So, as my last post stated I decided to return the Nook and try out the Kindle. I made the decision knowing full well that if I didn't like the Kindle, I'd have to pay shipping to get rid of it, and go back to the Nook.
It arrived last night and here are the REAL differences I noticed between the Nook and the Kindle 3. If you research both of these products, you'll probably boil it down to something similar to what I wrote in my Nook review. So I won't rewrite any of that information, but I will talk about some of the points that I made before. It will be stuff that I never found in print.
The first thing that I noticed about the Kindle 3 was the screen. They say it's sharper and has better contrast, and they're right. It's not a night and day difference, but it's there. No matter how small I have the text I can always read it, whereas the Nooks text was only readable with the smallest texts with a good deal of squinting, concentration, and headache. IE, don't bother reading on the plane with tiny text. The Kindle is much, much clearer.
I also noticed that there are shadows on the Kindle screen. Not often, but it really does look a bit like screen burn-in back in the days of "big screen TV's". After some page turning it disappeared, so that's really not a big deal unless it occurs more often in the future.
Also in regards to the screen, when Amazon claims faster page turns, they're very right. Also, Kindle3 doesn't negative the whole screen before changing it to something else like Nook. The refreshes on the Nook weren't so slow that they were annoying, but if I were to go back from Kindle3, I'd get frustrated in a hurry.
My next delight was the size of the Kindle 3. It's light and small. On paper it's smaller than the Nook, and in your hand it's even better. The back is rounded on the outside cover (but not concave like Nook) and it sits in the palm of your hand quite easily. The page turn buttons are better (in my opinion) as well. Some people may not like how easily they are pressed, but the Kindle 3 is weighted so that if you're holding it in any number of natural positions you won't easily accidentally turn the page.
The keyboard is very reminiscent of many slider-style smart phones. It's about the same size, and while it's functional, I first thought Amazon really should have taken a note from Samsung or HTC on how to properly make a small qwerty keyboard. My biggest problem with it is that you're forced to use the "Sym" button to access most of the alternative keys such as ', !, ?, etc. There is an "Alt" key on the keyboard that gives you access to them without the menu, but without the alternates being printed, only experimentation will reveal them, and heavy use will master them for no-look typing. I'm already trying to master one handheld keyboard, so this one will have to wait.
That covers the appearance. So let's get into using Kindle 3. To activate it there is a power slider on the bottom. It's rather poorly placed because a stray pinky could easily lock it back up. Other poorly placed buttons are the volume rockers. Also on the bottom. The bottom of devices is rarely the ideal place to put any sort of controls. That's where they rest, and that's the most uncomfortable spot for controls. Really though, it's not a big deal. They volume buttons don't press that easily, and the Kindle 3 reacts within a second to lock or unlock.
You navigate by using a permanent 4-way rocker button with a select button in the center. I like this FAR more than the context sensitive touch screen of the Nook for many reasons. You always have it at hand, it's harder to fudge a button press, tactile feedback, to waiting for the device to reawaken the screen to do what you want to do (such as looking up a word).
When you start it up the first thing you see is the Home screen. When you compare this with the Nook and its color TFT at the bottom, it's like being in a barren wasteland. Nook shows you a big colorful list of things to do, Kindle 3 shows you a bland list of books and "collections". Collections are differentiated by being in bold italics. Nook tells you where you are. Kindle 3 lets you figure it out for yourself. There is a flip side of that coin, though. I'm quite happy to not be inundated by demands to buy more crap. Whether by chance or intention, the Kindle berate the consumer with unnecessary clutter (you know, like every smartphone!).
Hit the "Menu" key and you're greeted with a menu that reminds me of the old Windows CE or Windows Mobile 5.x, 6.x. You're given a tear down box with a few options such as Turn Wireless Off (bad form, by the way it ends in a preposition!), Shop in Kindle Store, Settings and Experimental (where it stores the browser, MP3 player, and Text-to-Speech).
This is the way with the Kindle in its entirety. It's descent use of the screen and interface, but for people who are used to overly elaborate GUI's like Windows or MacOSX it can be painful. Once you start tooling around with Settings and configuration you'll find that Amazon did a pretty piss poor job of setting up navigating the innards of the Nook. Settings are traversed by moving the underlined selection from option to option, rather from sub-heading to sub-heading. It makes using the menus confusing and less intuitive than it could be.
Once you've poked around inside Kindle 3 you'll find that it just feels empty compared with Nook. They have almost the same functionality, but the way that functionality is presented is pretty drab and boring. It could still be SO much better.
I loaded up the browser and while a black and white version of the web isn't ideal, it shows the ability of a device like this to shine. The cursor is controlled by the 4-way rocker and very smartly. When the website is too zoomed out to read the Kindle will sense it and give you a better zoom. It's very zippy for e-paper and easily matches the Nook's hybrid browser in usefulness.
Here we come to a touchy point for me. The main reason I can justify buying an e-reader is that most of what I enjoy reading is public domain. So like with the Nook, I used the Kindle's browser and searched for "The Idiot" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky and immediately found the free version on the top. What irked me is that Amazon wants me to pay for "wireless delivery". Hmm.. I seem to be the one paying for my router, and my electricity... WTF is this charge, then? Is this for the people who have the "Free" 3G every time they buy a book? (granted, if you do the math and Amazon charges you $2 for ever book, you'd have to read 15 books a month. An easy feat for some, but I'm not into the quick reads as much as others might be).
I'm all for paying a buck or two for a book that isn't in PDF format (I'll get to this problem later), but I'm never going to pay for a "wireless delivery" charge. Maybe it's for "Whispernet"?
EDIT: I was not charged any money to download any of the free books. The "Wireless Delivery Charge" was waived much in the same way you get a free phone. It costs $99, but there is an 'instant rebate' and you don't actually pay a cent. I did a bit of digging around and couldn't find out why it existed. It could be a Christmas promotion or they may only assess it to those who are browsing and downloading titles via the 3G connection in many of the Kindle models. Amazon may be passing the burden of the cellular charge to only those who actually use it. If that is the case, then kudos to them. It is indeed a rarity in the retail world to only pay for what you use. END EDIT
Whispernet is Amazon's book centralization/synchronization system. Basically if you are reading your books on the Kindle, computer, and a cell phone, it will synch your books to every location, as well as your notes and bookmarks. I see how this can be very useful seeing as if I turn a few pages on my phone while waiting for my wife to rampage about the dollar store, I don't really want to have to catch up when I get back to my Kindle. It is, however, just a convenience heaped upon another convenience, and I'm not willing to pay for it.
Here comes the only problem I really have with Kindle 3. As of yet, I have not found a way to simple scale PDFs to smaller fonts the way the Nook does (adding more screens to each page and tightening up the margins when you zoom in). Kindle wants you to zoom in and move the viewable area as you go. This makes PDFs neigh unreadable if the font wasn't already big enough in the first place. I plan on converting books that I cannot get from the Kindle store (or are cheaper elsewhere) to PDF format for reading using free tools. This, folks, could be a deal breaker. Unless I'm missing something, the stark menus offer no consolation, only zooming and panning about PDF documents.
I'd have to say that so far the annoyances (and one glaring flaw) of the Kindle 3 are less than the Nook, and it's features outshine the Nook. The Kindle 3 is everything the Nook isn't, but not necessarily everything the Nook is. It just does what I need it to do very well, and the features it's missing? Well, I'm not missing them.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
It's Barnes & Noble, not "NOBLES"...
E-readers... When I saw the Kindle I thought, "That's a great idea. That's going to kill." I didn't want one, but I knew it would sell well and it would be the next big thing. I was right. Being that I buy 90% of what I read from Half Price Books, I figured an e-reader was on the bottom of my needs list. A year later, Barnes & Noble comes out with the Nook. I fell in love... I asked for it as a Christmas gift, but got the shaft. I put it out of my mind for a while. [EDIT: My wonderful wife would like me to point out that I did NOT get shafted as Christmas last year, I merely did not receive a Nook]
Now, I've been keeping track of e-reader hardware for a long time. When the Nook came out something grabbed me. It was probably the color touch screen controls. I wanted to get my hands on them, but never got around to it. Fast forward to a year later.
I saw my friend's nook and I played around with it. It "kindled" a new e-reader fire in my belly. I saw the utility and the general savings of the product. i could carry all my books everywhere. TEXTBOOKS would be in the palm of my hand, with the added bonus that I didn't have to read off an LCD (which I do 8-10 hours a day and my eyes are fatigued all day). E-paper is amazing. I think it's just a very fine black and white LCD (you know, like in the Tiger Electronics handheld games) with a much easier to read screen.
Even with those advantages, I still needed more push. What's that? Books written prior to 1923 are free because they're not copyrighted? SIGN ME UP! Almost everything I read was written before the 20th century!
Even though I loved the Nook, I researched for a few weeks the differences between Kindle and Nook. I looked at other e-readers and tablets and knew that LCD was not an option. Sony has an e-reader similar in price but I don't like it for two reasons. One, the screen is only 5", and two... well, it's a Sony product. I don't get along with Sony products at all. Their proprietary memory and software is almost always junk, and always incompatible to the point of frustration. I just won't buy any of their computer gear or gadgets.
After a long battle I came down to these fundamental differences between the current Kindle and the Nook.
Nook:
My initial reaction was one of great disappointment. Barnes & Noble's website made it prohibitively difficult to access free books and materials by displaying a very small result of search options, and clogging said results with 'free chapters' of books that aren't free. Actually, i was pissed. But then I rummaged through Google's book site and it was all better on the free front. Yay
My next task was to see about library support. First I had to get a library card from my local library, then bring it to the bigger library in the 'city'. I, well, I haven't gotten around to that. I've been too busy reading Lord of the Rings. Does this mean that I should be nixing the whole 'Epub' argument for Nook ownership??? I think it might. If I don't miss something, I never needed it, right??
Reading on the Nook easy, page turning takes a second, but it's not annoying. Browsing the contents of the Nook takes some time and the interface isn't as practical as we're led to understand. After poking around for a while I got the hang of how the non-reading interfaces work. Browsing your library is sluggish at best. The included browser is surprisingly good, though. That is, unless you need to enter data. That's painfully slow. The delay from touching a virtual key to it registering to appearing on the screen is a second or two, and it's very annoying. I tried the browser on a plane ride and found that it was quite usable with AirTran's sluggish internet. It just fit!
Some bad points that I've noticed are that the Nook freezes. The device doesn't respond fast to anything you do so you're often pressing buttons trying to wake it up (and get rid of Oscar Wilde's portrait) when you finally give up and shut it off and wait the two minutes for it to load anew. This happens every few days. Enough to be annoying.
The next issue I take is that I don't get the week of reading B&N says I should. More like 2 days. Maybe it needs to be discharged and charged a few times to 'exercise the battery', but my trial period isn't long enough to do that.
Finally, and most disturbingly, there is a screen anomaly in the shape of some sort of bubble that formed under the screen. It reflects light in a jarring way and is big enough to be distracting at all angles and times. I don't know what B&N says about that in the warranty, but nothing has spilled on the device or touched it otherwise.
So it's looking more and more like the Nook could go back to the store... But then I remember that Google's marketplace doesn't work with Kindle! Amazon has their own file format, and so Kindle sits all on its own, unable to read the industry standard files..
There is hope, however. Converting DRM-free e-books to pdf is pretty trivial, so if i get some free books from Google, I can convert them with little to no hassle, and read on a Kindle.
As it stands, I'm heavily leaning on returning the Nook and buying the slightly cheaper, longer lasting, slightly faster page-turning Kindle 3. In fact, I just ordered Kindle and Nook will go back on Monday. Sorry Nook!
Now, I've been keeping track of e-reader hardware for a long time. When the Nook came out something grabbed me. It was probably the color touch screen controls. I wanted to get my hands on them, but never got around to it. Fast forward to a year later.
I saw my friend's nook and I played around with it. It "kindled" a new e-reader fire in my belly. I saw the utility and the general savings of the product. i could carry all my books everywhere. TEXTBOOKS would be in the palm of my hand, with the added bonus that I didn't have to read off an LCD (which I do 8-10 hours a day and my eyes are fatigued all day). E-paper is amazing. I think it's just a very fine black and white LCD (you know, like in the Tiger Electronics handheld games) with a much easier to read screen.
Even with those advantages, I still needed more push. What's that? Books written prior to 1923 are free because they're not copyrighted? SIGN ME UP! Almost everything I read was written before the 20th century!
Even though I loved the Nook, I researched for a few weeks the differences between Kindle and Nook. I looked at other e-readers and tablets and knew that LCD was not an option. Sony has an e-reader similar in price but I don't like it for two reasons. One, the screen is only 5", and two... well, it's a Sony product. I don't get along with Sony products at all. Their proprietary memory and software is almost always junk, and always incompatible to the point of frustration. I just won't buy any of their computer gear or gadgets.
After a long battle I came down to these fundamental differences between the current Kindle and the Nook.
Nook:
- Touchscreen LCD interface
- Uses EPub format (makes libraries accessable)
- Can buy books from Google now
- Faster e-paper screen (pearl)
- Vastly superior battery life (roughly 3x's Nook)
- Slightly cheaper e-books than Nook
My initial reaction was one of great disappointment. Barnes & Noble's website made it prohibitively difficult to access free books and materials by displaying a very small result of search options, and clogging said results with 'free chapters' of books that aren't free. Actually, i was pissed. But then I rummaged through Google's book site and it was all better on the free front. Yay
My next task was to see about library support. First I had to get a library card from my local library, then bring it to the bigger library in the 'city'. I, well, I haven't gotten around to that. I've been too busy reading Lord of the Rings. Does this mean that I should be nixing the whole 'Epub' argument for Nook ownership??? I think it might. If I don't miss something, I never needed it, right??
Reading on the Nook easy, page turning takes a second, but it's not annoying. Browsing the contents of the Nook takes some time and the interface isn't as practical as we're led to understand. After poking around for a while I got the hang of how the non-reading interfaces work. Browsing your library is sluggish at best. The included browser is surprisingly good, though. That is, unless you need to enter data. That's painfully slow. The delay from touching a virtual key to it registering to appearing on the screen is a second or two, and it's very annoying. I tried the browser on a plane ride and found that it was quite usable with AirTran's sluggish internet. It just fit!
Some bad points that I've noticed are that the Nook freezes. The device doesn't respond fast to anything you do so you're often pressing buttons trying to wake it up (and get rid of Oscar Wilde's portrait) when you finally give up and shut it off and wait the two minutes for it to load anew. This happens every few days. Enough to be annoying.
The next issue I take is that I don't get the week of reading B&N says I should. More like 2 days. Maybe it needs to be discharged and charged a few times to 'exercise the battery', but my trial period isn't long enough to do that.
Finally, and most disturbingly, there is a screen anomaly in the shape of some sort of bubble that formed under the screen. It reflects light in a jarring way and is big enough to be distracting at all angles and times. I don't know what B&N says about that in the warranty, but nothing has spilled on the device or touched it otherwise.
So it's looking more and more like the Nook could go back to the store... But then I remember that Google's marketplace doesn't work with Kindle! Amazon has their own file format, and so Kindle sits all on its own, unable to read the industry standard files..
There is hope, however. Converting DRM-free e-books to pdf is pretty trivial, so if i get some free books from Google, I can convert them with little to no hassle, and read on a Kindle.
As it stands, I'm heavily leaning on returning the Nook and buying the slightly cheaper, longer lasting, slightly faster page-turning Kindle 3. In fact, I just ordered Kindle and Nook will go back on Monday. Sorry Nook!
Halo: Reach(ing for a good game)
Reach is the third game in the Halo universe that I've purchased. The others being Halo Wars and ODST. I've played all the games quite extensively prior to purchasing Reach and I don't know why I decided to blow $60 on this one when I never bought the others at full price.
I've always felt that Halo is one of the few games that has a campaign game that is good enough to justify the existence of its multiplayer. And up until Reach, it's been true. However, to me Reach signifies the epitome of the all too common cash grab game. They've got a great story and fan base, so they make a sequel. As I understand it, this has nothing to do with Bungie, they had to do it per contract. I blame the fans.
At the risk of offending one of my closest friends, I really feel that Reach is nothing special, and in retrospect I'd love to return it and wait for it to appear in the bargain bin. All Reach is, is a graphically updated Halo: Combat Evolved, with a couple more vehicles, more Spartans, and jet packs.
The game takes place on the planet called "Reach" (bet you're surprised). If you read the Halo books, it's basically the human second home to Earth. The covenant find it, assault it, and win. It's technically a prequel to the other Halo games since it ends just as the original Halo begins. The usual universe canon arguments apply. 90% of which are based around the weapons. "If the Reach spartans had such great weapons, how come the Master Chief only got a Rocket Launcher?" Well, in the books something happens that causes all their super-advanced equipment to jettison into space and they can't go get it. How's that for a plot hole fixer!
I know I should write more about the game, but I really don't want to since I'm so bored with it. The multiplayer is the same as it ever was, minus dual-wielding. You can now do melee attacks with finesse, but all that does is make you a target (sure, you might net a few extra points).
Now, however, you can choose loadouts for your spartan or Elite. Yup, the loadouts are thus: jetpack, sprint, lockdown, drop shield, dodge, active camo and hologram. I may be missing one, but if that's the case it probably sucks. These all work in-game as well, which makes certain parts much easier if you know what to choose. Each loadout has a limit on use and a cooldown period until you use it again.
The only two that really need explanation are the hologram and lockdown. The hologram is a dead simple (and dead stupid) dummy Spartan that runs to the point in focus when you use it. It doesn't jump, dodge, maneuver or even wave. It just runs in a straight and falls if gravity necessitates it. Unless you're playing with newbies it'll almost never work. The image fizzles periodically so a veteran sniper won't attack it. At most you're looking at a fraction of a second worth of distraction.
Lockdown is a different beast. Your Spartan punches the ground and stays crouched until the timer expires. It's useful if you're waiting to get hit by a vehicle because they'll either bounce off, fly over you, or blow up. A lot of the time you're a sitting duck. If you wait for the shield to expire there is a tiny burst of energy that blasts off of your guy.. I don't know if it affects anything, but it does have the awesome factor.
I should also note that the active camo in Reach is... odd. First of all, the more you move the worse it works. If you stand still it's almost perfect, but running will pretty much ruin the camo and you may as well just switch it off. It also activates a motion tracker jammer so anyone in the area sees little read dots flying in random directions. Fun.
The main reason to play Reach (and every Halo game) is multiplayer. Reach does a TON of fan service by making its multiplayer completely geared towards what fans have been doing all along. Bungie included tons of game variants and now the Forge is so customizable that basically brand new games in the form of variants are coming out all the time. The main reason this is better than Halo 3's forge is Bungie included stationary objects in the forge. No more balancing acts! You have the option of letting stuff just sit in space without tricking the game engine into holding it there.
I'd like to write more but the game is old enough that anyone reading this is doing it for posterity , and I'm really not doing Reach any justice. Earlier I mentioned that I'd buy Reach in a bargain bin... Well the main reason I wanted it is because my brother wasn't buying it and our Halo nights with 10-16 players have always been a source of intense fun, and I don't want that to stop.
Cheers.
I've always felt that Halo is one of the few games that has a campaign game that is good enough to justify the existence of its multiplayer. And up until Reach, it's been true. However, to me Reach signifies the epitome of the all too common cash grab game. They've got a great story and fan base, so they make a sequel. As I understand it, this has nothing to do with Bungie, they had to do it per contract. I blame the fans.
At the risk of offending one of my closest friends, I really feel that Reach is nothing special, and in retrospect I'd love to return it and wait for it to appear in the bargain bin. All Reach is, is a graphically updated Halo: Combat Evolved, with a couple more vehicles, more Spartans, and jet packs.
The game takes place on the planet called "Reach" (bet you're surprised). If you read the Halo books, it's basically the human second home to Earth. The covenant find it, assault it, and win. It's technically a prequel to the other Halo games since it ends just as the original Halo begins. The usual universe canon arguments apply. 90% of which are based around the weapons. "If the Reach spartans had such great weapons, how come the Master Chief only got a Rocket Launcher?" Well, in the books something happens that causes all their super-advanced equipment to jettison into space and they can't go get it. How's that for a plot hole fixer!
I know I should write more about the game, but I really don't want to since I'm so bored with it. The multiplayer is the same as it ever was, minus dual-wielding. You can now do melee attacks with finesse, but all that does is make you a target (sure, you might net a few extra points).
Now, however, you can choose loadouts for your spartan or Elite. Yup, the loadouts are thus: jetpack, sprint, lockdown, drop shield, dodge, active camo and hologram. I may be missing one, but if that's the case it probably sucks. These all work in-game as well, which makes certain parts much easier if you know what to choose. Each loadout has a limit on use and a cooldown period until you use it again.
The only two that really need explanation are the hologram and lockdown. The hologram is a dead simple (and dead stupid) dummy Spartan that runs to the point in focus when you use it. It doesn't jump, dodge, maneuver or even wave. It just runs in a straight and falls if gravity necessitates it. Unless you're playing with newbies it'll almost never work. The image fizzles periodically so a veteran sniper won't attack it. At most you're looking at a fraction of a second worth of distraction.
Lockdown is a different beast. Your Spartan punches the ground and stays crouched until the timer expires. It's useful if you're waiting to get hit by a vehicle because they'll either bounce off, fly over you, or blow up. A lot of the time you're a sitting duck. If you wait for the shield to expire there is a tiny burst of energy that blasts off of your guy.. I don't know if it affects anything, but it does have the awesome factor.
I should also note that the active camo in Reach is... odd. First of all, the more you move the worse it works. If you stand still it's almost perfect, but running will pretty much ruin the camo and you may as well just switch it off. It also activates a motion tracker jammer so anyone in the area sees little read dots flying in random directions. Fun.
The main reason to play Reach (and every Halo game) is multiplayer. Reach does a TON of fan service by making its multiplayer completely geared towards what fans have been doing all along. Bungie included tons of game variants and now the Forge is so customizable that basically brand new games in the form of variants are coming out all the time. The main reason this is better than Halo 3's forge is Bungie included stationary objects in the forge. No more balancing acts! You have the option of letting stuff just sit in space without tricking the game engine into holding it there.
I'd like to write more but the game is old enough that anyone reading this is doing it for posterity , and I'm really not doing Reach any justice. Earlier I mentioned that I'd buy Reach in a bargain bin... Well the main reason I wanted it is because my brother wasn't buying it and our Halo nights with 10-16 players have always been a source of intense fun, and I don't want that to stop.
Cheers.
It's been a while
I've been busy...
Three games I want to post reviews for: Donkey Kong Country Returns for the Wii (it's awesome), Brutal Legend (fun but nothing too special), and Halo: Reach (blah).
I've also done a lot of work with my Samsung Epic that I'd like to discuss.
Finally, I've purchased the Barnes & Noble Nook, and I'll post my feelings on that as well.
Three games I want to post reviews for: Donkey Kong Country Returns for the Wii (it's awesome), Brutal Legend (fun but nothing too special), and Halo: Reach (blah).
I've also done a lot of work with my Samsung Epic that I'd like to discuss.
Finally, I've purchased the Barnes & Noble Nook, and I'll post my feelings on that as well.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Castlevania: Patrick Stewart - Demo review
To tell you the truth. If you want me to buy a game, get Patrick Stewart to narrate. I'll buy it. I'd probably buy two copies just in case one breaks. I'd buy Superman games if Patrick Stewart voiced him. Okay, I wouldn't. That would ruin the good knight's credibility on the spot. Elizabeth the 2nd would clap him in irons and lock him in London Tower or something like that.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way. I'm pretty late to the arena with Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, since it came out two days before I tried the demo. It wowed me since it's God of War, Devil May Cry, and Final Fight... again. That sounds bad. Okay, yes, it's another stylish brawler. This time with the Castlevania nameplate on it, and Patrick Stewart reading a poorly written script between each stage. Seriously, I read a LOT of old novels (not from the 11th century, but old) and sentences run on, and on, and on, and...
At any rate the gameplay is basically the same as every stylish brawler you've ever played. Which, again, is a good thing, because if you've played any of the previous 3D Castlevania games, they always missed the mark (save, perhaps, for Castlevania 64, but only because of the awe factor). Your weapon is a multi-purpose crucifix. It can be used to stab things and when you swing it at things it lashes out to strike things in an oddly whip-like fashion. There are lots of combos to memorize (generally a turnoff to me) and probably a lot of different weapons to use.
The graphics look great in some parts, not so great in others. Mainly the humans look great, but we're only treated to the sight of two enemies. A werewolf, and a warg... which is just more wolfish and less were-ish.. and much bigger, because the werewolves ride them. They're both very dark brown... and shiny. What really looks great is the environment. The backgrounds are very detailed, and though this is just the demo, you still don't get the feeling that you're in the world of Castlevania.
While defeating both of these baddies you pick up experience just like in almost every Castlevania since Symphony of the Night. You use your experience to buy new moves and presumably other stuff. Herein lies my greatest qualm with Lords of Shadow. The menus. The menus take place in a book and as you probably could imagine the book pages flip to and fro and are covered in words. These words are all in script, sit at an angle, and are incredibly difficult to read. Perhaps Konami is on the take for 1080p TVs, but they're not on the take for 720p TVs since I'm really having a difficult time reading the flavor text on my TV.
Which brings me to my next, and final point. My wife finds flavor text to be boring. So it means I'm not capable of buying this game at full price with the aim of enjoying it. I can't wait for it to hit the $30 mark!
Now that I've gotten that out of the way. I'm pretty late to the arena with Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, since it came out two days before I tried the demo. It wowed me since it's God of War, Devil May Cry, and Final Fight... again. That sounds bad. Okay, yes, it's another stylish brawler. This time with the Castlevania nameplate on it, and Patrick Stewart reading a poorly written script between each stage. Seriously, I read a LOT of old novels (not from the 11th century, but old) and sentences run on, and on, and on, and...
At any rate the gameplay is basically the same as every stylish brawler you've ever played. Which, again, is a good thing, because if you've played any of the previous 3D Castlevania games, they always missed the mark (save, perhaps, for Castlevania 64, but only because of the awe factor). Your weapon is a multi-purpose crucifix. It can be used to stab things and when you swing it at things it lashes out to strike things in an oddly whip-like fashion. There are lots of combos to memorize (generally a turnoff to me) and probably a lot of different weapons to use.
The graphics look great in some parts, not so great in others. Mainly the humans look great, but we're only treated to the sight of two enemies. A werewolf, and a warg... which is just more wolfish and less were-ish.. and much bigger, because the werewolves ride them. They're both very dark brown... and shiny. What really looks great is the environment. The backgrounds are very detailed, and though this is just the demo, you still don't get the feeling that you're in the world of Castlevania.
While defeating both of these baddies you pick up experience just like in almost every Castlevania since Symphony of the Night. You use your experience to buy new moves and presumably other stuff. Herein lies my greatest qualm with Lords of Shadow. The menus. The menus take place in a book and as you probably could imagine the book pages flip to and fro and are covered in words. These words are all in script, sit at an angle, and are incredibly difficult to read. Perhaps Konami is on the take for 1080p TVs, but they're not on the take for 720p TVs since I'm really having a difficult time reading the flavor text on my TV.
Which brings me to my next, and final point. My wife finds flavor text to be boring. So it means I'm not capable of buying this game at full price with the aim of enjoying it. I can't wait for it to hit the $30 mark!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The 'M' probably Means "Mediocrity"
I will preface this entire review with the fact that I giant fan of the Metroid series. I've played them all and, for the most part, enjoyed everything in the series (exceptions being Metroid II, since I hated playing anything on the original Game Boy, and haven't since returned to beat it, and Hunters, which I found pretty lame). Other than that, Metroid is easily one of my top three all time favorite series of games.
Metroid: Other M... has issues. A lot of them, in fact. When I heard Team Ninja (makers of the newer Ninja Gaiden series) I thought they might actually do the Metroid series justice. I hated every second of the Ninja Gaiden games for Xbox, and 360, but only because I don't like that style of game. They were, however, very well made games for what they were, so I know that most likely whatever Team Ninja did with Metroid would work well, and with Nintendo's watchful eye and guidance, we'd get a pretty dang awesome game.
What we got was a JRPG featuring Samus and a bunch of token Japanese storyline. Throughout the last 24 years or so Samus has been probably the strongest female character I've ever 'met' in any media. She's a silent, strong warrior. Or, a bad ass. She's got a mysterious past and never 'spoke'. It's not that she's mute or that she's a non-talking bad-ass, it's just that they never had anything for her to say, but now she does talk and, well, I don't like it. At all. She just chatters on, and on, and on, and on... If it's not her poorly acted audible voice it's her poorly acted inner monologue that we hear in Other M. Almost everything you hear out of her mouth is overly dramatized and it gets old quick.
It's not that the cut scenes are all that bad, it's just that they're not all that good and the information they provide pushes you away from Samus as a character more than it draws you into who she is. Perhaps I need to replay Zero Mission and Fusion, but as far as I remember Samus Aran has not been a childish, self-doubting, emotional, sissy. The game play suggests that you're playing a bad ass and every cut scene seems to completely rip away your illusions that Samus is or ever has been a heroine.
You'll spend about half of the game cleaning up your living room, going to the bathroom, looking up recipes on the internet, making coffee, going to the bathroom again, doing the dishes, walking the dog, cleaning out the cat box and bird cages..., and the other half glad you're not trying to find something to do during the cut scenes. It's the only way to keep your illusions that Samus is a grown up without abandonment issues.
It's not that I'm against Samus talking or having a back story, what I'm against is how boring and vanilla it becomes when you play the game. There are a few points where you'll see flashbacks at the MOST INAPPROPRIATE TIMES. When engaging in a fight it's not cool for the heroine to be petrified by an enemy whose ass she as kicked a few times already, and will go on to kick in the future. For those of you who have played more than a handful of Metroid games, this is not a spoiler, you expect Ridley to show up and make some noise. And he(her/it?) dang well better show up!
Now that I've prepared you for the story that never should have been, here's the important information. Game play.
One of the bigger hurtles in every Metroid sequel is trying to figure out how best to depower Samus at the beginning of the game in order to give her something to find. It's a play mechanic that basically 'cheats' and gives the game the advantage. Without it, Metroid wouldn't be fun. Metroid is about starting off a bit weak and through lots of work and fun, becoming a nigh invincible warrior. So any play mechanic that depowers Samus is usually okay with me, even if it's a bit far-reaching. Other M, however, takes it a bit too far. You're stuck on a ship with a bunch of 'normal' humans and decide to submit to the orders of the man in charge, one of which is to severely depower yourself so that you don't hurt anyone. The only problem I have with this is, when they're not near, Samus should be able to do whatever the hell she wants. Further fixable by just not letting the player fire if aimed at a friendly. So, the mechanic is way too thin, and even makes it harder to get into the game. "You mean I'm not allowed to double-jump until that guy thinks it's okay? WTF?! I can SEE the missile RIGHT THERE!!"
You start off with your charge beam. That's it. Throughout the game the commander dude will reluctantly allow you the use of other weaponry from time to time, however being granted these powers is often frustratingly complex. Often times you have to explore endless boxes of space, run into the same brick wall 100's of times, and retrace your steps for what feels like the millionth time before you trigger some event where Commander Asshat finally calls you up and says, "You know what? I think you might need the wave beam right now." This guy must have trained in American Middle Management because he only doles out the goods when you finally realize your macabre reliance upon his judgment and graces. In short, he's that D-bag you work for who you probably wouldn't waste yelling "watch out" to if you saw him walking in front of a truck, and even if you did his head is stuck so far up his ass that his pride would prevent him from accepting your help*.
The whole game takes place inside of the "Bottle Ship"... designed by the worst engineers ever to be grace the universe. Plenty of cut scenes depict its exterior, however if the map is any indication of its true structure and/or shape, you're playing Metroid in the biggest mess of a Lego structure you designed as a four year old child with a severe vision impairment and no sense of structural integrity. This ship contains the standard Metroid areas, the cold, the lava, the jungle, and the standard inside of a building areas, so you'll feel right at home, but each area is really just a big box of . It's probably the most bland of all the 3D Metroids (save Hunters).
Team Ninja tried to give you a sense that you're not in a spaceship by designing a lot of rooms that are complete holographic projections, often with broken or missing pieces and terminals that shut off the systems. Despite their efforts, you never ditch the claustrophobic feeling of being confined within the six walls of a ship. The game feels small. Very small. Your movements are directed (and limited) by Commander Asshat, so you never feel like you're exploring, just going where you're told, killing what you see, and gritting your teeth in preparation for the next cut scene.
As the game progresses, and as you get more powers, eventually it starts to feel like Metroid. Every once in a while you'll retrace your steps and see something you may not have been looking for before and think, "Hey, I can go in there now!". However, if you pass something and try to remember the spot for later, don't bother. If you aren't told to go somewhere, and that location isn't on the way, forget about it. All the doors are locked and you're on rails until you get somewhere. It's very frustrating. Often you'll be forced into FPS mode in order to scan the area for things and have almost no clue why or what you're looking for. It happens a lot in the beginning and doesn't ever go away. The real problem is that most of the things you're required to scan are a single pixel on the screen so you can search for a good five minutes before you find whatever cue the story demands.
As directed as the game is, when you get into combat, it really is a lot of fun. Team Ninja did a pretty good job of making combat fun, and I applaud them for that. Anything that can't be gotten rid of in a couple shots can potentially be lethal without a few upgrades. Even then, they've always got something slightly more powerful up their sleeves. It's also pretty enjoyable when the close quarters combat kicks in. Samus has some pretty interesting moves. They're supposed to be easy to pull off, but I find them to be rather random.
Another hangup will be the 3rd person, fixed camera mode transition to FPS. Getting the controls down for this is very tricky and poorly implemented (hold the remote sideways for normal mode, point at screen for FPS). Basically you're running around and something needs a missile to the face/colon in order to kill so you have to stop DEAD in your tracks, aim and fire. You're given a small grace period of about 2 seconds where time slows down so you've got time to aim, but after that you're most likely mince meat. If you're good with Wiimote aiming you'll do fine. If you're not good, it's time to find more energy tanks!
I find this control idea to be mostly problematic not because shifting the controller is a pain, but because you can't shoot a missile or super missile without going into the 1st Person mode and finding something 'missile worthy' at which to aim, and even then you have to lock on in order to spit out the firepower. Also, the fire button shifts once you're pointing at the screen from '1' to 'A', however you can get away with holding the charge while in 3rd person mode and firing with '1' anyway, so this isn't as much of a problem.
Half of the Metroid formula is exploration. One of the best parts of the Prime series is how well they balanced exploration with firefights and story. I spent the entirety of each of them on the edge of my seat, filled with tension over what I was doing. With Other M, as I stated before I was obligated to run around and do things and wasn't allowed to experience the world... well the ship.
Metroid: Other M was on the whole a relatively well oiled game with a couple control hiccups and a bad story. My main problem is the story. It's so jarring and bland that it detracts from game play even when you mentally separate Other M from the rest of the series. I'm not upset that I bought it at full price... no, I sort of am upset about that. This game would probably be a flop without Samus or some other franchise to help it be recognized. The combat is fun, but on the whole it's about as vanilla as the usual shovelware.
ACTUAL, POSSIBLE SPOILER
*It really is a shame that you don't get to kill him.
Metroid: Other M... has issues. A lot of them, in fact. When I heard Team Ninja (makers of the newer Ninja Gaiden series) I thought they might actually do the Metroid series justice. I hated every second of the Ninja Gaiden games for Xbox, and 360, but only because I don't like that style of game. They were, however, very well made games for what they were, so I know that most likely whatever Team Ninja did with Metroid would work well, and with Nintendo's watchful eye and guidance, we'd get a pretty dang awesome game.
What we got was a JRPG featuring Samus and a bunch of token Japanese storyline. Throughout the last 24 years or so Samus has been probably the strongest female character I've ever 'met' in any media. She's a silent, strong warrior. Or, a bad ass. She's got a mysterious past and never 'spoke'. It's not that she's mute or that she's a non-talking bad-ass, it's just that they never had anything for her to say, but now she does talk and, well, I don't like it. At all. She just chatters on, and on, and on, and on... If it's not her poorly acted audible voice it's her poorly acted inner monologue that we hear in Other M. Almost everything you hear out of her mouth is overly dramatized and it gets old quick.
It's not that the cut scenes are all that bad, it's just that they're not all that good and the information they provide pushes you away from Samus as a character more than it draws you into who she is. Perhaps I need to replay Zero Mission and Fusion, but as far as I remember Samus Aran has not been a childish, self-doubting, emotional, sissy. The game play suggests that you're playing a bad ass and every cut scene seems to completely rip away your illusions that Samus is or ever has been a heroine.
You'll spend about half of the game cleaning up your living room, going to the bathroom, looking up recipes on the internet, making coffee, going to the bathroom again, doing the dishes, walking the dog, cleaning out the cat box and bird cages..., and the other half glad you're not trying to find something to do during the cut scenes. It's the only way to keep your illusions that Samus is a grown up without abandonment issues.
It's not that I'm against Samus talking or having a back story, what I'm against is how boring and vanilla it becomes when you play the game. There are a few points where you'll see flashbacks at the MOST INAPPROPRIATE TIMES. When engaging in a fight it's not cool for the heroine to be petrified by an enemy whose ass she as kicked a few times already, and will go on to kick in the future. For those of you who have played more than a handful of Metroid games, this is not a spoiler, you expect Ridley to show up and make some noise. And he(her/it?) dang well better show up!
Now that I've prepared you for the story that never should have been, here's the important information. Game play.
One of the bigger hurtles in every Metroid sequel is trying to figure out how best to depower Samus at the beginning of the game in order to give her something to find. It's a play mechanic that basically 'cheats' and gives the game the advantage. Without it, Metroid wouldn't be fun. Metroid is about starting off a bit weak and through lots of work and fun, becoming a nigh invincible warrior. So any play mechanic that depowers Samus is usually okay with me, even if it's a bit far-reaching. Other M, however, takes it a bit too far. You're stuck on a ship with a bunch of 'normal' humans and decide to submit to the orders of the man in charge, one of which is to severely depower yourself so that you don't hurt anyone. The only problem I have with this is, when they're not near, Samus should be able to do whatever the hell she wants. Further fixable by just not letting the player fire if aimed at a friendly. So, the mechanic is way too thin, and even makes it harder to get into the game. "You mean I'm not allowed to double-jump until that guy thinks it's okay? WTF?! I can SEE the missile RIGHT THERE!!"
You start off with your charge beam. That's it. Throughout the game the commander dude will reluctantly allow you the use of other weaponry from time to time, however being granted these powers is often frustratingly complex. Often times you have to explore endless boxes of space, run into the same brick wall 100's of times, and retrace your steps for what feels like the millionth time before you trigger some event where Commander Asshat finally calls you up and says, "You know what? I think you might need the wave beam right now." This guy must have trained in American Middle Management because he only doles out the goods when you finally realize your macabre reliance upon his judgment and graces. In short, he's that D-bag you work for who you probably wouldn't waste yelling "watch out" to if you saw him walking in front of a truck, and even if you did his head is stuck so far up his ass that his pride would prevent him from accepting your help*.
The whole game takes place inside of the "Bottle Ship"... designed by the worst engineers ever to be grace the universe. Plenty of cut scenes depict its exterior, however if the map is any indication of its true structure and/or shape, you're playing Metroid in the biggest mess of a Lego structure you designed as a four year old child with a severe vision impairment and no sense of structural integrity. This ship contains the standard Metroid areas, the cold, the lava, the jungle, and the standard inside of a building areas, so you'll feel right at home, but each area is really just a big box of . It's probably the most bland of all the 3D Metroids (save Hunters).
Team Ninja tried to give you a sense that you're not in a spaceship by designing a lot of rooms that are complete holographic projections, often with broken or missing pieces and terminals that shut off the systems. Despite their efforts, you never ditch the claustrophobic feeling of being confined within the six walls of a ship. The game feels small. Very small. Your movements are directed (and limited) by Commander Asshat, so you never feel like you're exploring, just going where you're told, killing what you see, and gritting your teeth in preparation for the next cut scene.
As the game progresses, and as you get more powers, eventually it starts to feel like Metroid. Every once in a while you'll retrace your steps and see something you may not have been looking for before and think, "Hey, I can go in there now!". However, if you pass something and try to remember the spot for later, don't bother. If you aren't told to go somewhere, and that location isn't on the way, forget about it. All the doors are locked and you're on rails until you get somewhere. It's very frustrating. Often you'll be forced into FPS mode in order to scan the area for things and have almost no clue why or what you're looking for. It happens a lot in the beginning and doesn't ever go away. The real problem is that most of the things you're required to scan are a single pixel on the screen so you can search for a good five minutes before you find whatever cue the story demands.
As directed as the game is, when you get into combat, it really is a lot of fun. Team Ninja did a pretty good job of making combat fun, and I applaud them for that. Anything that can't be gotten rid of in a couple shots can potentially be lethal without a few upgrades. Even then, they've always got something slightly more powerful up their sleeves. It's also pretty enjoyable when the close quarters combat kicks in. Samus has some pretty interesting moves. They're supposed to be easy to pull off, but I find them to be rather random.
Another hangup will be the 3rd person, fixed camera mode transition to FPS. Getting the controls down for this is very tricky and poorly implemented (hold the remote sideways for normal mode, point at screen for FPS). Basically you're running around and something needs a missile to the face/colon in order to kill so you have to stop DEAD in your tracks, aim and fire. You're given a small grace period of about 2 seconds where time slows down so you've got time to aim, but after that you're most likely mince meat. If you're good with Wiimote aiming you'll do fine. If you're not good, it's time to find more energy tanks!
I find this control idea to be mostly problematic not because shifting the controller is a pain, but because you can't shoot a missile or super missile without going into the 1st Person mode and finding something 'missile worthy' at which to aim, and even then you have to lock on in order to spit out the firepower. Also, the fire button shifts once you're pointing at the screen from '1' to 'A', however you can get away with holding the charge while in 3rd person mode and firing with '1' anyway, so this isn't as much of a problem.
Half of the Metroid formula is exploration. One of the best parts of the Prime series is how well they balanced exploration with firefights and story. I spent the entirety of each of them on the edge of my seat, filled with tension over what I was doing. With Other M, as I stated before I was obligated to run around and do things and wasn't allowed to experience the world... well the ship.
Metroid: Other M was on the whole a relatively well oiled game with a couple control hiccups and a bad story. My main problem is the story. It's so jarring and bland that it detracts from game play even when you mentally separate Other M from the rest of the series. I'm not upset that I bought it at full price... no, I sort of am upset about that. This game would probably be a flop without Samus or some other franchise to help it be recognized. The combat is fun, but on the whole it's about as vanilla as the usual shovelware.
ACTUAL, POSSIBLE SPOILER
*It really is a shame that you don't get to kill him.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Outrage!
Normally I would use this blog to do amateur reviews of the games I play so I can send them to some friends who may get a chance to play them right away or want to know how good they are before taking a full-price plunge.
But, 'tis MY blog so I'm extending it to tech as well. In reality, it always was and will be tech-related.
Today I'm speaking about the iPod Nano. I've always been a big fan of the Nano. Great product. I remember when the first gen Nanos were announced and I was pretty much all-in right there. However, I'm pretty rough on my stuff so I wanted to be sure it was a wise purchase. That's when I read a review by either Tom's Hardware or Andantech.com where they put it through the paces and it survived being dropped out of a car, run over by a car, all that. So I bought it.
The Nano, for me, has been synonymous with a tank of a product. Pretty close to indestructible, the Nano line has been awesome to me. I've never had a failure, but probably should have time and time again. At one point I decided to buy the first gen iPod Touch to replace my Nano but missed it's small size and versatility... and buttons. I now have a 4th gen Nano (just before the camera model came out) and couldn't be happier with it.
I've been looking forward to the next line of Nano's and was floored by what happened to them. Perhaps I should make a list of things I love about my Nano.
Durable
Simple buttons (to press when you're not looking, tactile feedback)
Fits in my hand
Music
Video
Battery life
The first two being the main reasons why I own the Nano and not a different player, the rest being perks.
Okay, now here's what Apple is calling the 6th gen Nano...
WTF?!
Okay, what I see is an iPod Touch -mini/nano...thing?
So now the 'Nano' is a tiny screen. That's what you'll notice first. Many people may love that, but it says to me that it's no longer durable. iPhones and Touches are notorious for their fragility. Drop it on its side and it'll shatter.
There goes Durable... We're down to five.
The second thing I notice is there are no buttons. Which is outright idiotic for a device like this.
1. A lack of buttons removes any tactile feedback. I now have to view the device to interact with it. This is no longer a workout device. I'm not strapping a screen to my arm or chest during a long ride. When I had the touch, I could never just skip songs, I had to stop what I was doing.
2. With it's small size any time you interact with it, you won't likely see what you're doing. iPhone and Touch barely get away with this now. Perhaps it will work out for the better, but I'm not sure.
3. It's just barely large enough to hold. Clip or no clip, it looks like it's just awkward to use.
Now we've lost Buttons... We're down to four. And at this point, I probably wouldn't consider this purchase at all. Being a long time Nano lover, I am now pretty well alienated, so I don't really need to go into the other things I don't like about this... but I will in case you're not interested in those two points.
After poking around a bit I found that Apple has decided that Nano users aren't interested in small screen video. So they removed that. Along with the camera. Admittedly, I never saw the point of the camera before, since everything ELSE has cameras, but I actually DO use my iPod to watch video from time to time. It goes everywhere with me and it's a great way to whittle away the time. Now Apple is selling a small screen with pretty compact resolution (220ppi) and they have taken off the video. That's be all it had going for it!
Aside from those gripes I'm glad to see that Apple includes a radio with recording (like those fancy DVR's), a clip on the back, and the dock connector (unlike the Shuffle, which charges and transfers files over the stereo jack).
Apple has lost me on this one. I'm not interested whatsoever in a shuffle (since I do like to pick out my music) so they could sell them for $5 and I wouldn't bite. There are doubtlessly others in my camp here, but not likely enough to reboot the old monolith shaped Nano I knew and loved. I hope this 4th gen continues to serve me well because I don't want to have to experiment with any of the other guys any time soon...
But, 'tis MY blog so I'm extending it to tech as well. In reality, it always was and will be tech-related.
Today I'm speaking about the iPod Nano. I've always been a big fan of the Nano. Great product. I remember when the first gen Nanos were announced and I was pretty much all-in right there. However, I'm pretty rough on my stuff so I wanted to be sure it was a wise purchase. That's when I read a review by either Tom's Hardware or Andantech.com where they put it through the paces and it survived being dropped out of a car, run over by a car, all that. So I bought it.
The Nano, for me, has been synonymous with a tank of a product. Pretty close to indestructible, the Nano line has been awesome to me. I've never had a failure, but probably should have time and time again. At one point I decided to buy the first gen iPod Touch to replace my Nano but missed it's small size and versatility... and buttons. I now have a 4th gen Nano (just before the camera model came out) and couldn't be happier with it.
I've been looking forward to the next line of Nano's and was floored by what happened to them. Perhaps I should make a list of things I love about my Nano.
Durable
Simple buttons (to press when you're not looking, tactile feedback)
Fits in my hand
Music
Video
Battery life
The first two being the main reasons why I own the Nano and not a different player, the rest being perks.
Okay, now here's what Apple is calling the 6th gen Nano...
WTF?!
Okay, what I see is an iPod Touch -mini/nano...thing?
So now the 'Nano' is a tiny screen. That's what you'll notice first. Many people may love that, but it says to me that it's no longer durable. iPhones and Touches are notorious for their fragility. Drop it on its side and it'll shatter.
There goes Durable... We're down to five.
The second thing I notice is there are no buttons. Which is outright idiotic for a device like this.
1. A lack of buttons removes any tactile feedback. I now have to view the device to interact with it. This is no longer a workout device. I'm not strapping a screen to my arm or chest during a long ride. When I had the touch, I could never just skip songs, I had to stop what I was doing.
2. With it's small size any time you interact with it, you won't likely see what you're doing. iPhone and Touch barely get away with this now. Perhaps it will work out for the better, but I'm not sure.
3. It's just barely large enough to hold. Clip or no clip, it looks like it's just awkward to use.
Now we've lost Buttons... We're down to four. And at this point, I probably wouldn't consider this purchase at all. Being a long time Nano lover, I am now pretty well alienated, so I don't really need to go into the other things I don't like about this... but I will in case you're not interested in those two points.
After poking around a bit I found that Apple has decided that Nano users aren't interested in small screen video. So they removed that. Along with the camera. Admittedly, I never saw the point of the camera before, since everything ELSE has cameras, but I actually DO use my iPod to watch video from time to time. It goes everywhere with me and it's a great way to whittle away the time. Now Apple is selling a small screen with pretty compact resolution (220ppi) and they have taken off the video. That's be all it had going for it!
Aside from those gripes I'm glad to see that Apple includes a radio with recording (like those fancy DVR's), a clip on the back, and the dock connector (unlike the Shuffle, which charges and transfers files over the stereo jack).
Apple has lost me on this one. I'm not interested whatsoever in a shuffle (since I do like to pick out my music) so they could sell them for $5 and I wouldn't bite. There are doubtlessly others in my camp here, but not likely enough to reboot the old monolith shaped Nano I knew and loved. I hope this 4th gen continues to serve me well because I don't want to have to experiment with any of the other guys any time soon...
I got the Red Dead Runaround
Red Dead Redemption (RDR) is an entertaining game, I'll give you that. Even when you realize it's just GTA IV in a giant, dusty park. It isn't even worth talking about what you can do in RDR since if you've played any of the GTA series, you know exactly how the game works. I'll try to stick to the ways RDR isn't GTA.
Here's a brief overview of how the game is driven... You have story related mission sources, side missions, and random encounters. The mission sources eventually present new sources and then exhaust themselves, and eventually unlock other areas of the map (just like EVERY GTA game ever). The side missions are by no means necessary, but can be entertaining. The only thing that is new is the random encounters. About every three or four seconds you'll see a blue dot on the mini map that will either be some crying for help or trying to pull you off your horse, only to be shot in the back as they utterly fail at making fun of you for being a "green horn". The cries for help vary, however, between retrieving/saving a cart/horse/wife/criminal and killing people.
Come to think of it... No matter what you do, you will always have to choose between killing people or tying them up with an infinite supply of rope. Which makes me assume the Jon Marsden is half spider. He pulls rope out of his ass all day long. You'll happen upon a LOT of law men with broken legs shouting not unlike Yosemite Sam (minus the guns firing) who have just had their prisoners escape. You can either a) kill them, or b) lasso, hogtie, and return them to the cop who will put a bullet in them anyway. Really the only reason you'll ever lasso someone or something is because people pay better to get criminals "alive" rather than dead. Oh, and dead people drop ammo and cash, so it's often more time efficient and cash efficient to drop them and take what they had.
RDR features the same tried and true good/bad system that you find in every RPG these days. You gain honor and you're a good guy, you lose it and you're a bad guy. I'm sure you can figure out exactly HOW to gain or lose it. Remember though, Jon Marsden is an outlaw, so it doesn't matter how you do things as long as the job gets done (unless you fail the mission, then don't be bad that time!). All decisions are basic moral choices and you'll rarely, if ever, feel 'tricked' into making a wrong decision. If they don't give you missions, they're expendable.
There is also a "Fame" meter which only goes up. You can do all sorts of things to modify the fame meter like shooting a guys hat off his head just prior to disarming him and emptying his brain cage during a duel. Or helping some lady get her cart back from those nasty thieves.
There is also a small list of in-game 'achievements' that if you fulfill to some degree, grant you certain abilities that make the game a bit easier. These relate to hunting, sharpshooting, gathering, and maybe some others that I haven't noticed or cared to do. Make no mistakes, these are all quests from World of Warcraft.
Once you've surrendered to the fact that all the missions are the same as GTA you can easily push away the very cloned plot mechanic by looking at the amazing art. RDR is gorgeous no matter what you do. This means a lot coming from me, too. I've always detested "Ole West" movies and themes (with the exception of "Tombstone"). They're dirty, arid, sweaty, dusty movies. I hate LOOKING at these movies because they just grate on me. If they have a plot, it's never enough to draw me in and get past the dust.
RDR is beautiful. Even the dust. The shanty towns that are scattered around "New Austin" and parts of Mexico are ugly makeshift dwellings and I think they're wonderful. I don't know how Rockstar did it but I actually enjoy being in this environment.
I was half surprised and half in awe the first time a cougar ate my horse and killed me. Just like in real life if you're very sharp-eyed you can see them stalking you. Unlike in real life, the cougars are quite menacing. The animals in RDR are great. They all seem to do their thing until you impose upon their space. Deer and other prey animals prance away, horse gangs run free, wolves attack in packs. It's great.
RDR's gameplay was described to me by a friend as "at first it seems horrible, but then you get used to it and it feels like there isn't any other way to do it." I tend to agree. I'm sure I'd like to tweak things a bit, but for the most part the game controls are very solid. They start of incredibly confusing, and there is no tutorial (I have very mixed feelings about tutorials. Games that shift the control paradigm need them, games that are stander FPS or ThirdPSs do not need tutorials). So if you don't notice something (like how to use Dead Eye mode) and just shoot the dumb rabbits with the incredibly easy to use NORMAL aim mode, then you haven't a clue that there even IS a Dead Eye mode. Until you can't pass missions involving VERY precise shooting that you couldn't hope to do without the time-slowing Dead Eye mode. If you're one of those people, click down the right stick when aiming your gun. There, that's it.
Oh, wait, no. That ISN'T it. Apparently there are three 'modes' or 'levels'. I've been trying to locate information regarding the levels online or otherwise and, well, failing. I haven't a clue. I know what they ARE, I just can't use them as I see fit. One of them just plops x's all over your target and then fires when there are a lot of x's. Another is used for duels. The third seems to be like the first, except now you pick your target points. Here is my major gripe. In DUELS you pull the RTrigger to select spots and wait for the time to be 'up' to have Jon auto-fire all the selected locations. However in the 'third' mode, you use the RBumper to select and the trigger to finalize and he shoots like mad. I prefer the second method since the aiming is a bit more precise and pulling on the RTrigger in duel mode doesn't seem to work well... or at all. Perhaps I just suck at dueling. I'm okay with that.
Travel in RDR has been made easy with fast traveling. Just like a taxi in Liberty City you can travel from town to town and get the choice of experiencing the journey or skipping it. You can also fast travel from a campsite to anywhere you've been before which saves a LOT of tapping A constantly on a horse or cart. You can also get on a train if it happens to be heading in a useful direction (HINT: It's NOT).
Horses are very cool. Each horse has a subtle AI that makes them seem alive. Every horse has a personality. You can buy them or break them and 'hitch' one to save it. That's it. You have a one space garage. But it's okay because there are only three levels of horses distinguished primarily by their speed. You find a faster horse, you keep it. You don't have any use for slower horses, so you can leave them or shoot them (and lose some of your precious honor...).
There you have it. Horse around, hogtie and/or kill people. That is RDR. Oh, and there is some gambling. RDR does it's part in catering to America's odd fascination with Texas Hold'em. Throws in some blackjack, arm wrestling, horseshoes, liar's dice and "five finger fillet" (the game where you put your hand on a table and repeatedly attempt to not amputate your own fingers) and you have everything there is to do in a gigantic and beautiful rendition of the Old West.
...I've read over the previous a few times and can't seem to think of anything I'm missing, and I don't think I can come up with anything else to say about RDR. It's a very solid GTA: Old West. I have yet to do anything with multiplayer and I haven't finished the game. If I get into the multiplayer (which may never happen, as I continue to detest online play) or finish the game, I may post an addendum or continuation of this review.
I will say that I've 'learned' a lot from RDR. First off is that the Old West was filled with cannibals. Apparently they were quite common. The second is that there is NO REASON the West was ever 'civilized' what with the CONSTANT gunfire, prostitutes being murdered, farmsteads being raised to the ground, and outlaw gangs taking over forts!
I'm quite glad I borrowed RDR from a buddy (and very thankful, too). It's not a game I would have been happy with at full price. I will admit that I would be more than happy to do some multiplayer (in the same house) to experience some of those parts of the game.
Here's a brief overview of how the game is driven... You have story related mission sources, side missions, and random encounters. The mission sources eventually present new sources and then exhaust themselves, and eventually unlock other areas of the map (just like EVERY GTA game ever). The side missions are by no means necessary, but can be entertaining. The only thing that is new is the random encounters. About every three or four seconds you'll see a blue dot on the mini map that will either be some crying for help or trying to pull you off your horse, only to be shot in the back as they utterly fail at making fun of you for being a "green horn". The cries for help vary, however, between retrieving/saving a cart/horse/wife/criminal and killing people.
Come to think of it... No matter what you do, you will always have to choose between killing people or tying them up with an infinite supply of rope. Which makes me assume the Jon Marsden is half spider. He pulls rope out of his ass all day long. You'll happen upon a LOT of law men with broken legs shouting not unlike Yosemite Sam (minus the guns firing) who have just had their prisoners escape. You can either a) kill them, or b) lasso, hogtie, and return them to the cop who will put a bullet in them anyway. Really the only reason you'll ever lasso someone or something is because people pay better to get criminals "alive" rather than dead. Oh, and dead people drop ammo and cash, so it's often more time efficient and cash efficient to drop them and take what they had.
RDR features the same tried and true good/bad system that you find in every RPG these days. You gain honor and you're a good guy, you lose it and you're a bad guy. I'm sure you can figure out exactly HOW to gain or lose it. Remember though, Jon Marsden is an outlaw, so it doesn't matter how you do things as long as the job gets done (unless you fail the mission, then don't be bad that time!). All decisions are basic moral choices and you'll rarely, if ever, feel 'tricked' into making a wrong decision. If they don't give you missions, they're expendable.
There is also a "Fame" meter which only goes up. You can do all sorts of things to modify the fame meter like shooting a guys hat off his head just prior to disarming him and emptying his brain cage during a duel. Or helping some lady get her cart back from those nasty thieves.
There is also a small list of in-game 'achievements' that if you fulfill to some degree, grant you certain abilities that make the game a bit easier. These relate to hunting, sharpshooting, gathering, and maybe some others that I haven't noticed or cared to do. Make no mistakes, these are all quests from World of Warcraft.
Once you've surrendered to the fact that all the missions are the same as GTA you can easily push away the very cloned plot mechanic by looking at the amazing art. RDR is gorgeous no matter what you do. This means a lot coming from me, too. I've always detested "Ole West" movies and themes (with the exception of "Tombstone"). They're dirty, arid, sweaty, dusty movies. I hate LOOKING at these movies because they just grate on me. If they have a plot, it's never enough to draw me in and get past the dust.
RDR is beautiful. Even the dust. The shanty towns that are scattered around "New Austin" and parts of Mexico are ugly makeshift dwellings and I think they're wonderful. I don't know how Rockstar did it but I actually enjoy being in this environment.
I was half surprised and half in awe the first time a cougar ate my horse and killed me. Just like in real life if you're very sharp-eyed you can see them stalking you. Unlike in real life, the cougars are quite menacing. The animals in RDR are great. They all seem to do their thing until you impose upon their space. Deer and other prey animals prance away, horse gangs run free, wolves attack in packs. It's great.
RDR's gameplay was described to me by a friend as "at first it seems horrible, but then you get used to it and it feels like there isn't any other way to do it." I tend to agree. I'm sure I'd like to tweak things a bit, but for the most part the game controls are very solid. They start of incredibly confusing, and there is no tutorial (I have very mixed feelings about tutorials. Games that shift the control paradigm need them, games that are stander FPS or ThirdPSs do not need tutorials). So if you don't notice something (like how to use Dead Eye mode) and just shoot the dumb rabbits with the incredibly easy to use NORMAL aim mode, then you haven't a clue that there even IS a Dead Eye mode. Until you can't pass missions involving VERY precise shooting that you couldn't hope to do without the time-slowing Dead Eye mode. If you're one of those people, click down the right stick when aiming your gun. There, that's it.
Oh, wait, no. That ISN'T it. Apparently there are three 'modes' or 'levels'. I've been trying to locate information regarding the levels online or otherwise and, well, failing. I haven't a clue. I know what they ARE, I just can't use them as I see fit. One of them just plops x's all over your target and then fires when there are a lot of x's. Another is used for duels. The third seems to be like the first, except now you pick your target points. Here is my major gripe. In DUELS you pull the RTrigger to select spots and wait for the time to be 'up' to have Jon auto-fire all the selected locations. However in the 'third' mode, you use the RBumper to select and the trigger to finalize and he shoots like mad. I prefer the second method since the aiming is a bit more precise and pulling on the RTrigger in duel mode doesn't seem to work well... or at all. Perhaps I just suck at dueling. I'm okay with that.
Travel in RDR has been made easy with fast traveling. Just like a taxi in Liberty City you can travel from town to town and get the choice of experiencing the journey or skipping it. You can also fast travel from a campsite to anywhere you've been before which saves a LOT of tapping A constantly on a horse or cart. You can also get on a train if it happens to be heading in a useful direction (HINT: It's NOT).
Horses are very cool. Each horse has a subtle AI that makes them seem alive. Every horse has a personality. You can buy them or break them and 'hitch' one to save it. That's it. You have a one space garage. But it's okay because there are only three levels of horses distinguished primarily by their speed. You find a faster horse, you keep it. You don't have any use for slower horses, so you can leave them or shoot them (and lose some of your precious honor...).
There you have it. Horse around, hogtie and/or kill people. That is RDR. Oh, and there is some gambling. RDR does it's part in catering to America's odd fascination with Texas Hold'em. Throws in some blackjack, arm wrestling, horseshoes, liar's dice and "five finger fillet" (the game where you put your hand on a table and repeatedly attempt to not amputate your own fingers) and you have everything there is to do in a gigantic and beautiful rendition of the Old West.
...I've read over the previous a few times and can't seem to think of anything I'm missing, and I don't think I can come up with anything else to say about RDR. It's a very solid GTA: Old West. I have yet to do anything with multiplayer and I haven't finished the game. If I get into the multiplayer (which may never happen, as I continue to detest online play) or finish the game, I may post an addendum or continuation of this review.
I will say that I've 'learned' a lot from RDR. First off is that the Old West was filled with cannibals. Apparently they were quite common. The second is that there is NO REASON the West was ever 'civilized' what with the CONSTANT gunfire, prostitutes being murdered, farmsteads being raised to the ground, and outlaw gangs taking over forts!
I'm quite glad I borrowed RDR from a buddy (and very thankful, too). It's not a game I would have been happy with at full price. I will admit that I would be more than happy to do some multiplayer (in the same house) to experience some of those parts of the game.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
dilemma...!
Okay, so almost nothing about video games here... Deal.
The dilemma that I face, and that pretty much everyone in the US will face is in regards to the word "upgrade". I'm narrowing the scope of this upgrade to cell phones specifically, because I'm considering my carrier (Sprint, the slowest and oldest, most worthless network available) and my device.
Most people in the US own or will own a portable communications device. Then they will inevitably take it for granted. Let's narrow the scope down to that point. I'm looking at replacing my crappy Blackberry (model# is irrelevant as every Blackberry is pretty much junk) with anything else. Having used almost every platform (Symbian, Sony-Ericsson, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and some others) save for Android, I figure it's now time to give Android a fair chance.
I'm writing this article to help my brain grapple with "4G". The "fourth" generation of cellular data service. WiMax and LTE, both touted as 4G solutions, really aren't anywhere near the 4G specification (1Gbps over wireless), but are both designed to be expandable.
The real dilemma is that upgrading is such a dubious and vain idea. Solomon the wise would probably call upgrading anything a "Chasing after the wind". There are many theories to when the best time to upgrade will be, but they're all just theories and subscribing to any of them means that you're going to be immediately wrong. I think I can successfully boil these down to three categories, and, since I tend to write on the fly with minimal correction, we'll see how I do.
Category 1: Early adoption.
The is getting new tech immediately when it becomes available. It tends to be a lot of fun, but also somewhat expensive. You get to experience all the newness of technology with all the pains of generally poorly tested materials.
Why is this relevant today?
Well, because we're on the verge of new technology being implemented throughout the nation. Most network providers are scurrying to come up with suitable '4G' networks. Sprint is using WiMax, while everyone else is going with what is generally believed to be the superior LTE system. An early adopter may jump directly onto the Sprint network seeing as they're implementing everything about 6 months to a year before anyone else trials LTE. The early adopter will get to play around on Sprint's new '4G' tech for about a year before they have the opportunity to experience buyer's remorse! Hmm....
Category 2: Wait and see.
The middle road. This is almost the same as the early adopter, but they wait to see how the early adopters fair before taking the plunge in tech. Generally it means waiting a few months after a product releases before even getting their grubby mitts on it. These wait and see people will often wait for the first price drop before they go for major purchases. The financial and strategic risk is lower, and they still get to look like the tech goons previously mentioned.
Why is this relevant?
Because in order to be a "Wait and see" about this technology shift I'll have to wait about a year using devices that no man should ever have to use (Remember, I have a blackberry... ugh...). Sprint's WiMax may be pretty fast, but AT&T and T-Mobile's 3G networks are actually upgradable to almost the same speed as WiMax. Interestingly, T-Mobile is supposed to have some phones coming out using their HSPA+ technology, which runs at around 21Mbps (faster than my braodband connection at home!). However that's a theoretical maximum and speeds like that are rarely seen, though many claim to be getting 10Mbps. The worst part is that these technologies are going to slowly mutate from what they are now into who knows what with only the underlying technologies being similar. Currently there are basically two 3G standards, GSM and CDMA. Soon there will still be two but much like the MPEG4 specification it's anyone's guess what actual technology will be the best or worst at any given time. There will never be an end to the waiting or seeing that one will do for at least the next three years, minimum.
Category 3: We'll get there when we get there.
If it ain't cheap and in my hand now, I don't care. These people are generally spendthrifts (usually in a very good way) who don't see a need for, or don't get excited over tech. They probably still don't text message people and can't use their phone for more than saving a few phone numbers and dialing out.
This approach minimizes financial and technical risk. IE, if a phone is relatively good in quality then someone is who picks it up for free is probably going to be satisfied with the product. Unless it's a blackberry. Blackberry phones are all the exact same thing, just with different sizes and some are shinier than others.
Why are these people relevant? Probably because they drive the 'low end' market. They're also the people that keep Nokia, LG and Motorola (and all the other dirt cheap phone makers) in business. The real advantage of being Category three is that you NEVER need to worry about features or the future. If you get calls and have to charge your phone once or twice a week you're more than happy. It's an almost stress free life for you, kudos. :)
Where am I? I typically sit between Category 1 and 2, depending on which device is involved. With computers I'm usually Cat1. When the i7 dropped I was all over its glory. With phones, I'm closer to Cat2. I'm not interested in holding the latest shiny POS and proud of it. I'll let some other people try them out for a few weeks and once I've read that it's really a quality product, I'm in (did this with the first iPod Nano. Once I heard that a few reviewers ran over it with a car and it survived, heck yeah!).
Currently I'm very interested in the Evo 4G and the Samsung Epic 4G. They work on the newest Sprint network (which is due to show up some in the Twin Cities by the end of 2010). I'm torn. Sprint is the currently the slowest available network. They're 4G is probably also going to be the slowest next gen, but it's here NOW. Not later. The other perk (as I understand it) is that Sprint is using the 4G network as DATA ONLY and the 3G network as voice, so, like AT&T, you can call and use data at the same time. Which is a big plus, and the main reason I didn't want to leave AT&T a couple years back.
I suppose I could just go buy an Evo and see how I feel about it. Not like I don't have 30 days to return it if it sucks. :D
The dilemma that I face, and that pretty much everyone in the US will face is in regards to the word "upgrade". I'm narrowing the scope of this upgrade to cell phones specifically, because I'm considering my carrier (Sprint, the slowest and oldest, most worthless network available) and my device.
Most people in the US own or will own a portable communications device. Then they will inevitably take it for granted. Let's narrow the scope down to that point. I'm looking at replacing my crappy Blackberry (model# is irrelevant as every Blackberry is pretty much junk) with anything else. Having used almost every platform (Symbian, Sony-Ericsson, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and some others) save for Android, I figure it's now time to give Android a fair chance.
I'm writing this article to help my brain grapple with "4G". The "fourth" generation of cellular data service. WiMax and LTE, both touted as 4G solutions, really aren't anywhere near the 4G specification (1Gbps over wireless), but are both designed to be expandable.
The real dilemma is that upgrading is such a dubious and vain idea. Solomon the wise would probably call upgrading anything a "Chasing after the wind". There are many theories to when the best time to upgrade will be, but they're all just theories and subscribing to any of them means that you're going to be immediately wrong. I think I can successfully boil these down to three categories, and, since I tend to write on the fly with minimal correction, we'll see how I do.
Category 1: Early adoption.
The is getting new tech immediately when it becomes available. It tends to be a lot of fun, but also somewhat expensive. You get to experience all the newness of technology with all the pains of generally poorly tested materials.
Why is this relevant today?
Well, because we're on the verge of new technology being implemented throughout the nation. Most network providers are scurrying to come up with suitable '4G' networks. Sprint is using WiMax, while everyone else is going with what is generally believed to be the superior LTE system. An early adopter may jump directly onto the Sprint network seeing as they're implementing everything about 6 months to a year before anyone else trials LTE. The early adopter will get to play around on Sprint's new '4G' tech for about a year before they have the opportunity to experience buyer's remorse! Hmm....
Category 2: Wait and see.
The middle road. This is almost the same as the early adopter, but they wait to see how the early adopters fair before taking the plunge in tech. Generally it means waiting a few months after a product releases before even getting their grubby mitts on it. These wait and see people will often wait for the first price drop before they go for major purchases. The financial and strategic risk is lower, and they still get to look like the tech goons previously mentioned.
Why is this relevant?
Because in order to be a "Wait and see" about this technology shift I'll have to wait about a year using devices that no man should ever have to use (Remember, I have a blackberry... ugh...). Sprint's WiMax may be pretty fast, but AT&T and T-Mobile's 3G networks are actually upgradable to almost the same speed as WiMax. Interestingly, T-Mobile is supposed to have some phones coming out using their HSPA+ technology, which runs at around 21Mbps (faster than my braodband connection at home!). However that's a theoretical maximum and speeds like that are rarely seen, though many claim to be getting 10Mbps. The worst part is that these technologies are going to slowly mutate from what they are now into who knows what with only the underlying technologies being similar. Currently there are basically two 3G standards, GSM and CDMA. Soon there will still be two but much like the MPEG4 specification it's anyone's guess what actual technology will be the best or worst at any given time. There will never be an end to the waiting or seeing that one will do for at least the next three years, minimum.
Category 3: We'll get there when we get there.
If it ain't cheap and in my hand now, I don't care. These people are generally spendthrifts (usually in a very good way) who don't see a need for, or don't get excited over tech. They probably still don't text message people and can't use their phone for more than saving a few phone numbers and dialing out.
This approach minimizes financial and technical risk. IE, if a phone is relatively good in quality then someone is who picks it up for free is probably going to be satisfied with the product. Unless it's a blackberry. Blackberry phones are all the exact same thing, just with different sizes and some are shinier than others.
Why are these people relevant? Probably because they drive the 'low end' market. They're also the people that keep Nokia, LG and Motorola (and all the other dirt cheap phone makers) in business. The real advantage of being Category three is that you NEVER need to worry about features or the future. If you get calls and have to charge your phone once or twice a week you're more than happy. It's an almost stress free life for you, kudos. :)
Where am I? I typically sit between Category 1 and 2, depending on which device is involved. With computers I'm usually Cat1. When the i7 dropped I was all over its glory. With phones, I'm closer to Cat2. I'm not interested in holding the latest shiny POS and proud of it. I'll let some other people try them out for a few weeks and once I've read that it's really a quality product, I'm in (did this with the first iPod Nano. Once I heard that a few reviewers ran over it with a car and it survived, heck yeah!).
Currently I'm very interested in the Evo 4G and the Samsung Epic 4G. They work on the newest Sprint network (which is due to show up some in the Twin Cities by the end of 2010). I'm torn. Sprint is the currently the slowest available network. They're 4G is probably also going to be the slowest next gen, but it's here NOW. Not later. The other perk (as I understand it) is that Sprint is using the 4G network as DATA ONLY and the 3G network as voice, so, like AT&T, you can call and use data at the same time. Which is a big plus, and the main reason I didn't want to leave AT&T a couple years back.
I suppose I could just go buy an Evo and see how I feel about it. Not like I don't have 30 days to return it if it sucks. :D
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Another demo. Castlevania: Harmony of Despair
Let me preface this with the fact that I love Castlevania. Aside from a few of the 3D games I think most of the Castlevania games are dang near a perfect 10. Between Super Castlevania on the SNES and Symphony of the Night on PS1 (or Saturn import) I can't tell which is the more perfect game. I love 2D adventures and Castlevania serves up some of the best (Super Metroid still being my favorite).
Okay, so I've been waiting for Harmony of Despair for a few months. I heard they were making a MULTIPLAYER 2d Castlevania and I was pretty well ready to throw down whatever they asked to play this game.
Last night I loaded up the demo and, well, it wasn't good. The first thing I noticed is that I had a goal in the complete opposite corner of the castle and 30 minutes to get there. The next thing I noticed is that I didn't know where I was because I was looking at about 1/4 of the castle. After a great deal of frustration I would find that I could change the zoom by clicking in the right stick. In multiplayer this would be useful to see where everyone is, but in single player I don't see the point. Other than the fact that the boss is shooting lasers out of its mouth all the way across the castle (watch out!).
The demo only allows you to play as Alucard, which is pretty cool since Alucard is pretty much the most bad-ass non-Belmont available throughout the series. I would think they would save him for an unlockable, but whatever works, right?
The gameplay is about as Castlevania as it gets. You can double jump, scoot back, all that, even your downward kick attack (sadly, no gravity boots for super jumps). Pressing down and attack briefly turns you into a wolf, and you can take vapor form, but I couldn't find a use for it. The control maps is almost identical to SotN as well, save that your right hand action is now "Y" and the "B" button is reserved for an equipped spell. The gameplay is just as tight (at least for Alucard) as any other Castlevania. That's a good thing.
Once you've explored the castle a bit you'll find that monsters now are fewer in number, are slightly more powerful, and are no longer restricted to the room in which you found them. This becomes particularly frustrating any time ghosts or Amalaric Snipers show up since they're already difficult to kill.
The next thing you'll find is that you'll have to pull the right trigger to open chests. I don't know why, but you do. And then you'll go into the start menu and find out that the helmet that should be saving your noggin can't be equipped. Nothing can. You have to find a room slightly like a save room to equip anything or swap out your items. While this makes almost sense in a practical way (since Alucard and his buddies shouldn't be able to carry around 87 swords, 36 sets of armor, 45 helmets, and a handful of shitake mushrooms in the first place) but damned if we haven't been spoiled by all the other games! At least let me eat the roasts when I find them!
And before you start thinking of how to make this game 'practical' let me just say that it's not supposed to be practical in any way. If it were practical there couldn't be a half-vampire double jumping around a structurally unsound castle infested with Devils and Mermen. Hell, if I found myself with a whip that slayed zombies and the like you better believe I'd eat the ice cream sitting quaintly in the corner after vanquishing the possessed bookshelf guard.
It may not seem like much, but not being able to equip on the fly really takes away from this game. Perhaps it's something that add to the multiplayer experience, but I have yet to play with anyone. To tell the truth, I got completely stuck in the castle after exploring for ten minutes. I found every dead end and impassibly high wall, got frustrated and turned off the machine. Then turned it back on and killed zombies in Dead Rising in a vain attempt to make up for the time I lost NOT killing undead in Harmony of Despair.
Harmony of Despair is 1200 MS points, or $15 in the US. That's half the price of a DS Castlevania game and I still can't see buying it unless a few friends had already taken the plunge to see if the multiplayer is even worth it. And being that I'm probably the biggest fan of Castlevania in my various circles that will likely never happen.
Okay, so I've been waiting for Harmony of Despair for a few months. I heard they were making a MULTIPLAYER 2d Castlevania and I was pretty well ready to throw down whatever they asked to play this game.
Last night I loaded up the demo and, well, it wasn't good. The first thing I noticed is that I had a goal in the complete opposite corner of the castle and 30 minutes to get there. The next thing I noticed is that I didn't know where I was because I was looking at about 1/4 of the castle. After a great deal of frustration I would find that I could change the zoom by clicking in the right stick. In multiplayer this would be useful to see where everyone is, but in single player I don't see the point. Other than the fact that the boss is shooting lasers out of its mouth all the way across the castle (watch out!).
The demo only allows you to play as Alucard, which is pretty cool since Alucard is pretty much the most bad-ass non-Belmont available throughout the series. I would think they would save him for an unlockable, but whatever works, right?
The gameplay is about as Castlevania as it gets. You can double jump, scoot back, all that, even your downward kick attack (sadly, no gravity boots for super jumps). Pressing down and attack briefly turns you into a wolf, and you can take vapor form, but I couldn't find a use for it. The control maps is almost identical to SotN as well, save that your right hand action is now "Y" and the "B" button is reserved for an equipped spell. The gameplay is just as tight (at least for Alucard) as any other Castlevania. That's a good thing.
Once you've explored the castle a bit you'll find that monsters now are fewer in number, are slightly more powerful, and are no longer restricted to the room in which you found them. This becomes particularly frustrating any time ghosts or Amalaric Snipers show up since they're already difficult to kill.
The next thing you'll find is that you'll have to pull the right trigger to open chests. I don't know why, but you do. And then you'll go into the start menu and find out that the helmet that should be saving your noggin can't be equipped. Nothing can. You have to find a room slightly like a save room to equip anything or swap out your items. While this makes almost sense in a practical way (since Alucard and his buddies shouldn't be able to carry around 87 swords, 36 sets of armor, 45 helmets, and a handful of shitake mushrooms in the first place) but damned if we haven't been spoiled by all the other games! At least let me eat the roasts when I find them!
And before you start thinking of how to make this game 'practical' let me just say that it's not supposed to be practical in any way. If it were practical there couldn't be a half-vampire double jumping around a structurally unsound castle infested with Devils and Mermen. Hell, if I found myself with a whip that slayed zombies and the like you better believe I'd eat the ice cream sitting quaintly in the corner after vanquishing the possessed bookshelf guard.
It may not seem like much, but not being able to equip on the fly really takes away from this game. Perhaps it's something that add to the multiplayer experience, but I have yet to play with anyone. To tell the truth, I got completely stuck in the castle after exploring for ten minutes. I found every dead end and impassibly high wall, got frustrated and turned off the machine. Then turned it back on and killed zombies in Dead Rising in a vain attempt to make up for the time I lost NOT killing undead in Harmony of Despair.
Harmony of Despair is 1200 MS points, or $15 in the US. That's half the price of a DS Castlevania game and I still can't see buying it unless a few friends had already taken the plunge to see if the multiplayer is even worth it. And being that I'm probably the biggest fan of Castlevania in my various circles that will likely never happen.
Deathspank, just the demo, thanks.
First up is Deathspank:
I was pretty excited for Deathspank since it's a cheap hack-n-slash slash RPG that was supposed to be rather witty. I downloaded the demo and fired it up. I was almost instantly disappointed. The first thing I was treated to was a woman talking endlessly about some legend. At first I couldn't decide if she was being serious or sarcastic. I decided she was being serious because, well, there was no voice acting involved in her speech. I've heard more voice inflection in the original Resident Evil. The game didn't get any better after that...
The gameplay is pretty cookie cutter and the story is about as thin as anyone could possibly write a story. And that's all fine because I was there to play a simple hack-n-slash game with some comedy. If the gameplay was great then that would be a bonus, but nothing I'd expect from a cheap downloadeable game.
Okay, the game is starting, I don't have to listen to that terrible dialogue anymore. Run around, shoot crap. Save in an outhouse. I'm on board with that. Then it's off to talk to some witch. Oh, no! It's that voice again! But this time it's worse because the voice actor... nay, person for Deathspank talks in a monotonous hero voice the entire time. It sounds a lot like they're trying to go for The Tick from the animated series, but with a monotone voice. I think William Shatner would could have given this guy any number of pointers to improve his game.
I got through the VERY PAINFUL conversation which was filled with what could have been great puns and ironies if they had any voice talent. Perhaps the director is to blame, I don't know. I went off on the first mission and when I came back I had to shut down the game because I just couldn't take listening to their semi robotic voices any longer.
The gameplay was nothing noteworthy. Each of the action buttons was linked to a weapon. One or more (I'm assuming) can be assigned a purple "Weapon of Justice" that, when the justice meter is charged, you can activate its ability, which is generally some sort of kill field. Weapons can have the classic elemental affinities and you are able to find "1000's" of pieces of armor and weapons throughout the game.
I would not play this game if it were free.
I was pretty excited for Deathspank since it's a cheap hack-n-slash slash RPG that was supposed to be rather witty. I downloaded the demo and fired it up. I was almost instantly disappointed. The first thing I was treated to was a woman talking endlessly about some legend. At first I couldn't decide if she was being serious or sarcastic. I decided she was being serious because, well, there was no voice acting involved in her speech. I've heard more voice inflection in the original Resident Evil. The game didn't get any better after that...
The gameplay is pretty cookie cutter and the story is about as thin as anyone could possibly write a story. And that's all fine because I was there to play a simple hack-n-slash game with some comedy. If the gameplay was great then that would be a bonus, but nothing I'd expect from a cheap downloadeable game.
Okay, the game is starting, I don't have to listen to that terrible dialogue anymore. Run around, shoot crap. Save in an outhouse. I'm on board with that. Then it's off to talk to some witch. Oh, no! It's that voice again! But this time it's worse because the voice actor... nay, person for Deathspank talks in a monotonous hero voice the entire time. It sounds a lot like they're trying to go for The Tick from the animated series, but with a monotone voice. I think William Shatner would could have given this guy any number of pointers to improve his game.
I got through the VERY PAINFUL conversation which was filled with what could have been great puns and ironies if they had any voice talent. Perhaps the director is to blame, I don't know. I went off on the first mission and when I came back I had to shut down the game because I just couldn't take listening to their semi robotic voices any longer.
The gameplay was nothing noteworthy. Each of the action buttons was linked to a weapon. One or more (I'm assuming) can be assigned a purple "Weapon of Justice" that, when the justice meter is charged, you can activate its ability, which is generally some sort of kill field. Weapons can have the classic elemental affinities and you are able to find "1000's" of pieces of armor and weapons throughout the game.
I would not play this game if it were free.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Dragon Age: Origins (XBox 360)
I got to borrow this game from my brother in exchange for my copy of Assassin's Creed II and the promise to lend my copy of Mass Effect 2 to him in the future.
To start with, if you've EVER played a game made by Bioware, you've played them all. That's just how Bioware works. I've been hooked on their games since Baldur's Gate back when I got my copy in 1999. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing that Bioware makes the same game time and time again, no. I'm saying that they use the same formula for all their games and the story is what drives you to play them.
For example, Jade Empire was an amazing game, but it was just KoTOR in fake China. Get it? No? Okay, let me try again. Every Bioware game has a Good-Bad morality system. Despite what they call it or how they try to spin it, it's always the same. Good vs Bad, light vs dark, positive moral power vs negative moral power. They do manage to spin a great story, and their combat systems are usually pretty fun.
What's different about Dragon Age: Origins (DA:O)? It's a real time RPG that uses event timing and has some fun spells. In other words, to me, it's what Neverwinter Nights should have been eight years ago. I hated NwN. I enjoyed DA:O.
DA:O has an engaging story that thrusts you into the life and culture of one of three races, with one of three classes. I love customizing. I could customize all day. DA:O removes some of that customization and focuses on getting you into the game. I feel it has bad balance of complexity and usability. You can play one of the three classes; Mages, Warriors and Rogues. Warriors are Rouges that can't pick pockets, hide in shadows, or open locks. Or, I suppose you could say Rouges are awesome warrior, and warriors... well, they get to yell. Mages, however, get dozens of spells. Many of which can be combined for some pretty wicked effects. A well built mage can be devastating to any enemy.
Personally I always go with the Rogue since they tend to be the most fun and useful class of character in any game.
One thing that every player of DA:O will notice is that they will need to specialize everyone from the get go. If you don't plan ahead, you'll have a main character who is next to useless all the time, especially if you build your own mage!
The next problem with the balance of the game is that the race, gender, and class of your character limits your ability to experience the entire game as much as it enables it. Your gender affects your ability to relate to NPCs. Your class affects what other classes can be in your party of four. If you're a rogue, you can't really afford putting Liliana or Zevran in your party, so you miss out on a lot of their dialogue. You can certainly bring them along, it just makes the missions harder.
Another thing about DA:O is that you don't ever feel like you've gone anywhere. As games get bigger, they seem to get smaller. You're captured by exploring, but there is nothing to really find. You're using the same six or seven overworld maps for a dozen missions each, so there isn't anything new. I understand it is hard to create more content like the maps, but games like this really do need more. The capitol city is made to seem like a medieval metropolis, however you visit around twelve city blocks and a few buildings. You don't feel like you're doing anything. This is a common problem in newer games for me. There is a lot to do, but the scenery doesn't change. I put hours into it and never feel like I've done anything.
It sounds like I'm saying that I don't like DA:O. Well, I wouldn't have finished the game if that were the case. There really is a LOT to do. There's a lot to find, battle, and puzzle in DA:O, it's just that most of it occurs in the same few places. The main quest takes a hours for each step. The story is entertaining, but still a little far-fetched, even for a fantasy game filled with magic.
Something DO:A doesn't allow you to do is get rich. Your money is probably always going to be in short supply. You'll need to keep a close eye on your spending at all times. If you're using tons of health potions, maybe it's time to wonder why you're doing so much dieing rather than hitting 'B' over and over.
Combat... DA:O does combat much in the same way as KoTOR. You tell people what to do and they do it, but it requires little or no skill. You can pause the game at any time by pulling in the left trigger. It will access an ability wheel from which you can navigate to any ability or usable item. Whatever you tell people to do will override what they were going to do.
DA:O uses customizable "tactics" slots for each character. I don't know who started the tactics slots but my first run-in was with FFXII's gambit system. DA:O's tactics are as simple or complex as you want them to be. They can make the game simpler or harder depending on how you tweak them. I quickly found that I loathed the tactics system. Either you needed to use all your upgrades for a ridiculously complex tactics system on each character or you had to change the tactics for each fight. Thankfully most of the time you're fighting 'darkspawn', so it's often safe to forget about the system and let them do their thing.
I never wanted to actually use the tactics since every fight is different. If it's an easy fight I don't want to have my healer casting regeneration spells, just fire away! If it's a hard fight, I want regen, and I want it now! My other problem with the tactics is there isn't a default. If you turn them off, you're guys will just stand around waiting to have their heads smashed in. Sometimes the casters and anyone with a bow will fire away, but that's not predictable.
There are a few fun tactics that work great such as freezing enemies and then trying to get crits on them to shatter them, or casting a blizzard and electrical storm at the same time (add fire and you've got insanity).
So, all in all, the combat can be fun, but it's more likely to be a frustrating experience.
The game content is limited. You'll eventually run out of 'random' encounters and missions and will be forced to continue the plot of the game. I say forced because you can't just run out into the forest to see if there is a grumpy bear with hair on his chest that resembles a rain cloud to slay for more experience. There is a lot to do, but often times not enough to do. It keeps you from really having to grind and helps the game focus on itself.
The game suffers from the same time paradoxes that most games suffer. What you understand to be an urgent error could take theoretically months of travel and nobody notices. Travel is done on an map that shows your progress across the land. I'm not sure if the game is using this time to load since random encounters seem to surprise the system. You'll be watching your team's splotch move along a road and then, "Oh crap! Monsters!". At this point the disc spins up and loads an encounter. I don't hear anything moving during the maps screen, so I have to assume this is an oversight by Bioware.
Another beef I have is that you can only travel back to selected regions, and sometimes it takes forever to get OUT of the travel locations. For instance, you can get inside of Orzammar from the main map, but you have to go through an extra two areas on the way out no matter what. Your trip out takes four times as long as the way in. Also, the Dalish city can NOT be reached via the main map. You have to travel to the forest near the main city and then walk through. It's not as bad as getting out of the dwarven city, but still pretty lame.
I noticed a lot of buzz generated by the item management system. You can only carry a certain number of items. Some are stackable (potions, arrows, etc), others aren't (armor, weapon, etc). It makes sense. The main complaint is that your team can only carry 75 things to begin the game (expandable to 125). I see this one of two ways. You can either carry infinite crap or you can carry realistic amounts of crap. Anything in between just doesn't make sense. Nobody could carry 75 chest pieces of plate armor. They could carry the one they are wearing and maybe another. So, if the game lets me carry 75, it just doesn't make sense. One could argue that it's all back at camp, but when you're in a dungeon crawl... no. Just no.
The graphics are very nice, and the frame rate is consistent (unlike KoTOR). Though my wife rightly pointed out that Orzammar is very plain and boring compared to everything else.
I have a lot of complaints for a game that should have been made 8 years ago, but still enjoyed it (with not as pretty graphics). Baldur's Gate II ruined me on RPGs and I'll probably never get a better open field RPG than BGII. There were a lot of parts that were chores more than they were fun, but overall I did enjoy the game enough to actually beat it and care about the way in which I beat it.
I seriously doubt I'll give DA:O another play through. The time commitment is just too great and payoff isn't there.
To start with, if you've EVER played a game made by Bioware, you've played them all. That's just how Bioware works. I've been hooked on their games since Baldur's Gate back when I got my copy in 1999. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing that Bioware makes the same game time and time again, no. I'm saying that they use the same formula for all their games and the story is what drives you to play them.
For example, Jade Empire was an amazing game, but it was just KoTOR in fake China. Get it? No? Okay, let me try again. Every Bioware game has a Good-Bad morality system. Despite what they call it or how they try to spin it, it's always the same. Good vs Bad, light vs dark, positive moral power vs negative moral power. They do manage to spin a great story, and their combat systems are usually pretty fun.
What's different about Dragon Age: Origins (DA:O)? It's a real time RPG that uses event timing and has some fun spells. In other words, to me, it's what Neverwinter Nights should have been eight years ago. I hated NwN. I enjoyed DA:O.
DA:O has an engaging story that thrusts you into the life and culture of one of three races, with one of three classes. I love customizing. I could customize all day. DA:O removes some of that customization and focuses on getting you into the game. I feel it has bad balance of complexity and usability. You can play one of the three classes; Mages, Warriors and Rogues. Warriors are Rouges that can't pick pockets, hide in shadows, or open locks. Or, I suppose you could say Rouges are awesome warrior, and warriors... well, they get to yell. Mages, however, get dozens of spells. Many of which can be combined for some pretty wicked effects. A well built mage can be devastating to any enemy.
Personally I always go with the Rogue since they tend to be the most fun and useful class of character in any game.
One thing that every player of DA:O will notice is that they will need to specialize everyone from the get go. If you don't plan ahead, you'll have a main character who is next to useless all the time, especially if you build your own mage!
The next problem with the balance of the game is that the race, gender, and class of your character limits your ability to experience the entire game as much as it enables it. Your gender affects your ability to relate to NPCs. Your class affects what other classes can be in your party of four. If you're a rogue, you can't really afford putting Liliana or Zevran in your party, so you miss out on a lot of their dialogue. You can certainly bring them along, it just makes the missions harder.
Another thing about DA:O is that you don't ever feel like you've gone anywhere. As games get bigger, they seem to get smaller. You're captured by exploring, but there is nothing to really find. You're using the same six or seven overworld maps for a dozen missions each, so there isn't anything new. I understand it is hard to create more content like the maps, but games like this really do need more. The capitol city is made to seem like a medieval metropolis, however you visit around twelve city blocks and a few buildings. You don't feel like you're doing anything. This is a common problem in newer games for me. There is a lot to do, but the scenery doesn't change. I put hours into it and never feel like I've done anything.
It sounds like I'm saying that I don't like DA:O. Well, I wouldn't have finished the game if that were the case. There really is a LOT to do. There's a lot to find, battle, and puzzle in DA:O, it's just that most of it occurs in the same few places. The main quest takes a hours for each step. The story is entertaining, but still a little far-fetched, even for a fantasy game filled with magic.
Something DO:A doesn't allow you to do is get rich. Your money is probably always going to be in short supply. You'll need to keep a close eye on your spending at all times. If you're using tons of health potions, maybe it's time to wonder why you're doing so much dieing rather than hitting 'B' over and over.
Combat... DA:O does combat much in the same way as KoTOR. You tell people what to do and they do it, but it requires little or no skill. You can pause the game at any time by pulling in the left trigger. It will access an ability wheel from which you can navigate to any ability or usable item. Whatever you tell people to do will override what they were going to do.
DA:O uses customizable "tactics" slots for each character. I don't know who started the tactics slots but my first run-in was with FFXII's gambit system. DA:O's tactics are as simple or complex as you want them to be. They can make the game simpler or harder depending on how you tweak them. I quickly found that I loathed the tactics system. Either you needed to use all your upgrades for a ridiculously complex tactics system on each character or you had to change the tactics for each fight. Thankfully most of the time you're fighting 'darkspawn', so it's often safe to forget about the system and let them do their thing.
I never wanted to actually use the tactics since every fight is different. If it's an easy fight I don't want to have my healer casting regeneration spells, just fire away! If it's a hard fight, I want regen, and I want it now! My other problem with the tactics is there isn't a default. If you turn them off, you're guys will just stand around waiting to have their heads smashed in. Sometimes the casters and anyone with a bow will fire away, but that's not predictable.
There are a few fun tactics that work great such as freezing enemies and then trying to get crits on them to shatter them, or casting a blizzard and electrical storm at the same time (add fire and you've got insanity).
So, all in all, the combat can be fun, but it's more likely to be a frustrating experience.
The game content is limited. You'll eventually run out of 'random' encounters and missions and will be forced to continue the plot of the game. I say forced because you can't just run out into the forest to see if there is a grumpy bear with hair on his chest that resembles a rain cloud to slay for more experience. There is a lot to do, but often times not enough to do. It keeps you from really having to grind and helps the game focus on itself.
The game suffers from the same time paradoxes that most games suffer. What you understand to be an urgent error could take theoretically months of travel and nobody notices. Travel is done on an map that shows your progress across the land. I'm not sure if the game is using this time to load since random encounters seem to surprise the system. You'll be watching your team's splotch move along a road and then, "Oh crap! Monsters!". At this point the disc spins up and loads an encounter. I don't hear anything moving during the maps screen, so I have to assume this is an oversight by Bioware.
Another beef I have is that you can only travel back to selected regions, and sometimes it takes forever to get OUT of the travel locations. For instance, you can get inside of Orzammar from the main map, but you have to go through an extra two areas on the way out no matter what. Your trip out takes four times as long as the way in. Also, the Dalish city can NOT be reached via the main map. You have to travel to the forest near the main city and then walk through. It's not as bad as getting out of the dwarven city, but still pretty lame.
I noticed a lot of buzz generated by the item management system. You can only carry a certain number of items. Some are stackable (potions, arrows, etc), others aren't (armor, weapon, etc). It makes sense. The main complaint is that your team can only carry 75 things to begin the game (expandable to 125). I see this one of two ways. You can either carry infinite crap or you can carry realistic amounts of crap. Anything in between just doesn't make sense. Nobody could carry 75 chest pieces of plate armor. They could carry the one they are wearing and maybe another. So, if the game lets me carry 75, it just doesn't make sense. One could argue that it's all back at camp, but when you're in a dungeon crawl... no. Just no.
The graphics are very nice, and the frame rate is consistent (unlike KoTOR). Though my wife rightly pointed out that Orzammar is very plain and boring compared to everything else.
I have a lot of complaints for a game that should have been made 8 years ago, but still enjoyed it (with not as pretty graphics). Baldur's Gate II ruined me on RPGs and I'll probably never get a better open field RPG than BGII. There were a lot of parts that were chores more than they were fun, but overall I did enjoy the game enough to actually beat it and care about the way in which I beat it.
I seriously doubt I'll give DA:O another play through. The time commitment is just too great and payoff isn't there.
Wii Classic Pro controller
I picked up Monster Hunter Tri the day it came out. Well, I had it shipped to my house. Along with it came the Wii Classic Pro controller which is what I'm reviewing here. Not the game, just the controller.
First off, I have to say that this controller is incredibly comfortable. My favorite controller of all time was the Game Cube controller, and this one is pretty much a tossup in comfort. When you hold it, the controller feels solid and light. After using it for a good hour I felt no noticeable discomfort or hand fatigue (I'm looking at you, every Dual Shock!).
Now, I'm a pretty big fan of the original Wii Classic controller since it feels like the original SNES controller. My biggest beef is that the Classic wasn't all the comfortable to hold, and the shoulder buttons were neigh impossible to use, and worst of all, the cord came out the bottom, which made NO sense whatsoever.
The Classic pro, however, gives you a pair of grips and a cord that exits the top. The button throws are just about the right length. The grips have the rough plastic that covers the DSi, so they're easy to hold, meanwhile the surface of the controller is the same material as the DS Lite. It feels just right. Also we now get two shoulder buttons and two sub-shoulder buttons in the form of the "Zr" and "Zl" buttons. This makes use of the shoulder buttons very simple, with no time spent looking for them (the only real downfall of the Z button on the Game Cube controller).
So my top five favorite non-specialized controllers go as follows.
1. GCN/Classic Pro
2. Xbox 360
3. N64
4. Wiimote + chuck
5. PS2 Dual Shock
Beyond that there isn't much to say about this controller. It's great.
Oh, and if you're counting, of the controllers I've used, I think these are the worst, in no real order. They just make me cringe.
Dreamcast, Intellivision, Genesis, NES, Atari joystic, PS1
First off, I have to say that this controller is incredibly comfortable. My favorite controller of all time was the Game Cube controller, and this one is pretty much a tossup in comfort. When you hold it, the controller feels solid and light. After using it for a good hour I felt no noticeable discomfort or hand fatigue (I'm looking at you, every Dual Shock!).
Now, I'm a pretty big fan of the original Wii Classic controller since it feels like the original SNES controller. My biggest beef is that the Classic wasn't all the comfortable to hold, and the shoulder buttons were neigh impossible to use, and worst of all, the cord came out the bottom, which made NO sense whatsoever.
The Classic pro, however, gives you a pair of grips and a cord that exits the top. The button throws are just about the right length. The grips have the rough plastic that covers the DSi, so they're easy to hold, meanwhile the surface of the controller is the same material as the DS Lite. It feels just right. Also we now get two shoulder buttons and two sub-shoulder buttons in the form of the "Zr" and "Zl" buttons. This makes use of the shoulder buttons very simple, with no time spent looking for them (the only real downfall of the Z button on the Game Cube controller).
So my top five favorite non-specialized controllers go as follows.
1. GCN/Classic Pro
2. Xbox 360
3. N64
4. Wiimote + chuck
5. PS2 Dual Shock
Beyond that there isn't much to say about this controller. It's great.
Oh, and if you're counting, of the controllers I've used, I think these are the worst, in no real order. They just make me cringe.
Dreamcast, Intellivision, Genesis, NES, Atari joystic, PS1
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Manifecto: Mass Effecto 2
Not long ago (less than a fortnight), I received a $25 gift card to Gamestop. I usually hate going to that store since they always try to make me feel like a fool for not getting their discount card and magazine subscription. I don't feel like a fool. I just don't like battling with my urge to help them see the despairity of their own situation, 25 years old, living in their parent's basement, and working for a job that pays them just enough to buy the games they hawk. I also hate being carded for a game rated M. I love that they card, but it's not like I'm buying beer. I look over 18, leave me alone.
Okay, that's off subject.
I decided that I could buy a copy of Mass Effect 2. I can handle that, right? I got out of class early and ran to Gamestop for my fix.
The real review.
I popped the game into the drive and installed it on the hard disk (clearing space by deleting the install of Mass Effect 1). The one thing I dreaded about ME2 more than anything was that it would suffer from the same load times as its predecessor. I immediately attempted to load my only completed game. It didn't work. I loaded up the original and, yup, there it was. Hmm... After switching discs a few times and checking online, you needed a save game that had completed the game. I had one, but it wasn't good enough. The save game I had was from a replay of the game, level 48 in the beginning of the game, just got on the citadel. Turns out you have to beat the game and leave the save as it is. I had to play the original for an hour just to import my character. Worth it!
Mass Effect 2 is great. It's much more polished than the original (which, in my opinion was great, but didn't look great). The load times are still there, but not nearly as bad. There aren't as many elevators and, FINALLY, you don't have to waste fifteen minutes any time you want to board your ship.
Okay, so load times are better, about half what they were. I do have it installed on the HDD, so that probably helps a lot. The loading screens are more interesting, they don't pose any real information, but they are interesting (cross sections of ships, drop ship movement, etc.)
ME2's graphics are more polished than the original, as you would rightly expect. People look more real than they did at first, but that isn't what I noticed. What I noticed was the environments weren't as blocky. The textures weren't all shine and no grit like in the first. I am impressed this time.
I have two graphical qualm. The first is that the text int the game is ridiculously small. I have a 32" 720p television, and I have a hard time reading the text from not even ten feet away on my couch. I have sharp eyes, so this is a genuine problem with the game. If you don't have a hi-def display, this game is plain unplayable. The second qualm isn't as major as the first. Everyone in this game with pupils has googly eyes. Something is wrong with the object tracking because one eye is always on target and the other is looking at something that is on the other side of the on-target eye. It is a miracle that you can hit anything beyond the broad side of a barn, and that would be pushing it.
The game is better at telling stories than the first. Dialogue is spewed and chosen in the same way as the first, however now there is much better cinematography and the writing is a bit better. However, every once in a while the choices in your conversation wheel aren't the same as the results you'd expect, or you just can't make certain decisions if you're not generally nice enough or mean enough. I love the second part of that, but the first part is hard to deal with sometimes (although generally in that situation all three choices have the same result).
In ME2 you don't spend points in charm and intimidation, you just do it. The more nice you are the more niceties you unlock and vice-versa. You can still be both, it isn't one or the other. This comes into play all the time. It's an awesome system. They've also added active time responses similar to Assassin's Creed II, however these are geared toward paragon/renegades paths specifically. You could be talking to a guy who pulls a gun on you and the renegade trigger pops up in the corner, pull the trigger and you break the guy's arm or something like that. You never know when to expect these, either, so look out.
Another aspect of the conversations that I enjoy is that they commit to it. The renegade, hard-assed, bust your ass for getting out of line guy would NEVER help you in a personal mission unless he had to. So the renegade answer to some requests is just, "No" (spoken more suitably to all audiences here than in the game).
ME2's story is entrancing. I'd love to talk about any specific aspect, but even dropping a name would give away too much. Every time you go anywhere there is either a rich conversation or something to investigate. It always keeps you on your toes and at the edge of your seat. Disappointingly, however, the game follows the same basic plot of the first with the same basic method. Gather your crew, fight the guys working for the reapers, go on a one way trip to fight them, all while being condemned for your actions by the people you're trying to save.
You'll be treated to a great deal of shock and awe from future teammates kicking everyone's ass they see, but then transforming into a normal, killable teammate. This is pretty frustrating since some of these guys look like gods of war until they work for you. The only one that (so far) doesn't power down after joining your team is Archangel.
Importing your character is great. You are given the opportunity to change your appearance and/or your class. Importing helps you plunge into the story even deeper by connecting the plot of the first with ME2 in ways you wouldn't expect. The major decisions are included but also many of the minor decisions that you'd never think to remember. So far I've met or heard about everyone who was left alive in the first game in some way. Also, a lot of the side quest people show up. Even the pretender that you scoffed at or encouraged in the first game makes a comeback.
You'll spend a lot of time running around your ship trying to get into the back stories of your teammates, just like in the first. In this way ME2 is very much like ME. Do a mission, check with everyone, repeat.
The combat in ME2 is very similar in feel to ME. However you get a few more hot keys (rather than swapping weapons and healing). Healing takes care of itself via the system introduced (or at least popularized) in gears of war. Here, however, it makes sense. You sit around for a minute, your suit heals you. I can live with that.
The powers in ME2 have been revamped with a few new powers and some of the old powers gone. The new powers are pretty nice, the Vangard getting "Charge", a power that lets you fly through objects at an enemy and send them reeling. All powers have the same cool down period so you can make a great deal more use of them. Unity is now the only thing that uses your medi-gel, and as in ME it is used to bring your teammates back into action. Ammunition types are now powers, but I'll get to that later.
As you probably know, the guns in ME2 now work with clips rather than infinite ammo. This is pretty annoying since not managing ammo was one of the charms of ME. Apparently the universe (in the two years since the first) has universally decided that waiting for guns to cool was too costly and decided to go with a very limited ammo supply. Also, I suppose the universe figures that you'd never stop firing since you started, since breaks in firing for snipers and whatnot are very frequent. The ammo system also causes a huge continuity error, but that's another issue and only if you do Jacob's loyalty mission.
Everything in ME2 is simplified. There are fewer powers and they only get upgraded four times, with the fourth upgrade adding a bit of specialization/customization to the specific power. There is also a 'loyalty' power that every character can attain by finishing their loyalty mission. Shepard can learn these if you want to spend the resources.
Speaking of resources. In ME2 resources matter. You have to find resources by scanning planets (and it's agonizingly slow until you upgrade the scanner) and finding them during missions. Missions, however, account for a very small percent of resource acquisition, so be prepared to scan planets until the cows come home... or something.
I should probably mention that you are no longer prowling around on the surface of each hospitable planet. Can't say I miss it, either.
Also gone are the cookie cutter caves, complexes, and ships. I couldn't be happier about this. I got very bored with boarding the same ship over and over and over with the only thing different being the placement of the boxes. Every mission is tailor made and even though generous cover is placed all over, it no longer feels like they are giving you content for the sake of something to do. Every ship is different, every cave and complex is different, too.
Now when you want to hack an interface or bust into a door you'll have to do a small bit of brain work rather than play Simon Says. Doors open by a game of memory where you match up sets of circuit connections. Hacking interfaces has you matching blocks of programming code in sets. It no longer matters how much skill you have in tech or engineering, but it's done in real time. Do you really want to open that safe when you're getting shot up? Really?
You get plans for upgrading and building weapons and spend one of your four types of resources building the upgrades. Upgrades pertain to your ship, weapons, armor, and abilities.
I should touch on the weapons and inventory. You don't have an inventory now. There are only about a dozen weapons in ME2. Grenades are replaced by "heavy weapons" such as a grenade launcher, missile launcher, and giant laser. Also new for ME2 is an SMG category that is open to all small arms classes.
When you find a weapon it is accessible by anyone who can use that type of weapon. When you upgrade it, everyone gets the upgrade. As far as armor upgrades go it works the same way. I haven't run into any new armors for any of the crew in my playing the game, just different costumes. So, inventory has been simplified by not being there.
Ammunition types are no longer assigned and swapped during your missions. Now each teammate devotes one or two of their powers to ammo types. There are four types of ammo now, disruption, flame, cryo, and high impact. Disruption goes through shields, flame burns away armor, cryo freezes unprotected targets and high impact knocks over enemies. I don't know how I feel about losing a power for an ammunition that has to be upgraded but they do work well.
Money in ME2 isn't as abundant since you can't actually sell anything, so you really have to keep an eye on it. You need to buy fuel and probes to get between systems and gather resources, as well as upgrades and other extras (hint: You get a fish tank in your quarters).
All in all ME2 is a wholly entrancing game that will consume a part of your soul, and you'll be pretty happy about it. The game is solid in every way if you can ignore googly-eyed people, continuity problems, and a few 'upgrades' to the weapons systems that make absolutely no sense.
Okay, that's off subject.
I decided that I could buy a copy of Mass Effect 2. I can handle that, right? I got out of class early and ran to Gamestop for my fix.
The real review.
I popped the game into the drive and installed it on the hard disk (clearing space by deleting the install of Mass Effect 1). The one thing I dreaded about ME2 more than anything was that it would suffer from the same load times as its predecessor. I immediately attempted to load my only completed game. It didn't work. I loaded up the original and, yup, there it was. Hmm... After switching discs a few times and checking online, you needed a save game that had completed the game. I had one, but it wasn't good enough. The save game I had was from a replay of the game, level 48 in the beginning of the game, just got on the citadel. Turns out you have to beat the game and leave the save as it is. I had to play the original for an hour just to import my character. Worth it!
Mass Effect 2 is great. It's much more polished than the original (which, in my opinion was great, but didn't look great). The load times are still there, but not nearly as bad. There aren't as many elevators and, FINALLY, you don't have to waste fifteen minutes any time you want to board your ship.
Okay, so load times are better, about half what they were. I do have it installed on the HDD, so that probably helps a lot. The loading screens are more interesting, they don't pose any real information, but they are interesting (cross sections of ships, drop ship movement, etc.)
ME2's graphics are more polished than the original, as you would rightly expect. People look more real than they did at first, but that isn't what I noticed. What I noticed was the environments weren't as blocky. The textures weren't all shine and no grit like in the first. I am impressed this time.
I have two graphical qualm. The first is that the text int the game is ridiculously small. I have a 32" 720p television, and I have a hard time reading the text from not even ten feet away on my couch. I have sharp eyes, so this is a genuine problem with the game. If you don't have a hi-def display, this game is plain unplayable. The second qualm isn't as major as the first. Everyone in this game with pupils has googly eyes. Something is wrong with the object tracking because one eye is always on target and the other is looking at something that is on the other side of the on-target eye. It is a miracle that you can hit anything beyond the broad side of a barn, and that would be pushing it.
The game is better at telling stories than the first. Dialogue is spewed and chosen in the same way as the first, however now there is much better cinematography and the writing is a bit better. However, every once in a while the choices in your conversation wheel aren't the same as the results you'd expect, or you just can't make certain decisions if you're not generally nice enough or mean enough. I love the second part of that, but the first part is hard to deal with sometimes (although generally in that situation all three choices have the same result).
In ME2 you don't spend points in charm and intimidation, you just do it. The more nice you are the more niceties you unlock and vice-versa. You can still be both, it isn't one or the other. This comes into play all the time. It's an awesome system. They've also added active time responses similar to Assassin's Creed II, however these are geared toward paragon/renegades paths specifically. You could be talking to a guy who pulls a gun on you and the renegade trigger pops up in the corner, pull the trigger and you break the guy's arm or something like that. You never know when to expect these, either, so look out.
Another aspect of the conversations that I enjoy is that they commit to it. The renegade, hard-assed, bust your ass for getting out of line guy would NEVER help you in a personal mission unless he had to. So the renegade answer to some requests is just, "No" (spoken more suitably to all audiences here than in the game).
ME2's story is entrancing. I'd love to talk about any specific aspect, but even dropping a name would give away too much. Every time you go anywhere there is either a rich conversation or something to investigate. It always keeps you on your toes and at the edge of your seat. Disappointingly, however, the game follows the same basic plot of the first with the same basic method. Gather your crew, fight the guys working for the reapers, go on a one way trip to fight them, all while being condemned for your actions by the people you're trying to save.
You'll be treated to a great deal of shock and awe from future teammates kicking everyone's ass they see, but then transforming into a normal, killable teammate. This is pretty frustrating since some of these guys look like gods of war until they work for you. The only one that (so far) doesn't power down after joining your team is Archangel.
Importing your character is great. You are given the opportunity to change your appearance and/or your class. Importing helps you plunge into the story even deeper by connecting the plot of the first with ME2 in ways you wouldn't expect. The major decisions are included but also many of the minor decisions that you'd never think to remember. So far I've met or heard about everyone who was left alive in the first game in some way. Also, a lot of the side quest people show up. Even the pretender that you scoffed at or encouraged in the first game makes a comeback.
You'll spend a lot of time running around your ship trying to get into the back stories of your teammates, just like in the first. In this way ME2 is very much like ME. Do a mission, check with everyone, repeat.
The combat in ME2 is very similar in feel to ME. However you get a few more hot keys (rather than swapping weapons and healing). Healing takes care of itself via the system introduced (or at least popularized) in gears of war. Here, however, it makes sense. You sit around for a minute, your suit heals you. I can live with that.
The powers in ME2 have been revamped with a few new powers and some of the old powers gone. The new powers are pretty nice, the Vangard getting "Charge", a power that lets you fly through objects at an enemy and send them reeling. All powers have the same cool down period so you can make a great deal more use of them. Unity is now the only thing that uses your medi-gel, and as in ME it is used to bring your teammates back into action. Ammunition types are now powers, but I'll get to that later.
As you probably know, the guns in ME2 now work with clips rather than infinite ammo. This is pretty annoying since not managing ammo was one of the charms of ME. Apparently the universe (in the two years since the first) has universally decided that waiting for guns to cool was too costly and decided to go with a very limited ammo supply. Also, I suppose the universe figures that you'd never stop firing since you started, since breaks in firing for snipers and whatnot are very frequent. The ammo system also causes a huge continuity error, but that's another issue and only if you do Jacob's loyalty mission.
Everything in ME2 is simplified. There are fewer powers and they only get upgraded four times, with the fourth upgrade adding a bit of specialization/customization to the specific power. There is also a 'loyalty' power that every character can attain by finishing their loyalty mission. Shepard can learn these if you want to spend the resources.
Speaking of resources. In ME2 resources matter. You have to find resources by scanning planets (and it's agonizingly slow until you upgrade the scanner) and finding them during missions. Missions, however, account for a very small percent of resource acquisition, so be prepared to scan planets until the cows come home... or something.
I should probably mention that you are no longer prowling around on the surface of each hospitable planet. Can't say I miss it, either.
Also gone are the cookie cutter caves, complexes, and ships. I couldn't be happier about this. I got very bored with boarding the same ship over and over and over with the only thing different being the placement of the boxes. Every mission is tailor made and even though generous cover is placed all over, it no longer feels like they are giving you content for the sake of something to do. Every ship is different, every cave and complex is different, too.
Now when you want to hack an interface or bust into a door you'll have to do a small bit of brain work rather than play Simon Says. Doors open by a game of memory where you match up sets of circuit connections. Hacking interfaces has you matching blocks of programming code in sets. It no longer matters how much skill you have in tech or engineering, but it's done in real time. Do you really want to open that safe when you're getting shot up? Really?
You get plans for upgrading and building weapons and spend one of your four types of resources building the upgrades. Upgrades pertain to your ship, weapons, armor, and abilities.
I should touch on the weapons and inventory. You don't have an inventory now. There are only about a dozen weapons in ME2. Grenades are replaced by "heavy weapons" such as a grenade launcher, missile launcher, and giant laser. Also new for ME2 is an SMG category that is open to all small arms classes.
When you find a weapon it is accessible by anyone who can use that type of weapon. When you upgrade it, everyone gets the upgrade. As far as armor upgrades go it works the same way. I haven't run into any new armors for any of the crew in my playing the game, just different costumes. So, inventory has been simplified by not being there.
Ammunition types are no longer assigned and swapped during your missions. Now each teammate devotes one or two of their powers to ammo types. There are four types of ammo now, disruption, flame, cryo, and high impact. Disruption goes through shields, flame burns away armor, cryo freezes unprotected targets and high impact knocks over enemies. I don't know how I feel about losing a power for an ammunition that has to be upgraded but they do work well.
Money in ME2 isn't as abundant since you can't actually sell anything, so you really have to keep an eye on it. You need to buy fuel and probes to get between systems and gather resources, as well as upgrades and other extras (hint: You get a fish tank in your quarters).
All in all ME2 is a wholly entrancing game that will consume a part of your soul, and you'll be pretty happy about it. The game is solid in every way if you can ignore googly-eyed people, continuity problems, and a few 'upgrades' to the weapons systems that make absolutely no sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)