Bionic Commando - Review

Okay, it's time to get back on the blogging horse. Priority number one is reviewing the games I've finished lately.

The original Bionic Commando was a NES age platformer about a soldier with a bionic arm that worked a bit like a grappling hook who has to infiltrate an enemy base (they look an awful lot like Nazis), defeat their leader, and save a captured friend named "Super Joe". There isn't much story there, but old Nintendo cartridges didn't really have the space to explain complex stories.

In this gritty, modern reboot, Spencer (the same guy from the last game) is rotting in prison because society has turned against soldiers with biotic enhancements. He's committed some kind of crime that is left unspecified throughout the adventure, but a terrorist attack on Ascension City offers a chance at redemption. The army thinks the attack was perpetrated by rogue biotics, and for incredibly contrived reasons it's decided that the only person who can stand against them is a lone fellow biotic that was framed, mistreated, and kept in prison for years.

So the story starts dumb and only goes downhill, but more on that later. BC is primarily an action title with two major gameplay mechanics - swinging around environments using your crazy arm and fighting bad guys. For the most part, these both work very well. Using the arm to launch yourself around the environment is really fun, though there is a bit of a learning curve. Still, once you get the hang of it, you'll think you're playing out the script to a Spiderman movie. As for defeating enemy soldiers, you get access to the usual assortment of guns, rifles, grenades, and rocket launchers. But it's FAR more enjoyable to take guys out using your bionic arm and the crazy physics engine. For example, you can pick up a car and use it like a bowling ball against a big group of enemies. Or you can grab a bad guy and toss him off a cliff to his certain doom. While the enemies themselves are pretty repetitive, there's such a large number of ways to defeat them that it takes a while to exhaust the possibilities.

On top of it all the camera in BC is outstanding, a major plus in a game where you're expected to fling yourself about while dodging enemies and trying not to plummet into a canyon. The camera is easy to control, doesn't catch on environmental objects, and includes options for quick turns in any direction using the D-pad.

My only complaint concerning gameplay is that while the gameworld of BC seems wide-open, there are actually many areas that are off-limits due to insta-death radiation. That in itself isn't a big problem, but there's no way to know that one building is fair game while another is bathed in deadly radiation until you've already launched yourself in that direction, whereupon it's too late to do anything but watch yourself die in midair. Checkpoints can be widely spaced in this game as well, meaning that an unfair instant death can mean redoing a lot of work.

It's also worth noting that BC continues the tradition from the NES version by being pretty damn difficult, particularly at the highest level. That's not a complaint exactly, but the sparse checkpoints and occasionally unfair mission failure will combine for some bouts of frustration.

SPOILER ALERT - I'M ABOUT TO RUIN THE "STORY" FOR YOU
Getting back to the story for a moment, BC uses one of my absolute least favorite plot devices - the turncoat who can perfectly predict future events. You see, it turns out that the whole terrorist attack was orchestrated by Super Joe himself, who is trying to steal a piece of top secret technology (Why? Fuck if I know...) that's hidden in Ascension City. The attack is just a ruse to spring Spencer from prison, so he can locate the device and hand it over to Joe. The whole plan requires that: (1) the military agrees with Joe that only one person should be sent rather than a massive strike force, (2) they let Spencer be that guy even though they think he's a dangerous biotic and maybe murder, (3) Spencer doesn't get killed by the legion of soldiers, battle mechs, and bosses between himself and the device, and (4) the general in charge of the operation hands over the secret access code for the device in a moment of panic. If any one of these elements fails, the whole plan would be ruined. How could Joe foresee everything playing out the way it did? And if he desperately needs Spencer to get the device, why would he constantly lead him straight into dangerous combat rather than routing him around the enemy soldiers with whom he's working?

I find this kind of "twist" to be really annoying because it isn't consistent with the turncoat's previous actions/character. It's like the writers thought "Hey, we need a surprise here...I know, random good guy X is actually a double agent! It doesn't make any sense and comes out of nowhere, so nobody will expect it!"

END SPOILERS

Ultimately, BC is a very solid action game with a really dumb story. Despite the plot missteps, I still recommend it for experienced fans of platformer/shooter titles with a reasonable tolerance level for occasional frustration.

Metacritic and the 360: Over and Under Rated Games

If you don't know about Metacritic, it's a review site for several different forms of media (movies, video games, etc.) that goes about business a little differently than most sites. Specifically, they compile ratings from around the web and average them into one score. The idea is that this process is more "fair", as the individual biases of any one reviewer are blunted by combining them with the whole.

I like Metacritic (at least more than any specific review site), but I still find myself at odds with their ratings from time to time. Obviously some of that is personal preference (my own biases if you will), but other times I think that the concept of Metacritic is hampered by inherent issues with critical review in general. In other words, if one critic is overrating a video game, it seems to be more likely that many others are doing the same. Once a few major sites tout a new game as the "GREATEST THING EVER", the rest are hesitant to give it too low of a score for fear of being too different.

Below I'm going to list the 5 most overrated and 5 most underrated games on Metacritic. These are, obviously, just my opinion. I'm also sticking to games that I've actually played, so likely some hidden gems will be missing from my list.

OVERRATED

1. Grand Theft Auto IV
Metacritic score - 98 (these are out of 100)
Sample Review - "It's amazing that a sequel that keeps the core gameplay concepts of its prior incarnations can do so much to change itself into something new. Cabs are awesome, as is the cellphones capabilities. But perhaps the biggest innovation is the notion that you can create a game that's as valid a piece of art as any book or movie. Is this our "Citizen Kane" moment?" (TeamXbox)
My Comments - Let the controversy commence! GTA4 is the #1 overall 360 game on Metacritic, and a pretty beloved title in some circles. The sample review is pretty typical of how this game was received, and beautifully illustrates the failings of the review process. A few major review sites declared that GTA4 was a brilliant work of art, and the rest were terrified to say anything negative about the game for fear that it would seem like they don't "get it". The worst part is that this "Citizen Kane" nonsense (GTA4 has also been compared to The Godfather and various Tarantino works, amongst others) is straight out of the Gamer's Apologetics Handbook. "See, see! Video games can be art! They can be right up there with great works of other media types! VALIDATE MEEEEEEE!"

That's all well and good, but should our efforts to win the "Games as Art" war blind us to GTA4's many failings? I say no. It's a game with an involving story (though one that breaks down in several places) and a highly detailed environment. It's a pretty good game. But the camera and targeting system are both shoddy, and the core gameplay is EXACTLY THE SAME as the last several iterations of GTA. This is the same game that convinced me that Rockstar hates gamers. That's our #1 title? Not a chance...

2. Halo 3
Metacritic score - 94
Sample Review - "Halo 3 may not be as innovative as its predecessors or have the best graphics on the Xbox 360, but it’s an outstanding game and a fitting end to what’s been a fantastic trilogy." (Thunderbolt)
My Comments - More controversy...awesome! Bear in mind that the guy who did the above review still gave Halo 3 a perfect score, despite some decidedly tepid comments. It gives the impression that Halo is getting a lifetime achievement award here rather than being judged on its own merits. In any case, Halo 3 is a lightning rod for both praise and criticism, so I'll simply say that I played this game in online co-op with two friends who practically worshipped the first two games in the series, and they were DISGUSTED with the campaign. Too short, too repetitive, terrible ending...their complaints were legion. I thought it was a polished but uninspired shooter with a famous name. And for all the Halo fanboys who are quick to defend it by saying that only the multiplayer modes are important, save your breath. If the game has a shitty campaign mode, then it isn't worthy of a perfect rating. Is that so hard to understand?

3. Resident Evil 5
Metacritic score - 85
Sample Review - "The gorgeous graphics, the superb sound, the great (if sometimes twitchy) AI of your partner and the jaw-dropping gameplay take everything that was brilliant about Resident Evil 4 and ramp it up to the next level, making for one of the best gaming experiences ever!" (AceGamez)
My Comments - This is just straight up bullshit. RE5 is inferior to RE4 in practically every respect. It has a nonsensical story, an unlikeable protagonist, a broken inventory system, abysmal AI that makes your partner a constant nuisance, and enough quick-time events to make me grind my teeth. Plus the people who made it are either racists or idiots. While a score of 85 might not seem that high, bear in mind that it puts RE5 ahead of games like Borderlands, Viva Pinata, and Civilization Revolution, to name a few.

4. Crackdown
Metacritic score - 83
Sample Review - "Games like Crackdown are the cornerstone the 360's passionate user community is built upon, and why the 360 is developing an increasingly deserved reputation for being the next-gen console of choice." (Worth Playing)
My Comments - I have no idea if the 360 is the next generation console of choice, but they're definitely right that this game has a passionate user base. I've personally never understood the appeal of this game. It's insanely repetitive, and the graphical style could be charitably called mediocre. I know people who were practically frothing at the mouth for the second installment of Crackdown...were they excited or disappointed to discover that it's just more of the same?

5. Eternal Sonata
Metacritic score - 79
Sample Review - "While the balance issues are irritating, to say the least, Eternal Sonata's artistic appeal more than makes up for what the gameplay is lacking. With an excellent story, interesting characters, impressive music, and quite frankly the most beautiful graphics ever produced in a video game, Eternal Sonata is without question the first must-play RPG of the new console generation." (RPGamer)
My comments - This game's rating is skewed by a few people (such as the above reviewer) that heaped ridiculous amounts of praise on it thanks to the (admittedly) impressive graphics. What they don't sufficiently emphasize is that the game is an aggravating chore to play thanks to the repetitive combat system and lengthy, pointless cutscenes. This is the worst RPG I've played to date on the 360, so how it ranks evenly with titles like Tales of Vesperia, Blue Dragon, and Lost Odyssey (a strong candidate for the underrated list) is beyond me.

UNDERRATED

1. Hitman: Blood Money
Metacritic score - 82
Sample Review - "The gameplay gives you plenty of choices regarding progressing through a stage, and it looks good while you do so. It would've been very easy to churn out another boring murderfest, but instead we get a thinking man's game. Good showing." (Game Over Online)
My Comments - Thinking man's (and woman's) game? There's a fatal flaw if I've ever heard one. Blood Money was a great title, one of the finest stealth games ever made (only the Thief games could compete with it). It married an interesting story with tight, intuitive gameplay and added in some of the most inspired level design I've ever seen. Hitman is almost more of a puzzle game than an action title, as determining how to eliminate your target in the most stealthy manner possible is a fascinating challenge. Unfortunately the game suffered at the hands of critics thanks to the fact that it was ported from the previous generation, and was thus consigned to scores that put it behind the decidedly inferior Splinter Cell games.

2. Condemned: Criminal Origins
Metacritic score - 81
Sample review - "While it is a worthy first survival horror game for the Xbox 360, Condemned: Criminal Origins is a bit of a one-trick pony. Once the campaign is over, the player can go back to unlock more extras, but the game is pretty much done, and it has probably gotten repetitive to the average player by then anyway." (GameShark)
My Comments - Sigh. Condemned is one of the scariest, most atmospheric games I've ever played. It ramps up tension like few movies can do, let alone video games. The environments are creepy and unsettling, and the combat is almost disturbingly visceral. This game is not for everyone, but for those who like smart horror films, Condemned is a must-play. As for being a "one-trick pony", what else did you want GameShark? It's not an 80 hour RPG, it's a 10-15 hour horror game with a tight narrative and excellent gameplay. It's certainly true that once you've played it, you've seen the story and some of the scares will be ruined, but so what? It's a different kind of play experience.

3. Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts
Metacritic score - 79
Sample Review - "It's hard to recommend Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts. It's too complicated for kids, and too convoluted for adults, If you're the creative type, you'll enjoy fiddling around with all the parts, but if you're looking for an accessible game that you can play in short bursts and make headway, then steer clear." (GameTrailers)
My Comments - Nuts & Bolts is a brilliant idea for a game. You give the player a bunch of pieces that can be constructed into vehicles (engines, wheels, wings, etc.), give them challenges (carry an acorn from one spot to another, win a race that traverses both land and water, etc.), and then let them design their own custom machines to complete the challenges. It's like Lego/Tinker Toys come to life. It's quirky and different with an endearing sense of humor.

So of course, reviewers mostly disliked it. Oh, there's usually some hand-waving towards the "creative types" (see above), but games like this are generally seen as just time-wasters before getting back to the serious business of blasting space aliens in Halo and its many, many clones. What annoys me about this type of review is that it grossly underestimates children (would someone look at a pile of Lincoln Logs and say "those are too complicated for kids"?) and makes a basic assumption that anything that engages someone's mind is destined for failure. If we expect the worst from people in our society, isn't that what we'll get?

4. Thrillville: Off the Rails
Metacritic score - 73
Sample Review - "It's perfect for children, for whom things don't have to "be integrated" or "logical". A series of semi-amusing, unconnected activities: sounds a lot like a sandbox, which, once you graduate middle school, loses its charm unless you can bring your gat." (Games Radar)
My Comments - In other words, once you turn 14 years of age it's no longer possible to enjoy a sandbox game if it doesn't involve robbing banks and killing prostitutes. You know, integrated logical games like Grand Theft Auto. In Thrillville, you get to design your own theme park, build roller coasters (and ride them!), and try out a variety of well-designed mini-games, all of which are apparently activities that only appeal to elementary school kids. If only you could punish guests who complained about your park by beating them with a baseball bat, maybe Thrillville could aspire to GTA's sense of realism...

5. Sacred 2: Fallen Angel
Metacritic score - 71
Sample Review - "If you can accept it for its dated gameplay, underwhelming visuals, and pervasive bugs, then you may find something of value in this old-school hack-and-slash RPG. All other prospective dungeon crawlers are best advised to take a pass on this fallen flunk." (GameTrailers).
My Comments - I just don't get how this game slipped through the cracks. Dated gameplay? It plays almost exactly the same as World of Warcraft, which has a greater population of players than some developed nations! Pervasive bugs? I've put over 100 hours into the game and found bugs to be both rare and minor. Oblivion (another game I liked) received nothing but critical acclaim, and it was way more buggy than Sacred. Underwhelming visuals? Feh, I guess that depends on what you were expecting. I think the game has very solid graphics, and the variety of enemy models and environments is truly staggering. Compare it to Borderlands (for example), which has a very drab and repetitive art style, and Sacred easily comes out on top in that category.

Again, this is the game on my list that I understand the least. Sacred is like a combination of Diablo and World of Warcraft, which is like mixing chocolate and crack cocaine. Yet reviewers hated it. Why? I'm still not sure, but anyone who likes open-world fantasy RPGs should give this one a try.

Last Remnant - Part Three

I've covered the story and characters pretty thoroughly, so now it's time to get to the nitty-gritty and talk about the actual gameplay in Last Remnant. On the surface LR is a turn-based RPG, one of those affairs where the action pauses so each side can determine how they want to proceed. While that's certainly the case, LR eschews standard character-based combat and replaces it with an emphasis on squads. You arrange your various characters into groups (up to 5), which then attack, defend, heal, or whatever as a team. You don't actually get to pick an individual action for each character (a good thing, since you'll eventually be commanding 15 at a time), but rather give each squad a general command (raise your HP, attack with special abilites, etc.) and then they follow as best they can.

It's an interesting system that greatly streamlines command inputs while still allowing for large-scale confrontations with enemy troops. The issue comes, however, with the fact that each squad receives a set of possible commands (mostly at random) from which you can choose, regardless of whether your preferred action is there or not. This comes into play especially when one of your squads has taken a lot of damage - you'll be looking for an option to heal (or at least pull back and regroup), but it's quite possible that the only options available will involve rushing headlong into the fight. It's a system that creates a strong (and largely unwelcome) element of luck. Indeed, I had instances where I got party-wiped in a boss fight because I drew a series of unfortunate command options, then tried again and won easily because I got healing and special attack options when I need them.

The lack of control over your characters aside, I will say that battles are cinematic masterpieces in this game. You really get a sense of ebb and flow as the tide of battle turns over the course of a big showdown (especially with the bosses). In that sense, LR achieved something I hadn't seen before - squad-based RPGs are not common.

Other positives about gameplay:
- No random fights...you see enemies on the screen and can avoid them if you don't want to battle. Very handy when backtracking so you don't have to waste time fighting worthless enemies.
- You don't control equipment and ability upgrades for your companions. They ask for equipment that you recover, and you can choose to give it to them or not. It's nice to avoid micromanaging a couple dozen characters, though occasionally you'll end up with a Sword of Awesomeness that's going to waste while your buddies are fighting with sharp sticks.
- There are a lot of side quests, hidden bosses, and special equipment to be found if you're looking. There's plenty of incentive to explore thoroughly, and the rewards are quite worthwhile.

So much to like in LR, and yet there's two MAJOR holes that tarnish the experience.

1. As a piece of software, LR on the Xbox 360 is essentially broken. Stuttering, slow-down, massive frame drops during battle...the developers should be embarrassed that they sent this game out the door. And it's no occasional thing either, something that could have slipped through the cracks in play testing. Every battle is marred by graphical glitches and frame rate issues. They knew this game was not fit to be released, and then they released it anyway. Poor form Square-Enix.

2. LR features the most screwed up leveling system ever devised. That is no exaggeration...it's terrible. The way it works is that you army as a whole levels together after a number of battles. However, individual characters gain strength by battling specific (tough) enemies that trigger statistical increases. What's really crazy is that the level of your army is practically inconsequential in determining how battle-ready you are, while statistical increases to individuals is paramount to victory against the tougher bosses in the game.

That may not have made much sense, so let me bottom line what it means to you, the player. The more you fight, the more your army level goes up in relation to your individual characters. Thus, fighting a lot means that you get WEAKER AND WEAKER relative to the tougher enemies. Think about that...the more experience you gain, the WORSE your team fights. The key to raising a strong party? Dashing around the map and avoiding enemies as much as possible until you get to a spot where you can battle the special "character improvement" monsters. Then grind like hell beating them over and over until you're super powerful. If you don't do it that way, you may find at the end of the game that your characters are simply too weak to continue, with little means of improving.

What a backwards, asinine system. It encourages you to skip the actual "game" part of the game as much as possible and PUNISHES you for having the audacity to try improving your roster at the beginning of the game. And don't even get me started about the fact that LR offers you the chance to recruit an enormous number (50+?) of unique generals into your army, but actually using a variety of allies rather than the same ones every time will practically doom you to failure.

The worst part? None of this is explained by the game or in the manual. If you search message board threads about LR, you'll find dozens of people complaining that they got to the end game and were too weak to continue. These people invested dozens of hours into the game playing in a manner that they thought would make their team strong, only to discover that they were RIGHT FUCKED and had to start over. Folks, that is the definition of bad video game design.

So in the end, we have a game with great protagonists and not a single decent villain. A complex political plot that falls apart at the end. A unique and engaging squad-based combat system that's done in by buggy coding. A deep customization system that's complimented by numerous side quests and then SHAT UPON by a bass-ackwards leveling mechanic that potentially ruins the game for many players.

I alternately loved and hated this game, so why do I find myself hoping they'll make another one???

Last Remnant - Part Two

Last time, I established that Last Remnant desperately lacks a quality villain. But what it does have is a couple of likable protagonists in Rush Sykes and Marquis David (pronounced dah-veed...think French).
















Rush starts the game on a quest to find his kidnapped sister. They have absentee parents (scientist/scholars who are too busy in the field to raise their kids), so Rush has understandably developed a "guardian" relationship with his sister. He blames himself for allowing her to be kidnapped (he fights the abductors but is overmatched), so it isn't hard to see why he's so driven. He reminded me of a more good-natured Fox Mulder (shout out to the X-Files fans), in that he wants to help people, but he doesn't want to get too side-tracked from his mission.














As for David, he's a young man (I'd guess late teens, like Rush) trying to fill the shoes of his recently deceased father, the former Marquis of Althum. Apparently dad was a pretty great ruler, much loved by his subjects, and David is struggling to cope with the loss and the weight of following in his footsteps. David is a good person who wants to help those in need, but he has to balance that desire with the needs of his kingdom. All the while, he has to deal with the fact that Althum is pretty low in the pecking order of kingdoms (they aren't even fully independent from another nearby country). It's a precarious position, and not easy to handle for a young prince that took the throne too early and is filled with self-doubt.

Now here's the kicker that makes these two such good characters: Rush and David end up complimenting each other perfectly. Rush is cocksure and confident, but he lacks the resources and political acumen to get his sister back. He'd "rush" headlong into danger without someone like David reigning him back a bit. As for David, he has the will to do the right thing but lacks the confidence. So through their friendship, Rush learns to fight for something greater than himself (the well-being of an entire kingdom) and ultimately recovers his sister, while David gains the confidence to lead Althum in its hour of need, saves the kingdom from a war, and gains its independence.

The best part is that everything I'm describing about their relationship is subtext, rather than explicitly stated. In most games (and movies), the writers worry that the viewer is too stupid to pick up on a subtle undertones, so they spell everything out. In this game, there's no specific scene where Rush and David express the fact that they depend on one another and cover for each other's shortcomings. They interact like normal people...you just get to know them over the course of the game to the point where you can detect these things yourself. Mark me down as a person who prefers the more subtle route in storytelling.

CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS: NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO HOP OFF THE BUS...NON-TRADITIONAL MATERIAL TO FOLLOW! SEE YOU NEXT TIME!

One last bit of "subtext" that I felt was present in Last Remnant - there were more than a few hints that Rush and David had deeper feelings for each other than just friendship. They have a very close relationship, well beyond what even most very good friends would develop. Some of the comments that they exchange have a flirtatious undertone (example: when David requests an item from the party's inventory, Rush responds "Awww...I could never say no to you.") At one point, an openly gay bartender blatantly hits on Rush, so it's not like homosexual themes would come out of nowhere.

Again, this is all subtext. It's certainly never explicitly stated that the two share a deeper relationship. But I think most people who are perceptive when it comes to personal interactions would definitely pick up on at least the possibility. Compared to the atrocious homosexual themes in the equally-atrocious Enchanted Arms (featuring a screeching drama queen stereotype), Rush and David are handled with class and subtlety. Whether I'm right or not, I enjoyed them both as characters.

"Real Men Play Hannah Montana"

The above should be the official Achievement Whore motto.

Which of the following activities have you always wanted to do in a video game:
A. Make a pop star pose and dance around during a concert
B. Buy a variety of dresses and accessories, then customize them with designs
C. Ride a horse and make it jump over hay bales (note: horse may handle more like a fighter plane than an actual animal)
D. Flirt with boy in cowboy hat by helping him build a chicken coop.
E. All of the above

If you answered E, then holy shit do I have the game for you. It's Hannah Montana: The Movie. Uh, The Game. Except I'd barely even call it a game, so maybe more like The Tedious and Short Lived Experience.

Going into Hannah Montana as a person who knows nothing about her, her music, her TV show or her movie, I wasn't really sure what to expect. I figured there'd be some music, and maybe some mini-games, but beyond that I couldn't guess. Video games are generally driven by conflict of some kind, and the type of high school/pop star conflict that drives Hannah's life doesn't seem like it would translate.

Which, to tip my hand, it doesn't. Hannah Montana isn't a poorly made video game by any stretch. It's just incredibly limited and not at all fun. Even if you were a crazed mark for Miley Cyrus and her alter ego, I can't see how you'd enjoy this title.

To emphasize my point, let me go over the sum total of activities in the game:

1. Concerts: Over the course of the game, Hannah gives several performances of her various songs. Your job is to perform little mini-games to keep the crowd excited. You use the thumbsticks to strike poses, tap buttons to play the drums and guitar, catch falling notes to play the keyboard, and play a timing game to sing. This is as close to game content as you're going to get.

2. Mini-games: There are only four of these - the aforementioned horse riding game and three carnival style attractions. Two of the carnival games have atrocious controls, though the third, knocking over soda cans with bean bags, was as close to fun as this game ever got for me.

3. Dress up: If you've ever wanted to dress a virtual Hannah Montana in various outfits, this is your big chance. In terms of actual gameplay, you can largely (and thankfully) ignore this.

4. Faffing about: Not to steal from Yahtzee, but the majority of this game (80%+) is spent wandering around talking to people and looking for poorly hidden objects. It's excruciatingly dull, in large part thanks to Hannah's snail-like walking pace (my kingdom for a run button) and the painfully lame dialogue. Like it or no, this is what you'll mostly be doing.

One might hope that the game would at least have an interesting plot given the paucity of gameplay, but prepare for disappointment. Miley's small podunk town in Tennessee (which somehow has a fairground, a petting zoo, and a university) has attracted the interest of a real estate developer, who wants to build apartment complexes and a mall. For some bizarre reason, everyone in town agrees that this is terrible and will ruin the town. (By the way, this includes the mayor...are elected town officials generally this opposed to what would represent an economic boon for their constituency?)

Anyway, the plan is for Hannah Montana to give a benefit concert, which is odd because it's right there in town and attended pretty much just by the townspeople...the same townspeople who couldn't afford to keep the developer out in the first place. Maybe the 360 hardware couldn't render the throngs of out-of-towners who came to the concert?

Meanwhile, Miley is trying to keep her secret that she's Hannah Montana and score a date with a slow-witted boy (man? it's not clear) named Travis. This leads to an awkward scene in which she's supposed to be attending a mayor's welcome event as Hannah and a date with Travis as Miley at the same time, with Three's Company style results. Oh, and there's a running subplot that goes nowhere in which some tabloid reporter is trying to discover the identity of Hannah Montana. And there's some crap about her retarded brother missing a college deadline (they must have very low standards) and her dad (Billy Ray Cyrus...now THAT'S star power!) trying to woo some other woman while keeping Travis away from Miley. If all this sounds like it would work better as a TV show, you've appraised it well.

All told, Hannah Montana is about three hours long...pitiful for a retail release and yet still more than enough for me. I can't recommend this title to anyone. Even hardcore Hannah Montana fans should stick to her music and television show, because there isn't anything to find entertaining about this game.

Review - Viking: Battle for Asgard

It's about time I got something on this blog other than Achievement awards!

Viking is a game that got a pretty tepid reception from most reviewers. It's metacritic score (68/100) is decidedly mediocre and it didn't do much volume in sales. So maybe I'm tipping my hand here a bit, but this review is partly a defense of a game that I think is a bit of a hidden gem. I liked Viking. In fact, I was surprised how much I enjoyed it.

Viking is a third person action/hack-and-slash game set (obviously) in the world of Norse myth. You play as Skarin (pronounced Scar-in), a Viking warrior felled in battle by demonic forces who is chosen by a goddess to stem the tide of evil. Over the course of the game, you'll travel to three different islands, free imprisoned warriors to fight beside you, and drive hordes of enemies from the Viking homelands.

Now, that's a pretty basic setup - kill the baddies and free the good guys. Sprinkle in some Norse mythology with about the same depth as a Thor comic book and that's most of the story. However, I was surprised to discover that there's a fascinating undercurrent to the plot. You spend the game fighting as the champion for the beautiful goddess Freya and against the forces of the evil goddess Hel. While that seems pretty straightforward, you slowly learn over the course of the game that everything is not as it seems. I don't want to give away a bunch of spoilers, but I will say that Norse gods (much like the mythos of the Greeks and the Romans) make for interesting characters precisely because they share the same foibles, shortcomings, and penchants for jackassery as their human counterparts. Best of all, the game provides a pretty satisfactory ending (though not the one I was hoping for) that wraps up the loose ends. These days they usually end games with cliffhangers to set up sequels that may or may not ever get made.

It wasn't just the story that was a pleasant surprise. Gameplay consists of roaming freely across maps and finding enemy encampments to attack. I wouldn't exactly call this open world gaming in the vein of Grand Theft Auto, as you often have to perform tasks in specific order to advance. Still, there's a strong exploration element that rewards the player with money and allies to further Skarin's goals.

At its heart, Viking is a hack-and-slash game...you'll definitely be stomping the skulls of a LOT of Hel's forces. The battle system in Viking is solid, with a number of combat moves to employ (and you can learn more in the battle arena for a price, though what ancient spirits of dead warriors want with cash is unclear). What's interesting about Viking is that there are a number of enemy types, and specific combat moves work better on some than others. You could get through the game spamming nothing but the basic attack, but some enemies would be awfully difficult to defeat. It's a system that encourages the player to learn a few different combat options so they'll be ready for anything.

And you'd better be ready, because Viking does not kid around about throwing you into the fire. Hel's forces are honestly not so hot in the fighting department, but they make up for it in sheer volume. The game is not bashful about sending a dozen or more enemies after you at the same time, especially if you rush blindly into danger. The game also features massive battles between your Viking army and enemy legions. These are a sight to behold, as soldiers clash in combat and tamed dragons assist you from the skies. The only bad news is that the larger battles can tax the Xbox 360 hardware, causing some stuttering and other graphical issues (burning the game to your hard drive helps).

If all that wasn't enough, Viking features a cleverly integrated stealth component that comes in quite handy. As long as you haven't been seen by an enemy, Skarin creeps along to show that he's in stealth mode. If you sneak up on an enemy, you can perform a stealth kill with a single button press. This ability is absolutely vital during sections where you need to skulk through an enemy stronghold to accomplish some task. The reason I love this system is that there's no "stealth mode" vs. "combat mode"...it's all seamless.

As for gripes, there are some legitimate ones. Like almost any hack-and-slash game, Viking gets pretty repetitive after a while. The pattern for liberating each island is virtually identical, so by the third and final island you'll probably have had enough Viking-themed fun. That's particularly true because the game stops throwing new enemy types at you and focuses on pitting you against more enemies, which just has the effect of making each battle longer. I could have used one less island and more story elements, particularly about the gods. And I suppose I should beat one of my favorite dead horses when it comes to third person action titles - the camera. To be fair, the one in Viking isn't terrible, but it still loves to play tricks on you at inopportune times. Things like lurching around the screen at a key moment or reorienting itself so that you can't see enemies that are attacking you. There are even a few caves/dungeons with instant death pits (why???) that would be obvious to a person walking around but can be near invisible given the camera angle.

Those issues aside, Viking was definitely a pleasant surprise. It isn't a long game and doesn't require much of a time investment for people willing to give it a shot. Given it's repetitive nature you may prefer it as a rental or at a bargain price, but it's definitely worth a look.

Borderlands - Review

This one has been a long time coming. I've been playing through Borderlands with a couple friends on a (mostly) once-a-week schedule. Last week we finally finished the game, so now it's review time. I've also played a little single player to try out each character class and get a sense for how the game feels without buddies backing you up all the time.

Borderlands is a sort of FPS/RPG hybrid. I guess one could say the same of Fallout 3, though that title resided more on the RPG end of the continuum while Borderlands is closer to an FPS. However, I don't think it would be right to compare Borderlands to Fallout 3, as it reminded me more of an FPS version of Diablo. In other words, it's less about story and character interaction, and more about slaughtering hoards of baddies to collect ever improving loot (largely in the form of guns).

In fact, progression in the game is almost exclusively driven by weapons. Defeated enemies drop weapons. You find weapons in chests and crates throughout the environment. Completing missions often yields weapons as a reward. It's certainly the case that gaining experience and leveling up through defeating enemies and finishing missions will improve your character. But the bottom line is that finding a powerful gun relative to your current level is easily the most important way to get a leg up in Borderlands. Finding a really powerful weapon that matches your chosen class is an enormous advantage.

There are four classes available in Borderlands: a frontline tank character, a sneaky backstabber, a sniper, and an all around weapons expert that doubles as the primary healer. Each class has its own skill tree, weapon preferences, and special abilities to use, but the four seemed well balanced to me. It's interesting to note though that the classes don't feel nearly as unique when you play the game single player. As an example, building up a great backstabbing character is of limited use when you don't have any teammates to distract the enemies. If you'll be playing by yourself, you'll need to build a more balanced character who can handle close-combat with a lot of enemies in your face. Otherwise, certain sections of the game can be quite difficult.

That's why I recommend Borderlands for people who prefer a multiplayer experience. Played with friends, the game offers a number of team strategies to exploit, and the various classes work together brilliantly. Our team had a tank to distract enemies and absorb damage, a weapons specialist to deal damage and heal the tank, and a sniper to rack up kills from a distance. We struggled a bit early while learning our various roles, but once we had mastered the various available strategies, the rest of the game was comparatively quite easy.

As for the other aspects of the game, plot is not a strong point. It basically boils down to a group of treasure hunters who have come to a wasteland world that may or may not house "The Vault", a secret cache of...something? The intro is intentionally vague and little information is given as you progress about the contents of this vault. I guess we just have to trust the game that there's good stuff to be had. Most of the quests are given through text boxes rather than spoken by the characters. On the other hand, I liked the "wild west on an alien world" feel of Borderlands, with quirky (sometimes batshit insane) NPC's that talk like extras from an episode of "Dukes of Hazzard". It was unique, rather than feeling like every other FPS set on an alien planet.

Of course, what would one of my reviews be without some griping? I felt like the interface for comparing weapons could have been a lot more clear. Every gun has a ridiculous number of statistics to consider, some of which are labeled in your inventory screen and others that aren't. How many bullets does it hold? What's the reload speed? Regular damage? Critical damage? Does it do elemental damage on the side? How much? Does it have a scope so you can zoom in while sniping? Sometimes the game would act like I just found a great weapon, yet it would be unclear to me why it was any better than the normal one I was already carrying.

For all the different guns available in Borderlands, the number of enemies to use them on is shockingly limited. The same enemy types repeat again and again, which can certainly get dull after a while. There's also the option to drive a car so you can get around the map faster, but the driving mechanics are pretty poor. Essentially you have to accelerate/reverse with the left stick while steering the car AND camera with the right stick (and possibly fire weapons with the triggers), which is an unwieldy system to say the least. On top of that, the car seems to snag on nearly invisible environmental objects and, in many cases, feels like it's practically weightless. It should be noted though that one of my friends adapted to the driving controls pretty quickly, so it's possible that I'm just being petty here. My biggest complaint by far is that Borderlands has a really crappy ending...I won't spoil it but I'll simply say that after working our asses off to find the Vault, my friends and I were pretty underwhelmed by the ultimate payoff for our efforts.

Minor annoyances aside, I absolutely recommend Borderlands. It's got enough action to satisfy the twitch game fans and enough statistical min/maxing and questing to satisfy RPG types. If possible, try to recruit some friends so you can enjoy the game the way it was meant to be played. Either way, give it a try...maybe I'll see YOU in the Borderlands!

Dante's Inferno - Review

Dante's Inferno is one of the more polarizing games to be released lately. Some people have praised its art direction and willingness to meld gameplay with larger philosophical ideas. Others have derided it as a shameless God of War ripoff. Still others have condemned it as another example of the depravity of the gaming industry.

I'm not sure I embody any of those specific positions, but I can certainly give my impressions of the game. As we proceed, it's important to note that I never played God of War, so if you fall into the camp that dismisses Dante's Inferno for being a knock-off, you probably won't find this review very satisfying. Feel free to scream "God of War did it first!" after every sentence in which I praise the game if it will make you feel better.

DI's story loosely follows that of the Divine Comedy, an epic poem written in the 14th century about Dante's tour through Hell, Purgatory, and eventually Heaven. Like most classic works of literature, there's a lot of disagreement about the underlying themes, but most people seem to agree that much of the poem is a metaphor about how humans come to God over the course of their lifetimes, and there seems to be more than a little commentary on the prevailing organized religion of the time.

I didn't read the Divine Comedy, but I found the plot of the game to be reasonably entertaining. Dante returns from the Crusades (where he's been a bit of a naughty boy) to discover that his beloved Beatrice has been killed and (due to Dante's transgressions) has been claimed by the Devil. Unwilling to accept that Beatrice is lost to the darkness for his own failings, Dante chases after the Devil right into Hell itself in an attempt to save her. What follows is Dante kicking demonic ass through the many layers of Hell, occasionally punctuated with shameful memories of his misdeeds.

Man saves his one true love from an unstoppable evil force? Sounds like the plot to Donkey Kong to me. But for a game that seems to revel in violence to an almost disturbing degree, the plot manages to hit some surprisingly subtle and nuanced moments. I won't ruin any of them, but know that Dante's past choices have had great effects on the lives of those around him, and the game reveals over time how those decisions have led to his current trials.

The level design and presentation of DI go hand in hand with the strong story. Each layer of Hell is represented very differently, be it the rivers of gold running through Greed to the fiery lava of Anger. I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating: this game is NOT for the faint of heart. It is not remotely bashful about depicting human suffering in the afterlife, and this is OLD TESTAMENT style stuff.

My only complaint concerning the story/presentation of DI is that I thought they started running out of ideas about two thirds of the way through the game. Or another possibility is that they were rushing to wrap things up, as it felt like some of the characters towards the end weren't receiving as much attention to their back stories and ultimate fates as ones in the early going. It doesn't bother me that the game is somewhat short (around 10 hours), but it does bother me a bit that it couldn't maintain its pace throughout.

Gameplay is solid and becomes pretty intuitive over time. Dante swings his scythe around using either quick or power attacks and shoots holy power out of his cross. There's some magic to fling about, a rage meter to unleash extra damage for a short time, and an upgrade tree that unlocks new combos and perks over time. It's a fairly deep combat system, especially given that the game isn't so long that you'll have exhausted it when you're done. Indeed, I still had a number of abilities yet to unlock by the time I had finished.

The game also features some very mild platforming, though nothing too terribly difficult. There's a smattering of puzzles, which are pretty much the same old block pushing busywork we've seen in a million other games. I wish that whole gaming chestnut would get retired. The larger issue is the difficulty curve - the first boss battle comes very early in DI and it's really difficult (to the point that I worried the game would be insanely hard), but in general the difficulty at the beginning was exactly the same as the difficulty at the end. There's a couple moments (a jumping puzzle here or a boss battle there) where I had to redo a short section (checkpoints come often - a big plus in favor of the game) but once you've figured out the controls, the game never got any more challenging.

Granted, DI is more story based and I didn't really want it to kill me off over and over. It just would have been nice if the early battles had been a bit easier and the late battles a little tougher so my skills could have developed a little more naturally. In any case, I enjoyed Dante's Inferno quite a bit and would recommend it to anyone who likes both hack-and-slash style games and plots with some interesting points to make. If they make a sequel (Dante chillin' in Purgatory?), I'll definitely give it a shot.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - Review

First come the books, then come the movies, and then, as inevitably as the tides, come the games. I would have guessed that the whole Harry Potter fad was largely over at this point, but the release of a new movie every other year seems to stir the pot anew.

Half Blood Prince is the second book/movie of the series to get the 360 treatment. I played the previous entry (Order of the Phoenix) and it was a surprisingly decent game (my expectations are always low for licensed titles). That game focused on exploring the school grounds and solving various problems with a little right thumb stick aided magic. It wasn't overly deep and the replay value was essentially nil, but there was enough variety to carry a 10-15 hour adventure game (especially for Harry Potter fans).

This new entry has improved on the previous one in a few ways. Graphically, HBP is sharper and more detailed than OOTP, while the character models have been significantly improved. The school itself looks largely the same, but navigation is a bit easier this time around thanks to a new option to let Nearly Headless Nick guide you to your next objective. The biggest improvement is in the dueling mechanics, in which the slow, labored pace of the previous game is replaced by fast-paced battles with a control scheme that favors rapid spells and counters.

That's good, because dueling is a REALLY common activity in this game. Hogwarts students apparently live more dangerous and troubled lives than kids who attend inner-city high schools, as even the most trivial of disagreements seem to erupt into magical violence. Given the number of fellow students I left crumpled in the dirt on school grounds, it's a wonder I didn't get poor Harry expelled.

So yes, dueling comes up a lot in this game. In fact, the entire experience is built on the three-legged platform of dueling, potion making, and Quidditch. That's pretty much the whole game, so your opinion of the game will be directly related to how much you enjoy those activities. As I previously noted, dueling is great. Potion making involves using the left stick to select ingredients from a table and the right stick to mix them in a cauldron. It can be a surprisingly tricky activity, as many of the potions require a lot of manipulations and the time constraints can be very tight. But the biggest issue is that it's a pretty repetitive activity...once you get the gist of it (which won't take long), it will feel pretty much like doing the same thing over and over.

But by far the worst activity is Quidditch or, as I refer to it, "The Dumbest Game Ever Invented". Sorry, but I have to wander off on a tangent here: has J.K. Rowling ever played or watched a sport before? Imagine watching a great basketball game. LeBron James is on one side and Kobe Bryant is on the other. They're trading baskets, their teammates are playing well, and everyone is on the edge of their seat as they wonder who will prevail. Then suddenly the water boy stumbles across a golden ticket under one of the seats, shows it to the ref, and the game instantly ends with his team the winner. Everything that happened before that? The previous points, the effort, the duel between superstars? Meaningless. They might as well have sat on their asses doing nothing while the waterboys were scouring for the ticket. Wouldn't you think that was a dumb way to decide...ANYTHING? Well, that's how Quidditch works - it's a bunch of people playing one sport (pointlessly) while a couple other people do something totally different that overrides everything else going on.

Without this "Golden Snitch" business, Quidditch is essentially hocky/rugby while flying on brooms, which is pretty sweet. And you'd think that would make for a fun video game. But no, you get to be Harry Potter (it's his game after all) chasing after the snitch while piloting your broom through checkpoints. It's excruciatingly dull, made even worse by the fact that while you go through the motions of chasing the stupid snitch YOU CAN HEAR THE DAMN GAME GOING ON AROUND YOU! Man, that sounds exciting...I wish I could be a part of that instead of flying through these stupid stars. And hey guys, why are you bothering with all the "get the ball through the hoop" bullshit since I'm just going to catch this snitch at the end and win the match single-handedly? The game makes a big deal about picking your Quidditch team and developing Ron into a solid goalkeeper, but what difference does it make?

So ultimately, we've got a three part game with one good part, one mediocre part, and one part involving shitty Quidditch. Added up, I was left disappointed. Half Blood Prince is not a bad game by any stretch, but it isn't terribly compelling and it definitely lacks the charm of the previous title. Ah well, maybe they'll do better when Deathly Hallows comes out...

Spectral Force 3 - Review

Last time I talked about a niche genre (hunting games) that isn't really my cup of tea. Today I'll review a title from a niche genre that I love - tactics games. I've been working through Spectral Force 3 (twice!) for the last few weeks. The short review is that I liked it quite a bit. That in itself might surprise some because the game got absolutely terrible reviews. Most of the big game sites panned it. I'm not 100% sure why, though I suspect it has a lot to do with reviewers not really loving this particular style of game.

In a tactics game, you deploy troops from your army onto an isometric map and then attempt to use them strategically to defeat your opponents or accomplish some objective. It's all turn based, meaning that victory is decided not by skill with the controller but by making wise decisions on the battlefield. My favorite aspect of these games is that between battles you can upgrade your troops and outfit them for specific purposes. In many ways, you win or lose the battle before you ever step onto the field.

However, I concede that this style of game is not for everyone. If you want fast paced action, you will not find it in tactics games, and definitely not in Spectral Force 3. It's a slow paced game that rewards careful movement around the map. It's imperative to keep your troops grouped together so you can engage small groups of enemies with your full force rather than getting scattered around the board. Losing even a single character from a battle can often spell defeat, either immediately due to failing a battle condition or later in the map if you need one of their special abilities.

SF3 actually has quite a bit going for it compared to many tactics games. There's a huge variety of enemy types, including a massive roster of enemy bosses, most with their own voice work and special attacks. As the game progresses, you can recruit many of those bosses into your own army for use in subsequent battles. Many tactics games make the mistake of having new characters join at severely reduced levels compared to your other troops, creating very little incentive to use any of the new people. In SF3, newly recruited characters are usually ABOVE your level and bring new abilities to the table, so I constantly found myself weighing new additions against old favorites.

The game is also appropriately difficult, with easy battles to start and tougher enemies as you progress. The computer will gang up on characters to eliminate them from a fight, and will happily target your healers and mages if you leave them exposed. Correctly positioning your troops on the battlefield is a critical aspect of the game and is just as important as doing damage to the enemy.

SF3 does have some deficiencies that need to be mentioned, unfortunately. The main story arc needs some work, for one. You control a group of mercenaries during a major war that has engulfed the entire continent. There are around 10 factions on the map, and you can work for any of them as they each attempt to conquer the others and take control of the land. This aspect works pretty well, but there's a side thread about chasing down destructive demons that are terrorizing innocent people. It's supposed to be the main story arc of the game, but it comes in fits and spurts, seemingly at random times, which keeps it from gaining any real momentum as the game progresses. It's also often unclear what you need to do to advance the story, as the game has a hidden meter tracking the number of side quests you've completed and won't let you progress until you've filled it. I'd have preferred to see the meter so I could track my progress rather than wondering why I have to play the same few missions over and over.

Graphically, SF3 is adequate for a tactics game. It's visuals aren't terribly impressive, but the environments are sufficiently varied and there are some nicely animated cutscenes when characters use their signature attacks. Voice work is pretty well done, which is a plus, although some of the sounds seem odd (swords don't really sound like swords for example).

However, the biggest negative is a major issue for me - the game is buggy. There's a bug with the audio track that can cause the game to crash if you try to advance cutscenes too quickly (and they can be quite slow). It only cropped up three times for me in two playthroughs of the game (twice on the same map), but battles in this game can last upwards of half an hour and it's VERY annoying to have the game crash after successfully completing a map. If I was handing out scores here, that would be a big point deduction, particularly since adequate play-testing would have easily caught that bug.

Of course, the ultimate question is: Do I recommend SF3? If you're a fan of tactics games, it's the best one on the 360 that I've played yet, and has a lot of interesting features that are unique to the genre. So for tactics fans, yes I definitely recommend Spectral Force 3. If you've tried games like this in the past and not cared for them, then SF3 will definitely not change your mind.

Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2009

Let me preface this review by saying that I have no ethical problem with hunting, but don't participate in the hobby myself. Again, it's not that I think shooting a deer is morally wrong, but because it seems really dull to me. It mostly seems like sitting around in the woods waiting for the off chance that a deer will walk by...not the most stimulating activity for me.

Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2009 isn't like that at all. Rather, the game portrays a version of hunting that I'm guessing most people who engage in the hobby would like to imagine. CDH 2009 exists in a fantasy world where heroic hunters take down entire packs of wild hyenas with practiced ease, save innocent victims from lion attacks, and fight grizzly bears with their bare (see what I did there?) hands. In other words, it's a bunch of bullshit. But then, so is space marines fighting aliens on a faraway planet, so there's no reason that should be a deal breaker.

Gameplay primarily consists of walking around a small area within some exotic locale while completing objectives that lead up to hunting and killing a dangerous animal of some kind. Over the course of the campaign, I killed some lions in Tanzania, wolves in Russia, and water buffalo (these are apparently quite dangerous) in Congo, just to name a few. It all sounds pretty advanced, until you realize that all the animals within a specific size class act pretty much the same. So for example, wolves and hyenas have the exact same attack patterns and behaviors, so only the graphic of the animal is changed.

The designers also eliminated the boring "wait for an animal to show up" part of hunting and skipped straight to the action. Most of the animals you're hunting are conveniently marked on your map, and the ones that aren't can be coaxed out with bait (instantly). It may not be realistic, but I certainly appreciate not having to wait!

However, there isn't really much game here. The core experience is really shallow, and within the first couple missions you'll have experienced just about everything there is to see (although a river ride through the Congo added something fresh). There are also some weird aspects to the game, like the snakes that never move from their position (they reminded me of hissing, poisonous land mines) or the elephants that will chase you for miles through thick underbrush. Oh, and the game is riddled with quick-time events (yuck!) to give the illusion of action when you're just playing a really easy game of Simon Says.

I mentioned in this week's WAA that I might be turning into a graphics snob, so take the next comment with a grain of salt - this game is BUTT UGLY. I realize the designers probably weren't working with a huge budget, but this was a sub-par effort by any standards. The environments are grainy and pixelated, while the animations of your prey are downright comical. It's a major waste, because one of the few ways they could have made this a more compelling experience is to treat it like a travelogue (kill exotic beasts in faraway lands!) but they couldn't even get that right.

I just can't recommend this game to anyone, not even hunting enthusiasts. The designers purposely made it very dissimilar to actual hunting, putting an emphasis on action that the gameplay couldn't really sustain. With the huge number of great shooters available for the 360, there's really no need to waste time with this ugly, dull effort.

Guitar Hero: Aerosmith

Coming off a near week long rant about Infinite Undiscovery, it feels like I should switch to talking about a game I liked. Sadly, that isn't going to be the case today. A while back I rented Guitar Hero: Aerosmith and never got a chance to submit my two cents about it. I guess now's the time.

But first, a short history lesson. After Guitar Hero 1 and 2 took the world by storm, the publishers and developers parted ways, supposedly over creative differences about where the series was headed. Harmonix left to make Rock Band, while Red Octane was brought in to make Guitar Hero 3. I played them both and they each have some things to offer - Rock Band is more of a party game with the singing and drumming, while GH3 is for the intense (plastic) guitar enthusiast who wants to develop his or her skills. For whatever reason, Rock Band was pretty much the big winner in the battle for music/rhythm game supremacy, so Red Octane scrambled to make Guitar Hero 4, a carbon copy of Rock Band. In the meantime though, they pumped out a couple "band specific" GH games to make some dough.

That brings us to the BIG problem with GH: Aerosmith - it feels like a cheap cash-in. Understand that it's a full price retail game, so anyone buying it should reasonably expect to get the same value as other retail titles. Further, GH3 (like Rock Band) allows users to purchase new songs online, thus adding to their experience. Thus if Red Octane wanted to give fans some Aerosmith songs to play in GH, there was no need to make a specific game for the band. Just put the songs online and let people who enjoy the band download them for a fee.

I can only think of two legitimate reasons for this game to get made:
1. It introduces new game mechanics above and beyond GH3, making it a new experience and worthy of full price.
2. It's meant to cater to Aerosmith fans, and is therefore the ULTIMATE Aerosmith experience.

Reason #1 flies out the window in a matter of seconds. Remember that Red Octane was scrambling to catch up to Harmonix's title even as they were busy claiming that the fans preferred their game. (It was a little like if Pepsi spent half their budget making commercials claiming that cola drinkers preferred their flavor to Coke, and the other half sending spies to steal the Coke formula so they could copy it.) These guys didn't have time to make new game mechanics for GH: Aerosmith, and it's obvious from the menu screen.

In fact, said menu screen looks suspiciously identical to the one in GH3. As does the career mode ladder, the loading screens, the song selection screen, the online menus, and, of course, the game itself. In fact, the tutorial is 100% identical to GH3. Anyone hoping to pick up some tips from Joe Perry is going to be disappointed!

The bottom line is that there are no innovations in GH:A. It's the same game as GH3, reskinned with some Aerosmith fan service. Which brings me to reason #2 - is it the ULTIMATE Aerosmith experience?

Well, there are 41 songs in total. Not great, but not terrible. If you downloaded 41 songs, it would cost about the same as a new game, plus you wouldn't get a case, disc, manual, etc. (Of course, then your songs would all be associated with one game so you wouldn't have to switch discs to match various people's tastes.) Admittedly, 41 songs is a lot of Aerosmith...BUT WAIT! Actually, only 25 of those songs are by Aerosmith, including two versions of "Walk This Way" (one with and one without Run D.M.C.). There's also four songs from Joe Perry's solo career, and 12 songs from bands that...Aerosmith really likes? I couldn't really tell. If it's Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, then why am I playing "Cat Scratch Fever" by Ted Nugent? Rock Band fans should also note that some of the songs have already been available for download in that game (for example, "Hard to Handle" by the Black Crowes) so there's a good chance you already own a couple of these.

And what about the song selections? Well, there's "Dream On". "Sweet Emotion". "Love in an Elevator". "Rag Doll" is pretty good. But there's a lot of chaff to go with the wheat here. "Kings and Queens" was a commercial flop, for example. Are there a bunch of fans of "Combination" and "Rats in the Cellar" out there? I didn't realize. And what about the songs that are missing? Aerosmith had 21 songs make the Billboard top 40. Now, musical taste is highly subjective, but if you're making the ULTIMATE Aerosmith experience, then they should all be on there, right? After all you're paying full price for a disc that's supposed to focus on just one band...their most popular stuff has to be on there! Well, of those 21 hit singles, only 8 are present while a whopping 13 (!!!) are MIA. So this game is supposed to be a tribute to Aerosmith and their fans, but it's missing over HALF of their greatest hits???

Again, musical preference is subjective. Maybe someone at Red Octane hated the movie Armageddon and didn't want "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" on there. So be it. And "Come Together" is a cover of a Beatles song, so the rights were probably tricky on that one. But no "Angel"? "Amazing"? For cripe's sake, no "Janie's Got a Gun"??? Some of these seem like no brainers to me.

As far as positives go, the developers spent some time motion-capturing the band and it shows in their on screen animations as you play (not that you'll notice since you'll be busy focusing on the notes). For better or worse, the onscreen avatars look eerily similar to the real Steven Tyler et al. And there are little interview blurbs between tiers in the career mode, though they appear to be stitched together from existing material.

So I guess if you consider yourself a hardcore Aerosmith fan (so hardcore that you obsessively followed Joe Perry's solo career, which puts you in rare company) and you don't already own GH3, then Guitar Hero: Aerosmith represents pretty solid value for you. For the other 99% of us, sticking with broader musical titles is probably the way to go.

Infinite Undiscovery - Gameplay Mechanics

Combat is only one aspect of an RPG. In this post, I'll look at some of the other gameplay mechanics in ID.

Story Progression/Exploration
RPGs range from wide open worlds (Oblivion, Fallout) to strictly linear adventures (Eternal Sonata, Enchanted Arms). Which you prefer is a matter of taste, although even largely linear games can feature some side quests and optional dungeons for the completionists to explore. ID is heavily skewed towards the linear end of the scale, with a plot that drags you from one task to the next and minimal side tracks to be found. There are some optional quests (often well hidden...see below) but they're understated and the rewards are largely inconsequential. Also, ID only has one optional dungeon and it's not available until you beat the game, so there's not much value to exploration.

Crafting
Unlike exploration/side questing, the crafting system is thorough and very useful. Enemies drop components that can be used by your various teammates to synthesize weapons, armor, and other items. Some of the most powerful equipment in the game is available solely through crafting, so it's a good idea to work on your team's skills early and often (hint: especially Edward's blacksmith skills!). Crafting is also a good way to drum up some quick cash by turning less valuable components into pricier items. Overall the system is well constructed, though the success rate on rare items is gratingly low (your attempts at synthesis can fail) even if your characters are high level crafters. Still, I'd count this as something the designers got right.

Leveling
Kill enemies and go up levels. There's not much more to it than that. You can't assign skills to your characters or control how their attribute points are distributed. The entire process is automated. It's nice that your characters get stronger over time, but it's not something you'll give much thought unless you get to an area where you're clearly under-leveled.

Event Challenges
To mix things up, the game will occasionally give you little events with specific requirements to proceed. Examples include defending a convoy of villagers as they move through a monster infested desert, firing catapults at a well-defended enemy castle, and rescuing a child from a flying monster by shooting it with an arrow. I found these challenges to be more annoying than anything, but I'm willing to concede that the designers were just trying to throw a few curveballs for fun and that's an admirable goal. None of them are overly difficult so even if you don't like them, you shouldn't really be impeded for long.

Interacting with the Townsfolk
And now we come to the big one...the DUMBEST design decision I've ever seen in an RPG. Here's how this works: if you want bonus items and side quests, you need to talk to all the people in the various towns. A given town could have anywhere from 10 to 30 people with whom you can converse. So far so good...that's pretty standard stuff. But wait! Most of the time, the person won't give the side quest or bonus item to you (Capell)...they'll only cough up the goods if you're linked to one of your teammates. You accomplish this by finding said teammate in town and pushing a couple buttons to tell them that they should follow you around. And when I say "linked to one of your teammates", I mean ONE SPECIFIC character. That's right...if you talk to a guard wandering around in the courtyard by yourself, he'll talk about the weather, or the health of the king, or his sore bunions, or whatever. Same deal if you're linked to Edward, or Eugene, or Aya, etc. But if you're linked to Rucha? Now he suddenly remembers the super-important quest he was going to ask you to do for a reward.

So let's say you wanted to be thorough and try every combination of teammate links and villagers in conversation. There are 17 people on the team that can link with Capell, plus he can chat with villagers by himself, for a total of 18 different combinations. With an average of 20 people to a town, you'd have to initiate 360 (the irony) conversations to be sure that you weren't missing any secrets. Now bear in mind that there are several towns spread out over the game, and you're starting to get a handle on how ridiculous this task is. Hold it though, because things get much worse. Some quests can only be initiated AFTER specific plot events. That means that you'll need to go through all those combinations MULTIPLE times just to be sure that the guy who had nothing of interest to say earlier has suddenly come up with an important task for you. All told, you'd need to go through a couple thousand conversations just to have a chance at finding every side quest and secret item in the game.

Or...you can just read a walkthrough, which is what anyone with sense will do.

I'm sorry, but any system in which the special quests are so well hidden that you'd never know they were there except by random chance is a dumb one, and you can't tell me otherwise.

That concludes most of what I have to say about Infinite Undiscovery, except for one more vital section. Next time: The Achievements!

Infinite Undiscovery - Battle Mechanics

ID is an action RPG. There's none of that sissy "you take your turn and I take mine" stuff here. If you want to swing your sword, you press a button. Special attack? That's another button. Battle technique? You have to hold a button down. Though ID may be an RPG, the fighting system has more in common with Soul Caliber than Final Fantasy.

I don't have a problem with that. Turn based combat can be pretty dull in these Japanese style RPGs. The Western trend towards action based combat as seen in Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Fable 2 is a positive direction for the genre. But there's a big difference between those games and ID. In the examples I listed, you play a single character fighting on his or her own. In ID, you have a party of four (usually), and the number and strength of enemies reflects that. Since you can only effectively control one person at a time, that means you get to deal with the AI. And that's exactly where the system breaks down...

The first thing to understand is that you have almost no control over your teammates. You can't tell them who to attack, when to use magic, when to get out of harm's way because they're about to die...nothing. The best you can do is give vague group based instructions like "don't use magic ever" or "always attack what I'm attacking". Then you cross your fingers and hope they listen.

But they don't. At least not consistently. Instead they go chasing after enemies before you've recovered from the last fight. They charge headlong into enemies that are about to unleash super attacks, even while you're desperately trying to get out of the way. They don't bother to heal themselves or each other, even when they're close to death. And God forbid anything should happen to Capell. If you fall in battle, then you get to play a fun game I call "Is one of these retards going to notice I'm dead and fix me up?"

The AI is just plain terrible in this game, and the worst part is that you're pretty much forced to count on your teammates anyway. Particularly at the highest difficulty levels, groups of enemies are too powerful to handle unless your squad is pulling its weight. Boss monsters can often kill you with one ill-timed combo attack, leaving you little option but to hope that one of your teammates will give you a hand.

The irony is that because your party is so hell-bent on diving into the fray and getting themselves killed while ignoring any pretense of teamwork, the best role for you to play is often babysitter. Just stand back from the fight and revive your stricken allies while they do the work. Playing this game on the highest difficulty is like chaperoning three 12 year old kids through an amusement park after they've polished off a case of Mountain Dew.

To add to the frustration, all aspects of battle are in real time. That means that if you open your item menu to use a healing item, the enemies still smack you around as you look through the list. This leads to annoying situations where you realize that your teammates are all down and the enemies are swarming straight at you - you can't fight without your allies but you can't revive them without surfing through the menu for a minute, during which time you'll be killed anyway. All of this could have been solved if the designers would have thought to put some shortcuts or hotkeys in the game. Say, pressing right bumpers uses a revive potion or something. But no, you can't even SORT your items to put the useful ones at the top! You have to open the menu, pick the Items tab, then scroll way down the list until you find whatever you need, all while getting battered by enemies.

Other complaints:
- There's only two settings for your allies use of their abilities - never use them or ALL THE TIME. They never conserve magic points against weaker enemies or ones that are already almost dead.
- Every time someone uses an ability, they shout it's name. I heard the phrase "Grinn Valesti!" so many times that I swear I hear it in my sleep.
- There's a ton of backtracking in this game, and low-level enemies will continue to harass you long after it's worthwhile to fight them. There are a TON of enemies in this game, so going anywhere is a chore.
- Characters in your group get twice as much experience as characters sitting the bench. That makes sense, but it becomes all the more unnecessary to have a dozen people on the team. After all, most of them are going to fall behind and become useless anyway.
- Finally, Capell can use his flute in battle (remember, he's a musician). Theoretically this has beneficial effects. In reality, it's mostly useless and occasionally a pain in the butt. For example, there's a certain type of enemy that is invisible until Capell plays his flute near them (usually while getting whacked by said enemy). Then your teammates can attack it. But Capell still can't...if you want to help then you need to focus on one of your teammates, then hold down a button to activate a special move and wait for it to charge, and THEN you can join the fight. Only by that point, the enemy is probably invisible again, so you have to start the process over. I eventually gave up and just let the invisible guys pummel me while I played the flute nonstop, allowing my teammates to finish the baddies.

I wish that was it, but the design flaws don't end there. Next time, I'll talk about one of the dumbest game mechanics I've ever encountered.

Need for Speed: Undercover

I decided there wasn't enough stress and frustration in my life, so I resolved to pick up a racing game through Gamefly. After perusing the titles, I realized that I had never tried any of the games in the Need for Speed series. I've heard some positive comments, so I picked up NFS: Undercover.

Up front, I should say that I have a love hate relationship with racing games. I'm not a big "car" guy...if it gets me where I want to go reliably that's good enough for me. But games based on cars can be entertaining as long as they aren't too insanely difficult.

Undercover was actually a bit of a pleasant surprise on that count. I found that early races were heavily stacked in favor of the player, allowing me to enjoy the game with less frustration than most racing games. Obviously the difficulty curve trends upwards over time, but that's countered by (a) your improving skills and (b) the fact that early wins allow you to build up cash to get improved cars and parts. As long as you don't squander your money foolishly in the early stages, you'll be well equipped to handle the tougher races at the end.

Undercover is built a bit like a sandbox game, though that's deceiving. You can drive around the city freely, but the only things you can find are races (which you can warp to using your map) and trouble in the form of cops. There aren't any random encounters that I've noticed, so there isn't much reason not to just avoid the police and go straight to your next event.

Events come in a number of forms. There are races of different kinds, like circuit races (laps around a specific track), sprints (point-to-point), and checkpoint events (like racing games in an arcade, where you need to cross arbitrary points before time runs out). There are also highway battles, which are presented in first person (or Bumper View as I like to call it), where you have to weave through traffic on the interstate and put enough distance between you and an opponent. Finally, there are a number of events in which you have to go up against law enforcement, either by wrecking police cars, causing damage, or just escaping pursuit.

Interestingly, the police pursuits are my favorite events because they are handled really realistically. You can hear the police chatter over your radio, and it is unbelievable how authentic they sound. The cops mention specific streets you're using, whether they've seen you or lost you, if a roadblock is set up ahead (you can use this info to avoid them), and any action you take on the road. "Look out! He just hit a civilian car...this guy is dangerous!"

The game also features an overarching plot, though it's pretty retarded. Apparently a gang of road racing thieves have stolen some important evidence implicating several major crime bosses. The FBI's plan is for you to infiltrate the underground race scene, cause about a million dollars worth of property damage, and hopefully impress the specific gang you're tracking so they'll approach you and implicate themselves. It's dumb, dumb, dumb...but I guess it's adequate at tying the various races together. The plot plays out in brief cutscenes with real actors, though they seem like they're all trying to out-ham each other.

Fair warning: there's a lot of racial stereotyping here, and the few women in the game aren't portrayed terribly well either. If that kind of thing bothers you, this is a definite stay-away.

In any case, NFS is a solid enough game to make me consider renting other games in the series. I can only take so much racing at a time, but if you're a bigger fan of the genre than me, you might dig it.

1 v. 100

1 v. 100 is a kind of video game/game show hybrid available free to Xbox Live members. It follows pretty closely in the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" tradition, with a selected contestant answering increasingly difficult trivia questions as they climb a prize ladder for escalating cash payouts.

The hook to this particular game is that the contestant, referred to as The One, is simultaneously competing against 100 other people, referred to as The Mob. To move up the ladder, the One must answer questions correctly as members of the Mob miss them. For every 10 people in the Mob that are eliminated, the One moves up a rung. Then they decide whether they want to keep the money they've earned or continue. If the One misses a question, then the Mob is the winner and the prize is divided amongst the remaining Mob members.

Everyone logged into the game that isn't selected to be the One or part of the Mob is in the Crowd. The Crowd plays along with the game, but doesn't affect the progress of the One or the Mob. It's like playing along at home, but you get to see how your score compares to everyone else.

Just like Millionaire, the One gets three "help" options. They can trust the Mob, the Crowd, or the top 10 scorers in the Crowd, taking the most common answer among those groups. The catch is that if they're wrong, you're out.

I played about two hours worth of 1 v. 100 last night (always as a member of the Crowd), and I made a couple observations about the game.

1. The "help" options are of dubious usefulness.

The early questions are really easy, so most players don't need help. But as the game progresses, the questions get more difficult. Eventually the One runs into a question that he or she can't answer. So the One uses a help option. Here's the problem: the question is just as tough for everyone in the Mob or the Crowd as well. I'd postulate that, given the pool of players comes entirely from people with access to Live, the majority of the people in the game represent a pretty narrow demographic. One would reasonably guess then that if the One falls within that demographic and they don't know the answer to a question, then the average responder from the Mob or Crowd won't know either.

In other words, just when you need help the most, you're least likely to get any. As far as I can tell, the best option for the One is to assess where his or her knowledge base is likely to be weak compared to the average Live user, and aggressively utilize their help options in those categories. Saving them until you get to an impossibly difficult question doesn't seem like a logical strategy to me. Of course, that seems to be what everyone does. Which brings me to...

2. The average 1 v. 100 player is pretty good at trivia and pretty AWFUL at logic

In general, I was pretty impressed with how knowledgeable my fellow players were. It seemed like people were capable of answering over 75% of the questions, which could be quite tricky at times. But everything would go out the window once someone became the One.

Being effective as the One requires both the knowledge to answer the questions and the risk-assessment acumen to understand when it's time to stop and take the money. Unfortunately, I can only conclude that the average Live user is sadly lacking in the latter skill and, even more shocking, COMPLETELY IMPERVIOUS TO TRAINING.

Time after time over the course of two hours, the same pattern would play out. The One would breeze through the first few questions without using any help. The Mob would get slowly thinned. Then the questions would get more difficult, the One would bang out a few more correct answers, and the Mob would get cut to around 30 people. At this point, I would think "Take the money and run, buddy. It's going to be tough sledding from here." But nope, the One would choose to press on, leading to an inevitable conclusion. Eventually they get a very hard question, use one of their help options, and sadly discover that their "helpers" don't know the answer any better than they do, losing everything in the process. Then the next One gets selected and I hope that he learned something from the last guy's failure, only to be disappointed again and again.

The most egregious example I saw was about midway through my play session. At this point, the Mob had won EVERY SINGLE ROUND. I thought that SURELY the next One would have taken note of this and adjusted their strategy. Little did I realize the level of retardation I was about to witness. The next contestant struggled right out of the gate. He needed to use a help option practically every other question, even on questions that I thought were pretty straight-forward. But by some small miracle his "help" was actually helpful for once and, even better, the Mob was struggling as badly as he was. After using his third and final help option, the Mob was cut to exactly 30 players, pushing him up to a high level on the cash ladder and allowing him to choose whether to stop or proceed.

Let's analyze this situation logically. This guy had got to this point by the skin of his teeth. He was out of help and past the point where it would typically be useful anyway. The remaining members of the Mob are the ones who are, on average, the most knowledgable, as evidenced by the fact that they made it to this point (without any help). On top of all that, the One is as far from the next cash level as you can be, since he needs to knock out a full 10 players to advance. If you were at 21 and only needed to knock out one person to proceed, it might be more tempting to take one more shot at it. But in this situation? This is as much a no-brainer as you could get. It's time to quit and thank your lucky stars you made it this far.

Imagine my surprise when the One ignored any pretense of logic and chose to proceed. Needless to say, he choked on the VERY NEXT QUESTION, losing everything.

Anyway, 1 v. 100 is an amusing diversion and kept me entertained for a couple hours. There are even Achievements to be earned while playing. Not bad for a free add-on to Live.

The Maw

The Maw is an Xbox Live Arcade game that I picked up the other day when it went on sale. It won some awards prior to release, including the coveted Audience Choice award at PAX in 2008, so I was curious to see what it was like. For less than five bucks, I figured it was worth a look.

As the game starts, a small blue alien named Frank has been captured by galactic bounty hunters and taken aboard a quarantine ship. The ship crashes for unknown reasons, and the only survivors are Frank and an animate puddle of purple goo called the Maw. Maw is considered the "Deadliest Organism in the Universe" because it can eat just about anything (provided it's not too large to devour) and can grow to truly epic proportions.

Frank and the Maw become fast friends though, and together they have to find a way to escape the planet on which they've crash-landed while avoiding the bounty hunters.

The Maw is an odd little game. Essentially the point is to drag the Maw around and feed him local lifeforms as he gets bigger and bigger, allowing you to advance to the next area. At the start of the game he looks like this:














Left - Tiny Maw
Right - Frank checks out his cool new power bracelet

And here's the Maw towards the end of the game:












Left - Gigantic Maw
Right - Frank contemplates what his grocery bill will look like if this keeps up

The Maw can also absorb the powers of creatures he eats. For example, if he eats a lizard that breathes fire, he'll change form and breath fire as well. So the point of the game is to use Frank's power bracelet and the Maw's eating powers to solve puzzles and advance.

The controls work well, and I didn't have much trouble navigating the environment. One annoyance is that the Maw needs to be on his leash to follow you, so if you use Frank to solve a puzzle by himself, you'll have to go back and fetch the Maw. However, the levels are pretty small so backtracking is minimal. I also felt like Frank could use a sprint button because his default walking speed is painfully slow.

There's not much plot here. You move forward from level to level with no real plan or impetus that I could discern. I will say that the characters are relatively solid given that it's pretty much just Frank and the Maw, and the latter doesn't talk. Actually, Frank really doesn't say much either, but the cutscenes are well done, with enough subtext in the facial expressions and body language to convery the developing friendship between the Frank and the Maw.

While I found the Maw to be a pleasant diversion, it's very short (I completed it in about two to three hours), and I'm not sure I would have wanted it to be any longer. It turns out that under five dollars is probably the right price for this one.