The Last Content Space Marine

LA Noire is a strange beast. I’m really not sure what to make of it. On the one hand I love most of what it tries to do, but on the other hand it gets stale quite quickly thanks to a few glaring issues.

To begin with I was thoroughly enjoying myself. The cases were interesting and the game’s interview mechanics were very rewarding and something I had not seen done so intricately in gaming before. Needing to read your subject’s expressions is a good idea, and the technology used to create the digitized acting is impressive- if a little unnerving. The technology isn’t quite there yet and you can’t get away from the fact that people look like film footage stretched out and stapled over a mould. It certainly isn’t Xbox Live Vision levels of bad, and when the effect works well it looks stunning. However all too often you can see the proverbial strings, usually in the form of a nose or ear not having a hole in it but rather a black coloured patch.

LA Noire’s investigation mechanics can be broadly divided into two sections- evidence collecting and interview. In this way it plays a lot like the Phoenix Wright games on the DS. At first both of these ideas work well- you pick apart a crime scene for evidence, and then question suspects using the evidence to prove they are lying when you feel their story is inconsistent.

I say these only work at first because after you’ve been playing for about four hours, it’s nigh on impossible to fuck this up. When you’ve cleared a crime scene of evidence, the music stops, meaning that provided you are not deaf (and this is a big kick in the nuts to those of you who are), you simply CANNOT miss any evidence.

I get that the actors need to exaggerate the facial expressions to indicate when they are lying. After all most of us are not experts in reading people- so subtle expressions will be lost on us. Sadly though this means that once you get used to identifying the cues, telling if a suspect is being truthful, lying, or withholding information becomes almost automatic. Sadly this leaves you with very little in the way of a challenge.

Consequently LA Noire is very much a one trick pony and once you’ve figured out how the trick is done, it just becomes one long cut scene that occasionally requires you to press a button. The only other curve ball the game can throw at you is visiting locations in the wrong order. But of course, anyone with half a brain cell should be able to figure that out once they realise it’s actually important. While the illusion of interactivity lasts though, it’s a very involving and entertaining experience.

Sadly, LA Noire has nothing else to do beyond these cases. Unlike most Rockstar games which are usually chock to the brim with interesting things to do around the map; random encounters, challenges and well crafted distractions (the comedy club in GTAIV anyone?) LA Noire’s ‘side quests’ are distinctly lack lustre.

Virtually all, in fact literally all of them are Pointless Fucking Collectables (PFCs). If you feel like taking some time off the cases, you can collect cars, film reels, newspapers (which to Rockstar’s credit actually serve a point as they reveal cut scenes giving some back story to the main game), discovering landmarks, or solving street crime- none of which bar the newspapers actually serve any purpose.

By solving street crime I mean you respond to radio call outs which result in a firefight with a handful of gunmen and then getting back to your day. These are just boring by the numbers firefights we’re familiar with from previous Rockstar games, but without any background to give them a sense of urgency, motivation or accomplishment. Well done Rockstar, you’ve found a way to turn what should be an adrenaline fuelled gun fight into another thankless collectable.

I just don’t understand it- LA Noire features probably the most detailed and intricate map Rockstar has yet produced, and they don’t do a damn thing with it.

To add insult to injury, one of the cases pretty much requires you to have behaved like an obsessive compulsive as if you have not found one specific land mark, you can’t proceed. The worst part of this is that the prior to that landmark, others you need to find are revealed to you if you take too long finding them. This last one serves the sole purpose of forcing you to drive around for hours looking for the damn place, killing time. Unless you do what I did and just check the internet for the advice of people insane enough to kill every pigeon in Liberty City...

Beyond the gameplay I also question just how Noire LA Noire actually is. I’m not a huge movie buff- in fact I rarely watch films. However I am familiar with Noir through a friend of mine who has a passion for it, and as such I’m familiar with many of the tropes and trappings of the genre. Therefore I’d question how closely LA Noire actually follows them. Outside of the first hour, there isn’t much in the ways of voice over, femme fatale or anything else I’d associate with Noir, beyond maybe the themes of drugs, sex and general vice. To be honest though it felt closer to 70’s cop shows and Dirty Harry movies (Minus Harry Callaghan if that makes sense) than anything else. Still, I’m by no means an authority here so you’ll need to take that with a pinch of salt.

From a technical standpoint (and this may not be true for the PS3 version; I’m playing it on the 360) LA Noire does have a few issues with loading textures and jittery cut scenes. It doesn’t happen too often, but it does happen often enough to make it worthy of note. Installing the game does seem to make a difference though and the occurrence of these errors is heavily reduced if you do so.

Overall, I can’t really speak against LA Noire in a big way. While its execution has some big holes in it, the ideas presented are interesting and also demonstrate great strides towards truly engaging non combat centric gameplay. The problem is that these concepts age very quickly, even within the lifetime of the game itself.

My final word on the matter would be simple: LA Noire is certainly worth playing, but you’ll want to pick it up cheap second hand and I doubt that DLC will extend your enjoyment of the game. It lacks the entertainment value of games like Red Dead Redemption or the GTA series, but shows some interesting ideas that deserve exploration. If you’re after a murder mystery though, I think you’ll find more mileage with Heavy Rain on the PS3.It isn’t as long or as complex, but it remains challenging and entertaining all the way through.

Fate moves in mysterious ways. Usually behind you, grinning like a large convict who's just asked you to pick up the soap. After my previous rant on Kinect, I went off to my Xbox 360 to fire up a DVD while I ate dinner. Much to my dismay, the drive refused to spin up. After several attempts I finally got the damn thing working again, but this 360 elite is a good few years old now, and I resigned myself to the fact I'd need to upgrade to one of those swanky new 360 slims with the built in wi-fi that I'd been coveting.

So I took my old elite down to the game shop and traded it in for £80 towards my new Xbox 250gig. That same morning I had just seen this awesome video, and it got me thinking what the future may hold now the Kinect was capable of running on Windows. So I dared the question “How much for a Kinect bundle?” The clerk's eyes lit up like Christmas. “That'll be an extra fifty quid. You don't get the game though.” Fifa or MoH? Two games I'll never play anyway. I thought about it for a moment and then decided to go for it. I'd been toying with the idea all day, so really my mind was already made up. What was an extra £50, when the only game being released in this pay period was AC: Brotherhood?

Ten minutes later I walked out of the shop, new Slim 360 in hand. I'd just like to talk about this machine for a brief moment before moving onto the Kinect as it bears mention. It's much smaller, much quieter and looks the biz. The piano black finish is going to attract grime though, so be warned. The touch sensitive buttons are a nice feature, but purely bling with no real function. Don't be in a huge rush to upgrade if you have an Elite, but the quieter running is very nice. One thing though, the fucker doesn't have a memory card socket on it. Which means unless I can somehow get the data off my memory card, I've lost ALL my hard earned saves. That, REALLY pissed me off. EDIT- I have since discovered that you can use any USB Flash drive as a memory card. Sorry, that one passed me by.

So, Kinect. Setting it up is a pain in the ARSE. It took me about an hour of updates, waving cards around and being forced into ludicrous positions before it was ready to rumble. The problems people have been reporting about space? No joke. I have a pretty sizeable living room, and I had to push my TV right back into the unit, jostling for every inch for that little bloody sensor to use. Do not buy this item unless you have at least seven foot of space in front of your TV. That is the bare minimum- six foot works, but you won't have room to step backwards (the backs of my knees where grinding the futon for the first half hour), so avoid that if you can.

I played around with the Kinect hub for a little while, but honestly it's useless. It's far slower than using a controller, except for the speech commands. These will only be useful to you though if you're using things like the Zune service on a frequent basis. Further compounding my irritation was that the Kinect hub didn't contain my most used feature- the marketplace. Plus the sensor was really starting to creep me out. There's something downright disconcerting about an oblong piece of black plastic with a luminous red eye, turning to look right at your face. You know what I mean.

So far, I was impressed by the technology, but the implementation was a joke. A £50 joke. There was nothing here that couldn't be done more quickly with a controller.

So I sighed and put in Kinect adventures.

What happened next can only be described as a mental regression to the state of a five year old, on a sugar high, in a playhouse. Fun doesn't even begin to describe it. I've become far more mature in recent years with my approach games, I appreciate them for their narrative, their game play mechanics, their characters, use of new ideas and so forth. I now realize I've missed the whole point of videogames- they are supposed to be fun. They exist to be enjoyed, be that through overcoming a challenge for a sense of achievement, tugging at emotional strings, or the satisfaction of just doing something totally stupid and getting away with it.

After sitting though a toe curlingly family friendly intro I jumped (no pun intended) into my first game, which is best described as 3D breakout. Your body is the paddle. After mere seconds I was hooked. I then realized that simply moving my body in the way of the ball wasn't enough- I could slap the ball with my hands to give it speed so it would break the blocks more easily. The fun increased as I started to punt the bloody thing with all my might. The five year old in the back of my head downed his last tube of sherbet and stirred, ready to take the back the body he had so long been barred from. Then came the moment of glory, the moment he broke out.

The ball hit me in the face, and bounced off. Up until this point I had just been using my arms and sometimes my legs. I wondered... I tried. The ball sailed towards my head again. I arched my back backwards and carefully lined up to give it an almighty Geordie kiss- a headbutt to you. With the force or an arcing whip I drove my face towards the screen and blam! The ball was sent hurtling back to the blocks and broke several of them, finishing the round.

Everything from that point on became a mess of grinning, laughing, smiling and occasionally shouting WTF. The laughter only got more raucous when I got my first living statue. Suffice to say, it was a fat hamster that mimicked my movements. So I did what any five year old would do in that situation- took a recording of it doing my whitest possible disco dance. It was very, very white.

Three hours passed, including some time on the multiplayer on Xbox live. Eventually I grew tired. I'd been plugging leaks in an underwater lab with my hands, jumping up and down on an inflatable dingy, and floating though zero G popping water bubbles. Even as I write this I am still grinning, the warm glow of being reduced to a five year old for a few hours still lingers behind my eyes.

I stand by many of my initial assertions about Kinect. It's still far too expensive to appeal to most casual gamers, but the 'bored spouse' crowd is now definitely a real target for this thing. I'd say Kinect is worth owning, but only if purchased cheap as part of a bundle, or second hand. Technically, the only real problems it has are the huge space it needs, and the fact there is a lag before your actions appear on screen. You eventually get used to this though, and it's not so bad it's game breaking. For Kinect to really shine though, this does need be resolved. Overall, it's not the wisest purchase I've made (yet at least), but it's certainly got hours of amusement potential.

I was wrong about a lot of my claims in my previous rant, but like I said- some things still stand. I wouldn't say I've become a Kinect supporter, but I certainly won't be speaking out against it again any time soon. I am still very worried just how many games can be made with this tech though- it could get old very fast.

Even hardcore gamers will enjoy Kinect, but only, and I mean only if you can suspend your maturity, stop taking yourself seriously and just have fun. Booze helps, as will other people. If you have your head up your arse though, and are unwilling (or unable) to pull it out, you will not have fun here. Which is a shame, because feeling like a little kid again is possibly the greatest feeling an adult can ever have. Outside of orgasm of course.

I'm not sure how long it will take for the novelty wear off, but until then I intend to enjoy every moment of Kinect, every jump, every stupid pose, every God awful photo, and of course; every round of breakout I win using my face.

Shamelessly nicked from Dylan Fox over at www.dylanfox.net


The Kinect reminds me of this bit from Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:


“A loud clatter of gunk music flooded through the Heart of Gold cabin as Zaphod searched the sub-etha radio wavebands for news of himself. The machine was rather difficult to operate. For years radios had been operated by means of pressing buttons and turning dials; then as the technology became more sophisticated the controls were made touch-sensitive - you merely had to brush the panels with your fingers; now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction of the components and hope. It saved a lot of muscular expenditure of course, but meant that you had to sit infuriatingly still if you wanted to keep listening to the same programme.”
( http://hitch14.tripod.com/chapter_12.htm )


I don’t mind science imitating fiction--hey, I’m all for it!--but not when the final product turns out to a punchline...

Alright. I’ve put it off for long enough. Let’s talk about Kinect.

I don’t like doing exclusively negative pieces unless I have something to actually base my opinion on. Flame wars and baseless rants are a dime a dozen on the internet, but I will most likely never own, or even play on Kinect. Still, I can at least attempt to justify my attitude with explanations and predictions. The purpose of this post, therefore, is to explain why I have no interest in the Kinect, but also to elaborate on the scope of the idea as a money spinner, and how Kinect may still make Microsoft some moolah.

Motion sensitive gaming is a waste of my time. Why? Because I’m what the hive mind has taken to calling a ‘hardcore gamer’. I like levels, I like challenges, I like lots of items, I like mechanics with a learning curve, I like a storyline and most of all, I like control. I don’t like Spore or the Sims series as I regard both of these as ‘toy games’- things you play with, rather than play. Fable II also falls into this category. You have to put a lot into the game to get anything out of it, and that’s just not my style.

Motion games are, by their very nature, going to be ‘toy games’. How much can you actually do with motion sensitive controls? The answer is simple- very little. Think for a moment about all the buttons you press, all the combinations you use when you play a videogame. For example, lining up a shot in MW2: You’re holding down the left trigger to aim, using one thumbstick to point your gun, the other to strafe so you’re not a sitting duck, and then the other shoulder button to fire. That's 4 controls for one of the most simple actions in the game.

How would you do this in Kinect? You couldn’t. Something as simple as lining up a shot becomes impossible. Kinect has only one input, your body’s positioning. It can’t detect anything as subtle as a finger movement, or tiny corrections to line up that perfect headshot. How about platformers? Are you going to run on the spot, then jump on the spot to move in game? How do you make corrections if your line up isn’t exact?

So there’s reason one why I’m avoiding Kinect- No one will ever be able to create a game I actually want to play. They are all going to be simple, basic, casual toy games. Those of you who have tried playing anything 'hardcore' on the Wii can probably attest to how irksome the motion controls become after a while- and that’s with some traditional buttons and the analogue nunchuck to back you up.

Next up is the price tag. Suppose I decided I did want to get into casual gaming, or just have it around for when my friends and I are drunk and feel like doing something stupid. Why am I not going to get a Wii? At £130, Kinect is a f###ing expensive piece of hardware- almost half of what you paid for the Xbox in the first place! For that I can get a second hand Wii, some extra controllers and a few games if I play my cards right and shop around.

Advanced menu controls and voice commands? My controller works fine, and it doesn’t cost £130. Video conferencing? I barely use the chat function on XBL, why do I want to pay £130 for the privilege of being able to see people while I talk to them?

Oh and don’t get me started on the technical limitations. There’s barely, and I mean barely 6 foot between my TV and my futon- certainly not enough room to comfortably move back and forth in beyond that line. Seriously, how many people actually have a six foot square block, free of all furniture in front of their TV? Do you really want to move the coffee table every time you want to play a game?

Kinect is made for two markets- casual gamers (or gamers in denial as I like to call them), and kids. The former will already have a Wii, and if they don’t they will get one as they are far, FAR cheaper than Kinect and a 360. The only possible exception is if they live with someone who already has a 360, and as established you can still get a second hand Wii, plus assorted extras for the cost of the Kinect alone. Still, I reckon we’ll see a big uptake from this demographic leading up to Christmas and into the January sales. But after that I don’t foresee much spending as everyone who is going to get one, will have one.

Now kids. They’ll love the novelty value and parents will no doubt be happy their loinspawn are getting some exercise while playing what will undoubtedly be almost exclusively, wholesome family games. If there is a continuing market for the Kinect, this is where you will find it. However, when Microsoft proudly starts toting ‘We sold X many thousand Kinect units this quarter!’ , I will be asking one question- “How many of those where individual units, and how many where bundled with new 360s in package deals?” I’d bet that most Kinect units sold will be in bundle with new 360s within 6 months, and the only reason people will be buying them is because

a) The store won’t change the package deal
b) They’re so cheap in package you might as well, or
c) Parents buying the damn thing get hoodwinked by sales clerks.

I don’t think Kinect will be a flop, at the very least- as I’ve driven home with all the finesse of a railway spike- bundle deals will keep them moving. But the question of how many people really want Microsoft’s new toy, compared to how many of them are pressured into buying it, remains in question.

As intimated, the Wii is the big problem. It’s already there, it’s a known quantity, it’s cheaper and thanks to brand identity, casual gamers are not going to think ‘I Want to buy a games console’, they’re going to think ‘I want to buy a Wii.’ Microsoft is wagering everything on convincing this target demographic that Kinect is better, or even getting them to acknowledge its existence. I don’t think they will be very successful as, fundamentally, how do you market something to non gamers? They don’t read gaming magazines, they don’t go into game shops or attend LAN parties, they most likely nod and smile when gamer friends tell them about game related stuff… It’s like solving the Epimenides Paradox. Still, at least Microsoft are trying. Many people talk about the eye toy when discussing Kinect, but remember that the eye toy had all the marketing of a back alley abortion clinic in a Redneck state. It was bound to fail if no one knew about it to buy it.

So there we have it. Kinect is a waste of (very large) space to anyone but the casual gamer, and the Wii already has them by the short and curlies. A small number of folk may buy it if they live with someone who already has a 360, and are too stupid to look for a Wii. Bundles will keep the thing moving though and make up sales numbers that will allow Microsoft to proudly hail the Kinect a success.

On a closing note I would like to say that I don’t hate Kinect. It’s got zero appeal to me, but at least it’s something new and interesting and that at least needs to be acknowledged- even a step backwards is better than no step at all when innovation is concerned. Especially given the lack of new ideas in the industry at the moment. Likewise I’m sure many of the people who do own it will have hours of fun with it, at least until the novelty wears off. Plus there’s the consideration of how many games you can really make using just the premise of a moving body as input…

Oh, and as for the Playstation move? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA‼‼‼‼ You really think ANY casual gamer is going to be interested in spending over £300? You’re out of your f####ing gourd! Especially when the friggin’ thing essentially IS a Wii-mote! At least the Kinect is different in that regard.

First of all, I want to say two things before getting into the meat and potatoes of this piece: One, there will be spoilers- lots of spoilers for pretty much the entire game. If you’re sensitive about them then stop reading now. Second, I like Enslaved. I don’t love it, but I certainly like it. My exact feelings are in this review, so please bear in mind that while this is critical analysis, and not favourable, it doesn’t reflect my feelings and experience of the game as a whole.

With that out of the way, here’s the crux- Enslaved’s story is pretty poor. It’s not the worst attempt at video gaming story telling I’ve ever seen, but it is certainly not worthy of the praise people keep heaping on it. Obviously, such a statement requires justification, and that’s the purpose of this post.

First of all, let’s take a look at the characters. The presentation of the characters is excellent, the voice work, the motion capture and the expressions are all top notch. The problem I have is with the character’s themselves- the ideas, the personalities and the experiences. The first issue I take umbridge with is that they never actually change. The characters never grow, they never evolve or learn.

For example, Trip returns home to find her village has been attacked and half of the population is missing, the other half are charred cinders on the ground.

The result? She spends a chapter of the game wondering around in a near catatonic state of grief, and then swears revenge. That’s it. It’s the sum total of all of Trip’s experiences in the entire game, and beyond the initial grief they don’t seem to effect her one iota.

She remains just as much of a wet behind the ears mouse as she did in the first half of the game. You’d think that she’d become more resolute, more forceful. Not necessarily more confident, or a badass, but at least more driven in her behaviour and actions now she has a strong motive- that being revenge. Sadly, this is not the case. Stuff happens to her, and she reacts- but she never grows. I feel very sorry for Lindsay Shaw as her acting talent was really wasted here.

On a final note, Trip doesn’t exactly strike me as a great female character. I don’t think that every female character needs to champion feminism, but honestly, she’s just a damsel in distress. I’ve got no problem with a character having that role, needing to save a person as opposed to an object or idea often provides far greater drive and emotion to a story, but given the lack of development and exploration, Trip just seems to lack any character- leaving nothing but another Princess Peach style DID. She is capable, and does serve other purposes, indeed her tech abilities saved my arse more than once during game play, but you spend far more time saving her than anything else. I wouldn't be so pissed off about this if it didn't highlight the fact that she never seems to grow or learn. Her first response to serious trouble is to run and hide, and let the big strong man deal with it. She's not a trained fighter and if she dies the slave headband kills Monkey, so it sort of makes sense, but it still seems to send the wrong messsage. As a counter to point to what I would consider a good take on this idea, look at Prince of Persia. Elika spends as much time saving your arse as you spend saving hers.

Monkey doesn’t do much better, but to be fair that’s a part of his character. It’s established very early on that Monkey is a pragmatic man- things are how they are and if he can’t help them, then he learns to live with them. This is shown very quickly after Trip puts the slave headband on him- Monkey rages, he threatens to kill her, but after a few minutes (and a few jolts) he calms down and realises that there’s nothing he can do, so he resigns himself to the idea of getting Trip home as being the only way he’ll ever be free.

It was refreshing to see a character who wasn’t emo raging about the situation, and for most of the game I was quite fond of Monkey. He didn’t develop, but he didn’t need to- he knew who he was, he knew what he could do- and more importantly what he couldn’t do, and accepted that. He was simply trying to do his best with the situation that was presented to him. His attitudes where explored through the situations, meaning he develops in your mind, even if he doesn't actually grow and change.

Then comes the moment onboard the mega mech when Trip finally deactivates the slave head band. To paraphrase:
“What I did to you was wrong Monkey, nothing gave me that right. I’ve turned it off.”
“You mean I’m free? I can do whatever I want? Just leave?”
“Yes.”
“Turn it back on.”

What. The. Fuck. I suppose this was supposed to be some sort of touching moment about how he doesn’t want to leave her, but it’s totally at odds with the character we’ve seen so far. He’s a wild card, he likes to live free. So even if he has fallen for Trip- which is never really shown, why doesn’t he just stay of his own accord? That would have made the moment far more touching and far less WTF:
“What I did to you was wrong Monkey, nothing gave me that right. I’ve turned it off.”
“You mean I’m free? I can do whatever I want? Just leave?”
“Yes.”
*Pause while the gears turn in Monkey's head*
"Don’t worry, I’m not going anywhere.”

Huge dramatic shifts in a character’s attitude can work, but they need to either be explored in retrospect, or foreshadowed. For example, Darth Vader killing the Emperor in Star Wars VI. It’s foreshadowed by the fact we learn he was once a Jedi, and even more so by Luke saying he can still sense good in him. As Luke and the Emperor fight, we see building tension and frustration through his body language until finally he snaps. That’s a well done character heel turn (I.E Not a heel turn at all).

Watchmen went the other way with Ozymandias. The character’s betrayal comes as a heel turn, and is then explored in the remainder of the story so it makes sense.

Monkey’s refusal to stop being Trip’s slave is just a snap decision. Imagine either of the above examples if no indication that the character’s oncoming change, or exploration of the reasons for the change, was ever present? There’s a fine line between sudden character change and bad Deus Ex Machina. When this is the one thing your character does in the whole game that shows some growth, you want to make sure it’s done right. I don’t think it was.

Maybe I missed the signals that Monkey was falling for Trip. Supposedly I do miss the signals when people flirt with me so God only know how bad I must be when two other people are dancing the romance tango- so I guess it's possible. Some people may point to him comforting her after the destruction of her village but I didn’t see any romantic undertones in that sequence. He was just trying to be a shoulder to lean on for someone who had just lost everything. A woman crying on a man’s shoulder does not necessarily equal romantic interest and Monkey certainly just seemed to be trying to be help her deal with this matter. After all, if she dies, he dies and he needs to make sure she stays in a healthy state of mind- especially given how she spent the previous chapter nearly getting killed as she was catatonic with grief. That's the closest they ever come to a moment, and as outlined, I saw nothing romantic in it. I remember thinking afterwards how refreshing it was to see a purely platonic relationship between a male and female lead in a videogame. Guess I was wrong.

Finally, Pigsy. Crammed in at the middle point of the game, he’s the only one who I don’t really have a problem with. The whole rivalry between him and Monkey is built up fairly well (including some nice interactive competative elements), and while the moment where he tries to get Monkey killed by the Rhino is stupid as all hell (seriously Trip can see he’s sent Monkey into a dangerous situation without warning, she’s a wuss, not an idiot), jealousy does make people do some very silly things.

Beyond that, there’s not much to say about Pigsy. He joins the story so late that apart from putting Monkey in mortal danger because he thinks Trip’s fallen for him, he doesn’t really do much. It feels like he’s there because the writer got himself into a hole and needed someone with a flying machine to get out of it. He was also probably in the source novel too and so a pig character needed to be shoe horned in there somehow. With all the subtelty of a hippo on PCP. At the end of the day, he’s mostly harmless in terms of the quality of the story and characters, and provides some (un-needed) comedy relief. But at the same time he doesn’t really contribute much either. Like Lindsaw Shaw, Richard Ridings delivers an excellent perfromance, but sadly poor writing and directing stop him from bringing the character to its best.

Now for the story itself. For the most part, like Pigsy it’s harmless. What surprises me is the amount of critical praise such a bland story has received. Very little happens and there’s no real subtext. You’d think the idea of Trip enslaving Monkey would make for a good platform to explore subjective morality, but no it's never even looked at beyond then the headband goes on, up until Trip turns it off. We could have had a gripping story exploring how people will do things they know are wrong when desperate, and how the live with those options, along with being the victim of such an act having to realise the person who did this to you holds no malice, but is just terrified and making bad decisions becuase of it. Instead, Enslaved is just two (and later three) people on a road trip, and at one point there’s some friction between two of the characters over Trip’s supposed romantic preference. Trip herself doesn’t seem to show much romantic interest in Monkey either, unless the signs where so subtle that I missed them. There’s no drama, no exploration, no message, no point.

There are two plot holes that really grind my gears. One of these is pretty standard fare- When the crew go to hijack the mega mech to attack Pyramid (the big baddies), it is of course fully operational. Which begs the question why the hell are Pyramid not using the damn thing? We can see it’s fully fuelled, operational and ready to go. Why are they not using this ultimate weapon!?

The second is the ending where we learn that Pyramid is not actually a group of slavers, but a single man from before the Great War that destroyed the world, ‘rescuing’ people from the wasteland to plug them into the matrix.

No joke, it’s the matrix. He kidnaps people from around the world to plug them into a virtual world that’s a simulation of before the war.

Obvious criticism aside, two plot points are raised. At the start of the game the Pyramid ship Monkey and Trip escape from refers to the occupants as slaves. It even classifies them calling them grade A and grade B slaves, like livestock- and then it kills one of those slaves for helping Monkey. The only way I can see thing working is if this ship was actually a group of Slavers not associated with Pyramid... Except the Slaves wear exactly the same uniform we see people plugged into the matrix wearing. This doesn't strike me as the behaviour of someone in a benevolent attempt to bring everyone together into a utopia. Just like with Monkey's 'Turn it back on' moment (I'm sorry I just can't let that go), it needs to be developed before it's revelaed. The best plot twists are the ones that, in retrospect, you should have seen comming. Now there is a gameplay mechanic whereby collecting mask icons make Monkey see snapshots of the world before the war (which I'm certain are Andy Serkis' holiday snaps), but what does that establish? Nothing. Later it's establisehd he may see these images becasue of the headband, but there need to be a few more pieces in place that could help. Maybe the mask symbol appearing on Pyramid mechs? That way there's a link between the images and Pyrmaid, instead of just a link between the headband, the mask and the images.

The second is even more mind bending. If they’re trying to save people, why the hell did Pyramid kill everyone in Trip’s village? There’s something about Pyramid being some sort of ark, preserving… something. History maybe? So perhaps they keep force people into the Pyramid thinking it’s for the greater good, but then kill anyone who resists. Except as we established in The Matrix, there are plenty of people willing to do this sort of thing anyway. A life in a utopia where I never need to worry about money, food, disease or crime? And I can't tell the difference between that and reality? Sign me the fuck up! These people need a leaflet drop, not a God damn mech army.

The problem is that I need to grasp for explanations here, and often any explanation offered has more holes than my boxer shorts. If Enslaved was as well written as people claim, we’d have the facts, or at least enough information to put together the facts. If you’re trying to discuss morality and make the reader/gamer question the ethics of something, then you present them with a morally ambiguous situation (I.E Pyramid) and then leave them to ponder it. The ending of Enslaved is not a moral ambiguity issue; it’s just a self contradicting mess. And having Trip's last lines being "Did we do the right thing?" doesn't invalidate that fact.

So there we go. My thoughts on this ‘brilliant story’ that everyone’s going on about. I really don’t see it. Enslaved is a pretty good game, the mechanics are fun and the story isn’t awful (by videogame standards) but its narrative certainly leaves more to be desired than most reviewers claim. I think people are getting confused about the difference between great characters, and great character presentation, the latter of which Enslaved has in levels to put any other game I’ve played to shame. Or, as I stated in my review, maybe I just don’t ‘get’ Alex Garland’s writing as I felt the same way about another famous piece of his- 28 days later.

Still, practise makes perfect and if we get some better writing to go with the technology and acting talent that can be found in Enslaved, we may be able to get a Final Fantasy VII for this generation.

-Evis T

Here it is. A damn good game. Not a classic, but a well put together piece that sets a new benchmark in character presentation.

(Low level spoilers)
I've been playing Dead Rising 2 since it's UK release, and I've now almost finished the game (Just need to complete overtime mode), so I feel I've played enough to pass some judgements on Capcom's latest title.

On the whole, it's defiantly an enjoyable experience. It's much in the same vein as it's predecessor- certainly not a world class game, but an entertaining title and very fun to play. But sadly it still shares many of Dead Rising's flaws, and if you haven't purchased it yet, I would like to warn you about a few things in Dead Rising 2, and then tell you about some of the awesome stuff that is in it. Seriously, it's worth your time and I strongly recommend it, even if you wait a while for it to pop up pre owned or for the retail price to drop. That disclaimer aside, let's get the bad aspects out of the way first.

1.Save system.
This has to go. I'm sorry, but it does. It's awful- easily the worst element of Dead Rising 2. I've had my rant on save points in the past, but to give you the TL;DR version- Save points suck and the only purpose they serve is in survival horror games to instil a fear of death, in that you need to play though a section of the game again. Dead Rising 2, is not a survival horror game, and neither was Dead Rising 1. Yes, there are zombies everywhere, yes you have limited capacity for items, yes you're alone in a hostile world, but really... it's not horror when you're scything down legions of zombies using a set of bowie knives duct taped to some boxing gloves is it? Even more so if you do it while wearing women's clothing. Calling this survival horror is like trying to call Army of Darkness a horror movie.

Don't get me wrong, as I said Dead Rising is a great game (I love Army Of Darkness also), but it's not a horror game. Not by a long shot. Because of that I get pissed off when I die and realise I forgot to save for the last half hour and I need to do everything all over again. It's not tense when I know my life is on the line- it's a precursor to ragequit. It's also f###ing annoying when I run into a psychopath for the first time and I've not saved, as I know they will probably kill me while I learn their moves. And yes, you can save before initiating any encounter, but that involves taking a long journey to the nearest save point, and in a game where you are constantly against the clock, this is not a good idea, especially when there are so many 'quests' to do- any one of which could result in a psychopath if you don't know what to expect.

Bottom line, normal save system please. This isn't a horror game and the save system detracts from Dead Rising 2's biggest asset- the fun factor. A possible alternative though would be retries, or at least a quicksave system.

2.The Psychopaths.
In all fairness, Dead Rising 2's psychopaths are a big step up from the original Dead Rising. They are not quite as hideously overpowered, and thanks to Dead Rising 2's far superior control the fights don't feel quite as cheap as they used to. If you loose, it's probably because you screwed up or just didn't learn the boss' patterns quickly enough. Sadly however, some psychopaths remain insanely difficult. For some of them it's an asset. One guy on a motorbike for example requires you to have perfect timing and good reflexes to take him head on. However, if you can get creative there are other ways to deal him that are easier. I'm all for the encouragement of lateral thinking.

Sadly however, there remain two or three psychopaths who are a lesson in frustration. One of them called Randy is extremely fast, packs a massive punch and the arena you fight him in is very small and very packed. Often the only way to stand a chance against these psychopaths is using tactics that are so meta they boarder on exploits.

The last boss of the main game mode is easily one of the cheapest boss fights since Crackdown's later Shai Gen bosses with their tightly picked infinite re spawn points. Not to spoiler you, but this person is almost unkillable in hand to hand, shooting them prompts them to roll (which makes them invincible) and their ranged attack hits very hard and stuns you. Oh and they also have some off map support with an AoE the size of the Yucatan peninsula. Oh and you have to fight them on pretty much open ground. Oh and they have no superpowers- none of thier apparent invulnerability is ever explained.

It seems the philosophy has leaned heavily on what could be done to make it hard for the player, with no thought given to how the player might actual beat the boss. Basically, you need to meta game the designers.

3.*SPOILER ALERT*Super Zombies *SPOILER ALERT*
These guys kill the end game. Once they appear the fun factor takes a nose dive as if you fight them head on, you'll be there forever as more and more pop up. If you run away from them, they're fast enough that you end up with a train, meaning if anything snags you or stops you, they dog pile you under a mountain of festering necrotic flesh. Your only hope- only hope- is to keep running and stop for nothing- not for maintenance rooms, not for save points, not for Jesus himself. Don't even open the damn map once you have a train of these things. Oh, and I'm not certain, but I'm quite sure that queens only stun them. All this basically means that once these guys appear, Dead Rising 2 devolves into simply getting from point A to B for the next mission, stopping only at your peril. Factor in the save point fiasco with how often these things can drag you down (and the timer stopping you visiting safe save points), and the closing chapters of Dead Rising 2 really don't live up to the first few hours of gameplay. Oh, and to cap it all of they have a ranged attack too.





Well, with that unpleasantness out of the way, let's take a look at some of the better aspects of the game.

1.Combo weapons.
I always get suspicious when game developers make a big deal out of one feature of a game (usually, for good reason), but I have to say the combo weapon system in Dead Rising 2 is very well executed and very entertaining. My personal favourite weapons are the claw gloves, made by combining a set of boxing gloves with a bowie knife. With all that yellow on, Chuck stars to kind of remind me of a certain superhero...

You can also power up your combo weapons and gain extra bonuses from them by acquiring combo cards. These items are given to you for levelling up, and a few of the best ones are rewards for completing certain in game challenges.

Some of these combo weapons are logical and quite well grounded in reality, such as attaching a machete to the end of a pole. Others are downright insane such as a robot head mask with a lawn mower engine and blade stuck on the top. And yes, you do run around head butting zombies with it while it's turned on. See, not a horror game- just a fun one!

2.Survivors.
Nearly all survivors can now look after themselves pretty well. Give them a decent weapon and you don't really need to worry about them (just avoid catching them when you attack). Give them a good weapon and they are actually helpful. Indeed, without giving away too much, there's one bit of the game where saving lots of survivors really pays off...

Only a few survivors actually need to be carried or otherwise assisted, either through injury or circumstance. Even better, if a survivor is grappled by a zombie, they can break free by themselves in fairly short order. Basically, so long as you're not using them as your private army (and believe me, you can), or leading them into hordes of zombies, you shouldn't loose a survivors through their own idiocy.

3.Chuck Greene
He's just a better character than Frank West. He's more likeable, more competent, and self assured without being cocky. He's also doesn't take pictures of everything every two minutes. The character still certainly isn't Oscar material, but he's better rounded that Frank.

4.Control and gameplay.
Yes, yes, yes! The control is without a doubt far superior to Dead Rising 1. Everything feels better, everything is more smooth and more responsive, the camera is slick and the character physics work well. Dead Rising one was plagued by poor control which made many of the psychopath fights almost intolerable. I can honestly say that not once did I feel like I'd been cheated into death by the controls while playing Dead Rising 2.

5.The psychopaths.
Despite the few exceptions noted above, most of the psychopath fights are actually very well done, classic 'remember the pattern and spot the opening' style boss battles. I enjoyed most of them, and the smoother controls really paid off during them. Certainly a step up.

6.It's just fun damnit!
It's nice to see a game that doesn't take itself too seriously. So many games these days try to tell deep, complex stories or focus on a finely balanced multiplayer experience. This is all laudable, but really very few developers have the skill to pull of a truly artistic piece of gaming, something that just comes together and engages the mind and the soul in the way a good book or movie can. That's not to say developers should give up trying, but it's nice to play a game that knew where it was going, and worked to that goal. There are no morals, no subtext, just goodguys, badguys and a shit tonne of zombies to dismember in a variety of interesting ways.

Now, if you'll excuse me there's a lead pipe and a rocket firework here and... HOLY SHIT!

Halo 1. The characters are bland, the plot is predictable, the flood are made of nothing but clichés from science fiction established during the last 25 years (as are the covenant), there's no drama, no conflict, no artistic merit, no addition to the genre and no memorable moments that stick with you.

Halo is, and always will be only one thing- safe. Bungie just take whatever works on other games and cobble them together to create something that takes no risks, pushes no boundaries and challenges no preconceptions- and that's just the gameplay. The story is so simple, so straight forwards, so damn linear and predictable that it's impossible to salvage. It's junk food, pure junk food. If it was a book it would be a bad Stephen King novel.

For my fix of mindless shooters, I prefer Gears of War. While the plot and characters are one long testosterone soaked macho fantasy (which means unlike Halo, it at least has an identifiable style, as opposed to a vanilla presentation). The gameplay is (well... was) innovative, tactical and fresh. Take cover, shoot, relocate if cover is compromised, time your advance to get a better position... as opposed to Halo's way of doing things- Walk around and shoot. Walk around and shoot. Walk around and shoot. Lost shields? Find a large rock. Then walk around and shoot. Halo has never, and will never do anything new.

GoW II is an example of a well done sequel, building on the positive aspects of the first game and bringing in many technical improvements, as well as more fluid control. Halo II was... an expansion pack. It brought nothing- NOTHING new to the table. And don't talk to me about dual wielding weapons. We had that as far back as the N64 with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. It was exactly the same game with a couple of bolt ons, nothing more.

Halo III? A little better- in fact I nearly enjoyed it. The plot had certainly moved on, but the story telling was left with ways to go (seriously those flashes of Cortana really pissed me off). Gameplay and graphics wise there where also slight improvements, but again the problem is that there was nothing new. Halo III did exactly what Halo did- cobble together the good parts from other popular titles at the time and chuck out some bastard Frankenstein's creature that you can't really criticize in any way other than it's sheer banality. Still, at least it was a new game. The banality thing though, that's the rub. Halo is so average, so bland, and yet it's so popular. How many people say vanilla is their favourite ice cream? A few, but not many. This by the numbers FPS though, with no innovation is somehow bigger than Jesus. In fact, here's an experiment you can try. Look up the number of people who play Halo online, in your country/state if you can, and then compare it to the number of church/temple/mosque/synagogue/grove/whatever goers. Post link and sources below.

Okay, Halo isn't a terrible game, but by God it's not worth paying £35 for. It never was, it never will be. Did you know that ODST was originally supposed to be an expansion pack? My guess is that Bungie never actually added anything to it, and just charged the full whack for the game because they know Halo fans are drooling Pavlovian canines. You ring the little Halo bell and out they come, braying like wild animals, begging for scraps of meat from the creative table. Meanwhile the rest of us are enjoying gourmet cuisine, making polite conversation and trying not to mention Bobby Kotick.

I think this brings up the other serious problem with the Halo franchise- it's fans. No game, with the possible exception of the Final Fantasy series has ever produced such a die in the wool, fundamentalist militant group of gamers. When Halo 2 came out I was still in school and two kids actually followed me around for three fucking weeks, laying into me because they overheard me saying how much of a disappointment Halo 2 was. Now okay, it was school and we were kids, but God dammit if that's not the attitude that so many Halo fans share.

I have never played in an online community that actually insulted you just for killing someone in the damn game. Don't get me wrong, every game has its share of cockmongers who always have a reason why they died apart from sucking, or how you killed them in a cheap way or with an exploit, but in Halo these twats are everywhere! There are a far greater proportion of wankers playing Halo than Horny Tit Vixens Interactive.

I'm sure there are a few Halo players out there who are insulted by this generalization, and to them I apologise- but you're probably the intelligent minority who see Halo for what it actually is: An alright game, good to waste a few hours and few bucks on, but certainly not this fucking messianic title that everyone seems to make it out as.

How did a game that deserves no more place in history than a footnote, get this sort of crazed cult following? Someone once told me it as because Halo was, for a generation of gamers, their first step into the world of online play. Well, that's as maybe (must be a generation after mine, and that is a really scary thought- I played StarCraft, MechWarrior 3 and Half Life on a 12.2K modem), and explains one of the titles, but after Halo 2 we had all sorts of great online games. How the hell did this series maintain such rampant popularity, while brilliant, creative games fell by the wayside? Why do Bungie sit on beanbags filled with money while other more creative developers go bust seemingly every day?

I have only one answer. Halo is a religion. You are indoctrinated into Halo, and are told time and time again how great it is until you believe it. You will throw money at it, and gain a huge sense of satisfaction from it because you're a part of it and that's how it works- or else. You give up all reason in exchange for knowing that you are right because loads of people around you say you are. Anyone who insults Halo is a heretic, and must be beaten and abused with full force, lest they use logic to show that Master Chief is not a God. Like any religion, once it starts to gain a following it suckers more and more people in, fed by the numbers within it, and the mutual constant self assurance that Halo is good, Halo is great, those who disagree must be burned, just as soon as we buy the next Halo. Maybe this explains the abusive nature of Halo fans playing online? They're fiercely competitive and insulting as they are trying to prove they are further up the parochial pecking order. Fortunately, there are a few lax Haloites who don't take it quite so seriously, to them I raise my hat. You enjoy Halo, and appreciate it for what it is. You've pulled yourself out of the quagmire that is the rest of the series fan base. I may even play a few games with you.

Still, credit where credit is due. Well done Bungie, L Ron Hubbard would be proud of you.

I wonder if I can get the leaders of the world to jump like puppets on a string if I threaten to burn a Legendary edition of Halo...

Well, I'm moving house soon and money is tight. It's getting harder and harder not to cave in and buy Star Craft II, but I'm a rock. If I can accidentally quit smoking, I'm sure I can consciously not buy Star Craft II. I've played through Dragon Age: Origins and I'm done with that now. Fight Night Round 4 is also starting to get stale, but I look forwards to picking it up again in a few months and it being fresh and entertaining again. It's a game that recycles well.

Nothing else on my shelf has any appeal at the moment, I'm not really in the mood to replay most of them, and the ones I haven't completed (Just Cause 2, Tom Clancey's Endwar, Mirror's Edge and Resonance of Fate) 'aint calling me. It's a shame about Resonance of Fate because I was really enjoying that one. Sadly, while the battle mechanics are new, interesting and hugely entertaining, they wear out pretty fast. And the writing is just... Well, the setting is really good, and I'm sure there's a subtle attack on our increasing dependence on technology, and a very, VERY clever metaphor for environmentalism too, but it seems one member of the writing staff just can't stop making tit jokes. It's a horrible, hideous tumor on what could have been one of the best written, most engaging and deep stories since FFVII- an accolade I do not offer lightly. Instead we get half an hour of intense atmospheric build up, very well executed metaphor and fantastic world crafting (even if the characters are very bland)... followed by a string of puerile boob jokes that a fifteen year old wouldn't find funny. And yes, there are some Dead Or Alive jiggle physics thrown in too.

I'm not a prude, I have no problem with these jokes in and of themselves, but they just clash so horribly with what is otherwise a very mature script. Betamax claims that I get too hung up on the little problems with games, things that “Other people learn to accept”. I'd argue against it, but for the most part he has a point. Still, I maintain that when a problem keeps coming at you over and over and over again, it can be classified as a big issue. Resonance of Fate's writing is one such thing. It's not just the boob jokes, they're an example of the problem. The real issue just lies in the classic anime comedic swing, the tactic of generating laughs by creating ludicrous situations and throwing out comedy stereotypes.

I've always hated comedy anime for that reason- I just don't find Japanese humour funny (Ed is a stain on Cowboy Bebop, without her the whole thing would have been so much better). But the fact they're attempting such regular comedy relief while at the same time having such a layered and engaging story and setting (a wonderful steampunk world) is in and of itself jarring, regardless of how such humour is attempted. Simply put, this is not a world or story that requires comic relief of any variety. The fact these comedy relief scenes are shoe horned into the narrative in such a ham-fisted manner doesn't help. Remember in FFVII when Cloud has to dress up in drag to infiltrate Don Coreno's place? It was a well done bit of comedy relief, it had a logical build up, a funny execution and most importantly even though it was a classic farce, it didn't actually jar with the story. It was worked into it.

In Resonance of Fate, characters sit around talking about the human race and the apocalypse and the reliance on the machine Basel to survive.... fade to black... oh look Zephyr got caught trying to peek at Leanne in the bath! And now he's defending himself by saying she's flat chested. And oh how funny she slaps him across the face. And he has a big hand shaped bruise. I'm sorry, but were you not just running an allegory to global warming? Eh? Now you're cutting to someone who I can only assume is our antagonist and... Dear God I have mental whiplash. This happens about every half hour.

How would you feel if you where watching the Dark Knight and every ten minutes Batman started giggling and doing a funny little jig? Then he went back to normal as if nothing had ever happened. It wouldn't be funny would it? It would be out of place, annoying and detract from the whole movie in a BIG way. That is how Resonance of Fate's story plays out.

I really should listen to Betamax and just try to get past it, but it isn't just the writing that keeps putting me off. Like I said the mechanics, while unlike any other game I have ever played (Innovation? From a JRPG? The horror) just start to wear thin after a few hours. Maybe they'll be something to freshen the formula up if I keep playing though? I don't know, and I just don't feel inclined to risk my time finding out.

I'll probably write a review on Resonance of Fate sometime, or maybe make a video. I can at least talk about the graphics, gameplay and premise a bit. For all it's flaws, it's still a game I think people should try, at the very least just to remind them that there is some real innovation still left in the industry. That and of course you- being the discerning type- will want to know more about this allegedly deep and layered back plot. We shall see.

Wow, this post was supposed to about Crackdown. Sorry. I'll make a proper post on that in a day or two. Suffice to say I just got Crackdown (the original, not the sequel), and I'm having a pretty good time with it! I'd even say as sandbox style blow shit up shooters go, it's actually superior Just Cause 2. Still, I will talk more on this soon.

Until next time.

It’s that time of year again, a period in videogaming I like to call the fallow. It’s summer time, so gamers who are so disposed go out and enjoy the sunshine, it’s far away from Easter or Christmas, so parents are not badgered as much for new releases, and the end result is a barren few months with few to no videogames being released, except for minor titles.

What do you do in the fallow?

I’m always at a loss as to what to do in this time of year. Videogames and writing are pretty much my only hobbies (Aside from brewing and drinking), and these hobbies are not seasonal, even if in the case of videogames, supply is.

I’ve completed Red Redemption (One of the best games ever, full stop), and Just Cause 2 is…. Meh. I’m not really feeling it. Its not a bad game by any stretch of the imagination, but there’s just something missing, something that stops me really getting into it.

Last night I plugged in Fight Night 4, and I have to say I’d forgotten how much fun it was. The fight night games are easily the best beat ‘em ups ever, breathing new life into a genre that’s almost as old as gaming itself. Plus it all comes down to skill and timing, not how quickly you can mash your buttons. Let’s face it, that’s the case with most beat ‘em ups. Spamming buttons is usually about as effective as learning to play the game properly.

Except for Gundam Battle Assault 2 on the PS1. That is a beat ‘em up that KICKED ASS. Go and buy it. Now.

Maybe I should go and complete final fantasy 12? I really should get over my hatred of that game, but I’ll need a keg of super strength or a palette of old speck to do that. To be honest though, I’ve been pretty good at completing my games lately, and I don’t really want to put myself through FF12 again just to get through the fallow.

We do have plenty of things to look forwards to soon though, there are many new games on the Horizon including Assassin’s creed: Brotherhood and dead rising 2 (I’m really looking forwards to that one). I’m still not getting worked up about Fallout: New Vegas though. Obsidian have a history of… well… churning out games that end up good, but are so badly f###ing bugged on release it’s a rip off.

So, what do you do for your gaming fix during the fallow? Any suggestions?

It seems my fears about Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood may well have been unfounded. When I discovered that Ubisoft where not advancing the plot, I assumed padding was afoot- however, after reading through an article in OXM, I am satisfied that Ubisoft actually feel this is the best way to proceed.

For starters, the changes are nowhere near as serious as I thought. The combat is getting a major overhaul, but the emphasis seems to be on higher stakes with higher rewards, as well as making enemies tougher through better tactics and AI. This I support- a good challenge is the key to any good videogame, and a good payoff makes it even better. In this case, Ubisoft have mentioned something called a ‘rage combo’ whereby you can insta-kill enemies over and over until one breaks your flow.

I do enjoy the way combat flows in Assassin’s creed 2, and if that concept is being built on, so much the better. Of course, this will also tie the ‘feel’ of combat more closely into the rest of the games free running ethos.

Visually, the game also looks very sharp, but to be honest I think we’ve reached the peak of 360 graphics. Saying a game looks good anymore is pointless- unless of course the developers have gone for the tricky (yet potentially rewarding) route of stylized graphics.

The multiplayer too, appears to be looking strong. The article mentions one mode, hunter in which players are all disguised as civilians and must locate and kill each other without giving themselves away. This sounds very interesting, even to a misanthrope like me who loathes playing on XBL.

I'm still not happy with the fact there's no hint as to how, or even if, the meta plot will advance in any meaningful way. But I'm sure Ubisoft know what they're doing.

I won’t go into this any further, as otherwise I would be essentially reproducing OXM’s article ad verbatim, and plagiarism is not something I condone for any reason. Go out and buy the mag if you want more info, but the bottom line is this- I’m now actively looking forwards to Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood.

Oh dear.

I don't like the sound of this AT ALL. Assassin’s creed II was a brilliant game owing to the fact it took everything that was crappy in the first game and discarded it, then built on the positive elements.

Now it seems they're changing stuff just for the hell of it.

I've gone into rants before about developers who just release the same games over and over (Halo 2 syndrome), but at the same time, sometimes what's needed is more of the same. I hope to God they've not changed the game around too much as to be honest I thought it was nigh on flawless as it stood. I also notice we're not getting any info about the metaplot...

Speaking of plot, it looks like the actual history may not be advanced very far either. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I'm seriously starting to worry that that Assassin’s creed: brotherhood is going to serve a single purpose- profitable padding. It's being thrown out to make money and eek the series out longer than it should be. The issue here is that once this sort of thing starts, it can seriously blight a franchise.

Well, It's a long way off yet so time will tell. Either way I'll be looking forwards to assassins' creed Brotherhood with trepidation.

Turns out, I may have been wrong in this jump.

Well that was… a downer. A real, REAL downer. We’re talking the same league as the death of Aeries levels of downer. As I sat there and watched the whole sorry scene play out, I knew there was only one way this story could end. Rockstar’s final twist was to give me a glimmer of hope, a final ray of light to hold on to… then they creuly snatched it away, casting me from the light into the grim void of reality, and then- oblivion.

So yeah, it's depressing, but in the best possible way. This is the sort of ending that makes a classic movie, and I think it’s a shame that so many gamers are not going to appreciate the sheer brilliance of Red Dead Redemption’s writing. Those of you who’ve been paying close attention to the game’s morals and ideas- at their core the idea of safety and civilization versus freedom and ‘barbarism’, will probably figure out how the game ends.

The last days of the old west. No developer, save Rockstar could have created this masterpiece.

Honestly, this game deserved to be deconstructed and analysed in the same way people pick apart great films. There is so much going on in this game, and it’s easily Rockstar’s finest. It’s not always happy, and as previous intimated, the ending is a kick in the balls- but that’s life. It’s not always happy and sometimes you get kicked in the balls.

People have often accused Rockstar of being immature, and to be honest it is at least partially deserved, (remember hot coffee anyone?) but I honestly believe these guys have the best writers of any developer or publisher. They create real, complex characters, engaging stories and spin their tales with wonderful levels of metaphor, moral and subtext.

These guys tell a better story than Bethesda, Obsidian or even Bioware. Only black isle and interplay ever managed to reach the heights that rockstar have (and yes, I know the origins of Obsidian- but they still suck donkeys).

All this is of course placed in a wonderful world, with the remit of trying to create a realistic, believable open world, and maintaining that idea despite populating it with clichés and references to classic westerns. The result is a creation all of its own, immersive yet entertaining, new, yet familiar.

Videogames are growing up- and Rockstar seems to realise that. Red Dead Redemption has something special, the fact the ending is sad, that it has not even a candle of happiness to it underpins the moral of the whole game- Rockstar didn’t want to give us a happy or satisfying ending. They wanted to use the ending to drive home the point of the story. If that means a sad ending, so be it. Not every story ends well, especially the story of the old west.

Like I said, it’s a shame so many gamers don’t appreciate this sort of thing, as this truly is a work of genius. Kudos to you Rockstar, keep ‘em coming.

I really, really hate trading in my videogames. The big problem is that I can't shake the feeling that I'm going to want to play these games again after I've traded them in. Given this worry tends to translate into thoughts about what I've just done, then I inevitably end up thinking about these games, and of course, want to play them.

Still, I have no money for the next week or so, and red dead redemption must be mine.

To that end I've sifted through my pile of games and picked out a few that will hopefully net me enough cash at trade in to get RDR. Below is a list of the titles that I will be parting with, and why.

Battlefield bad company (£5 trade in?)

This is relatively recent purchase for me. I don't like FPS games but this one came very highly recommended for its strong characterization and story. It's not bad if you judge it by videogame standards, but honestly the characters are just walking clichés. The redneck, the geek, the hotdog and of course, the black sergeant. Now, it's staple in bad action/horror movies and games that the black guy always dies first (ever seen the comedy evolution? If not, GET IT), but another standard that people always seem to miss is the fact that in movie-world, there are more black sergeants than white ones. And yet, the rest of the ranks (both commissioned and non commissioned), are all filled up with white guys. I suppose it's due to some sort of equal opportunities thing, trying to post racial minorities into positions of power, displaying that we are striving towards and equal society. Anyway, I'm not complaining about it or anything, just making an observation.

Back on topic though, Battlefield bad company was disappointing. The destructible environments where poorly done with buildings never actually falling down, I don't like the health bar mechanic, there was way too much meta going on, and while it did make me laugh from time to time I just found it very frustrating and dull.

Banjo-Kazooie, nuts and bolts (expected trade in, £5)

'Family' videogames are often overlooked by most gamers. But seriously, you don't need buckets of blood and entrails to make a good game. Banjo-Kazooie, nuts and bolts had some really good ideas, but was also crammed full with lots of peripheral crap that it didn't need to be. All it needed was a shop screen, level selection and the garage where you build your vehicles. The premise of the game is simple enough, you have a series of puzzles in which you use vehicles. However, you BUILD these vehicles specific to the puzzle. The degree of freedom involved is brilliant, and a sarcastic twist of self referential humour permeates the entire game making it a joy to play. The vehicle building mechanic and engine rivals that of spore's creature creator. So, why am I getting rid of it?

Well, the aforementioned peripheral crap just wound me up to no end. The game clings to the idea that it is still a Banjo-Kazooie title like Gordon Brown clinging to a seat at number 10. This means lots of exploration and pointless dead time. If you can stand the endless wondering around between levels then you will have a blast with this game, provided of course you have a mind capable of doing more than twitch shooting. Sorry to see this one go, but rare needed to make it a game in its own right.

IL2 Sturmovik, Birds of Prey (trade in, £10?)

Started out fun, but got dull pretty fast. To enjoy a flight sim, you really do need a joystick. The other problem was a single mission where I was flying a Russian plane that was essentially a barrel with wings tied to it, loaded with more machine cannons than it had any business to fire. This bitch of an air plane stalled at the worst moments (as in, engine failure), rocked like punching figure on a rowing boat in the middle of a hurricane, and consequently I couldn't hit shit with it.

The problem with this title was that it was trying to straddle the line between hardcore flight sim, and arcade style flying game. It was very fun for most of the time, but got dull and downright frustrating during the soviet campaign. IL2 Sturmovik is worth a look, but it's too picky for flight game fans, and too arcade like for flight sim fans.

Prototype (Worth f### all probably)


Darksiders (£10 maybe)

It's hard not to like Darksiders. Okay, it's a rip off in every sense of the word, stealing EVERYTHING from the zelda N64 games (Seriously Vigil, did you think we wouldn't notice?) but it's good clean fun. It's over the top action, dripping in cliché, machismo and cheese, all wrapped up with solid control and great level design. This game is just mindless fun. There's no real depth, the story is inconsequential, the characters are pulled from B rated action movies (and are all the more funny for it)... it's just sheer, mindless, instant gratification- and in its own way that's just as rewarding as new ideas, deep plot or interesting characters.

So why part with it? Well to be honest I'm never going to play it again. Out of all the games in this list, this is the one I'm most certain to never come back to. It's brilliant, but it's a one hit wonder with no replay value whatsoever. There just isn't anything to do. I mean there are collectables, but I've never given a hoot about them, so why bother returning to the game? Sorry to see the back of Darksiders, but it's had its time.

Dante's Inferno (£10 maybe?)

Meh. Not arsed about the new level editor, no reason to replay it as I can't be bothered grabbing all the collectables, and the game itself is passable. It's not a bad game, and provided me with a weekend of solid entertainment, but beyond that there's just nothing here to warrant playing Dante's Inferno again. Like Darksiders, Dante's inferno just doesn't have anything to draw me back.

Prince of Persia, the forgotten sands (£15 hopefully)

This was another easy choice. Criminally short, lacking any ingenuity and having no replay value whatsoever. It was a rather expensive few evenings of entertainment, and not worth paying full price for. There is no reason to go back and play it again, so I'm getting rid of this one while it's still worth something. Again, not an awful game, just didn't bring anything new or interesting and dear GOD was it short.

A few that nearly made this list:
Tales of Vesperia: I may want to play through it again. Plus Namco JRPGs tend to end up fairly rare.
Wet: Still good for a cheap thrill.
Resonance of Fate: I want to play it. I just can't bring myself to get past the schizophrenic writing.
Dead rising: Owning an xbox 360 without owning this game would just be wrong.
Armoured Core For Answer: I need at least one good mech game in my library
GTA IV: It's GTA IV! Why did I even consider this?

I bought chaos rising last weekend in a special offer on steam, and I finished it a few hours ago. I have to say that I'm Petty impressed. I do really like DoW II, it reminded a lot of the old commandos series- squad based tactical warfare, minus the heavy emphasis on stealth. Speaking of stealth though I think my favourite unit in the game is Cyrus. It's odd because my lineup nearly always consists of My commander, Tarkus, Avitus and option 4 alternates depending on the mission, Cyrus if I think I'm going to need to take down enemy buildings, and Thule if its going to be a straight up slugfest.

Despite the fact he's not in my permenant line up, Cyrus represents the best tactical unit in any RTS I 've played- he works like a special ops unit should- sneaking ahead of the main force and tearing down the enemy's defences before the main strike finishes them off. Sure he needs micro managing, but plop the rest of your strike team nearby and somewhere out of the way, and that isn't an issue. If the shit hits the fan, they can come in and rescue him.

He gets even more fun as his level goes up. sneak in at full speed, chuck a demo pack into a bunker and then sneak off without being seen, saving the main strike team a whole lot of hurt from a hardened firebase. the inflintration skill is reliable unlike commandos in many other RTS titles, and with the correct wargear and a few levels he can cripple an enemy line before you attack. Brilliantly done.

The story is solid, basic, but very well executed and very much in keeping with 40K as a mythos, the controls are pretty good, but squads can sometimes ignore your orders entirely. The game crashed a few times, but that might be my PC overheating in this hot weather. All in all, Chaos rising was a very good expansion pack, but being the puritan that I am, I didn't use any of the chaos wargear, so I think I missed a trick there. But the wargear I had worked fine, so it's not like I NEEDED to use it.

Metro 2033 on the other hand is proving to be a dissapointment. It has a lot of the same problems that STALKER had, somewhat ironically. To be fair to it though, I don't generally like FPS games anyway, so the chips where stacked against it to begin with. There's nothing in it to really keep me playing, and now the training wheels have coem off, I'm just finding the game too hard. This isn't metro's fault though, it's becuase I don't play many FPS games, and so consequently suck at them. I've already talked about my likes and dislikes of metro in my last post, but to be honest I think I'm going to give it back to Betamax, who was kind enough to lend it to me.

It's not a bad game, it's just not for me. That said though, I would very much like to read the novel.

Nothing is comming out for a month or two that even vaugley interests me, so I'm going to buy red dead redemption on payday and take that for a spin. Sounds like it's got some real potential.

Well.. it's a bit meh really. I've been playing for about 2 hours now, and to be honest I'm glad I just borrowed it. It's by no means a bad game but Jesus H Christ it's BORING.

You're wondering through the ruined subway system of Moscow after a nuclear war, shooting mutants and bandits, and somehow it's so utterly mind numbingly BORING.

The game has several problems, none of them major, but all of them arsey. First of all, the controls are weird. Left trigger aims and right trigger shoots like most other FPS titles, but apart from that all the controls are just randomly arranged on the pad. B is crouch? What was wrong with right stick click? Oh, it's given over to the flashlight... okay. So why not assign it to a shoulder bumper? Because RB is given to reloading... WTF? So what's X then? X is interact with objects. So what's A? Jump. Oh...kay.

Now, this isn't a bad thing, the controls are perfectly functional, but it does beg a single question- why? Did you think that the controls we've been using for the past 10 years where just not good enough?

Okay, granted that's a nit picking, but it is something that annoyed me time and time again. When I want to reload I naturally press X, so most of the time I just end up getting my face chewed while I suddenly remember I need to hit RB.

I think the big problem is the music, or rather the lack of it.In my full reviews I always include a section for sound because of games like this. Music is VITAL to creating a good game and it's so often overlooked. Without some pumping baselines to accompany it, a fight sequence just feels hollow. Without some morose strings to pluck at your heart, sad scenes don't invoke anywhere near as strong of a reaction.

Metro 2033 has no soundtrack. Aside form set pieces I didn't notice any music at all. This little oversight is a major contributor to the sheer boredom factor.

Infact, the sound in general is a little wanting. It's hard to make out what anyone is saying, and the guns don't sound like guns. They sound like little firecrackers going off under someone's pillow.

There's a game mechanic whereby you need to wear a gasmask in certain sections to avoid dying. Problem is that the gasmask needs filters to keep it usable- I stopped playing when I ran out of filters halfway through a level on the surface an cacked it. If you're going to put some shit like this in then give us a good spread of batteries for our life saving mcguffin. Plus, why do I need to manualy take it off and put it on? wouldn't it make more sense to have this little ditty being automatic? Apparently not, as you start choking before putting on your mask, and can waste it when you've left an area you didn't know was 'hot'.

But that aside, lets take a quick look at the good.

The scenery and setting is well presented, especially the look of the guns. They look like home manufactured pieces of shit- just what you would expect from a post apocalyptic society with no mass production.

The levels are interesting, which is saying something considering the game mostly takes place in the tunnels under Moscow.

The graphics are pretty good too, but nothing spectacular. The fire effect from your lighter is laughable, but that's not a huege part of the game.

Characterization is pretty well done, in that the characters are not the usual cut outs you get in these games, and there's no assumed rapport between your character and the others. They act like people, not scripts.

Overall, metro 2033 has done nothing to endear me to it, and nothing to make me dislike it. I'll play it a little more before I make any solid judgements, but if it doesn't start to buck up soon, I'll leave it by the wayside in favour of something that is actually engaging. Provisional advise- get it if you enjoyed the combat in STALKER, but get it cheap.