Reap on Ye Reaper Man

*** BEWARE! Here there be spoilers!!  ***

(Note: I began writing this after completing ME3 and before the release of the extended edition, so I just left my thoughts on the original ending in place instead of redoing it AGAIN. Those who know how long it takes me to do these and yet still read these for whatever reason will appreciate that).

After having a few discussions with friends, I'm getting to the point that I feel speaking about Mass Effect 3 as a whole is becoming increasingly unavoidable. The amount of forum discussions (or, more appropriately, whining), press, and commentators taking shots at it is starting to get at me.

If you remember my Mass Effect 2 Review, I gave the game pretty high praise overall, and for good reason. Even after another playthrough in prep for ME3, ME2 remains extremely compelling and continues to prove it's worth as one of the best games of this generation.

ME3 is largely the same, with a few hit-or-miss tweaks thrown in to try and fix what was "broken" in  the previous game. Some things that it does get right it does quite well: the weapon upgrade system is a welcome improvement from ME2 without being the confusing, inventory-crushing mess from the first game. Each weapon type (pistol, shotgun, smg, etc) have several different guns to choose from, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. You can buy better versions of specific weapons to improve their overall stats (weigh less, more accurate, etc) as well as add in 2 'mods' that allow you to more drastically change their usage. Maybe you want that shotgun increase your melee damage capabilities, just in case husks get a bit too close for comfort, while someone else might just want their shots to pierce through more armor. The system allows for a fair number of combos that really help you work with your class and preferred playstyle.

There is an even bigger choice when choosing weapons this time around, in that the amount of 'weight' you carry directly affects your power cooldown rates. So any class - not just a soldier - can load themselves up with all 5 weapons and go to town, but an adept's biotic powers will be significantly impaired. Unfortunately, I find that the balance tends to skew a bit too much towards going as light as possible: you can carry an SMG, pistol and assault rifle and still be near the 200% cooldown reduction mark, making powers EXTREMELY quick to fire off. Giving them even just a moderate number of skill points makes many of them very powerful, and since powers do not have "ammo" and weapons do, it helps to encourage really relying on your power pool to burn through enemy units. Having power cooldowns be a bit longer would've made them feel less 'spammy' and made the choice to use a power feel more impactful (going back to the 'infinite ammo' model from the ME1 days might have helped too).

Some 'improvements', however, feel more like a step backwards than a step forwards. I never thought they could make a system even less engaging than the planet scanning system from ME2, but I was very wrong. After spending a few attempts at randomly 'pinging' planets in ME3 and constantly hearing the LOUD BLARE REAPERS INCOMING! sound over and over, I was ready to go back to ME2 planet scanning just for some peace of mind. It doesn't help that this system is propped up almost entirely upon checkbox-style fetch quests that have no real gameplay on offer. Some of them even talk like perhaps they had been planned out as real missions at one point (please, we need you to go down to our planet and save our people!) but end up being nothing more than pressing down a single button to complete it.

The cover system also is starting to feel a little bloated and unwieldy, especially since so many actions are mapped to the same button. Take cover, jump, dodge, revive, sprint and vault are all mapped exactly the same and I often times found myself doing one of them when I really meant to do another one (like taking cover instead of reviving a companion, or vice versa). There are also several problems with cover as a whole, like some areas that appear to have space for you to shoot over but don't allow it, or cover that you look around and it points you straight into another object that blocks most of your abilities and shots. The over-abundance of grenades on harder single player difficulties also makes cover more frustrating than fun, as trying to find a place to reload or regen shields that isn't bathed in bullets means you are instantly greeted with 5 perfectly thrown grenades, ready to flush you back out into the shooting gallery. I understand you might want to make players shake things up and prevent turtling or overly-defensive play, but making your game utilize cover mechanics with such importance and then constantly punishing your players for using it doesn't seem like a very good use of the system.

The single player game was overall very impressive, but definitely left me scratching my head a few times. On one hand, the level of detail and amount of 'fan service', cameos, tie-ins and connections to previous Mass Effect games and decisions is absolutely astonishing. In fact, so much content is connected to previous games in some way that the 'new' characters and are few, far and in between and feel overall much weaker. While every decisions you ever made may not end up being the butterfly effect that destroys entire worlds, many of them come back to change small things or, at "worst", be mentioned in a few lines of dialogue. This, in and of itself, is incredible to me: the number of potential permutations is astonishing and really helps to reinforce that this is YOUR game, not anyone else's. (More on this later, as this is by and large the reason I wanted to write this review) The single player game took me over 50 hours to complete on the hardest difficulty (which was slightly easier than an ME2 insanity playthrough), so the content on offer here is very substantial.

On top of single player of course is the multiplayer addition, which surprisingly does not feel as lame or tacked on as I thought it would be. The idea is relatively simple - a very basic 'horde mode' type gameplay with different potential enemy types, maps, and difficulties to choose from - but is layered with interesting choices in terms of your chosen class, weapons, and mods. Unfortunately, the whole multiplayer affair seems to be designed as a long-term monetization scheme, relying on a 'booster pack' system to unlock new weapons, characters, mods and powerups. You can unlock them all simply by playing the game, but chances at rare items will require you to beat 3-4 missions to afford enough in game currency for one 'pack', meaning you'll be puting in hundreds of hours into the game just to try and unlock one specific item or class that you'd really like to play. I would've preferred a system where you can just buy whatever specific item you'd like, but then again I've never liked the 'booster pack' mentality in any form. I suppose there is some portion of our brains that loves that RNG, lottery-style system of acquiring upgrades, but having to play for several hours just to buy a chance at an item really kills it for me.

I also wish that the classes would've been treated like they are in single player, where you start with half your skills and earn the second half through leveling, as starter characters are EXTREMELY weak due to having almost no skill points. It takes being almost level 12 or 13 before you start seeing your powers and weapons have significant effect on enemies, and while you do level relatively fast if you do well, having to be ineffectual in 1-2 games just to get to the point you can be useful just does not feel very cool. And while we're on the topic of character powers, why can you not remap them? Some characters have the same abilities mapped to different buttons, and it becomes VERY CONFUSING swapping between them.

Overall, I'd say multiplayer was a welcome addition to the game, but I'd like to have seen it be used a bit less as a post-retail monetization scheme and more about getting to fight big waves of enemies with your friends. Also, let's be a little less brutal on the galactic readiness decay next time, ok?

So we've established that the game is a very strong entry into the series, chock full of some amazing content and, while not perfect, definitely worth a playthrough. So why did I feel so strongly about writing this if it's nothing more than a strong-but-not-stellar entry into a popular franchise you've probably played already anyway? Simple: the overly dramatic fan response to the ending. I have it on top of the review, but I'll put it here again just to make sure you are really interested in continuing on, full spoilt.



*** BEWARE! Here there be spoilers!!  ***


I've heard many complaints about the ending, and while some are definitely valid (the ending is somewhat confusing and disappointing), I think by and large they miss the mark/point and take a very narrow minded approach to defining the 'ending' and band wagoning has taken it to even greater whiney heights than it really deserves. Allow me to do what I can to explain why I'm disappointed - but not RAWRRAWRRAWR ANGRY - at the game's ending by going through some of their major complaints.


1) Normandy/Squadmates escape through a mass effect jump
This one resonates the most with me, because I asked myself the same question as I watched it. A team member who was on the grund with me ended up on the normandy, taking a mass effect jump as it was 'blowing up', and ends up on the random planet with joker/. While it is not explicitly explained how much time it takes to perform the final sequences of ME3 after you get hit by the giant reaper lazer beam (so technically this is possible, if not still questionable), it seems unlikely that the normandy would reroute to earth, pick up your squadmates that more or less abandoned the cause at the "all or nothing" moment (or were somehow incapacitated with you and saved by someone??) and then proceeds to fly away while the rest of the fleet still fights off the reapers. This one's for the angry people, because I definitely agree these actions don't seem to fit in even the craziest of theories.

2) Mass Effect Relay destruction is supposed to cause total system annihilation!
This one I don't agree with at all. The argument here is that in ME2's DLC 'Arrival', you destroy a mass effect relay and that ends up causing the entire system to be wiped out. However, not only does ONE event not a pattern make, but the ways in which they are destroyed are very different. In arrival, you destroy a mass effect relay by running an asteroid into it. This is a completely uncontrolled, brute force method that has (predictably) unintended consequences. Whatever causes the relayed to stop functioning in ME3 is NOT, in any way, required to have the same side effects. It is roughly equivalent to saying that because you ran a train into your car to stop and the car exploded, turning the keys to the 'off' position will also cause the car to explode. No points for the whiners on this one.


3) Entire races are stranded and this is completely ignored!
This is a little of yes and a little of no. It is true that the fleets of many of these races are now stranded in the Sol system, but it can be presumed all fleets (except probably the quarians) are not the entirety of those races. They have a chance to continue living on their own home planets regardless of where the bulk of their military force is now caught.

While it is true we don't know what happens to the fleet that gets stranded, I'm somewhat glad we don't. The amount of things that could happen there is extremely numerous (especially given your actions in the game), and I'd rather be involved in that playing out than just watching it happen in some kind of CGI or conversation. However, none of this has anything to do with the main point of the three mass effect stories - the reapers - and really acts as additional dénouement to Shepard's final actions, but I'm not too torn up that it is left out. I can see some people wanting to know, but honestly you could go down that road for a LONG time before everything was finally wrapped up in a neat little bow. Sometimes it's just better to let people imagine the details while you fill in the major events. We'll call this one even, though, just to be fair to those who might have specific major events or characters they would've liked to see wrapped up a bit more nicely.

4) War Assests don't matter!
This is also tricky. They do matter (it can change potential ending options and even the eventual fate of earth), but it probably feels very ineffective compared to the amount of 'options' presented in ME2. 

5) None of my choices matter!
This is probably one of the more offensive complaints. If you think none of your choices matter because everything doesn't get plugged into some equation and directly affect the games "ending", then you clearly weren't paying attention to the entire rest of the game when choices you made not only in this game but also in previous ones made direct impacts to the events, stories, and even well-being of both your squadmates and the galaxy at large. You decide how to cure the Genophage, you decide how to deal with the Quarians and Geth, you decide how to deal with Cerberus... the list is pretty substantial. Honestly, I think that if you treat the entirety of Mass Effect 3 as 'the ending' (which, given the context of the events relative to the entirety of the story, it kind of is) then there are many subplots that are resolved almost exclusively by your action(s).

6) But the ending is just a giant Deus Ex Machina!
This is also a frustrating excuse. Did you not pay attention to the first part of the game? Your character stumbles face-first into a magical device that is supposed to be the Prothean's secret answer to beating the reapers, and you spend the entirety of the game chasing down some completely arbitrary solution that is conveniently never mentioned before in any other game despite the Reaper menace being very real and very known (by you and several others) throughout the entire series. Why is this wordlessly accepted at face value, but then seeing solution being some thing we've never seen before (which, duh) cause such vitriol? I vividly remember thinking to myself at about the hour 2 or 3 mark that I felt this would be a pretty sad way to end the series by just building some kind of special device that just hands me the victory after fighting on the ground against reaper agents all these years... so by that standard, the ending is actually a kind of improvement (yes, it still just wins it for me, but I had to fight tooth and nail to get it all back and ended up having an option of how to win and what that would mean). Point here is, yes, the ending can be viewed as a giant Deus Ex Machina, but then you're really just saying that the whole game is one.


There is more, but at this point, it does seem rather moot. Bioware released an 'extended cut' that very likely makes none of the haters happy and adds nothing of significant value to those who thought it was fine before (aside from longer, unnecessary ending sequences) and the whole thing has kind of died down. But when I sit down and look and see people trying to sue Bioware for 'false advertising' or report them to the BBB (or, worse, voting EA into the golden poo award simply for a lackluster ending to a video game), I really have to wonder where some of you people place your priorities. Or maybe I'm just not as diehard into games and needing closure to all my fantasy universes to be as perfect as I can pretend imagine it. I will say good on those who voiced their complaints or wrote about their dissatisfaction in a way that the developer can use and take with them to make their next series better.

It may not have been a perfect ending, and I'll certainly add my voice to those of us worried about it happening because it was rushed versus just trying something new, but to let the (relatively unimportant) final 10 minutes of a game ruin an otherwise amazing 150 hour trilogy because the known end goal (beat the reapers, save the galaxy!) was not well executed just seems.... unfortunate. If you've played ME1 and ME2, get ME3, enjoy ME3, and then *maybe* be disappointed at how it all ends. You'll still enjoy the 50 hours it took you to get there, that is almost guaranteed.

Go and grab your riot gear

What, you never played Crackdown? I'm not entirely surprised. Maybe you just wanted in on the Halo beta and didn't even notice it came with a whole game. Maybe you didn't even care for that. If you didn't liked the first, I'm not entirely convinced the second would really impress you. If you did play the first, I'm pretty sure you'll only end up disappointed. Crackdown 2 isn't exceptionally bad in any specific area, but it doesn't really feel like it moves the game forward in any significant way (except actual co-op support) and instead moves backwards. I was able to get through a whole playthrough and did get several dozen hours of playtime out of it, but by the end it leaves you with that bland taste of mediocrity instead of desperately wanting more.

The first Crackdown was good for a number of reasons, most of which was the interesting venture into new and mostly uncharted territories. Very few games allowed you the same sandbox-y freedom combined with a 'rpg lite' leveling system, over-the-top action and plenty of side diversions to keep you interested. GTA is comparable with the sandbox, but too bogged down in realism and story to just let you loose on the world. Saint's Row gets close, but has a poorly implemented sense of progression and many side events have no perceivable benefit aside from cash and killing time (or just being humorous). Both of the previous examples spend alot of focus and gameplay around the vehicle and driving/chases in general, and tend to focus less on gunplay and 'combat'. Crackdown attempted to take the best parts of these two (and others) and, despite some flaws, was a refreshing change of pace. Now that it has a sequel, though, the newness is gone and the flaws become more obvious.

Crackdown 2 is a disappointment in many ways, but almost all of them could have been avoided by significantly improving the story and the achievements. As an actual sandbox, Crackdown 2 is a pretty significant step forward over its predecessor, but this time around there is significantly less structure to the game. This is probably fun to many of those who just like to go around and do whatever, but in the age of achievements there is very little desire to do something 'just to do it'. The first game had achievements like 'Global Impact', 'Repo Man', 'Confiscator' and 'Shot-putter' to give you plenty of stuff to do on the side that is not already explicitly spelled out for you. Achievements like 'Pysch out' also reward you for beating things on higher difficulties, even if it is limited to just the time trials. Crackdown 2 has a few of these to play around with - 'Pebble Dash' and 'Yippee-Kai-Yay' are pretty fun - but is otherwise just a list of things already explicitly spelled out for you in game. The DLC gets a little better at offering up interesting challenges not explicitly tied to gameplay goals, but I really shouldn't have to wait for DLC to make a game fun or interesting. (Admittedly, 'Pysch out' is technically from DLC, but it's free DLC, so that's something.)

Perhaps the worst part, though, is the complete lack of requirements on difficulty settings. There is no reason to play Crackdown on anything but the easiest setting except for personal satisfaction. Given how hard it is to do many of the side items on higher difficulties (try looking for agility orbs with 5 turrets all trying to turn your face into swiss cheese), so the only thing playing on higher settings does is frustrate you more. I would have liked an achievement like 'Pysch out', or maybe some specific goals that required being on higher difficulties, to give the game a bit more of a challenge and replay value. I'm not one to promote forcing a player to go through a game 2-3 times to get all achievements, but I do like to see companies reward players for challenging themselves and trying their hand at harder difficulties.

Speaking of difficulty, the game almost becomes a joke when you stumble upon the homing rocket launcher. I like the weapon, don't get me wrong, but I sometimes wonder if we would be better served by having just a 'normal' rocket launcher and more varied combat and AI, than being given a homing rocket launcher and just jump-nuking everything within 5 feet. The newer weapons like UV Shotgun and old favorites like the Harpoon gun are fun to use but almost completely outshined from a usability standpoint by an explosive weapon that does decent-to-good damage that does almost all the work for you. Where's the fun in that?

The achievements probably could have been forgiven if the actual story mode had more meat to it (and I use the term 'story' very, very loosely). If you thought the plot points in the first Crackdown was lackluster, this time around they will seem almost non-existent. And I'm not even talking literal story here (on which both games are boring, bland throw-aways). What I'm more interested in is the integration with gameplay, to give your some kind of objective to reach towards. Instead of being interesting and entertaining, the game isntead opts for a 'do the same thing over and over again' approach, with predictable results. The 'story' goes like this

1) Go to Absorption Unit, stand on a spot
2) Repeat #1 two more times
3) Go to Freak Lair, defend light bomb thing
4) Repeat #1-3 ten more times, or until you die of boredom, whichever comes first
5) Fight the hardly-challenging final mission and be underwhelmed by a terrible ending

Really. That's it. Sure, there's tons of other things to do to disctact you (tactical locations, orbs, races, logs, etc) but in terms of progressing the 'story' that's all you get. It is not engaging or interesting in the slightest and gives you no real reason to want to come back to play... so why would you? The game is fun, especially for those of us who haven't played Crackdown in some time, but quickly loses focus and momentum. There are many who can take a large sandbox and channel their imagination and creativity into a lifetime of fun, interesting gameplay. For the rest of us, though, the game just feels extremely repetitive.

That's not to say there are not significant improvements at work here. The inclusion of an actual co-op mode is very nice, and probably one of the only reasons I actually played the game for as long as I did. Teaming up with 1-3 other friends to tackle the freaks (and each other) is much more fun than the co-op 'missions' from the first game. There are even a few achievements specific to co-op for you to work on as an added bonus. Co-op does make the game significantly easier (and, therefore, take less time), but I'd rather have more fun in less time than less fun in more time any day.

For all my fellow OCDers, finding all those collectibles is significantly easier now. You can 'ping' your minimap and it will show you any uncollected orbs nearby your current location, as well as check on your map for all the orbs you have currently collected. There are also a ton of new orbs to find - online orbs, renegade orbs, audio logs and wing suit stunt rings add to the checklist of things you will need to hunting through Pacific City to find to max out your achievement score. The main story may be skin and bones, but they definitely went the extra mile in trying to pack more things to do (and more rewards for doing so) into the world. There are some cool new perks for reaching your maximum skill levels, like unlocking a tank or getting access to a hanglider of sorts called a wingsuit. While the wingsuit takes some getting used to (the control mechanism is not exactly intuitive, and the explanation of how to use it is more confusing than helpful) it can really help you get from place to place easier and unlocks new areas and ways to get around that feels more interesting than just giving you 'jump level 6'.

Some of the new weapons and vehicles are interesting additions as well, the magnetic grenade being the best of the bunch. You can use these to 'stick' one object to another, either for a very useful affect (like sticking a helicopter to the ground or a vehicle to the wall) or just for hilarity's sake (perhaps creating a 'spider web' of cars floating in the middle of the street). In terms of playing around and having it's very nice to have around, but functionally in the actual 'game' it has almost no purpose because almost nothing challenges you enough to require interesting or unique tactics beyond 'walk in and rocket stuff in the face'. The sticky, jumping SUV is also a nice bonus and makes for some very cool stunt ring challenges, but controlling vehicles is still a bit stiff and so the races and renegade orbs that "require" a Kangaroo SUV are more of an exercise in frustration than fun.

Overall, Crackdown 2 suffers from being stale and playing it safe instead of really trying to branch out and make a niche for itself. The world is nearly the exact same from the first one (but now destroyed), the story is almost non-existent, hardly any of the achievements are interesting and despite being 'open world' there is a lack of variety in gameplay. Despite this, I still had a good amount of fun playing this with a friend to completion. This makes it such a hard call: on one hand, the game offers up almost nothing to warrant a purchase except for 4 player co-op and a few new gadgets and gimmicks, while on the other, you can wring a good dozen or so fun hours out of it with co-op play. I can't outright recommend the game unless you find it sifting through some kind of bargain bin, but if you've got a few friends who really liked the first game, this may be worth looking into.

The World's Worst Space Mining Simulator

(Alternate title after patch: Mass of Text 2: Revenge of the Paragraph)

Guess I have a lot of ground to cover if I want to meet my goal for this year (which was a very easily achievable 12 reviews), but whining about it will only take away from actually doing a review. On top of that, I can't let 'New Game +' newcomer Nick be the only person on my blog to have reviewed one of the best games of 2010; that would be just plain wrong of me, and do an incredible disservice to Bioware's latest creation. (Yes, I know that by the time of this writing the Dragon Age: Origins 'expansion' is already out. Thanks for reminding me how late I am with this...). Let's get this party started then, shall we?

Let's get the bad out of the way (don't worry, there's not much). Possibly the most different - and most aggravating, to many Mass Effect fans - is the change over to a more 'modern fps' style game. This means 2 things: ammo management and regenerating health. The first is mostly just a minor inconvenience, put in place most likely to prevent players from simply using one really powerful weapon and instead forcing them to use their entire available arsenal. While I like this idea in theory, as you definitely could do 80%+ of the first Mass Effect using the same weapon, the implementation just makes Mass Effect 2 feel slow and puts you into very, very tight spots when ammo becomes scarce. This is especially true of powerful, specialized guns (like the sniper rifle) which for some classes can only hold a handful of ammo at one time. This actually can cause the same problem they are attempting to solve - using a single weapon type most of the game - because you feel like you need to save that powerful weapon for a big fight that never happens (or does, then you run out of ammo and have to go back). I would much prefer that the weapons be given different, obvious strengths to encourage the player to use them in appropriate scenarios than attempts to force the player's hand in using different weapons due to scarcity of ammunition. It also goes against the 'lore' of the first game (though they attempt to explain this away as a tech 'improvement' in an attempt to actually include the change in the story of the world), which many find to be a bit lame. This is not a deal breaker by any means - it is inconvenient at best, and unnecessarily debilitating in only a select number of places - but is most certianly an unwelcome change from the first game. At least they were kind enough to have 'ammo' apply to most weapon types ('heavy weapons' excluded), which makes the system a bit easier to use across multiple classes.

Perhaps the more insulting change, however, is the move of the dreaded 'regenerating health'. The first Mass Effect was one of the few remaining shooters to stay with a static health pool - one that would only increase with use of a medi-gel, which were not exactly rare but also not pointlessly plentiful. Regenerating systems tend to encourage poor use of strategic cover, boring downtime waiting for your health to return, and significant difficulties with portions of the game where it is difficult to find cover but you desperately need to get your health back. This is perhaps the most jarring change from the first game, and takes some time getting used to for veterans (though veterans of most other first and third person shooters will be able to jump right in), and I believe causes the game to have extremely wild swings in difficulty from a player perspective. On one hand, easy difficulties and easy fights are made easier as you can simply ignore your health and overpower the enemy from a completely open area without fear of losing much health or wasting many resources, as they will just take a few seconds to recover. In higher difficulties and extremely difficult parts of the game, however, relentless enemies will hardly (if ever) give you much time behind cover without flanking which leaves you with no way to recover health whatsoever (medigels are now used for reviving allies and, as such, are made much more rare).

An interesting (but poorly executed) change made in Mass Effect 2 was the drastic change made to mining. In the first game, mining was nothing more than a side quest that had little to no reward aside from perhaps some experience and a bit of cash, which in the first game was pointless. In ME2, however, mining is practically a secondary economy that must be found by the player to perform research on upgrades for your ship, weapons, armors and powers. Unfortunately, mining ends up being implemented as a mind-numbingly tedious chore that is almost force upon you due to the incredible power afforded to you by the upgrades it provides. Players must take their ship to remote planets and 'scan' them for minerals (the same process is used for some side missions that involve beacons) and send probes to the surface to retrieve them. This takes time - in the form of moving from planet to planet, as well as meticulously moving up and down the planets surface at a snail's pace - as well as a monetary investment, as neither the probes nor the fuel are free. You can't even carry that many probes until you get a mid-to-late game upgrade for it, which makes the task before you that much more aggravating. It is easily Mass Effect 2's 'level grinding' equivalent and acts more as a 'hours completed' buffer than any sort of true gameplay enhancement. Which is unfortunate, because I really liked the idea - especially since it could be a 'reward' for spending the time to visit Bioware's vast and detailed universe - but instead feels more like a punishment. Bioware eventually patched the game to make the scanner quicker, and while this is a greatly appreciated improvement, as a whole the system still feels more like a time sink than anything else.

As a minor gripe, some of the decisions, especially near the end of the game, have unpredictable or unintended consequences. There is still something of a disconnect between the dialog 'choice' and what your character says or does, and occasionally NPC's reactions to your choices are strange and contrary to your intentions. It is possible this is on purpose - either to drive story or to shake things up again on players who are methodical or trying to play it 'safe' - but it makes it aggravating when you have the power to choose but not the power to determine what that choice will do. The 'choice' feels much less like a choice and much more like player driven RNG when your choices and consequences do not seem to follow a logical path. 

There are also choices with regards to the story elements of the game that can drive players to near insanity. Specific story missions are forced onto the player after certain conditions are met, which are unknown to the player until you've already triggered it. This means that, sometimes, missions are unavoidable and you are unable to do things like upgrade powers, weapons, or your party. It can make story missions exceptionally difficult if you were otherwise unprepared, and this is extremely frustrating as a player as you can do absolutely nothing to anticipate this or to escape it. I understand this makes the story more believable - after all, your enemy is not going to wait for you to be ready to make their move or show you their hand in advance of playing it -  but I feel that the restriction to player choice and preparation easily outweighs the players' feeling of urgency. Mass Effect's story is, for the most part, extremely non-linear, so why force the few linear plot points on the player so abruptly?

All the cons aside though, Mass Effect 2 is an otherwise shining example of how to do a sequel 'right'. Improve (or remove) the bad parts, focus on what did work well, and add new features to try and expand upon your proven idea. The story is still uniquely Bioware; that is to say, well delivered, extremely deep and detailed and almost completely driven by player choice. While the first game was equally a choice focused, many of those decisions do not play out until the second, delivering a completely unique story experience catered to your own choices made over 2 years ago (assuming, of course, you brought your character over). And your choices from *this* game have an even stronger affect on the world and characters, making it unlikely (if not impossible) to ever play the same game twice. 

Speaking of characters, if you loved NPCs and character development from the first game, the second will absolutely blow you away. The amount of time you can spend talking and learning about your fellow shipmates is impressive, and the loyalty missions do a great job of fleshing out their story and driving that bond between player and the characters, new and old alike. The fact that your squad mates speak up and react to the world around them, as well as any conversation you take place in, makes them feel much more like they are a part of the team instead of just blindly following you until the next time you need to put a bullet into something. Old comrades (those who survived, anyway) all make important cameos if you look hard enough, but not all of them are willing to return to Shepard's side. The new faces are generally a welcome change of pace from the original game and really add to the diversity and character of the new team. New recruits like Mordin (perhaps my favorite addition to the roster) and Thane give the player new playable races to work with, while characters like Archangel and Legion give players genuine surprise in the way the universe has changed since ME1. The 'Cerebus' choices, unfortunately, are somewhat more bland and uninteresting by comparison, although Zaeed and Jack help to give humans their fair share of 'interesting character' representation (Zaeed's recollections of past wars are especially fun to listen to, though he otherwise lacks serious dialog).

Perhaps the best new character - both through mastery of writing as well as voice acting - is the enigmatic 'Illusive Man'. He's one of the best characters I've seen in some time, and reminds you of just how convincingly good voice actors can get at really selling the character as an actual person. The Illusive man is that perfect blend of 'good' and 'bad', mysterious yet obvious, smooth and calculating. It is difficult for the player to tell if he is really friend or foe, and many times I felt like I could trust him even though I was a Paragon (and, theoretically, against Cerberus). Martin Sheen gives him the perfect voice, lending a sense of credibility to a man who is otherwise a cold businessman at heart, helping to leave the player constantly wondering about the true intentions of their 'benefactor'. Making him the central player in the second game was absolutely the right call, and I cannot wait to see what happens with him in ME3. 

The overhauled inventory system, despite my gripes at the beginning of the review, is a huge improvement over the first game. The number of available weapons per type is now much more limited, which makes choosing the 'best' one for a job much easier. Ammo power ups were moved to the 'skill wheel', making it much more convenient to switch mid battle, allowing you to actually want to use them to gain an advantage over your enemy instead of being too tedious to deal with. Weapon upgrades are also streamlined into the new 'research' system, applying to all weapons of that type so you don't have to constantly swap those in and out as well. Unfortunately that means there are significantly fewer choices and options available to the player for weapon customization - I'd definitely like to see more weapon options, and maybe some unique upgrade choices that prevent you from getting other things - but overall such a needed improvement that the game benefits much more from the streamline than it is hurt by it. This is especially true since the first system was so cumbersome and difficult to deal with that most players just ignored it entirely, and never used it to it's full capacity.

Another benefit to tossing the old inventory system? Money now actually means something! In ME1, you easily hit the cash cap without really trying, and even have tons of leftover spending money after purchasing all the big weapons and upgrades. This is not really very interesting to the player, who can get anything he want and can just 'outgear' much of the early-to-mid game by simply purchasing as much as is available to you. In contrast, money is much more controlled in ME2 and really causes you to think about your decisions and your upgrades, perhaps causing some frustration to people who want everything *now*, but really just another way to show that player choice does matter. Near the end of the game, with enough side quests and exploration, you can afford most (if not all, with DLC) of the upgrades... but by then, you really, really need them. 

Two words on this next improvement: NO MAKO! Need I say more?

Another noticeable improvement - though not something most people will be interested in - is the available DLC. DLC for the first game was extremely mis-managed. The first pack did not come out until 4 months after release and was generally considered by most to be overpriced, especially considering the lack of new original content. The second suffered for much the same reasons - released 5 months after the first DLC, and viewed by most as overpriced for the 2-3 hours of repetitive gameplay that it provided. ME2, on the otherhand, has included several small, free* DLC packs that included a wide variety of content: new weapons, new missions, and even new playable characters for your roster. These were made available starting from day one, all the way up to 2 months after game release, helping to keep ME2 in the news and constantly give players new content to play with. Actual paid content started just shy of 3 months after release, adding in new characters, missions, and plot stories at various prices, most of which are considered 'fair', giving the game at least 1 new DLC per month since release. I have yet to play these, but I'm glad to see this kind of support model being adopted for high profile console games (the 'screw you, used game purchasers' is not appreciated, though). 

Overall, Mass Effect 2 is a well polished, greatly improved addition to the main 'Mass Effect' series that continues to prove that Bioware's attention to detail, characters and story are almost completely unmatched in the industry today. It leaves the player wanting more (the semi-cliffhanger ending makes sure of that), but all good games feel like they end too soon. It really makes me wonder what they can possibly be able to do to make Mass Effect 3 feel as impressive, but I suppose if anyone could do it, it would be Bioware. This game comes highly recommended, with the normal stipulation of 'you better like text'.

*Only 'free' if you bought the game new, or purchased the 'Cerebus Network' download after purchasing the game new

LOST Odyssey (Polar bears need not apply)

There are many things that make a good JRPG: story, characters, the battle system, leveling curve, amount of grinding required, etc, etc. Few - if any - are able to excel at one at the expense of others, although more often than not flaws may be overlooked for a more "sum of it's parts" view. This is the perfect way to describe a game like Lost Odyssey: while often times not perfect, as a whole the game is more than enjoyable and deserving of praise. The usual list of exceptions applies: this is still a turn based game, still requires leveling up, is still a very long and time consuming game, and there are still large chunks of time that are not devoted to killing stuff. But let's be honest; if you go into just about ANY traditional JRPG expecting these things to not be the case, there is something wrong with you. If you are familiar with and enjoy the occasional JRPG, Lost Odyssey will not disappoint, even when it does... disappoint.

More often than not, the one major feature players claim to be most interested in when playing an RPG is a story. You want a good story to carry you through your progression as a character, something to give you that drive to play just a little bit more or to get just a little bit more powerful so you are ready to face the next challenge. Something that can keep your attention over the 40+ hours of gameplay when all else fails to be exciting. This is a broad net though: we are not just talking the 'overarcing' story, but subplots, characters and character development and backstory. It's not good enough if just one enemy in the story is interesting if it takes 30 hours of being completely bored to get to that point.

Where Lost Odyssey fails in this regard is that overall plot is extremely simple, but in many ways this works as much in it's favor as it does against it. There is no convoluted "he's a good guy but really a bad guy but really a good guy playing double agent" type story to merely keep you guessing at what is really happening. There is no cliche "hidden" bad man or "higher power" that remains mysterious (or missing) for most of the game only to suddenly be revealed on the last disc. The premise is simple, the setup is clear, and the story plays out almost like you would expect, but on some level we've been taught so often that nothing is as it seems (because it is easier to surprise the player if they just haven't seen the real enemy at all) that you will often times find yourself wondering if perhaps it is too simple to be true.

This works out well for the game, though, because the real story is not in the standard issue good vs evil struggle that most games focus upon: it is about the characters, their experiences and their "story" they each have to tell. It is here that Lost Odyssey excels where few have before; each character is unique, interesting, has something to say that is communicated effectively to the player. The 'immortals' all have dreams (which are really memories of their past), and each one is in itself a short story that almost always succeeds at stirring up powerful emotions and thoughts. This gives you better insight into who the character is and why he/she acts the way they do, which helps you understand (or empathize) with the choices they must make and the problems they must endure over the course of their adventure. People may fault the game for having a 'simple' story, but really what it is doing is not using a single person as a crutch for storytelling and plot progression and instead trying to emulate complex human thought and emotion into a cohesive, rational story. Does it always succeed? No. Was I impressed countless times and sucked into the world? Of course I was. Even many of the mortals, at first nothing more than story props for the main, immortal characters, eventually become their own unique identity and become characters you feel vested in. It makes those tense, dramatic moments much more powerful when you actually like the "person" it is happening to, instead of just want to get it over with so you can move on to the big bad boss.

Which is why the characters needed to be so strong in Lost Odyssey, and fortunately many of them are. One or two fall short - some of the NPCs feel a little rushed or underdeveloped and a few obviously exist for nothing more than to help move a plot or quest forward, and a few of the playable ones are weaker (i.e. not as well fleshed out) as the others, but overall the quality is high. The English voice overs - usually terrible and left to rot while I listen in Japanese with subtitles on - were so good that I left them on, and in fact prefer them to the Japanese voices. Having a good voice actor really helps solidify a strong character and gives you something tangible to grasp onto when you think of them, and this really shows off in Lost Odyssey.

Jansen, for instance, is one of my favorite characters on any RPG I have played. He's a very seedy character at first, generally unlikeable and comes across a little rough around the edges. As you progress through the game and Jansen changes as a character, he becomes more serious and likeable while remaining a fun, 'comic relief' feel. Jansen's voice actor (his English one, anyway) possibly gives him the biggest boost of character, delivering lines with such perfect inflection that the funny stuff gets funnier without making the serious stuff seem unreasonable.

Kaim is not the best main character by any stretch of the imagination, suffering from the usual 'main character' flaws that we've seen since the explosion of Final Fantasy 7 (that is the aloof, depressed emo), but his back story is so well explained that it certainly feels much more believable. He also comes to terms with himself in a much more rational way that other characters do, so it feels more like the character is actually growing than the plot needs him to stop being heartless and start caring about others (I'm looking at you, Squall). Unfortunately, good intentions don't make the early game any more bearable during his "it's so painful" and "woe is me" moments, but maybe making him that drab in the beginning helped make his growth that much more apparent. He comes through in the end, but it takes a few dream sequences to really set him up as an interesting character to the player. His voice actor is perhaps one of the worst in the game - which is not to say it is terrible, it is just not as good as some of the others - and it really makes his character difficult to really get into sometimes.

The other playable characters fluctuate from 'good' to 'great' for most of the game and bring their own unique experiences to the story. The two children are interesting in that they bring a very innocent, 'child like' perspective on many difficult "grown up" situations. It's also nice to see strong women on the roster that aren't all about the T&A (although Ming doesn't exactly dress for winter) but instead are strong individuals with emotions that run deeper than "I'm madly in love with that hunky main character dude!". Tolten's character, I feel, is far too weak and it is often times very difficult to watch as his struggles with suddenly accepting the heavy load of personal responsibility and challenges he must face. He does eventually embrace his destiny and overcome his own faults, but it is neither fun nor encouraging to watch one of your playable characters act as a pushover for a large portion of the game. Overall the cast of characters does an excellent job playing to each others strengths and it makes group dynamics very interesting. All that being said, they definitely help make an otherwise bland story teem with life and emotion.

Which, of course, is bolstered by the great graphics and cinematic presentation. While technically speaking the game is a disaster of epic proportions - insanely long and frequent load times, nearly unbearable slowdown during spellcasting, exceptionally bizarre looking hair, and a pretty bad case of the "realistic browns and greys" - overall the game is well presented and, often times, even stunning. Considering the game is nearly 2 years old now and not produced with a budget or experience behind such games like, say, Final Fantasy XIII, it was enough to keep me interested and, on occasion, even impress me. What is most interesting is the size and detail of many of the cities and areas you visit, one of those subtle but nonetheless important details often overlooked in a lower quality game (or a higher quality one with something to hide). It wasn't something to really write home about, sure, but the parts that were good were just as soon forgotten as the framerate slowed to a crawl when trying to cast a spell or you had to load the game (again) because you went through a door. Another one of those "not bad enough to detract but still bad enough to note" type games, I'm afraid.

Gameplay, on the other hand, is tight and controlled. While combat is 'turn' based, the system includes a number of substantial upgrades to make combat more involving and more rewarding of sound tactical decisions rather than "mash A to win". One such improvement is what I like to call action order, and is  similar to how the combat in Blue Dragon worked. Essentially, different actions have different initiative orders and occur before other actions of different types. As an example, using an item almost always occurs first in the turn order, whereas casting powerful spells tend to occur last. In fact, more powerful spells can take several turns to complete, and casters who are interrupted before their spells are cast get 'pushed back' to later turns. What this means that if your melee focuses their attacks on enemy casters, you can delay really powerful spells from going off (or cancel them entirely) by interrupting them with an attack or item before they end their cast. Of course, the enemy can do the same as well, so planning out your order of attack and making sure to bolster up your defenses is incredibly important.

Speaking of defenses, Lost Odyssey introduces an interesting (but somewhat clunky) concept to the 'Front Row / Back Row' battle order than I've seen in some time (apologies if this is in some other game and I'm just now seeing it). Basically, the characters on your front row represent a 'wall' of defense for those in your back row, so those in the back remain well protected from enemy attacks. As your front line is whittled down, however, their ability to effectively guard the back (called 'guard condition') is severely lessened. As your party's guard condition is decreased, units in the back start to take larger amounts of damage, something your spell casters and ranged characters are not so capable of taking. This adds a bit of defensive strategy to the game and is nice to see implemented in an RPG, even if it only takes a few levels of grinding to have "total offense" still be your best battle option. As long as human time is a factor, "spam damage to win quicker" will be the most preferred method of random-mob execution.

The ring system is also a welcome addition - actually giving you something to pay attention to in battle instead of watching your character's animation sequence endlessly loop as you press the same button over and over again (though I still like the combo system presented in Legend of Dragoon then best so far). Allowing characters to switch rings in combat to make most effective use of their abilities is nice, but the UI for doing so (coupled with the number of rings eventually available) makes it far too cumbersome to use in something other than the most dire of situations. This is just one of many areas where the idea behind the game is solid, but Lost Odyssey's menu system is so hopelessly deep that performing even simple tasks requires several minutes worth of fidgeting to accomplish. Add to that complex things like crafting rings, linking skills, assigning skill slots, swapping equipment, moving characters, using spells and checking status and you begin to spend huge chunks of time in the menu system just trying to navigate yourself around a labyrinth of options. It's nice that the game integrates all of these things well into gameplay and that they feel useful and have a set purpose, but without a decent UI system it is almost more frustration than it was worth.

Another fault of the gameplay system is that it heavily favors the immortal characters towards the end of the game. With a huge array of skill slots available, immortal characters can be fine-tuned for any battle as necessary and quickly become absolute powerhouses in battle. The usual mortal has their own pre-defined list of slots, plus 1-3 accessories available to them (certain characters are allowed to equip more than one) and start to fall significantly behind immortals in martial prowess and utility about midway through the game. The story 'remedies' this by forcing you through many portions where only specific characters are available to you at any given time, which only helps to enforce to idea that mortal characters are significantly weaker than immortals and causes you to feel like you are being forcefully handicapped. Once all characters meet up again, however, there is absolutely no reason to choose mortals over immortals and the unique aspect of having 9 available characters is destroyed when you feel forced to use the 5 most powerful ones available to you at all times. Most of each characters' story has played through by the end, so it is not a major loss, but it is unfortunate that they spend so much time giving each one a unique voice and story only to have them be thrown away on the gameplay side at the end.

Which is especially terrible considering the huge amount of side questing and 'harder than the last boss' dungeons you will want to do before wrapping up those loose plot lines. Some of them feel very 'grindy'  - the Temple of Enlightenment is an especially brutal place and you may find yourself having to cut your teeth for a few hours on the outer monsters before you can hope to even survive one encounter with the inner monsters. And the DLC is even worse, a massive dungeon of 25+ levels with no save points and almost a requirement to farm out the new items in order to have a fair shot at defeating the last boss (even I have yet to beat this after some 90+ hours behind the wheel). Fortunately for most of you reading this, the balance of story and gameplay through the 'main' portion of the game is well apportioned and you will hardly ever feel like you must grind out levels in order to succeed. The one notable exception to this is the first few levels, where you are still learning the system, bosses seem extremely tough and are frustratingly deadly. Past those, you will have enough experience with the system that difficulty will fall back in line.

Side quests like the 'backyard' are especially fun and challenge you to defeat encounters in specific and unique ways that you absolutely cannot win by just spamming a single button or command. Backyard will require you to use the full gambit of options available to you at all times and really explore the intricacies of the battle system - from effective usage of rings, to properly using specific skills, to even planning out cast times and "guard condition" management. You can play through some of it early on but unfortunately, by the time you get to the really challenging stuff you either already have figured that out for yourself or are kicking yourself for not knowing it most of the game. I really liked it, though, and would love to see more of that kind of challenge in other JRPGs.

Overall, Lost Odyssey is an superbly high quality game that keep you enthralled and entertained for hours on end, even if it does occasionally fall short of it's lofty goals. In a world of "When is the next Final Fantasy?", it's nice to see a game so similar in style be executed to such perfection, even if it does take the original creator of the series to achieve that. If you have an Xbox 360 and are looking for the perfect JRPG to sink your teeth into this is one I can highly recommend. (As if the thousands of words prior to these didn't already convince you of that...)

What ya gonna play?

GHOSTBUSTERS!

Whoops, sorry, got a little carried away there. But what can I say? When you are talking about the Ghostbusters, you can't help but get excited. From the very first moment a Ghostbusters themed game was announced in 2006, I was curious. Partially because, hey, it's the freaking Ghostbusters, and partially because - who has seen or heard anything about the Ghostbusters in the past decade (or more)? This could definitely be interesting.

And then it starts: the inevitable development nightmare. Not having licensing rights. Changing developers. Even losing their publisher due to the Acitivision/Blizzard merge. Things were really starting to look bad. But then Atari comes out of nowhere and actually picks up the game to publish (to be published alongside the blu-ray releases) - finally, an end was in sight. But could new developer Terminal Reality overcome the standard "terrible movie tie in" problems, or would be become a quick cash in on a dated franchise? Well that's what we're all here for, right?

It helps tremendously that the game not only got script help from Aykroyd and Ramis, but voice help from what is essentially the entire cast from the original movies. It really helps to immediately grab you and pull you in when you walk up as "the rookie" only to hear the very familiar voices of Dr. Venkman, Ray, Egon and Winston cracking jokes and blabbering on in techno-jargon like it was 1984 all over again. (Fun fact: I wasn't even alive when the first movie came out)

The plot is nothing fancy or far-fetched (for a story about paranormal activity, anyway), but it gets the job done. What really makes it great is the comedy and the voice acting - extremely top notch with plenty of laugh out loud moments and great Ghostbuster in jokes and references. Granted I liked the movies so liking the game is only natural considering how much of the original cast is involved, but being the 5th member of the team as they romp around town destroying everything in sight is definitely something to experience.

There are a few awkward points, though. Terminal Reality (or perhaps Aykroyd and Ramis) try their best to include just about any and every possible reference that they can from the movies; and while many of them work out quite well, a few feel rather forced. The Stay Puft marshmallow man, for instance, is a great icon from the first movie but really feels out of place in the game, especially since the humor of the 'big reveal' from the first movie is completely gone. A giant man made of marshmallow just isn't as funny when you expect him, I guess (and you do, since he displayed so predominately on the box).While the fan service is appreciated, it feels a little lame to have something so fondly remembered from the movies be shoe-horned in just for the sake of it.

Gameplay wise, the game is decent but honestly nothing to write home about. Wrangling ghosts is fun at first but the method used and control scheme is finicky enough that it often becomes more frustrating than anything else. You will often accidentally cross streams with your rather brain-dead AI teammates, frequently will lose track of ghosts or simply be unable to keep them down in a trap properly, and good luck even trying to think about not doing crazy amounts of collateral damage to whatever room you just stepped into. It's good enough that it gets you by and entertains you between jokes and gags, but on the higher difficulties it just begins to pile on the aggravation in droves. The complete lack of precision, occasionally misread controller inputs and overall lack of well thought out gameplay design do not complement each other well in this game, that is certian.

Which is probably OK considering the game's length - playing on an easy difficulty with no real interest in exploring, achievements or 'taking in the scenery' and you are sure to be in and out of the game in 8-10 hours. There is plenty to keep you coming back though - harder difficulties, tons of secrets and collectibles and even a multiplayer mode, which unfortunately does not work split screen and only works on Xbox Live (boo!). Achievements will give you more challenges to shoot for, like doing very little damage over a single playthrough or completing tasks in the multiplayer "campaigns". You may not get 100+ hours of entertainment out of it, but it's engaging enough to be worth some investment without being dragged out to the point of wearing out it's welcome. Which is good enough for me - no way I would have had the patience to play through that if it were tied down with an extra 10-15 hours of busywork to try and make it seem like a better 'entertainment investment'. It does exactly what it sets out to do, does it marginally well and rather quickly, and doesn't ask for any more of you than that. I think that's reasonable enough to ask for, don't you?

I wish I could speak for multiplayer, but as I picked up the game very late and know very few other people who actually still have copies of the game (and still want to play it), I was unable to really give it a fair test. Thems' the breaks when you don't have split screen co-op, people.

Graphically the game is not going to really blow you away, especially if you've seen any decently created "next gen" games (can we start calling them "current gen" yet?), but I can say that the work done behind the faces and characters really paid off in helping to sell the Ghostbusters feel. Sure, you can tell they aren't real people, but they are convincing enough facsimiles that it almost starts to feel natural to hear them talking by the end of the game.

As you can see, the game is far more 'mediocre' than most of the big blockbusters out there, but for whatever reason being a Ghostbusters game was enough to really pull me over the edge and have lots of fun with it. I also have every intention of going back and collecting some of the other artifacts and water fountains for achievements, although I'm not sure I can bring myself to play through the entire game again on Professional difficulty. Overall I would suggest it to anyone who may have been a fan of the movies as you will certainly get your monies worth of enjoyment from it (especially at going prices), but if you didn't like them or really only have a passing interest the gameplay probably won't hold itself up alone for more than a few hours at best. And honestly, I wouldn't blame you if you told me you were too busy playing Mass Effect 2 or Bioshock 2 instead. Because - at least in the case of the former - that's exactly what I'm doing.

Speaking of - were you here looking for a review of Mass Effect 2? Well good luck, I'm already 30 hours into the game and probably not even half way to finishing, which is nothing compared to the 2 play throughs it would take to really get a good idea of what the game is really like. Until then, why not relive a blast from the past and check out my Mass Effect 1 review? You should really be playing that if you haven't already. Otherwise, you'll be completely lost. More of a shooter fan? Why not read through my review of the first Bioshock.

A Killer Sequel

Sequels tend to do one of two things: one, act as a method by which a developer can lean on past works and positive critical acclaim to drive quick, easy sales for fast cash, or two, allow developers a chance to soften up the rough edges of a title and see their initial vision through to a better, more polished end the second time around.

The former, much like in Hollywood, is abused far too often and really gives sequels as a whole a bad wrap, to the point that even talking about anticipation of an upcoming sequel draws snappy comments and glaring looks from those smug, thumb-your-nose types who like to ramble on about how sequels are cop-outs that ruin creative thinking and are instead developer cash-ins on an old idea gone stale because they couldn't do something new and exciting. Yeah, we both know the types. But in a world where developers like EA can crank out an entirely "new" sports game every 9 months, or a market that will actually accept (and gladly support) eleven different Mario Party games - not even copy cats, mind you - since 1999, can you blame them?

The answer is no, especially since for every Mario Party or Madden (well, maybe every 2-3) there is instead a fresh, new, interesting concept that just needs a few adjustments to really shine or perhaps has a new tale to tell outside of its original one. Can you imagine what gaming would be like if we didn't have sequels? We'd never have Half-Life 2. You would never know of the wonders of Hyrule in 3-D (or reimagined 2-D for that matter). There would be no Final Fantasy 7 to spark the JRPG craze, no Grand Theft Auto 3 to practically define 'sandbox' gaming as we know it. And of course, more recently, we wouldn't have an Assassin's Creed 2. And that would be a real shame.

Granted, I'm not one of those people that really had that big of a problem with the first game. Yes I could see some small flaws but as a whole - and especially for a new IP trying to broaden or even change the definition of an entire genre - it was a near masterpiece of technical execution and a driving force in defining this generation of console's interactive entertainment. Sure there were some glitches, yeah not everything was totally polished and if you really forced yourself to be a completionist but didn't like it you would easily get frustrated, but as far as first passes go it was really a tour de force. But at that point I'm really reaching for reasons to fault the game aside from just admiting that even the best things aren't perfect.

That is, of course, until now. Assassin's Creed 2 is so much more vast, detailed, immersive and open-ended that it makes the first game look like a tech demo by comparison. I will not lie when I say that this was easily my most anticipated game of the year and I went in expecting great things, only to be blown away by how much more improved and built up everything was. Does it still have flaws? Definitely. Is it better in every way than the original? Absolutely. Is it "Game of the Year"? Well I don't remember exactly everything that came out this year (I should probably do a retrospective and comment on that) but it is easily up there with the rest of them, and likely leading. If you liked the first one even a little bit - if some small bit got you pulled in but you got frustrated, or maybe you liked it but thought it was a bit bland, or were aggrivated with the glitchy PS3 version, or just never really got all that into it, just close this window right now and go get a copy because I can almost guarantee this game will convince you that Ubisoft knows what it is doing, and doing it well.

Story wise the premise is the same - you go back in time (kinda) to become an Assassin and learn more about his life and the ultimate part you (the 'present day' character) play in this story. Except that the sequel picks up almost immediately where the first one left off and does not lazily walk you through the tutorial. From the first second you power on the game you are thrown into a hostile situation and you must learn (or relearn) many of the basic moves by means of actively using, not passively learning and copying. It is, in my opinion, a much more captivating way to familiarize the player to the controls that keeps them interested and doesn't make them feel like they have to have their hands held the entire time. The way they explain the concept of the control method, "puppeteering" (where the 4 buttons each represent a part of the body at all times) is especially neat and I think conveys the system's intent much better than the first game.
 
The first thing you will notice, though, as things cool down is that this time the story is not so much about the 'Assassin' of the past as it is the person. You spend a fair amount of time living out Ezio Auditore's (our new Assassin) early adult life, meeting his family and setting the stage for his eventual transition into the role of the Assassin and how he gets involved in all this. In the first game, Altair was not exactly a mute but he often was merely a tool used by Ubisoft to tell the story or give it more of a central point. You never really learn much about him, he's not even really all that likeable (he gets demoted for basically being a self centered know-it-all) and he really never is that relatable for a few breif moments near the end of the game. It is clear that Ubisoft spent more of it's time developing and crafting a world around Ezio (who you play as 95% of the time anyway) instead of throwing the part away as a gameplay device and trying to focus as much on the present time, and it shows. It helps make the game feel like it can stand on it's own more because you at least complete Ezio's part in the game (save the soon-to-be-released DLC), making the now famous cliffhanger endings that much more bearable. With more time spent on characters in that world as well, it gives many more unique and powerful supporting roles that really helps bring Italy alive as you play and explore. The world feels bigger, yet less vacant. There are more people but they aren't just more empty faces in a crowd. And there's more story of the character you actually play and get invested in, not of the one you rarely see. Overall, the presentation is improved in nearly every way and it really shows.
 
Gameplay wise, again, nearly the same, but with noted improvements to fix what was seen as 'bad' with the first one or just to make things a bit more intriguing or fun. Your arsenal grows substantially, and while you still have your staples in the hidden blade, short sword and sword, you can now pick custom weapons that have different strengths and weaknesses (ability to deflect, damage dealt, etc) as well as a slew of new (and wicked deadly) methods to choose from. Try the poison, which you can use on an unsuspecting guard to send them flailing around in a beserk rage at those around him before he expires. Or the smoke bombs, to quickly get out of sticky situations without having to be constantly chased down and knocked over by guards. There are many more incredibly useful new toys to play with, but I'll do my best to save you the surprises for yourself in case you ever pick up the game. Suffice it to say that if you ever found yourself thinking that the fighting in the first game was too boring and repetitive, there are so many new weapons and gadgets to choose from that you'll be hard pressed to go even 10 minutes killing every guard the same way.
 
And, ironically enough, you hardly even have to fight if you don't want to. New gameplay options like blending and hiring helpers can get you much farther much faster than just brute force slayings ever could. Need some guards distracted? Hire some courtesans to flirt with them while you sneak past. How about need some guards moved so you can go for the kill on the guy they are guarding? Call over some theives and have them steal from one of the guards and they will give chase. Maybe you just want to get through a crowded, guarded area without being seen. Blend in with crowds and even walk with them undetected (and not just select people like the first game - pretty much any group of peope). Of course, if you prefer the brute force method, round up a few mercenary friends to fight by your side as you take down a large group of enemies. There are many ways to help keep the pressure off you so you don't have to fight 40 guards between you and your next true victim.
 
Speaking of victims, the story plays out much more like a story now and much less like a list of chores you need to accomplish before you are given your allowance. No more choosing from a list of side missions that are available and being forced to complete some number of them before you are allowed to proceed. Everything you do plays its part in the story and helps to set up the next kill in a very linear, easy to follow fashion. Side missions are still there - races make a still-aggrivating comeback, as well as do small-fry assassinations and new events like "beat ups" - but they are entirely optional and usually only give money and completion. Many of the hired, non-story assassinations end up being quite challening and fun, and there are so many that if you do every side mission between 'real' ones that you could easily go 3-5 hours between story bits just exploring and completing things that have recently opened up to you. Even more OCD things - like feather collecting - make an appearance, but even they are more well organized and better executed than the first.
 
The main storyline offers enough different gameplay to really show off the new system and keep you interested while not becoming too monotonous (with one notable exception being the 'fetch' quest at the end, but even then that's probably not too bad unless you just ignored every side item available to you ever), all the while improved and expanded on with a better story and characters to really help it along. At this point if you honestly think the game is still "repetitive" you either need to be doing something different every 5 seconds, in which case you need professional help for some supercharged ADHD, or you just have a vendetta against the game and like to use popular buzzwords to slap it down. Between your new toys, the new missions and the much better story and characters, there is really no reason for you to go around doing the same thing every time except your own laziness.
 
Graphically the game is a marvel of the raw power of this generation of devices (just like the last), but is even more pleasing because instead of harsh, bland desert to see for miles around you get things like green mountainsides, vast oceans or bustling cities. Somehow the facial animations and lip-synching seem to have taken a bizzare step in the backwards direction, often being difficult or awkward to look in close ups but otherwise fine at long distance, but otherwise animation is generally smooth and impressive. The new kills and counter kills are incredibly brutal (and an absolute joy to watch) although the occasional hiccup/glitch can sometimes leave you stealing money from out of the air or breaking the 'knee' of a wall but considering all the incredible things it tries to accomplish I can almost say that I'm amazed it doesn't happen more. All together it's significantly more polished than the first ever was, but it leaves me wondering if perhaps they are capping out the raw throughput of current-gen tech and are just having to find weird or different ways to hide it in the world as it grows and evolves.
 
When all is said and done, Assassin's Creed 2 is everything done right in a sequel: Improvements across the board in almost every possible way while really expanding the scope of the game and helping cement it's style in place. It is extremely difficult to think of a reason NOT to recommend this game as I believe even people who strongly disliked the first have a good reason to give this one a try, and people who loved the first have no excuse for not already owning it. A few minor flaws aside, Assassin's Creed 2 helps Ubisoft prove it has a winner in it's newest franchise that only left me wanting more, which I will get in the form of DLC in January and Feburary. After that, well, it's probably another 2 years of wondering exactly where the next game will take place and patiently waiting for even the smallest hints of news about it. After seeing how much they improved between #1 and #2, I can't wait to see what they can do with the third iteration.

It'll leave you wishing for an apocalypse...

A friend of mine recently reminded me (read: chided me) for not reviewing recently, and after looking here and realizing I haven't written anything since early September, I have to completely agree with him. I've been lazy and should really fix that. So, here we go, the completion of  something I started in September (although I don't feel bad because the game is over a year old at this point) and promise of attempting to be more diligent in the future (we're heard that one before though, right?).

I actually had someone request two reviews of me: one was for World of Goo, which I was more than happy to do, and Fallout 3. While it looks like I'm merely doing these because I was requested to (more requests are certainly appreciated, hint hint), the fact that I just very recently finished it is equally as good of an excuse to write a review for it. So, while the game is not exactly new, my experience of definitely it is.

I will honestly say that, besides being aware of the Fallout franchise, I was otherwise completely oblivious to anything about it. I haven't played the first two games, nor any of the spinoffs associated with it, so I was completely oblivious of its history and roots. The first time I actually even saw a Fallout game was at PAX08, watching the Bethesda team show off their demos on the expo floor and going to the Fallout 3 panel to watch them more fully explain/show off what the game could do. The game looked impressive visually, but I had one small problem with it that I couldn't overcome that prevented me from getting hyped about it. Ironically, that problem is freedom.

You see, I am one of those people that still has nightmares about Morrowind. I can not even begin to tell you how many times I have started Morrowind, only to get so engrossed and so involved in the game that I completely forgot where I was, what I was doing or where I was attempting to go. The freedom offered by those games actually paralyzes me to the point that I no longer find interest in the game because I cannot keep focused on anything and get overwhelmed at what I've gotten myself into. Case in point: on one play though, I was playing through Morrowind and had gotten about as far as I'd ever gotten. I'd done my best to try and stay focused on ONLY the main story and to give it my best shot at "beating" the game, if it's even possible to call it that. I played off and on for several weeks, not devoting my full attention to it but simply attempting to continue to move through the game. I got to a quest in the game that required me to retrieve a special book of some kind, I don't exactly remember what, but I had (apparently) already gone and picked up this book... and promptly lost it. I looked around the town to see if I had sold it somewhere, or perhaps placed it down in one of my impromptu "houses" but it was completely lost. My freedom to steal, sell, and place absolutely anything anywhere had found a way to block my progress yet again, and to this day I've never gotten farther than that.

So when people talked about Fallout being "like Oblivion" (which I had never picked up for much the same reasons), and it was being created by pretty much the exact same team, I was instantly turned off. Another open world game that I'm going to get completely lost in? Yeah, no thanks. So I managed to survive the hype, watching as Bethesda released the game to huge critical and commercial success, pushed out a truckload of extra DLC goodies, and maintain a constant stream of coverage in gaming news and commentary articles everywhere. But eventually, as I tend to do, I caved. Too many people just said too many good things about this game for me to ignore it anymore. I just had to play the final copy for myself to see if it was actually something I can get into.

100 hours later, I think I can safely say that was a good decision (if not a really, really long one).

The game has a very interesting way of starting you off in a sort of glorified tutorial, letting you see your own birth, determining what you would look like in the future, using your baby years to determine your stats, and your teenage years to determine your skills or style of play. It does a pretty good job of catering to both newcomers and replayers alike, allowing you to skip the test parts to determine your own stats directly without requiring you to know the specific answers you need to choose. It is always nice when a developer takes the boring (yet often necessary) tutorial and spends time working it into their world. Certainly much more friendly, intuitive and fun to do than sitting through screen after screen of character creation options like I did in Morrowind.It really helps add to that sense of being involved in the story and a part of the world.

After your story really begins, well, you step out into one of the most expansive and marvelous spans of desolation and destruction I've seen in a while. Yes, it suffers from your standard "realistic graphics" problems - lots of greys and browns with nothing really stylized or colorful to speak of - and the post apocalyptic setting does absolutely nothing to help this. Most of what you'll see in the world is little more than an eerily empty wasteland, occasionally inhabited by wild creatures or bandits. But that doesn't mean the entire world suffers for it. It may be hard to have the drab, boring landscapes take you in, but that style really does capture the state of the world quite well and help make the few inhabited areas of the world feel a little bit more lively. Despite not being much to look at aesthetically, some areas really will catch your attention. Maybe it's the skyscraper that stands tall over the otherwise ruined buildings, the luscious trees clumped together in the middle of the barren world, or just the shock of seeing the more iconic monuments of Washington D.C. partially destroyed and overrun with mutants. It may be somewhat bland and dark, but the game presents itself quite well and uses what it has to full effect.

Unfortunately, that means both the good with the bad. People still look and 'feel' more like robots than they do humans, shuffling stiffly from area to area and never really looking 'normal' doing so. Dialogue and facial animations are even worse, never quite selling you on what is being said and the emotion being portrayed, which is sad because the voice acting in the game is rather top-notch. The radio personality "Three Dog" (or is it "dawg"?) has a very powerful and interesting personality over the radio, made even stronger by the fact he is often your last connection to humanity as you traverse the empty wastes in your quest, but in person the mystique and personality is just ruined by clunky animations and awful facial expressions. Maybe Valve has really spoiled us with the amazing work they did on Half Life 2, but it has been very hard of late to find games that can truly overcome the stiff, robotic feel of physical movement and speech.

Fortunately for you, very little of that matters because you will be so busy lapping up the detailed world and all of the things you can do in it that you'll hardly notice (or care) all that much about those things. While Fallout 3 is probably as expansive (if not more so) than Morrowind, it solves many of the problems I had with it through better gameplay decisions and UI choices. While there are many missions you may choose to go on at any time, they are all noted, collected and organized directly with your map in a way that leaves absolutely no question as to where you need to go or what you need to do. Even notes or speech that triggered the objective are kept around in case you would like to listen again or might need a specific piece of information to guide you in the right direction. This is especially true of the main story, where it is most needed, and really helps because often times you will spend 8-10 hours doing side tasks and completely forget what you were doing and where you needed to go.

There are still some small quests that have no formal means of tracking, but these are usually side quests that have no real bearing on the story (or your character) and are more for the rewards, back story, or just to add general flavor to the world. While it is easy to get lost or forget what you were doing on those, I'm personally OK with that because it did not hinder me from 'beating' the game and allows those who are interested in doing so they chance to really explore the world on their own. Despite being so adamant about wanting to make sure I always have a firm grasp of where I'm supposed to go and what I'm supposed to do next in a game, I still believe that there should be some reward and sense of accomplishment for just exploring, as that is something that many people still like to do.

Fast travel is an amazing addition, letting you quickly travel to any place you've been to before, from anywhere in the world, so long as you aren't near enemies or in an area where you shouldn't be able to do so. Some may argue that it ruins the size of the world by being able to do that, but very rarely do I want to spend 20-30 minutes trekking back to a town just to buy or sell something. I get a good enough idea of the size and scope of the world as I am uncovering new places and going new areas. I don't want to be reminded of how big it is when the game tells me I need to go halfway across the map for my next quest, I just want to get back to the action!

Like any good Bethesda RPG, you can customize your character in any number of ways - from hair to shape to stats and abilities - and can play the game multiple different ways and still succeed. I chose to play as a sneaky, small arms type but you could just as easily be a tough, big arms type or a quick, melee weapon fighter (or even a more dialogue and bartering type, although there are parts where combat is difficult if not impossible to avoid). How you interact with the populace and complete missions can effect your karma score, making you and angel or a devil in the eyes of the world and changing how they interact and deal with you in other ways. Maybe as an evil character, good NPCs might be more wary of you or unwilling to co-operate, or as a good player you are showered with gifts and adoration from the ones that you have saved from the harsh realities of the wasteland.

There is nothing terribly fancy that occurs based on your alignment (with a few notable exceptions), and typically it is just another "stat" that you can customize that affects what your character has access to, but the system is well implemented throughout and would make a second playthrough as the opposite type feel and play very different. Unfortunately it is extremely easy to become evil and very difficult and time consuming to go back to good, and occasionally you will perform actions that have consequences you did not expect or intend, but overall it does help make you feel like you are having a real impact on the world around you and the lives you are affecting (for good or ill).

The combat is generally fun and entertaining - especially as you crit and blow off limbs or the like - and the VATS system helps break it up a little bit by letting you aim for weak spots and take down enemies faster. Of course, there is so much to do in the world and so many different places to explore that eventually it can start to feel very repetitive and boring regardless of how fun or interesting it was, especially on enemies to whom you are not well equipped (or built) to handle. For instance, my small arms character had a very difficult time with many of the robotic enemies because few (if any) of my weapons did significant damage to them and they tend to have very large health pools to go with their very high damage resistance. The combat is just no longer very interesting when you have to dump 5-6 entire clips worth of ammunition into something and continuously heal hoping that you can kill it before it kills you. I suppose that, when playing as a character that focused on bigger, more powerful weapons, those types of mobs might not be very tedious, but then you couldn't sneak past many fights like I could, so it seems like every playstyle might have a few aggravating moments to it. Not that 'a few moments' are enough to ruin a 100 hour experience, but they are still worth noting.

Occasionally, combat bugs out and will shoot areas you did not intend or otherwise not perform as expected, but this is a rare (and unfortunate) occurrence that is just one part of a much larger problem the game suffers from: bugs. And I don't mean the radscorpions that hunt you down in game. I mean the "whoops my game froze and I haven't saved in a while", "I'm being attacked but can't see my enemy", " I'm looking for an NPC who hasn't spawned or is walking the wasteland for no apparent reason" kind. You would be hard pressed to play 2-3 hours of the game without running into some kind of bug, although most of them are small and not huge deal breakers. There are enough big ones to really give you a headache, and in fact I stopped playing after nearly 100 hours due to a bug that prevented me from collecting all of the bobble heads, so the game is far from perfect on that. I feel bad even mentioning it, considering what a monumental task it must be to expect someone to actually be able to test, find, and fix every single bug in a game as massive as Fallout 3, but just because I understand the amount of time it would take to find and fix it does not assuage me when I fall victim to one myself. If I had one *real* complaint about the game it would be the number of bugs that still exist, even after all of the patches.

Despite this, the game maintains a very nice level of overall polish that really helps it stand out. The individual portions of the game might not be incredible on their own - the story is good but not exceptional, the voices are well done but the characters are poorly animated, etc - but the way that Bethesda has weaved them all together and just the sheer amount of love and detail that has gone into creating this world is more than enough reason to give this game a shot. Not only does the disc itself have enough content to last you 60+ hours, but there are 5 downloadable expansions that can easily extend the game into the 100 hour range (note: I only downloaded and played Broken Steel, which I thought was very good), and if that's not enough you could always play through again as a different combat style or alignment for an almost completely new experience. If you are the kind of person that hates buying games for a 6 hour campaign only to then shelf it for life, you do not need worry here. This game will be with you a long, long time.

So what are you waiting for? Post Apocalyptic America is calling your name.

Dualing Banjos

Despite single handedly bringing the video game industry back from the verge of death and helping to firmly entrench the 'console' into the world of gaming in the same space as the all mighty PC, Nintendo hasn't exactly always been on top. Beginning with the introduction of the N64 in the late 90's, a series of miscalculations on Nintendo's part left the company in a downward spiral that continued into the Gamecube days and saw the once mighty giant knocked down to 3rd place behind two new contenders, Sony and Microsoft.

When you look at the N64's lifetime sales numbers and compare them to the Playstation 1, Nintendo sold only a third as many units as a company who had just released their first console. How does something like this happen? Was it the choice to stick with the more expensive and smaller storage cartridges over CDs? (Go read the wikipedia articles on the history of the CDi and the Playstation, by the way. Very interesting stuff) Lack of third party support? Poorly timed first party releases? The eventual explosion of the Final Fantasy series? It's hard to know for certian, but one thing we can be sure of is that people seemed to prefer the PS1 to the N64 almost 3:1.

That's not to say, however, that the N64 was a total loss. While Nintendo may only have itself to blame for it's spectacular failures, it has equal right in taking the credit for their monumental successes. The N64 brought us several classics that will surely stand the test of time, many if not all of which were first or second party choices. Ocarina of Time is constantly tagged as one of, if not the, the greatest game(s) of all time. Super Mario 64 gave the platformer life in 3D and developers today are still trying to surpass its greatness. Games like Star Fox 64 and F-Zero X each took on new life in their 64 bit days and received quite the cult followings even if they were not spectacular critical or commercial successes like Zelda and Mario.

The N64 era was also unique, though, because it was perhaps the first (and only) era where 2nd party developer Rare really showed what it could do. While Rare did have several 'cult' hits during the NES days (my personal favorites being Snake Rattle 'n' Roll and Battletoads) and some bigger hits on the SNES (Donkey Kong Country series, Killer Instinct), their N64 games are probably what they are most remembered for. Who doesn't remember the first time they played Goldeneye multiplayer, racing a pig in Diddy Kong Racing, playing counter-operative in Perfect Dark or blowing up buildings in Blast Corps? Even their more 'average' games - Donkey Kong 64 - were fun and enjoyable despite their weaknesses.

By now, of course, you've probably noticed the missing link to this puzzle (P.s. if you don't, read the post's title again for a hint). It is certainly a difficult call to make, but I believe if anything has been able to capture the magic and fun that is locked away deep inside Super Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie was it. Both are experiences in their own way and should not be missed, but while Mario 64 is simply the application of a known 2D formula in a 3D world, Banjo Kazooie represents something completely new altogether. New characters, a new world, a variety of moves and abilities, unique locations and a large helping of cartoon humor really helps Banjo Kazooie not only stand out from Mario 64, but excel in its own way.

---Banjo Kazooie---

Banjo Kazooie starts out like any other Mario game does - a female character has been kidnapped and it's up to our protagonist to save them! - but the stories couldn't possibly be any more different. Tooty, Banjo's sister, is taken by the evil witch Gruntilda (who only speaks in rhymes, mind you) because she is the 'fairest' and it is Gruntilda's wish to have Tooty's beauty as her own. As you start out you know the basics of platforming (jumping) but hidden within many of the worlds that you visit are new abilities that you can learn to increase your arsenal and tackle new challenges. Things like flight, invulnerability, shooting eggs, double jumping and walking up steep ramps help to break the usual tediousness associated with platforming (jump to win!) and adds quite a bit of variety to the gameplay.

At its core is your standard Mario 64 inspired platformer, complete with multiple worlds featuring various exotic locales (Gobi's Desert, Freezeasy Peak, Mad Monster Mansion, etc and so forth), tons upon tons of items to collect, plenty of pesky platforming perils (plus puzzles!), and endless supply of unique and entertaining enemies, health and lives and bears, oh my! Worlds are generally static levels that you explore all at once (in Mario 64, the level could change substantially depending upon which star you were seeking), allowing you freedom to work on multiple goals simultaneously without having to exit/re-enter after each mission. +1 for convenience.

Notes are the 'common currency' and 100 are strewn about in each level, but instead of being used for health and extra lives (or a 100 coin star) they are used to unlock deeper areas of Gruntilda's lair. Jiggies, aka Jigsaw Pieces, allow you to open new worlds, which means that you require both jigsaw pieces and notes to make it to the final showdown with Gruntilda. This may seem a little strange or even perhaps annoying, but I think it is a clever idea to require both a bit of exploration and a bit of platforming before you're allowed to move on to the next area. Since you will trip over notes left and right on your quest for each world's many jiggies, it is highly unlikely you will even need to go out of your way to collect enough to advance. Each world also has 5 Jinjo's for you to find, and while their inclusion in the banjo universe might seem strange or even bizarre at first - then again, what isn't - I assure you that they rightfully earn their place by story's end. Rare has taken collection to a whole new level and has completely gone all out to make each nook and cranny of the levels filled to the brim with items. It is even an inside joke in their future games that all platformers must involve "pointless collection mechanics". For those of you who are born completionists and love collecting, exploring and achieving, you just struck gold. Or maybe oil. Actually, you struck goldoil.

I've already touched on Banjo and Kazooie's vast array of useful abilities, but something that deserves its own special mention is that in many levels you can visit Mumbo Jumbo (resident Shaman) and have him transform you into something. Each level has it's own transformation, most of which are both necessary for completion of the level and hilarious. Examples would be the termite (climb up really steep walls), bumble bee (fly, and mingle with the honey bees who are otherwise aggressive towards bears), and even a pumpkin (who is small, bouncy... and probably delicious). You don't get a whole lot of use out of them and having to go back and forth to Mumbo's hut is sometimes aggravating (see: Mad Monster Mansion) but overall it adds just another layer of diversity to and already impressive list of gameplay features. Every now and then, Mumbo will accidentally turn you into a more 'novelty' form and is always willing to offer up humorous one-liners after he has completed his magic. Just one of the many area's that Rare's humor really adds to the atmosphere of the game.

If you have the game memorized backwards and forwards it might not take you long to beat it - 6 hours maybe, assuming you picked up just enough to unlock Gruntilda - but like Mario 64 the real length of the game is in being as OCD as possible and running around collecting everything. Notes, Jinjos, Jiggies, honeycomb pieces. A good 20 hours or more for those in unfamiliar territory, maybe 10-12 if you're doggedly determined and wielding a gamefaq's sheet. Completing the game at 100% Jiggies (and notes, maybe? I always did it anyway) will give you a sneak peek at some of the secrets that lay hidden deep within the game, tucked away for over 10 years under the joke that we all know as 'Stop 'n' Swop'. Oh, sure, now it actually does something and has meaning but to those of us who grew up not knowing, it was perhaps one of the more cruel failings of the series, especially considering how much coverage it received. They finally added it in with Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts, but 10 years of hype and anticipation means that the only thing they could possibly do with it was disappoint (which it certainly did, by and large). Maybe when they finally finish the port of Banjo-Tooie, we'll see what Stop 'n' Swap was really supposed to do.

Overall, Banjo Kazooie is one of those games that made the N64 almost impossible to live without, despite the system's misgivings and general lack of third party support. If you were willing to accept original ideas and didn't need your platformer's main character to be an overweight red plumber to enjoy it, the game offered more in terms of innovation and design than perhaps even Mario 64 did. It gave Rare yet another successful franchise and paved the way for sequels (Banjo-Tooie), character crossovers (Diddy Kong Racing), GBA releases (Banjo Kazooie GBA and Banjo Pilot), ports (Banjo Kazooie on XBLA) and last but not least... reboots (Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts). The game was incredible and certainly worth the $15 price tag on the XBLA, assuming you don't have an N64 somewhere you could dust off. The new high res textures and actually implemented Stop 'n' Swop feature are enough reason to purchase it again anyway. I'm not one to try and reward companies for taking older games and attempting to make money off of them again simply by repackaging them and placing them back onto the market in a newer format, but with a game as good as Banjo Kazooie - with new features and textures to boot - I'm willing to make an exception.

--- Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts ---

So when Rare announced a new Banjo Kazooie for the Xbox 360, I was both excited and worried. Since its split with Nintendo and purchase by Microsoft, Rare has not been capable of creating the same caliber of product that it is known and loved for (some say this started during the Star Fox Adventures development, too, as it wasn't exactly received well). Which is sad, because Rare seems to have been punished unfairly for attempting new things and creating new IPs (Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Kameo, Viva Pinata), although their poor attempts at ports (Conker: Live and Reloaded) and buggy launch titles that are prequels of their beloved classics (Perfect Dark Zero) didn't help their reputation at all. Could the company overcome its recent missteps and create something worthy of the Banjo-Kazooie name, or would it turn into another disappointing continuation of another one of their once beloved franchise? While the former may not have happened as much as one would like, I would not call the game a failure by any means.

While essentially a 'platformer' at heart, Nuts and Bolts is unique in that most tasks are performed not through jumping, but through the use of vehicles. If you limit the term 'platformer' to being a game entirely dedicated to jumping and the timing thereof, then no, this is not a platformer... but neither is, say, Mario 64. Mario 64 also included new elements like swimming, flying and boss battles to provide their own unique challenges different from - yet still similar to - jumping. Basic platforming is still in Nuts and Bolts, but the usefulness of this is mostly limited to note collection within the hub world 'Showdown Town' as most challenges require the use of some type of vehicle. You may not be solving challenges exclusively with jumping, but performing tasks with a certain degree of precision and timing is the foundation of the game and is the most obvious reason you can call it a 'platformer'.

It makes more sense with an explanation of gameplay. The essence of Nuts and Bolts is that you create and use vehicles to perform a variety of different tasks with a number of constraints. This can include things like time limits, following a certain path, racing other characters or vehicle choice restrictions. Overall the game is a very large mixture of different playstyles and environments, ranging from on-rail shooters, flying planes, racing boats or item collection and transportation. The real beauty is that many (if not all) challenges have more than one unique solution so instead of being forced to perform a given task in a specific way you can instead find clever ways to solve the problem using creative or 'out of the box' solutions. Do you need to heat up an egg to make an omelet? You can create a vehicle that carries the egg to a nearby volcano or you come back later and use the flamethrower to whip something up on the spot. Trying to throw basketballs into a hoop? You may find it easier to bring the hoop to the ball.

The nicest thing about the vehicle creation system, however, is that each part you use has an actual impact on performance and is not merely a cosmetic difference. My biggest disappointment with Spore was actually how neutered the creature creator felt once you understood how it worked. 'Stacking' items onto a creature would not increase that item's power, so there was no reason to add more than 1 of anything because the only difference was the aesthetic look. Having six level 1 claws actually made your creature less dangerous than having one level 5 claw because you would be limited to a level 1 attack. This was very foolish for several reasons:

1) Adding extra units still ate up 'DNA' units, so you were essentially paying a hefty price for cosmetic features.
2) This also meant that a creature could be level 5 in every category if you were willing to create it in such a way that it only needed 1 of any item (1 foot, 1 claw, 1 mouth, etc). This meant that creativity and uniqueness was punished by being inferior to ones that were built solely to exploit the DNA available to them.
3) Creatures had hard caps that could not be exceeded, going against the basic premise of the system. You couldn't create a vicious killing machine that would fight his way through all problems and have no social skills or speed whatsoever, because there was no point. It offered no benefits because you couldn't stack items to gain additional benefits at the cost of others.

Nuts and Bolts solves this problem by allowing additive stacking to actually confer a benefit. Using 2 small fuel tanks will give you more fuel than just 1. Using 5 small engines will go faster than using 1 medium engine. If you have a large engine but just want a bit more power you can add a small one. You can add as many weapons and ammo boxes as you prefer to make it look like something out of the Twisted Metal series and it will definitely kick the pants off of someone with just a puny egg shooter. Basically, every change you make will have some affect on the vehicle's performance and when you are spending time customizing and fine tuning your own creations, that means a lot. It not only gives your work a greater sense of purpose but also encourages you to finely tweak everything to get the best performance, making the creator a much more integral part of the game than just 'eh, let's throw something together real quick and be doe with it".

Which is good, because each task you complete is given a sort of 'grading' based on the limits given. You can fail (obviously), do OK and receive notes (currency in the game to buy new parts and blueprints), do well and receive a jiggy (unlock new worlds and ultimately the boss) or do very well and receive a trophy (4 trophies = another jiggy, not very creative I know). As an example, timed events tend to reward you for doing more of something in the given time, like collecting more items or killing more enemies. Another example would be that if your goal is to perform a specific task, you will be rewarded for completing it in a faster time. Since you do not need the maximum number of jiggies to beat the last boss (in fact you need just over half), you are free to skip tasks that are aggravating or prove to be more difficult. This gives you plenty of choices on how to move forward, allows you to play challenges you prefer or ones that you've already built vehicles for and even come back later to do something when you've gotten better vehicle parts or newer items to use. The only exception to this rule is Grunty battles, which you need to get specific parts to open new areas in Showdown town. Overall, this non-linearity actually helps to prevent you from feeling bogged down or stuck while rewarding creativity, ingenuity and platforming.

Unfortunately, you must approach Nuts and Bolts with a very accepting attitude for the first hour or so because the beginning of the game is very tedious and limited. You start out with a tiny number of parts to work with and most early challenges (beyond simple "tutorial" ones) will be frustrating to complete, especially if you are going for Trophies. Early vehicles are about as sturdy as an egg, handle about as poorly as wet soap and go as fast as a sloth but, over time, you can really start making some nice contraptions. As you earn money, collect your first few jiggies and open up new areas you will slowly unlock new parts and blueprints that beef up the vehicle editor. If you can push yourself past the initial 'it's impossible to drive these vehicles' phase and start to customize your own, the fun will really start to kick in and the rest of the game will be great. Unfortunately for Rare, demos are short and attention spans are even shorter, but make sure you give this game just a bit more time than normal before throwing it to the dogs.

While achievements normally do an excellent job of extending the life of a game you enjoy, I found this especially true for Nuts and Bolts. They are very well spaced out over the course of the game, meaning that usually when you sit down to play you can earn an achievement or two before you're finished for the night. This is good because it gives you small goals to aim for outside of the 'real' game and also rewards you for going above and beyond (earning trophies), being a completionist (collect every jiggy) or doing some of the other unique things available in the game like Klungo's Arcade. Speaking of which, try not to let Rare's terrible sense of humor get in the way of enjoying the otherwise delicious 2d platformer minigame tucked away there. Sorry guys, but the "oh sorry I thought I fixed that bug here let me restart the whole level for you" isn't funny with you're constantly dying and were doing well for once.

While the singleplayer is nice, the multiplayer could use a bit of work. Online matchmaking generally takes forever, often times just outright fails and even if you do get into a game teams will be unevenly split, occasionally punishingly so (i.e. 5v2). Custom vehicle matches would be fun except there is not a way to determine the 'class' of a vehicle (i.e. is it using early game parts or is it decked out in all the super items?) so unless you've 100%'d the game and really focused on building the perfect vehicle for a specific course you can almost be assured to lose to someone half as good as you rocketing around the arena with 4 super jets. "Log's choice", where everyone uses the same pre-built machines, is better but they aren't tuned to handle as well as you'd like and cannot be customized... which is a large selling point for the game. If the audience was large enough they could do interesting things like have vehicle 'classes', where you could race against vehicles with similar sizes or part quality, but I think if you fractured the online community any more than it already is you'd never get into a game. Local multiplayer shows more promise, but that would require finding 3 other people like yourself willing to take the time to make custom vehicles and race them against you. Pretty heavy setup cost for a multiplayer game.

Despite my initial dissatisfaction with Nuts and Bolts not being a traditional platformer, the vehicle customization and gameplay eventually won me over (even though the inside jokes about losing their moves stung a little). I went on to complete the game as much as possible, leaving only multiplayer achievements undone due it being almost impossible to get into a game, let alone win it. As long as you are willing to give the game a chance, it will provide you with dozens of hours of vehicle buildin', witch shootin', jiggy collectin' fun that is as unique and entertaining as you are willing to invest your time and creativity into each vehicle. It may not be the instant-classic that it's predecessor was, but at $40 or less Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts is quite the deal.