and drive with at the same time? If not you can experience this in Farcry 2.
Not only can you NOT see where you want to go without taking your eyes off the road, but it is quite likely that the moment you do one of three things will happen. One: you will run yourself off the road and crash your car, likely disabling it; two: you will run into a guard post full of people who want to kill you without hesitation and will do it within a matter of seconds if you are not careful; or three: you'll realize that the pretty landscapes and terrain distracted you sufficiently from your path, and that the road you needed to turn down was actually three guard stations back. Which, I might add, have all respawned their enemy occupants.
Here is where I felt Farcry 2 met another great failing, their combat isn't fair to the player. Not only is the CPU unerringly accurate, but unlike humans, it isn't hurt by the beautiful terrain actually providing cover. Cover doesn't exist for the CPU unless you happen to have bought a very expensive sniper camo suit. Which doesn't make any sense to me as a player because my enemies lack said expensive camo suit and I often could not find them in a stand of trees unless they were actively firing at me and broadcasting their locations with muzzle flashes. I found this highly realistic, but the realism came at a price.
In fact, much of the game is actually too realistic to be fun. Cars fail incredibly quickly when they are being shot at. My character would die within seconds if numerous enemies opened fire on me at once regardless of if I was in a car or not. Traveling anywhere is a long and tedious process because it is simply so hard to navigate the dirt roads of a jungle in this fictional African country. Gun jamming is included in the game, but it happens so frequently in the field because you don't always have the opportunity to return to your storehouse and pick up a fresh gun. Did I mention gun jams also usually happened at the wost possible moment?
And all the while I repeat to myself, "I am so confused." The messages being sent to me by the game kept contradicting itself. The game is about chasing down some gun baron, but not a single mission I performed had anything to do with getting me closer to my target, while being repetitive and boring at the same time.
Combat and travel were so realistic I dreaded crossing the massive map if I was told to do so, but healing and repairing a car were single button fixes. All resources were so limited that I had to ration bullets, healing and even on occasion my magical malaria pills that protected me from menacing and debilitating malaria attacks, but I could pick up a car, a mounted machine gun and one randomly selected resource (usually grenades or Molotov cocktails) at every single checkpoint.
Everywhere I looked I was confronted by a brutally realistic look and feel to the game only to be slapped in the face with something completely simplified, dumbed down and easy. You could spend ten minutes of real time hunting down and slaying 5 'terrorists' at any random checkpoint because it was necessary simply to protect yourself. Then you would drive away and be back less than two minutes later in real time to a completely respawned, renewed, rearmed, and equally annoying checkpoint that you may have left only moments before.
Ultimately, the game attempted to present itself as a gritty and realistic FPS RPG adventure in a fictional African nation, but all it presented was a game that was a frustrating, repetitive, and horrible in its implementation of realistic game qualities. Oh, and did I mention that the writing for the entire game was horrible? Yeah, its bad, I'm not even sure I want to go into how thoroughly they abuse the player with poor dialog and exceptionally poor voice acting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)