Alien: Isolation

I feel the hypocrite for playing Alien: Isolation. Not only did I recently announce publicly that I was done paying $60.00 for new games, I specifically stated that Alien: Isolation was definitely not a game worth spending that much money. Yet here I am, just a week later having broken both vows.

To be fair, it is an Aliens game; though individual titles of the series have been of mixed quality, at heart it is a very appealing franchise. So it was never a question of whether or not I would acquire the game, only of when and for how much. Anyway, even if it was a stinker I knew I would buy it eventually; I mean, I've played Aliens: Colonial Marines  multiple times so it's not as if quality were the deciding factor in my purchases. Anyway, I blame the Internet for my backsliding. Not only was it being loudly praised by all but they also had the gall to post videos of their gameplay online. And if those videos made any one thing clear, it was that graphically this game was outstanding.

Okay, I admit it; I'm a little bit of a graphics whore too. A game based on the Aliens franchise and drop-dead gorgeous? Goodbye $60.00!

So, seeing as the visuals were one of the main criteria to my purchase, what's the verdict? Is the game really as beautiful as the trailers, screenshots and Let's Play videos suggest? In a word, yes. It is not just the awesome lighting and textures, though those send a clear announcement as to the arrival of "next-gen" graphics than any press-release from Microsoft or Sony. There's still room for improvement (my test is always whether or not I can clearly read the memo and sign textures on the walls; I can in Alien:Isolation but it's still blurry) but it's nice to play a game that isn't stuck in a 256MB texture budget. But more than that it is the overall artistry of the graphics; I don't think there was ever a moment in my play-through that I thought "that doesn't look right". The levels are chock-full of details, with all sorts of gadgets and clutter occupying even the most isolated corner; I'm pretty sure there are more polygons used in a single hallway in Isolation than a whole level of Aliens: Colonial Marines. Clever uses of light, smoke and depth-of-field also give the game a very realistic-looking effect. It is very reminiscent of the movies, especially when the lights start flashing and steam bursts out of nearby pipes.

The animations and character models aren't quite up to the high standards set by the level design; they aren't in anyway bad but we've seen better in other games. The best of the bunch are the intentionally uncanny-valley androids; a more primitive model than that seen in the movies, their slightly stilted movements and rubbery skin mesh well with the less-than-stellar animations of the game. Anyway, in Alien: Isolation, the goal of the game is usually to avoid the NPCs and monsters as much as possible, so the flaws are less noticeable anyway.

The levels are also very accurate in movies' aesthetics, from its pixelated introduction to its padded walls, and fans of the franchise will find much to appreciate; I know the fanboy in me went "Squeeee!" in delight at every reference I found. Having said that, the game often plays it too close to film, and I would have appreciated not only a little novelty but also some variety; the engineering section looks remarkably like the mall which looks pretty identical to the hospital which isn't that much different in appearance to the communications tower. How about a romp through the hydroponics section or some faux-wood paneling in the fancy executive suites? But no, it was all raw industrial-grunge-sheik; all amazingly well rendered, sure, but very samey in the end.

Some praise should be given to the sound design; although the voice-acting is merely par for the course (and that of the original actors decidedly sub-par) the Foley effects are very well done. The clattering of the ancient computers and other effects are true to the movies, and the thumping of the alien as it clambers through the vents are terrifically spooky. The music highlights exciting moments, but was just a little too subdued for my taste; the game is already very quiet and a bit more background sound would have been welcome.

The controls are workable for the most part, although a bit stiff in a few specific areas. The tool selection is a bit too cumbersome for its own good (I'll say more on that later) and my character moved a bit too much like a tank; getting her to run - at least on the gamepad - was less smooth than it could have been. Elsewhere, especially with the hacking mini-games, the controls are a touch too twitchy. I'm sure this is all intentional to some degree - it helps to enhance the feeling of vulnerability - but it often came off more as annoying.

Much hype has been made about how this game is a interquel between the original Alien movie and the Aliens sequel, and how this game owes more of its tone and pacing to the former rather than the latter. I took the role of Amanda Ripley, daughter of the heroine of the movies as she scrambled through the semi-derelict space station Sevastapol in search of evidence of her mother's passing. The game does indeed capture the slower measured timing and drama of the haunted-house-in-space feel of the original. It also, unfortunately, has the same flat and rather uninteresting characters but - again - since I spent so much of the game is spent on my own this wasn't that big of a problem. Worse is the actually story itself, which simply has too many climaxes; there were at least a half-dozen suitable places to end the story long before the rather sudden and unfulfilling actual ending. Then again, who really plays these games (or watches the movies) for the story?

No, it's all about the gameplay and this is paradoxically both Isolation's greatest strength and biggest flaw, and once again it revolves all around the pacing of the adventure. If taken moment-by-moment, the game is intense, exciting and memorable. This is unequivocally a stealth-game, more so even than any of the Thief series. The main character is weak and powerless and in any confrontation with the monsters she is at best going to come out beaten and bloody; far more likely she will end up dead, and quite suddenly too. Even late in the game, when she is armed with flamethrowers, shotguns, and grenades, battle is better avoided even against the weakest of enemies (and against the eponymous alien, there is no question: if it catches you, you are dead).

The game very expertly reminded me of how ineffective my character was in combat and guided me to use the stealth option whenever I could. Stumbling through a dark hospital with only the sounds of the monster crawling in the vents above can be terrifying; I was well aware that the beast - guided only by its unpredictable AI - could appear at any moment and toss me back to my last save-point. As I crept past flickering lights and open doors, I always kept an eye open for the nearest hiding spot, be it a comforting locker, vent or even some boxes to duck behind: anything to keep me from being seen. I always had the option of running if push-came-to-shove, but that just generated more noise and anyway, I knew there was no way to outrun the alien. No, it was creep-or-die, and so I pretty much crept everywhere.

Save-points are fairly liberally placed, although I regretted each death because every inch of progress was hard-fought for. Having to go back and re-do the same sequence was heartbreaking, not so much because I was covering the same ground but because even just sneaking across a room can require several minutes of adrenalin-filled, heart-pounding tension. Anyway, the semi-random nature of the AI means that encounters rarely happen the same way twice; death is sudden but rarely repetitive.

This all sound great on paper, but where the game fails is in the overall rhythm of its gameplay. Although it may be hard to imagine during the first hour or so of gameplay (during which the alien is notably absent except for a few brief glimpses), once it does appear the eponymous monster is just too frequent an opponent. It was  constantly haunting me, which not only robs the beast somewhat of its terrifying aspect, but turns those heart-clenching encounters into almost tedious chores. I would escape the creature only to enter an entirely different section of the station to find it there ahead of me. "Didn't I just leave this party?" I would quip, but in my head I'm already looking at my watch and wondering how long it will take to get past this obstacle. It becames even worse in the late game when (SPOILERS!) I started to face off against multiple drones and face-huggers. Each encounter remained as intense as ever, but it changed from being a fun, self-inflicted horror to a sort of hyper-focused, migraine-inducing work. The best way to play, I found, was in short bursts - twenty or thirty minutes at a time - but that came at a cost to the game's overall atmosphere. Worse - I mentioned this bit before - the game also doesn't know when to end, so each success just required me to go on another quest into the bowels of the station, often revisiting areas already cleared. The further the game progressed, the more effort it required to continue and the less reward I was getting out of it.

Alien: Isolation also featured the requisite crafting system that is now apparently mandatory for every game (on the plus side, there is a happy absence of any skill-leveling system). This is particularly unexciting addition but does provide impetus for risky exploration of the levels. Alas, the reward for this are a handful of tools of the likes of noisemakers and flares. In all honesty, these tools were amazingly useful in keeping me alive, but my use of them was hampered by the controls; often by the time I had readied one of the gadgets, the opportunity to use it come and gone. Even when I did have the right tool at hand, the controls to throw or place the gadget were finicky and far less responsive than they could have been. This made the game more difficult, I think, than the developers intended but - based on my watching others people's play-throughs - I'm not the only one with this problem.  New tools discovered later in the game also unlock previously blocked sections of areas visited earlier, making the game somewhat like Castlevania; myself, I just saw it as an excuse to make me retread territory I had already explored.

So in the end, Alien: Isolation was a very mixed bag. As far as its production values go, it is a stupendous achievement, and fans of the franchise will really appreciate all the homages to the movies. Its gameplay is undeniably exciting at times and any one individual encounter exceeds all the hype you may have heard. The problem is that the overall design just does not hold up over multiple hours of gameplay, with poor pacing and an unexciting story. 

I am sure that some gamers (die-hard fans of the movie series and people who love the particular genre of survival horror where you are powerless and hunted)  will think this one of video gaming's greatest achievements, but for the general audience it is hard to recommend this title. It is a far better experience to watch than actually play. Frankly, if you are really interested I can't help but suggest you save your $60 and load up a Let's Play of the game on YouTube and maybe just rent the damn thing for a weekend if you are a graphics-whore (like myself) and need to see the textures close up for a bit. If you like what you see, then wait for the game to inevitably hit the bargain bin. I think it's a game worth checking out - at least for a while - but not worth the investment of full-price or a thorough play-through.

Completely Arbitrary Numerical Score (CANS): 2.2178655523678211956757239 (out of something)

Sure, it's better than most games but wait until its on sale.

Metro 2033

S.T.A.L.K.E.R : Shadow of Chernobyl won rave reviews for its unique setting, intense gameplay, vivid, open game-world and exotic storyline. It was the darling of the press and gathered a number of fervent, devoted fans. It was held up as proof that the PC still was a viable platform for computer gaming.

I did not like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

It failed me on so many points; each problem, taken by itself was not a deal-breaker but in combination it ruined the overall experience. The "wide open" game world was inexplicably bound by uncrossable barriers and tied together with load-points. The "artificial life" AI felt more unreal than the most tightly and unwavering scripting found in most games and plagued by over-enthusiastic spawn points. The setting was novel but the story was poorly paced and even more-poorly delivered. The gun-play was hampered by inaccurate and underpowered weapons and was completely unforgiving. Ambitious and unique, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. failed in the one area that was most important; it was not a fun game.

I mention all this because, at first glance, everything I just said about S.T.A.L.K.E.R. would seem to hold true with Metro 2033. Not only are the settings similar (post-apocalyptic Russia) but the gameplay shares many similar concepts. In fact, the two games even share similar developers (Oles' Shyskovtsov and Oleksandr Maksymchuk of 4A Games worked on the X-Ray engine used in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. before taking off on their own). It was only the allure of the setting that prompted me to purchase the title, despite all my misgivings.

Well that I did, for the detailed, moody environments transcend any faults in the actual gameplay. Many titles play on gamers' emotions with cheap jump-from-the-shadow scares; few games achieve the melancholy hopelessness that pervades Metro 2033. Mankind, it is easy to believe, is on its last legs as it struggles against the hostile environment (and even more hostile inhabitants) of the post-apocalyptic Moscow subway system. I certainly felt vulnerable as I crept through the dank, claustrophobic tunnels, even if I was armed with a remarkable assortment of high-powered weaponry. Armed to the teeth and still shitting my pants; achieving that sort of atmosphere takes skill.

Although the game ably convinces you that you are exploring the darkest corners of the Underground, you never truly leave the beaten path; the game is steadfastly linear. This is both its great strength and weakness; Metro 2033 assures you of a well-paced and strongly woven story but at a cost to the player's freedom and the game's replayability. But even as you are cunningly led by the nose with little ability to turn aside, the well-designed levels convince you that a wider world exists just beyond those insurmountable barriers.

Beyond the exploration, there is the combat. Like its predecessor S.T.A.L.K.E.R., it is a mix of stealthy combat and high-paced gun-play. The AI is not overwhelmingly clever - the nastiest monsters are most dangerous only because of their tendency to spring out at you from dark corners just outside your field of vision- but the incoming fire is deadly and rarely do enemies come at you in only ones or twos. And while most foes go down with a burst of machine gun fire, ammo is scarce and -as it doubles as the game's currency- the more you shoot, the less likely you are to afford the good guns later on. Stealth is an adjunct to the combat, mostly used to sneak into perfect firing positions. It is possible to sneak by many encounters (where's the fun in that?) but its effect is lessened by the eagle-eyed enemy; once you make your presence known, there's no hiding from them again.

Technically, the game is an impressive piece of work even using DirectX 9 graphics (it supports up to DirectX 11 graphic embellishments; alas, although my hardware is willing, my OS is weak). The levels are well-detailed with high-res textures, numerous objects and excellent lighting effects. The sound is equally impressive, with a low-key soundtrack. The stilted voice-work may put some people off, but I felt it added to the game's charm. The engine was well optimized and the game ran very smoothly even at its busiest.

Metro 2033 is not a perfect game; it suffers from many of the same problems as S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: linear levels, sometimes unforgiving combat, and a problematic storyline. But unlike its predecessor, it succeeds stupendously when it comes to the game's atmosphere, and on this alone it surpasses its ancestor. The gameplay is passable, but it is the setting that you will remember for years to come.

Battlefield - Bad Company 2

On the face of it, Bad Company 2 isn't a game I should have enjoyed. It combines the non-stop action of Modern Warfare 2 with the multi-player Juggernaut that is the Battlefield franchise. Despite admittedly impressive sales, neither series has managed to win me over. And how does Bad Company 2 fare? Surprisingly enough, I liked it.

Forget the multi-player aspect; my interest is entirely in the single-player campaign. It is hard not to compare this game to Modern Warfare 2; it's a nearly perfect clone of that game. A band of special ops fighting off the Russians in battlefields across the globe? Check. On-foot and mounted combat? Check. Special mission modes involving tank combat and UAVs dropping ordinance on hostiles? Check. A contrived plot involving betrayal and electromagnetic pulse weapon? Check. 
 

But there's one big difference between the two: Bad Company 2 is fun.  Modern Warfare 2's false gravitas, ridiculous storyline and terrible pacing ruined the overall experience. Bad Company 2 is a more relaxed game. The combat is every bit as intense but -largely due to the lack of infinite respawns- the pacing is significantly improved. It was a pleasure not to be constantly pressed to move, to run, to do something; the game was quite willing to wait a few moments while I caught my breath or took in the ambiance. And while its story in Bad Company 2 is every bit as ridiculous at least it doesn't take itself quite as seriously (and it has no qualms about taking potshots at its rival; as one hero quips while fleeing from enemies on an ATV, "snowmobiles are for wimps"). Dice deserves credit for remembering that games are supposed to be fun.

Bad Company 2 isn't perfect, of course, but its problems are minor. Too often the gameplay is interrupted by cutscenes, some separated from a previous cutscene by only a minute of gameplay.  The developers also have an obvious love affair with particle effects; they are used to such an extent that battles devolve into random firing into thick clouds of dust. I suppose it could be argued that this is a more realistic depiction of combat - the oft-mentioned fog of war- but as far as the gameplay it's frustrating not to be able to see anything. Most disappointingly, the developers only open up the gameworld once, making most of the game a long, linear corridor shooter. But these are just minor gripes; in the end, I enjoyed by the game and compared to that everything else is a secondary concern. Bad Company 2 was a welcome addition to my game collection and I expect I will replay it frequently in years to come.

Aliens vs Predator

The Aliens vs Predator games have always had mixed appeal for me. The original had wonderful atmosphere but I never enjoyed the game-play, nominally because it had poor story but in truth because it so cheerfully kicked my ass. The 2001 sequel had a stronger (if somewhat convoluted) story and I appreciated the game-play more (read: it was easier) but -aside from a precious few moments- lacked the terrifying atmosphere that made the franchise so memorable. And what of the 2010 reboot?

Like the previous games, the series divides itself into three campaigns; one for each species (Human, Predator and Alien). The human campaign was suitably terrifying; I was vulnerable prey running from deadly and hungry non-terrestrial life. Unfortunately, my deadly array of weaponry even the odds somewhat, minimizing the fear... at least until ammo started to run low. But it was by far the best of the three campaigns.

The Alien and Predator campaigns were less satisfying; they were just too deadly to provide much of a challenge.  All three of the campaigns also suffered from very linear levels, although this was less obvious with the Aliens and Predators, who could leap across wide areas with ease, which opened up the maps somewhat; the Humans were limited to tight corridors. The AI was largely disappointing too, especially with regards to the "charge directly into my gun-sights" Aliens. It cheated too; the AI always seemed to know exactly where I was. It didn't make the monsters anymore effective in combat, but it was disconcerting that -even playing as a cloaked Predator and hidden behind walls - the AI still directed fire in my direction. The story was improved over the 1999 game but was poorly paced and ended predictably. And the game was incredibly short; about two hours per campaign.

But for all its shortcomings, the old-school game-play of Aliens vs Predator was a welcome change of pace. It might not have "wowed" me, but neither did it entirely disappoint. It may have been run-of-the-mill as far as design, but it used the iconic franchise well and it was entertaining to boot.

Bioshock 2

It was inevitable that a financial success like the original Bioshock would get a sequel. I wasn't overwhelmed with the first game; I thought it average at best, despite some occasionally interesting architecture and some neat water effects. The second in the series is more of the same... or perhaps less. But either way, it is a better game than the first.

It's more of the same because it returns to the setting -the underwater city of Rapture- presented in the first game. The architecture of Rapture was one of the highlights of the original and it's no less stunning in the sequel. The art deco construction is gorgeous, although thoroughly unrealistic. The underwater setting plays more of a role this time out as well. Not only do you actually get to traverse the open seabed this time (unfortunately, thoroughly linear slogs with very little to do beyond gawk at the well-rendered sea life) but the oceanic environment makes more of an impact on the actual city as well. Coral and anemones are everywhere, as is water; Rapture is a damp, leaking ruin and you never forget the crushing tons of water around you.

The weapons and monsters from the former game make a return as well; insane gene-spliced
citizens scrounging a living from the wreckage, hulking protector "Big Daddies" and their helpless "Little Sister" charges populate the city. There are a few new monsters, the most notable of which are the "Big Sisters" who incorporate the endurance of the "Big Daddies" with incredible speed and agility. Your weapons are mix of scrounged up guns and the "Big Daddies'" iconic drill-hand, and super-power "plasmids". There's some variation here from the original game, but mostly your weapon sets are identical.

Where the game differs is mostly in game-play. The first was "the spiritual successor" to the classic "System Shock" action-RPG and itself tried to include role-playing aspects into the run-n-gun game-play. Bioshock 2 distances itself from this a bit; the plot is far more linear and predetermined, although there are still two endings depending on your actions throughout the story. Unlike the original game, in Bioshock 2 you will never have more than a single goal to complete at any one time; the levels are fairly straightforward and rarely do you need to backtrack. Although some might bemoan this loss of freedom, it is actually one of the sequel's strengths compared to the poorly paced original; the action maintains an intensity that was lost with the haphazard wandering in the first game.

Still, beyond the impressive visuals and improved pacing, Bioshock 2 doesn't overwhelm a player with exceptional game-play. The game's linearity does not offer much in the way of exploration and, while architecturally appealing, it lacks any truly impressive set-pieces. You are offered a large variety of weapons and upgrades, but for the most part you will find yourself relying on two or three favorites with little incentive to experiment. The vaunted ability to use the environment itself as a weapon remains, but is largely limited to scattered pools of flammable oil and electricity-conducting pools of water; it is little more than the traditional "exploding barrel" in new form.

The combat is distressingly ordinary as well. Splicers and Big Daddies, the mainstay of Rapture's army, tend to simply charge at you (they sometimes duck behind cover). The new "Big Sisters" are more intelligent foes, utilizing the environmental hazards against you, but they leap about so disconcertingly that combat with them ends up being little less than frenzied mouse clicking. After all the build-up of these new enemies, both with the pre-release hype and in the game itself (initially there was only to be a single Big Sister fought in recurring battles throughout the game), it was disconcerting to realize they were as disposable as all the rest of the monsters. Occasionally you are tasked to defend the helpless "Little Sister" NPCs, which results in an intense but not particularly involving battle against re-spawning bad-guys. And you still end up only using one or two weapons.

A few problems degrade the experience. The limited field of vision is further hampered by a HUD which includes the border of your deep-sea diving helmet; it's only a tiny percentage of the screen but when peripheral vision is already so limited I cursed the loss of even more. Although minimized when compared to the first game, the mini-games to "hack" various devices still aren't any fun, especially after repeating them for the thousandth time. More disconcertingly, there was no apparent way to remap weapons or powers to specific hot-keys; whichever you picked up first was locked to hot-key one, and so forth. That resulted in all the useful weapons being mapped to keys on the far end of the keyboard.

Worst of all, the story wasn't particularly involving, the characters lacked any emotional appeal and the end game -despite the threat of an "ohmigod, the clock is running and we're all going to die" timer, was a tiresome slog through waves of enemies. Too, he developers also expect the player to have some familiarity with the setting as much of the backstory that was so carefully developed in the original game goes unexplained in the sequel. Understanding how Rapture came about or what the Big Daddies are isn't necessary to finish the game, but it is core to the game's atmosphere. The endings (there are two) are completely predictable as well, with the usual chocie of "good" or "bad" depending on your activities during the game. But there's no real surprise either way.

Still, Bioshock is a better game than the original, even if it still sometimes lets its style take precedence over story and game-play. The combat is marginally more interesting, the quest is better focused, the architecture is still wonderful and the water effects remain impressive. It may be damning the game with faint praise to only say that Bioshock 2 is a superior game compared to the first (which, as I said, I felt was wildly over-hyped) but given my low expectations I was pleasantly surprised. It is hardly a classic and it may lack in innovation but it is competent, well designed product.That's saying something, anyway.

Bioware and DLC, part deux

Continuing the story of my previous posting...

It was brought to my attention this isn't Bioware's first foray into offering as DLC content that should have been part of the original game. Dragon Age : Origins, a CRPG released by the same company a few months earlier, was missing what many consider a standard component of such a game: a chest or stash to store all your hard-earned loot. It was a curious omission.

Well, guess what? One of the first bits of purchasable DLC offered by Bioware included this very feature. The Warden's Keep DLC does offer significantly more than that (new quests, new locations and new items) but I can imagine a number of people are going to buy it simply for the storage chest.

Given the additional content offered in Warden's Keep, this example is a bit less cut and dried than the missing Mako in Mass Effect 2. Still, it's hard to imagine that the absence of this feature, so common to many other role-playing games, simply slipped by such a talented development team. And, judging by the speed in which gamers modded it into the PC version, it obviously isn't something that was all that difficult to code.

So if it wasn't because it was an unusual feature, and if it wasn't because Bioware just didn't have the time or skill to add it in, you just have to wonder: why wasn't it part of the game in the first place?

Mass Effect 2 and the Broken Promise of DLC

It occurred to me, as I was wrapping up the final quests in Mass Effect 2, that there was something odd about this game. It wasn't anything to do with the story or gameplay itself; rather, I suddenly remembered something unusual about the "Options" screen. Hadn't there been, I asked myself, a whole section in the control setup about binding keys to control a vehicle? And yet, I had nearly completed the entire game without driving any vehicle; was it possible I had missed an entire section of Mass Effect 2 where I could drive across a planet instead of laboriously scanning it with my mouse?

This was, of course, one of the biggest complaints about the sci-fi sequel. Whereas in the first game, you could (optionally) explore strange new worlds by dropping down onto them in your six-wheeled "Mako" assault tank, in Mass Effect 2 you never got to see the surface of the planet. Rather, your explorations were limited to a tedious mini-game depicting the planet's surface. Pixel by pixel you move your mouse across that surface until a sensor indicated there was something interesting beneath it. Click the mouse and a remote probe goes and picks it up; the only visual change, however, is that the numeric values indicating your ship's resource store goes incrementally up. Then you repeat the process... over and over again.

Initial reviewers wondered why such a boring time-sink was added to what was otherwise a decent game. Were the developers, Bioware, simply trying to stretch out the game? It seemed an unlikely tactic for such veteran designers and, in any event, the game was long enough already. And it still didn't explain those unused "vehicles controls" in the Setup screen.

Well, it turns out, Bioware/EA intend to release some DLC that will include a vehicle and the necessary maps and missions with which to use said vehicle. In other words, the DLC will be adding the functionality we already had in the first game and which was replaced with the most monotonous mini-game ever thrown into an RPG.

One of the big worries expressed by gamers when publishers started playing around with the concept of downloadable content was that the publishers would use it as a method to gouge their customers. Rather than sell a full game, they'd sell a program that was almost complete, and then require the purchaser to further shell out their hard-earned cash to buy DLC so they could have the full experience. The publishers, of course, assured us they would never do such a thing (even as they incrementally moved in that direction). I have to wonder if Mass Effect 2's DLC is the first indication of gamer's fear come to life.

With its dodgy controls and terrible maps, driving the Mako in the first game was never anybody's favorite part of the original Mass Effect game. Still, it did add an element of size and openness to the game that was otherwise confined to fairly linear and small levels. Nobody expected the Mako to disappear entirely in the sequel; nor did they expect the horrible scanning-game they saddled us with. Asking gamers to pay what should have been in the game in the first place is what they expected least of all. In fact, I have to wonder if the scanning mini-game was intentionally made as tedious a placeholder as it was in order to encourage people to buy the DLC. Certainly, as made evident by the control options in the main game, vehicle segments were intended from the start; they were not a late-hour design addition. They were purposely kept out of the game in order to sell later.

It's unfortunate that such a respected development house as Bioware has decided to resort to such scurrilous tricks, betraying their own reputation in chase of the almighty dollar (it's par for the course for EA Games, obviously). Unfortunately, I fear it's only the start of what will soon become common practice, despite earlier assurances to the contrary by publishers.

Call of Duty 6 - Modern Warfare 2

"Few games were hyped more than Modern Warfare 2. Few games deserve it as much as this game." That's the sort of thing you might expect me to say if I were a fan of the series. In truth, I haven't been that since the second game. You know what I have to say about this most recent episode of the Call of Duty series? It's probably one of the most dull and uninspired titles of 2009.

Not that it isn't jam-packed with non-stop action; like its predecessor, Modern Warfare 2 goes full throttle from the start and never lets off the gas until the end of the game. That is, in part, one of its failings. You are never ever given a moment to stop and appreciate the experience; as soon as one explosion-filled encounter ends you are immediately thrust into the next. You are relentlessly pushed forward, and if you dare to stop to catch your breath, endless waves of re-spawning enemies do their best to ensure it is your last. It is emotionally exhausting, visceral, bloody and ultimately has all the depth and engagement of a game of Pac Man.

 

Lost is the franchise's original goal of reliving the trials of an average Joe thrust into extraordinary circumstances; the bulk of the game puts you in the shoes of a unstoppable super-soldier who can soak up bullets like a tank and drop regiments of enemies with pinpoint precision (albeit one who gets knocked unconscious at the end of every other mission; it became almost comic by the end of the game how often the screen faded to black). The hostiles are faceless bad-guys and the combat has all the involvement of a game of Doom. But at least Doom wrapped itself up with an atmosphere of horror and gore; Modern Warfare 2's storyline is shallow and unbelievable, original in some of its settings but in none of the plot or characters.

The game is most famous, of course, for its multi-player. I can't comment on that; I (and as surveys have shown, the majority of gamers) don't play online. The single-player has all the frenetic pointlessness of a deathmatch game, so fans of the latter will probably enjoy the former. The game also ships with a selection of "special op" missions which can be played alone or cooperatively; tasked with specific goals such as "kill 30 tangos" or "finish the mission in 45 seconds" I found these more enjoyable than the main campaign because they were more focused. Even so, after five or six of these missions even the appeal of these missions started to fade; killing for the points (or "stars" in Modern Warfare 2 parlance) you are awarded for each success was not enough to keep me interested in the long run.

To add insult to injury, this "next generation" game looks anything but; even with settings maxed, it looks dated. The lighting lacks the sophistication of modern engines, the levels are archaically non-interactive, the animation is stiff and there's an artificial highlighting around the character models. Worse, there's rarely anything interesting to look at (although it's hard to tell since you're never allowed to stop and take in the scenery). It's not a bad-looking game, but it is surprisingly unimpressive on the graphical front. The engine itself may be capable but the artists didn't use it to its fullest potential.

The sound was disappointing too; in a game filled with all the bangs and booms of modern combat, I'd expect my sub-woofer to smoke from all the work it's being asked to do, but everything sounds flat. The soundtrack is unoriginal and fails to heighten the experience in any way, and the voicework - though competent - is an endless stream of faceless men yelling useless (and largely unheard) instructions that I quickly learned to tune out.

Modern Warfare 2 wasn't completely without inspiration; some of the levels - particularly those fighting in the suburbs of the US Capitol - had an appealing intensity to them (not surprisingly, these were the levels where I was not playing the role of an elite super-soldier but an average grunt part of a combined ops team). These levels offered the surreal horror of fighting a bloody conflict in such the familiar, homey setting of downtown USA. Beyond that, though, there was little to raise Modern Warfare 2 above the typical first-person shooter. At best, it's an average title. If you love the multiplayer, then doubtlessly this isn't a title to miss. Otherwise you may as well pick up "Soldier of Fortune 3" or "Rogue Warrior"; you'll get almost the same single-player experience for a third of the price.