Bioshock actually shocks me

I'm going to be honest here; when the game first came out, I ignored it. To me it was just another FPS in an already crowded, bloated and generally boring market of games aimed at kids with twitch fingers and appetites for violence and mindless action. I've gone on record stating many times that just about the only FPS I play anymore is the Half Life series, to due it's excellent pacing, puzzles, story, characters and overall polish. When Halo 3 came out - one of the biggest FPS releases since, well, Halo 2 - I only played the last 2 levels because I happened to be at a friends' house when they were finishing it on 4 player. I didn't even play through the whole thing until after a friend in Austin purchased the game and wanted someone to play co-op split screen with. That's right, I don't even own it. And while I do own Team Fortress 2 - a game I actually rather enjoy - I'm just not good enough or interested enough to keep playing an FPS for more than a few days.

Of course, then Bioshock exploded. It was given all sorts of awards and lauded as an incredible, "not to be missed" game. I chalked this up to those who like to talk up games on their favorite system which are not on other, rival systems (even though it is now). I'd heard more hype about Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4 and was not rivited by either, what could this no-name offshoot offer me that these two behemoths did not?

When I received Bioshock for my birthday, then, I was somewhat surprised. I hadn't really mentioned it to anyone, but I suppose when you have a teenager in the family making suggestions on what he'd like to buy someone who plays games, he knows which ones are the big names. After a few months of sitting on the shelves, I took it down to give it a whirl (as a diversion for all the JRPGs I had just finished playing), and I must once again admit that I was terribly, horribly wrong. I seem to be doing this alot lately.

My 'problem' with most FPS's is that they are more well suited for quick-fingered, aggressive thrill seekers than strategic, tactical min/maxers like myself. There's no real numbers, reason, logic or strategy, just run here, shoot stuff, run there, shoot more stuff. Most games that I play (and most enjoy) are turn based and involves lots of numbers, elements, variables, options and calculating. I know that in many FPS's enemies have 'weaknesses' or whatever and that you can master weapons and enemies just as well with brain as with brawn, but overall the genre is composed more of brute force combined with trial and error than not. And while this may, in many respects, be true of the basic core of Bioshock, it is hidden and masked so well that it really did not bother or frustrate me as much as normal.

That may be, of course, because Bioshock is not 'just' and FPS. It is an experience, a world and narrative so rich and engrossing that you perhaps forget yourself in it. It starts off with an intriguing enough beginning, which is a breath of fresh air compared to most "lone man saving the world from destruction" story so typical to the genre (even my beloved Half Life series!). Your plane crash lands and you find yourself in an underwater city, surrounded by sociopaths and lunatics. At this point you are not trying to save anything but yourself, and not only is it a nice change of pace from the norm but also sets itself up well to feed into the rest of the story.

I'll do you a favor and not talk about the story in great detail from here on out, because to do so would ruin pretty much everything that makes the game what it is. Suffice it to say that while you may find the plot predictable you still will not expect it, while you may see characters as shallow you will discover them to be quite deep, and while the place may seem droll and lifeless you'll find plenty of times that you wish it were. The environments suffer from the usual 'too realistic ' nonsense found in most games these days, dark with slightly varying shades of brown and grey, but there is some variety and it all fits surprisingly well together with the theme and atmosphere of the game. Most of the time you will be too busy lost in the incredibly rich atmosphere or frantically running away from that pissed off big daddy to notice (or care) about nit picky things like that anyway. It looks nice and does the game service, in this case that's more than enough.

The number of different 'plasmids' (body altering chemicals) you can make and weapons you can weild keeps most of the combat interesting and gives you strategy and choice when moving forward in the world. Do you take the upgraded shotgun to help with the big daddies or upgrade your pistol to help against splicers? Do you take the hacker plasmids that help against turrets and cameras or do you need the extra health to survive all the enemies? It helps to customize the game in ways not normally seen in shooters and gives an otherwise linear experience a bit more freedom and choice. It also means that you can make the game more stealthy (camo and quiet footsteps combined with a few good wrench-based beatings) or more twitchy (big guns with huge clips and giant explosives) so it caters to your playstyle if you play your cards right. It won't be as tactiacl as Metal Gear nor as run and gun as Halo but it finds a happy medium and gives you the power to play it as you like.

Now a days, most shooters are very short single player experiences and rely on online play to keep you interested (and to keep you from turning around and selling it back to Gamestop). To compare, Halo 3 took me a paltry 6 hours to beat, Call of Duty 4 clocked in at a slightly more impressive 8. Multiplayer? Barely touched either, didn't care. Bioshock has NO multiplayer and doesn't even have co-op (on the 360 anyway) but the 'main' game took me nearly 20 hours to play through. This is not some halfway done attempt at single player to put a bullet point on the box of a mostly multiplayer focused game. It will take you a few days to beat (or, if you go at my pace, about a month) and won't leave you feeling like you were shortchanged. Aside from a *few* uses of the feindishly evil backtracking parts (i.e. make the game longer on the cheap), it's new and interesting at every turn and, assuming you can keep going without being creeped out by the characters and story, keeps you coming back for me. For those who have mastered the game I'm sure you can plow through it faster, but harder difficulty settings and special 'survivor' modes on the PS3 add even more to its length and replayability.

It's not all roses, of course, but it's hard to think of many things that are actually "bad" about this game. Hacking is cool at first but when every room has 2 cameras, 3 turrets, 4 vendors and a safe it gets old REALLY fast. On some of the easier difficulty levels you will probably end up just buying autohacks, buying them out, destroying them, or just plain ignoring them. It's not that the minigame itself is poorly designed (it's actually quite fun when it becomes semi-challenging), it's the fact that you are spending 30 minutes clearing a room of hackable things only to have to do it all over again 5 minutes later that it starts to get annoying. If you do enough research you can auto hack some of them by that point it's too little too late and a drop in the bucket compared to what you've done so far.... and what you have left that still has to be done. I can only imagine how much more annoying it must be on the harder difficulties, where you don't have the cash to burn or the ammo to waste on these foolish things.

Speaking of bots and cameras, some of them are in the weirdest or most annoying places - often to disasterous (or frustrating) consequences. I found myself the unwanted recepient of a bot swarm a few too many times playing through the game, usually because I stepped around some corner and directly into the line of sight of a camera that I had no idea was there, only to be completely out of luck. Add the fact that you must then run to some 'security bot deactivate' switch - which could be so far away from your current position that you might as well just fight them off and wait it out - equals to a minute of annoying, flying mechanical demons that like to come from nowhere and aren't very happy with you. Usually it's not a problem - cameras give off light that's pretty easy to see as it moves along the otherwise dark and uninteresting metallic grey interior - but when you think you are being careful or cautious and STILL get caught it's no longer a gameplay mechanic, it's now a frustration mechanic. Considering the list of good things about this title, though, these are really just some unfair nit-pickings and are no reason whatsoever to not give this game a fair shake.

Overall, the one thing you can say about the game is that it delivers. It took the single player aspect of the first person shooter, gave it a unique twist, threw in and incredible story and a very well designed locale and just lets you go to town. It even gives you a fair amount of freedom for a game that is otherwise a purely linear experience. It may not play or even handle any different than your normal FPS, but honestly that is not the genre's problem. It doesn't need a new gimmick, it needs people with decent ideas and the ability to deliver them. Bioshock may only be good because it is a refreshing change in an otherwise stale and overharvested genre, but sometimes that's all it takes to make a masterpiece. And believe me when I say.... they have.

---

With Christmas comes new games, and that means more things to review. I have 10+ games practically unopened and several more in various states of completion, so I expect this list to grow MUCH faster than I can possibly keep up with it. Well, than I choose to keep up with it, anyway. At least the first half of this year will cool off a bit, I'm not even really looking foward to anything (that I know of) until Resident Evil 5 hits in march, which gives me a good bit of time to work through my back catalogue.

Currently playing:
WoW:WotLK (PC)
Ace Attorney: Apollo Justice (DS)
Professor Layton and the Curious Villiage (DS)
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (Wii)
Lost Odyssey (360)
Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts (360)
Fable II (360)

What should be next (no particular order):
The World Ends With You (DS)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Spore (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)
Rock Band 2 (360)
Banjo Kazooie (XBLA)

(If only it were) Eternal Sonata

I really question the way blogger does dates. Unless I write the post in a single day (I almost never do, being as long and thought out as they are) it makes it seems like I post something the day I STARTED it, not the day I actually posted it. Guess I should manually change this, but really, that just seems silly...

This time I'm going to skip forward a few games (sorry TWEWY, your time will come) because I just finished a game (Eternal Sonata, in case you didn't see it in the not-so-catchy title) that I believe is really deserving of some high praise. And, since it has been released VERY recently on the PS3, I believe it is prudent to tell those who might be interested in it just what they are getting themselves into.

First and foremost, the game is absolutely stunning. This is by far and away the best game I have ever watched on my HD TV. This is, of course, because the art style and design are so incredible that it is absolutely mind-blowing. The cartoonish, almost anime look to the game, combined with the very elaborate and artisitc character and level designs, make for one of the most vibrant and memorable RPG experiences to date. It has a simliar look to Blue Dragon, but goes above and beyond because the world they create is so vibrant and full of life. Just the first few scenes alone assualt your eyes with deep, rich colors and a strikingly crisp, detailed world and characters so beautifully drawn that, at times, you may think you are watching a cartoon. Of course it has some funny problems (try for a second to convince yourself that anyone would hold their arms the way that they do) and some of the later enemies and bosses suffer from the dreaded pallete swap (where they use the exact same model but simply swap colors) but your mouth will simply be on the floor so often in awe of what your HDTV is able to produce that these flaws are easily overlooked.

It is not often that graphics stun me, especially to the point that I believe it is something that people need to know about in a game. There are games with less-than-hd quality graphics that are still amazing games (Smash Brothers, Mario Kart), and even games that look 'good' in HD but really don't stand out too much due to poor art direction or bland environments (Enchanted Arms has the resolution but very little inspiring art, Gears of War has the detail but I think they limited themselves to the colors black, brown and grey). Graphics are almost always the last thing to mention or bring up because as long as the gameplay is solid or the story is engrossing the graphics, to me, really don't matter. However, there are some games that just go above and beyond with their art direction - more important than pixels or detail - and make something really stand out or really unique. World of Warcraft continues to impress me with what they can do with so little horsepower (as Blizzard has always done time and time again), The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker showed us just what games could do with cell shading and facial expressions, and the new Prince of Persia really stands out as a unique and interesting art direction that I think shakes things up enough to be worth mentioning. The same can be said of Eternal Sonata, so while I would not suggest you buy the game solely on looks alone (it's a game for crying out loud, why buy something to look at it?) it is worth noting that a new benchmark has been set for art and style of cell shaded, anime-like games. If this is where HD gaming will take us, I welcome it with open arms.

Eye candy aside, Eternal Sonata does an incredible job melding button mashing, dungeon crawler elements of action rpgs with traditional turn based rpg gameplay. The battle system of an rpg is one pillar on which the entire genre must stand - along with plot and characters - that gives the genre it's own uniqueness and meaning. A poor battle system can drag down even the greatest of stories (FFXII) and save a game from even the most pathetic writing (Enchanted Arms). For almost 7 years, my favorite rpg battle system belonged to the increible Legend of Dragoon (in my opinion, one of the most underrated and unknown rpgs on a system overflowing with them). For those who never palyed it, Legend of Dragoon used a classic turn based battle system that really stood out for two reasons. 1) Most characters (not all) performed 'combos' for their attacks that required you to press buttons at a certian time to increase damage and completing the combo (you could defend/counter attack in the same manner). Think of it as a more complex, fleshed out version of the Super Mario RPG battle system. This meant that battles required more attention than was usual for an RPG, so no more constantly spamming 'A' to attack things and win outright with no real challenge. 2) The game was HARD, and the limitations on the number of items you could carry, combined with difficult enemies, the combo system, and your limited amount of ‘magic’ meant that every turn and every decision was important and required strategic precision. This made battles more enjoyable and more thrilling, as each battle could easily be your last and you always had to be working on contingency plans and planning your next few moves. Enchanted Arms bested this system, but only by making a pact with satan himself and including a miniaturized version of a tactical, grid based SRPG as the battle system, cranking up the difficulty and rewarding you extensively for finishing off foes quickly and with big numbers.

But, I think I was trying to talk about Eternal Soanta...

Eternal Sonata is unique in that the battle system for the game grows and evolves as you play. When you start out the game, you begin with a very simple system that gives you plenty of time to learn your characters, plot out your moves and master the controls. As you progress, though, the system begins to become more complicated and fast paced while giving you bonuses to compensate for this increased challenge. You begin with fairly simple, 'turn based lite' type game where you may take however much time you wish to plot out your moves and each action you take has a certian 'cost' associated with it. The basics of the system do not get any more complex - you may move, attack, use an item or use a special attack (called a 'Harmony'). However, as you gain 'party levels' the battle system changes and becomes more real-time while it also expands in complexity and power. This is where the real fun begins.

It turns out that the 'cost' associated with each action is actually the time it takes to perform each move. Harmonies have much longer times associated with them while normal attacks are much shorter, encouragaing you to chain multiple attacks together before finishing with a large Harmony attack. Eventually even movement takes 'time' and the battle system shifts to real time as you are slowly weened off of your 'tactical time', which gave you precious seconds to plan your move. By the end of the game, the battle is constantly flowing without interruption and it is up to you to make sure you keep track of whose turn it is next and plan out your attacks accordingly. This all happens gradually, though, over the course of the nearly 40 hour story, so you are given ample opportunity to get used to the system and moving at faster and faster paces. Perhaps the most difficult addition is the optional party level 6 ('optional' in that you could beat the game without it, required if you wish to do the bonus dungeon before you finish the game). This party level really throws a wrench into the system, changing around the buttons associated with different actions (harmony, defend, and attack) each time you perform a harmony. Of course, if mastered properly, this is not without it's own rewards...

As the party system becomes more complex and demanding, the rewards for keeping up with the system increase as well. You can start to save up 'echos', essentially a counter for the number of attacks you chain together in a turn, that makes your Harmonies more powerful the more echos you have. Eventually you can 'chain' Harmonies together and, at party level 6, can perform SIX harmony attacks by continuously chaining them together (remembering, of course, that the Harmony button can change each time a Harmony is used). You also gain more total echoes as your party level increases (making your Harmony attacks stronger) and, at party level 6, your Harmony chains can 'carry over' echoes and your correctly performed Harmony chains become devastatingly powerful. It also allows you to carry more items into battle (vital for classes that have no healing harmonies or equipment). The main benefit, of course, is the potential to do greater damage, something that is necessary as the bosses get tougher.

Unfortunately, as you gain a better control over your party's movements and begin to plan attacks, the game becomes almost a cakewalk. This is especially true after getting party level 6, where you can now kill enemies in a single turn and, if played right, can set up 6-chain harmonies every turn. This kind of constant damage output, coupled with a character that has a healing harmony (Viola, Chopin or Polka, for instance), and a even only occasionally properly defending against enemy attacks begins to make battles almost trivial. It still requires you to pay attention and is better than the usual "just spam A to win" style battle systems, but it may take Encore mode - where enemies have huge health and damage increases - to really begin to challenge you. Of course, the other side of the coin is that once you get good at something and learn to plan your attacks well things SHOULD get easy, so perhaps my complaint is somewhat misplaced. It did not make the battle system any less fun or involved, but it did take away the feeling of anxiety in knowing that you could be in danger of dying at any time. Overall the system is very etertaining and a marked improvement over the very slow, 'gimmie' battle systems of old and is one of the reasons that Eternal Sonata stands out in my mind as one of the best rpg's I've ever played.

Gameplay being covered, on to the story. For those who don't know, the story is loosely tied to Frederic Chopin's (composer and pianist) life, or more specifically, his death. The world acts as a kind of 'dream', something Chopin's mind takes him down as his physical body nears death. Chopin also acts as a character himself in the game, and you can watch as he battles in his mind to tell whether or not the world he currently is experience is real or a dream. You even see several historical slideshows which generally tells a kind of 'making of' each song, which, as a lover of music, is something that I actually enjoyed. This can be skipped if you so choose, which is good, because it's certianly not for everyone.

This story, however, really takes a backseat for most of the game and more sets up the 'theme' than it does the actual plot. Sure, everything is based off of music; just look at the names of locations and places, and even the shape of their weapons (which look like different kinds of musical instruments), but the real story lies in this dream world. That story is more your standard rpg fare. Boy meets girl, awkwardly falls for girl but can't admit it, fights against an ufair or oppressive government and does his best to save the world. I wills say that the story actually seems to 'jump' from character to character and you honestly have no 'main character'. There are several subplots that are followed and even times where you will not see the (arguably) 'main character', Alegretto, for several hours. This also means you may use whichever characters you want in your party, and are not forced to use one guy all the time. This is unusual for the genre, which tends to force entire plot to revolve or be somehow attached to the main character, but is a nice change of pace if you don't think you are being robbed of some 'main' plot. Everything that happens moves the story along, even if it's not connected in any way to a single character.

Character development is strong but occasionally flawed. Some characters certainly come across as more believable than others - Chopin being a prime example - but others are left in a sort of out on their own because it is hard for them to carve a niche into the group. The fact that they attempt to give Jazz not only a love triangle but a love SQUARE (3 girls fawning after 1 man) means that it's going to be difficult for each of them to distinguish from one another. Most of the character pairs work flawlessly - Beat and Salsa make a great pair and provide a significant amount of the humor throughout the game. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for March, who joins the party late and has no real interactions beyond with her twin sister (who already has someone you mentally pair her with). The Allegretto/Polka love story is believable enough (good enough for a video game anyway) and provides a good way for Allegretto's character to grow and the story to progress. As strong and promising of a character as Viola first presents, she quickly gets swept into Jazz's "love square" at which point she loses alot of her focus and meaning in the group aside from being yet another person swooning over Jazz. Which is sad beacuse the Jazz/Falsetto/Claves love triangle actually stands well on it's own and, given the events of the story, is one of the bigger story arcs that you can see visibly affect the characters and their decisions. The PS3 version includes 2 new characters, and while they are strong NPC characters and could add more dynamics to the group mix, given when they are introduced into the story I feel it may be a bit too late to try and add them in effectively.

On the whole, there are enough twists to keep you guessing and the delivery of the story is strong, backed by characters that you can relate to very well and remain both entertaining and interesting throughout the game. There are occasional hiccups or oddities - some of the love stories feel awkward or forced and the ending is both satisfying and incredibly bizarre - so while the game does not set a new standard in storytelling or epic plots by any means, it does more than 'get the job done' and is enough to keep your interest piqued as you progress. It certainly does not detract from the experience in any way (minus, perhaps, the ending).

Overall, Eternal Soanta represents everything that keeps me coming back to RPGs time and time again. Massive worlds, believeable characters, epic plots, interesting battle systems and incredibly rewarding gameplay experiences. This game executes above and beyond expectations in almost every category and will one day be considered a 'classic' in my eyes. If you're even a modest fan of JRPGs, this game is not to be missed. I would recommend it over any other RPG that I have played this generation and over just about every one I've played my whole life (with the exception of revolutionary classics like FF7, Xenogears or Legend of Dragoon). It takes some getting used to - especially if you are not a fan of the cartoony look - but in the end, this game will not disappoint.

As for what's next, I'd love to sing the praises of The World Ends With You but perhaps I will take a break from my usual JRPG/SRPG lovefest and review Castlevania or Spore.

Currently playing:
WoW:WotLK (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)
Ace Attorney: Apollo Justice (DS)
Professor Layton and the Curious Villiage (DS)
Rock Band 2 (360)
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (Wii)

What should be next:
The World Ends With You (DS)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Spore (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)

How on earth did I miss reviewing Bioshock (360)?

Real life, or larger than life?

With September and October completely gone,, I figured I should write a new post lest I go 3 months without saying anything. It seems like everytime I sit down and say I want to do this more often I end up doing it less often - maybe I should try it the other way around for once?

Comparing GTAIV and Saint's Row is not only a difficult task, but it is also a flawed one. Saint's row came out pretty early in the 360's life (compared to GTAIV) and is really the first attempt by developer Volition to break into the sand-box genre. Which, let's face it, EVERYHTHING is immediately compared to the GTA series - they are even called "GTA clones". It's not easy going up against this kind of prestige, that kind of entrenched genre where anything you do will be seen as a cheap rip-off. It's like making an adventure game without featuring Link or a platforming game without Mario. You will always be compared to games that have taken the genre to near-perfection and you will never be taken seriously. It may be more fair to compare GTAIV and Saint's Row 2 - especially considering Saint's Row is now a proven franchise and it has had more time to develop properly on the platform. That is, of course, if Saint's Row was even worth playing in the first place. So was it? Or was it all just hype?

You'll need some background on my history with the genre before you can fully understand my review and where I'm coming from when I write it: Playing linear RPG's and strategy titles all the time with hard limits and a set pace leaves me wanting every year or so a good, free roaming game that lets me choose what I do and why I'm doing it. I was one of those people that had not even heard of Grand Theft Auto until it's explosion on the PS2. To me, GTAIII was to Sandbox games as FFVII was to RPGs for others. It was really my first glance into sandbox style gaming, and coming from a person who plays most games in a linear, driven fashion it left me both paralyzed and excited. In GTAIII I loved the ability to do whatever I wanted - if I wanted to move the story forward, I could. If I wanted to do side missions, I could. If I wanted to just cause havoc, I could. As you moved forward in the game and you opened up multiple places to get 'jobs', it gave even more of a sense of freedom, as you could work on something else if one mission proved too tough or too annoying. The freedom was absolutely intoxicating, and even as you got near the 'end' of the game it always felt like it was fun even if you weren't moving the story forward.

After that came Vice City which, in my humble opinion, is the best of the three GTAIII games. It added alot to the existing GTAIII forumla (motorcycles, for instance) but it's best feature was improving the story and the characters. GTAIII's story gets lost in it's own massiveness, and actually only plays an important role to set up why you're a convict on the run and to wrap up the end of the game. They could just as easily made the game have NO story - chop it out completely - and the game would stand up just as well. That is absolutely not the case with Vice City. Characters and plot were essential to fully enjoying the game, and it made the sandbox experience that much better. Meeting and understanding the loony and bizzare cast of characters and exploring the (very well done) 1980's style environments were a breath of fresh air after the dark, dab 'liberty city' and the monotone, uninspired, often forgettable characters from GTAIII.

San Andreas tried it's best to improve on this but fell short, especially in my eyes. It was not a bad game by any means, but the game was SO massive that it was actually hindered by it's size. It took forever to get anywhere, none of the cities and locations were particularly inspired, the addition of 'rpg-like' elements really stole away from the "go anywhere do anything" feel and some of the missions were punishingly difficult or tedious. Despite the fact that it was larger, it didn't feel like there was as much to do as there was in Vice City, and Rockstar's attempts to turn the main story into an almost cinematic plot really fell face first on its awkward characters and bizzare situations. This was Rockstar's attempt to deliver "gritty realism" and to really try and "push the envelope" with the series, but instead it loses most of it's focus on gameplay and becomes clouded in its own priorities. I never got past the second of the three cities, and for good reason. Nothing held my attention and it felt like it took forever to do anything... only to fail and then have to take forever AGAIN. San Andreas may have been a technical marvel on the PS2 but it was an exercise in frustration from a gameplay standpoint.

OK, so on to the games at hand:

I received Saint's Row on a whim (it was a gift, but I asked for it partially as a joke) but was eager to try it out because it has been a really, really long time since i'd played an open world, sandbox style game. San Andreas left me with a poor taste and I'd played Vice City long ago enough that nostalgia was starting to set in. I was afraid for Saint's Row after seeing a roomate play it - the characters were over-the-top stupid and the entire getup seemed way to ridiculous and 'gangster' to even enjoy. Instead of deep, interesting characters (like in Vice City) there were absolutely ridiculous stereotypes and just an uneccessarily large amount of cursing and street slang. Now, I try to be a good Christian and try not to curse myself, and I find myself willing to allow a reasonable amount of cursing or sleaze if it serves a purpose (and, let's face it, the fact I've even played these two games shows I have a pretty loose policy when it comes to things like this). But in Saint's Row it really serves no purpose other than to be over the top and offensive, which I found to be very annoying.

The desire to play a sandbox game eventually overcame the hesitation, and while I certainly would not call this 'the best game ever' or even remotely close I think it fits well as a niche alternative to GTAIV. This is not because of the story or the characters - both so cliche and stereotypical that it really serves no purpose other than to give your game an 'ending' point or a reason to try something new - but because of gameplay. It is obvious that they knew they couldn't compete with GTA toe-to-toe, so they instead took the 'parody' route with the plot (giving us all the over the top cliches) while doing much to innovate and really try to draw out that fun, 'do anything' sandbox feel. Not since GTAIII have I had so much fun just roaming around the streets picking up odd jobs and doing weird or unusual things for the sake of doing it. The game does an excellent job of providing tons of spur-of-the-moment entertainment and new or innovative side jobs that can really pile up and distract you from the (hideous) main story.

Fortunately, for a sandbox game, gameplay is much more important than story. I was OK with GTAIII's less than stellar plotline and easily forgettable characters. This was because it was still fun to play. I was happier when they actually added some flair to the games presentation with their release of Vice City, and I believe Rockstar learned a valuable lesson from the trip ups with San Andreas's slow, boring, tedious gameplay. Since Saint's Row takes itself far less seriously and opts to remove alot of the gritty realism and immersion, opting instead for some over-the-top thrills, the gameplay overall is much smoother and much more entertaining. New odd jobs, like insurance fraud, handily beat the more "realistic" side stuff in previous GTAs (like, "buy a business and then periodically drive by and collect cash"). Having multiple cars available to you in your garage instead of just 1 lets you collect all the nice, exotic, or just plain strange cars that you want without that annoying "only one car can be saved in your garage" limit. The fact that you can die or get busted - and when you're pulling wacky stunts or doing weird things, it happens ALOT - and still get to keep your weapons is an incredible boon. It was too annoying in the earlier GTA's to have to go around and build up your arsenal again before you did your next mission because you decided to try that crazy stunt jump or try and fly a helicopter in between.

Things like this may add 'realism' and 'consequences' but also add an invisible barrier to the game that actively discourages you from just just exploring and generally having a good time. In a sandbox game it is absolutely imperative that you interfere with the player's game as little as possible. The beauty of a sandbox game is freedom - the ability to go wherever, do whatever, whenever, and for no reason other than because you can. That is not to say that sandbox games cannot have a 'tiered' system or that you must have access to everything right away. You can still 'lock' certian areas, items and retain a sense of 'progession' and gives the player something to aim for or a separate goal to accomplish (new cars, weapons, locations or side quests). That's fine. But when you begin dictating what players can and cannot do, or adding consequences to choices (apparant or otherwise) that detract from the overall experience, it doesn't matter how revolutionary or how impressive these are, they still remain annoying nuiscances to the true gameplay. This is perhaps GTAIV's greatest flaw, but I'll get to that later.

So for all of Saint's Row's many failures (story, characters, offensiveness and lack of originality) it is more than made up for in gameplay. To be fair, the game feels like a giant leap forward from Crackdown in terms of depth of gameplay, size and variety but is severely hindered by it's "super thug" image and the both offensive and annoying story. However, as a game, Saint's Row delivers an enjoyable sandbox experience that is certianly more fun than San Andreas ever was. The developers really had something going here with the gameplay but everything else is so lacking that I probably would've been extremely agitated had I paid full price for it. This is certianly something worth digging out of a bargain bin, used or even as a platinum hit - don't rent it, though, as there's alot of milage to be had from the massive world, and if you feel rushed to complete the "story" or move forward you'll lose alot of what makes sandbox games so great.

Before we begin a direct comparison (although I'm sure you can already see what my complaints and praises to GTAIV are going to be) allow me to give a review of GTAIV on it's own.

Grand Theft Auto IV represents a great step forward for games. It proves the kind of amazing things we can do with "next gen" technology. It shows the kind of incredible storytelling, deep characters, numerous choices and limitless replay that can be placed into a game. As of it's release, it raised the bar for what the sandbox genre really means. The density and life of the city, the depth and interactions with the characters, the intrigue story that you decide, the realistic physics; these are all things that have rarely been done on their own, let alone as a group. Rockstar put a very large and commendable amount of effort in creating a vibrant city and populating it with an interesting and varied cast of characters. You can really tell the amount of work and time that went in to every street corner; hardly any part of the city feels 'duplicated' or like a simple texture remapping or pallete swap and each area is really given it's own life. What has been done on these consoles and the evolution from the GTAIII engine is not only a marvel technically, but also a milestone in terms of the size and scope that games will have in the future.

It is unfortunate, then, that they forgot you wanted to have fun while you play it.

For all the praise I can give it, GTAIV boils down to perhaps nothing more than an exercise in extreme frustration. It seems that for every new freedom or new gameplay they add, they tether you down with annoying and excessively repetitive tasks. Honestly, the only thing 'sandbox' about the game anymore is that the world is large and seamless. The missons are incredibly linear and repetitive, the gameplay becomes stale after about the fourth or fifth mission (even with the addition of the Gears of War-like 'cover' system), side quests and things to do are almost non-existant and what's there is punishingly brutal in how boring and monotonous it is. Added or new gameplay elements - 'friends', internet cafes, and the like - are not only incredibly uninspired but act as the games greatest weakness, so much so that it is oft made fun of by gamers (particulaly in webcomics). Compared to other GTA games, GTAIV stands out technically and in overall presentation but just falls completely on it's face in terms of gameplay.

It is almost painfully obvious that the game suffers due to Rockstar trying to really make the game as realistic as possible. They decided to make this great world, this amazingly detailed microcosm of American life and the typical american city (more specifically, New York) and this they do splendidly. But they take the idea too far, and gameplay suffers for the sake of "realism". Driving is now about as fun as having a root canal since controlling your car through any type of turn is next to impossible. Forget the GTA staples like handbraking through turns, adrenaline pumping police chases and dangerously weaving in and out of traffic at breakneck speeds. Instead, you must resign yourself to going about 10 miles an hour if you want to make turns without losing complete control and slamming into a wall, trying to get around traffic often ends in fishtailing (or running into something that causes you to do so) and you can just forget trying to do so into oncoming traffic.

This is because driving is now more 'realistic', which is obviously true. Yeah, if I took a 90 degree turn going 45mph or more I probably wouldn't make a clean turn. Sure, if I was weaving in and out of traffic I'd probably clip something once or twice and cause my car to fishtail. Of course people would try to get out of my way if I was coming at them in the wrong lane. However, none of these facts make it fun, and often make the gameplay frustrating or slow. Instead of 70 mile an hour car chases through downtown avoiding cars and doing my best to avoid telephone poles, I'm resigned to 10 mile an hour pleasure cruises (while my 6 star rating has helicopters shooting at me) and a nice trip through the windshield should I even look at a lightpost the wrong way. Driving in this game is almost as bad as it was in Crackdown, although even that became a little more manageble once you 'skilled up'. When you make perhaps the largest portion of the game - the Auto - an unenjoyable and aggravating experience, it does not bode well for how people are going to enjoy the experience, regardless of how 'life like' it may be.

That is, of course, assuming the rest of the game played well. Which it doesn't.

The number of things wrong just climbs up from here. 'Friends' are a great addition to the game because it really helps you develop relationships and learn more about the characters of the series, giving you the opportunity to to expand upon that portion of the game's presentation if you choose to do so. Therein, of course, lies the rub: IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. I am amazed and perplexed by the fact that the makers of the defacto, genre defining 'sandbox' game could make something so disrubtive. The beauty of the sandbox genre is the freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and for whatever reason. It's not an RPG, where you must grind levels to fight a boss or to get out of a specific area. It's not an action adventure game where you are limited to a single dungeon or zone while you look for a specific item. It's not a point and click adventure where you move along a set path and do events in a specific order. So why, for the love of all that is holy, did they make this feature so disruptive?

Here is how the game occurs during a typical playing session. You are just kind of going around, maybe working on a mission or doing a side quest or running from the cops or whatever. Suddenly, your phone goes off. Oh, it's your cousin. He wants to go to play some darts. But, of course, you're tied up at the moment. "Maybe later", you say. Whoops, he doesn't like that. Then your girlfriend calls. You haven't called in a while, and she wants to go to dinner. "Kinda busy" you reply. More bad rep for you. This continues. On. and on. and on. They are relentless, always bugging you and never giving you the time of day to accomplish anything worthwhile. When you finally cave in and DO agree, are given a one hour ultimatium on how long they will wait for you, regardless of your current location. Police chase? Better end it soon. On the other side of the city? Don't mess up a single turn! Trying to tie up a few loose ends? Sorry, restart it and finish it later. Because if you miss them, they'll be even MORE mad (yet still bother calling you within the next 10 minutes to start bugging you again.

To make matters worse, getting in touch with THEM is impossible. They all keep different schedules, none of which I bother to memorize (because honestly how often do you want to call the people that bug you the most) and if you call them at the wrong time, BAM, bad rep again. Take them someone they don't like? Also bad. Not to mention that stuff you do with them is generally very, very boring. Bowling? Sitting in a Comedy Clubs? Darts? Drunk Driving? This is all they could come up with? You are rewarded for your incredible patience and for giving up all that limitless fun and adventure you could have in this huge and bustling city with a rousing game of... bowling. Yeah, wow, great idea there.

But this is what I mean when 'realism' just gets in the way of fun. Sure, people would really do that. They would get annoyed when you turn them down for stuff. They would also get annoyed if you called them in the middle of the night. They might even nag you if they havne't heard from you in a while. But why include this if it makes the game annoying? Why do something for the sake of realsim at the cost of fun? Especially in this case, where the returns of doing stuff with friends (back story, character interaction, funny moments, in game rewards like free taxi rides) already include enough incentive for players to do it on their own? It boggles the mind.

These two things alone make me never want to replay GTAIV (something I did repeatedly with GTA III and Vice City) and may even prevent me from purchasing the future 'DLC' material. It may not be enough to make you quit on your first playthrough, where the story, characters and initial exploration can carry you until the end, but once that is over and done the only thing left to do is be constantly and endlessly bugged by your friends while you attempt to do something new or interesting. It's like someone saying they would have preferred Otis to interrupt the more in Dead Rising; it just won't ever happen and really broke up the pacing of an otherwise fine game. When a sandbox game has very low replayability and next to no variety, well, things don't look good for a game that fails in the two very things it is supposed to excel.

However, where character development really shines in the support cast, the development of Nikko is often unbalanced and generally poor. He always claims to be running from his haunted past but almost effortlessly returns to a life of crime again and again, to a point where he just gives up attempting to retain some level of morality and who's only concern is 'what's in it for me'. This makes it difficult to see him actually becoming emotionally attached to ANY character, let alone his girlfriends or his dumb-in-the-head cousin, who Nikko often times goes well out of his way to protect. It feels like they tried to make Nikko plasy a prominent part in two completely different worlds simultaneously - the ruthless, revenge seeking madman who will kill for money and harbors no pity or remorse, and the friendly, happy go lucky boyfriend wishing his cousin all the luck and staying close to family and those nearest to his heart. Instead it makes for a confusing display of an almsot schizophrenic man who on one hand tells his girlfriend he doesn't like the bad things he's doing and then immediately turns around and tells the mob he'll kill anyone they want if the pay is right. And this is someone we're supposed to relate to? It's almost impossible to believe and is perhaps the only negative one can have against the story telling, as you'll never know which Nikko will show up this time: the murderous, vengeful one or the caring, friendly one.

The list of nitpicks just goes on and on. Why can't I have more than 1 car saved at a time? Why are stores spaced so far apart and so difficult to get to? Why so few customization options on what to wear? The list of questionable decisions and gameplay choices just goes on, and on.

Of course the game is not ALL negative, but for a game that recieves a '10/10' by and large in the media one must focus on the negatives to point out just where they are wrong. The cover system works very well (when it lets you actually use a wall or the camera feels like being helpful) and really enhances the fight elements over the GTAIII installments. The missions are really well tied together and often times feel 'epic' or eventful, like you are making a lasting impact on the world and the people around you (even if it has none to your main character). The choices you are given lets you craft Nikko's destiny in a way you choose and even affects the ending you receive, something that is nice for a genre that prides itself on choice and freedom.

You know, it really makes you think. Assassin's Creed is, in many ways, in the same boat as GTAIV. Sandbox games with great stories and characters that fail to impress in replayability and variety. Of course, at least Assassin's Creed's core gameplay is fun and unique as opposed to GTAIV's horrendous driving. But, here we are, GTAIV recieving scroes as though it is the best game ever made and sporting so many '10/10' reviews that it makes me wonder if these reviewers recieved the same game that I did, or even played it at all. Did they want to be the first to review this overly hyped game so bad that they played 10 minutes and then rushed off to write the review? Did they gloss over these errors and annoyances for fear of a customer backlash? Did they give readers what they expected just because it would be what drove the most traffic and sold the most copies? Perhaps. It certianly would explain why Assassin's Creed recieved such terrible marks and GTAIV received such high praise.

Of course, all you were here for is a comparison, right? Well, I gave it away in the title, but it really comes down to what you are looking for. Gameplay, larger than life presentation and a focus on freedom and fun? Saint's Row. Looking for gritty realism, deep characters and a stunning narrative? GTAIV. You'll probably have more fun with Saint's Row (even if you can't bring yourself to admit it) and you'll definitely remember the story and characters from GTAIV more. My recommendation? Play Saint's Row to have fun, GTAIV's story can wait until it's bargain bin. Or maybe pick up Saint's Row 2? I don't know, haven't played it yet...

Here's a breif glimpse into the future: Hopefully, that won't be 2009...

Currently playing:
WoW (in anticipation of WOTLK)
Eternal Sonata (360)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)
Rock Band 2 (360)

What should be next:
The World Ends With You (DS)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Spore (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)

Nintendo Juggernauts

I'm way behind on games, and as such a ton of very high profile games has gone by without me so much as saying a word. For now, I'll focus on some of the older ones - Smash Brothers Brawl and Mario Kart. They may be 'old hat' by now, but as 2 of the biggest names in the Nintendo arsenal (in company with the likes of Zelda, Mario and Metroid) these games may remain the last 'high profile' remake that Nintendo churns out for a while (Mario, Zelda, and Metroid having already debuted on the Wii).

Since it came first, I'll start with Smash Brothers Brawl. The anticipation for this game could not have been higher - melee was perhaps my most played multiplayer game of last generation, competing only with World of Warcraft in terms of time played with friends. The original Smash Brothers game helped to define the N64 as the multiplayer console of choice (along with Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, F-Zero X and Mario Kart 64) and Smash Brothers Melee took the low budget, almost 'technical demo' feel of the original Smash, improved upon it ten-fold and polished it until it gleemed. To improve upon melee was in and of itself a nearly impossible task, and yet while this was accomplished impressively, I can't help but feel let down by Brawl to some extent.

In many ways, Brawl suffers from the hype and build up that many high profile games eventually fall prey to (especially long-development games). For all that Brawl was, it could not stand up to the imaginations of it's rabid followers, and since Melee was so incredible people were expecting things that could not feasibly be done. Give them Sonic, and suddenly they want dozens of third party characters. Give them a stage builder and suddenly then they demand it to be massive in scope and customizable to an increidbly detailed level. Give them online and they want an entire infrastructure with dozens of customization options, flawless latency regardless of personal connection and 100% up time starting on day 1. Give them single player and suddenly they want the story mode longer and more complex and more involved. The list goes on and on.

Now, I don't think Brawl was a "10/10", if one must think of such things on a numerical scale. In fact, the only game in recent memory that I have played that felt even remotely close to 10/10 was Portal. This includes GTAIV (to be discussed later). But just because a hotly anticipated title does not reach perfection by no means makes it a 'bad' game. Smash Brothers in an incredible game, overflowing with so much content that to complete it all might take you the entire life of the system to accomplish, if not more. Brawl will still be some of the most fun you'll ever have with 4 people, and it even significantly beefs up the longevity of the game for someone who plays it alone as you now have both an entire single-player story mode as well as online play to keep you going strong.

To me, Brawl is the defacto Smash Brothers experience. When all is said and done, it takes the near-perfection of Melee, expands the roster, throws in new items, modes, options, levels, tprophies, customization AND adds online play. I would never return to Melee to play Smash Brothers, there's no reason to unless you prefer some of the subtle nuances in Melee's (broken) physics system. From here on out, Brawl is the new standard in terms of what a 4 player fighter must to do push the envelope and remain on top. It does exactly what a sequel should do - take an established franchise and find new ways to push the envelope, expand the game and build upon the core experience, all while remaining fun to play. In this, Smash Brothers Brawl excels more than most, providing an astonishingly huge amount of new content, experiences, options and modes in a genre that typically only updates the graphics and rosters.

Are there problems? Sure. Some people say that online doesn't work (although, in my experience, it works fine). The fighting is not quite as tight as it is when played locally, but for a game whose entire experiences revolves around millisecond response times, it is enough to make the game playable and enjoyable. What really hurts the online experience is the puzzling lack of voice chat. Even if only available in a "Lobby" setting, thise would have made choosing games online with friends far less awkward and confusing. You can get around this by playing locally or perhaps communicating via IM or phone, but then you are rushing to make contact as you fight against the clock to choose your character and next stage. Then you don't even know why your friend left, or if he wants to leave soon... it takes all of the fun out of the multiplayer and boils it down to what might as well be you playing a (possibly) more intelligent AI. Despite the fact that online works for me, I still wait for friends to come over to play Brawl - this, to me, is the full extent of the multiplayer experience, not small text bubbles and taunts.

The stage 'builder' is a great idea but suffers from complete lack of originality and a depressingly small number of items to build from. I've seen a few nice ideas come from the stage builder mode - the 'daily' customized stage is also a nice feature - but compared to the enviornment and character of the levels shipped with the game they look absolutely bland.

Story mode is entertaining perhaps once through, but it has very little to make you want to come back for more, much less at higher difficulties. This may be because the fighting characters are tasked with performing strange and often times awkward platformer-esque elements while being chained to their fighting style. What's worse, co-op story mode is an awkward wreck that at times punishes players for bringing a friend instead of rewarding them for playing together. The 'stickers' provide the basis for a great rpg-esque way to imrpove your characters that revolves around rewarding you for collecting items and playing more, but it fails to remain addictive considering the amount of painstaking work that must be done to obtain many of them... only to lose them if you decide to use it to power up your character. It starts off very impressive, with each character beginning in their own location and allowing the levels to cater to the strengths and weaknesses of those characters. As you get near the end, though, and you may choose your poison, larger and less mobile characters are more likely to lead to frustration than fun as they start to fail some of the more complex portions of the 'platforming' sections of the game. Overall, the "Subspace Emissary" was an enjoyable experience and a Nintendo Fan's greatest dream materialized onto disk, but only the most dedicated of trophy/sticker collectors will come back for a second or third attempt at this awkward platformer.

All these faults aside, however, the Smash Brothers experience is still not one to be missed. Whenever I have 4 friends over, Brawl is still the standard go-to for 4 person multiplayer, Rock Band being a close-to-distant second depending upon player skill. To say that the game is "bad" or that it is not worth playing because it being a few flaws short of sheer perfection is nothing more than a rabid fanbase being let down by their own wild imaginations in anticipation. If you own a Wii and like the genre, you should own this game. Like Melee, it will probably end up being the most played game on your Nintendo system this generation.

Now it's time for (yet another) largely multiplayer affair: Mario Kart Wii. The Wii is well known for being that all-inclusive, local player party console. Ironically, Nintendo has been that way since the N64 with the inclusion of 4 controllers on a single console. What started with Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Mario Kart 64 and Smash Brothers has continued in spirit through the Gamecube and Wii. Meanwhile, the PS1, Ps2 and PS3 are known for largely single player affairs and the Xbox/360 are known for networked games over Live. Up to this point in the Wii's lifetime it was not known for excellent online games (Mario Strikers? Pokemon? Even Brawl was troubled for some people) so hearing that Mario Kart was going online with 12 people was not met with the same enthusiasm as perhaps I should have had.

The Mario Kart series has always been fun to me, but at the same time I don't 'love' it like many people would. I completely skipped over Double Dash (despite actually enjoying the dual-kart mechanic) and the Super Circuit (for the GBA). It even took me several months of having the DS version of the game before finally starting to get into it, but I was largely wrapped up in the single player portions and challenges.

I'm not an enthusiastic fan of racing games, and a game like Mario Kart - where you vie for first place by use of objects that generally lead towards equalizing the playing field - is not won on skill nearly as much as luck/opportunity. The same can be said, in a sense, for Smash Brothers. Obviously, there is some skill involved, but when the only reason you lose is because you were hit by 2 blue turtle shells right before the end of the race, it doesnt' feel that way. This makes for close games that tend to spread the fun around - great for local parties with close friends - but as an online experience it is almost as frustrating as it is fun. So while the online is fun, well integrated and almost flawless as an experience, the game makes me tend to play offline instead of online. I have played online with friends - which is how I know the system actually works smoothly - but the limitations of communication really hold back and prevent it from being a 'great' online game.

Offline the game is a blast, and the wii wheel actually improves the experience instead of retracts from it (a first, IMO, from a cheap plastic peripheral). Your control isn't quite as precise so obviously professionals will want to stick to the controller, but there's something about a room full of people madly leaning left and right to try and eek a bit more turn out of a controller that makes the game that much more entertaining and involving. It also makes the game much more accessible to the coveted 'casual' market and means you can play with your parents or grandparents or even little siblings without having to spend hours trying to get them to wrap their head around confusing button placement and combinations.

Unfortunately for Mario Kart Wii, it's greatest fault is that it has to compete with so many other multiplayer games that, for the 'core' gamer, it will go largely unplayed. Most of these gamers will spend their time playing Brawl (or CoD4, Halo, Rock Band, etc) than they will Mario Kart. However, for the 'casual' gamer, such as my parents or younger siblings, Mario Kart represents probably the best of what Wii has to offer: a multiplayer experience that is boiled down to simple, intuitive controls that is enjoyable for everyone regardless of who wins or loses. Expect to hear core gamers frequently complain about how they never play Mario Kart and how you shouldn't get it, but if your father is getting tired of play Tiger Woods and your mother is looking for something more social than Brain Age, Mario Kart Wii represents that perfect Nintendo blend of simplicity and depth that will help make your family holidays that much more enjoyable.

Mario Kart single player is your standard fare, drive through cups to win 1st place and unlock stuff. Nintendo definitely went all out with Mario Kart Wii, though, throwing in more than a half dozen unlockable characters and tons of unlockable bikes/karts. Unfortunately, most of these can only be unlocked in single player so if you only like to play with others then you're stuck with the bare-bones, out of the box options. I find it somewhat curious that special things must be 'unlocked' - I understand that thought process behind it (give people something to aim for and a reason to keep playing) but at the same time it almost feels like a punishment for those who don't have time or skill to play that much. I much prefer Xbox360/Steam achievements - that give you goals and bragging rights outside of the standard game - as that means you are not limited to the content you can access.

I personally am only halfway through the 100CC class and have barely scratched the surface on time trials so the number of characters and vehicles that I've 'unlocked' is paltry at best. Most of my time is spent playing Mario Kart multiplayer with friends and family, and my single player time is devoted to other, more single-player oriented games (currently Eternal Sonata and FFTA2) to have time for Mario Kart's frustrating game of "dodge the blue shells to victory". I'm not one of those people who feels the AI is more 'rubberband' like than it was in previous games (despite having skipped several), but with 12 carts on the same track you are bound to have more items on the field at all times. It is just annoying to finish 3 races in first only to have bad luck ruin your fourth and final race and set you back a whole half hour's worth of effort. For someone who's time is becoming a more and more precious commodity, to have things like this occur become more and more irritating. It's a fine line between 'difficult' and 'frustrating', and Mario Kart Wii definitely falls into the 'frustrating' category at times.

In the end, Mario Kart Wii remains a very good game that is held back by a flood of other multiplayer games (Smash Bros, WoW, Rock Band) and a (sometimes) aggravating single player experience, which is feel has always been the case for Mario Kart games. It has definitely been worth the investment - my family loves it and it is something that everyone can enjoy without needing much experience or being too overwhelmed (as opposed to Smash Brothers). It has usurped Tiger Woods Wii as the 'time with family' game of choice. There is enough here to make the game worth the investment over time - especially if you find yourself wanting games to play without people who aren't quite 'gamers' - but don't be surprised if your close friends will prefer challenging themselves to Rock Band on Expert, fragging each other in Call of Duty 4 or duking it out in Super Smash Brothers. That's how it was on the N64, that's how it was on the Gamecube, and that's how it will always be - but that does not make Mario Kart Wii a 'bad game'. It just makes it a niche one, and it fills it quite nicely.

Sorry it took so long to finish these reviews - crazy things like PAX, hurricane Ike, work and other personal reasons have prevented me from having as much free time as I like. I'm trying to work towards a more stable update schedule - I may not make 'weekly', but I'd at least like to challenge myself to have these done in a timely manner so it's not a guessing game for you as to when they are done. Speaking of what's next:

Currently playing:
Eternal Sonata (360)
Spore (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (DS)

What should be next:
GTA IV (360)
Saint's Row (360)
The World Ends With You (DS)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)

Looks like next blog may be my comparison of GTAIV to Saint's Row. You might find my conclusions somewhat surprising.

Buy 1, get 2 free!

Recovering from my China trip and my bike accident has put me ridiculously behind schedule, more on writing reviews than playing games, so I'll give a 3 for 1 deal here. One time only. Maybe. (Saint's Row and GTAIV will likely be a 2 for 1 as they'll be compared together anyway).

First let's start with the bad news: Undertow.

First of all, I only got this because it was free, and boy, am I glad that was the case. While the game itself is not terrible, it has so many flaws that you can not enjoy it as the sum of its parts, but instead hate it for what it attempts to be yet falls flat on its face doing. Please understand that, when I say this, this genre in no way appeals to me so it is fighting an uphill battle from the start. I am certainly willing to accept new genres if they are presented well or end up being fun (Half-life or Goldeneye, for instance, despite my dislike overall for FPSs').

Perhaps Undertow was too big for the restrictions of XBLA. This doesn't seem likely, though, as graphically it is very impressive - especially considering size limitations and that fact that it is 3d. Unfortunately, 3d on XBLA is like 3d on the DS or n64, at least in terms of quality. I'd rather have an artistically well done 2d game that uses the HD resolutions of my TV than a 3d game that, while impressive, looks awkward and poor at higher resolutions. Some 3d games can live within the size limitations caused by 3d (see: Penny Arcade game, although that is a different story) but I still probably would've preferred a sharper 2-d based game even with that. 3d games with restrictive graphic requirements must be done by a very artistically talented team (i.e. most anything Blizzard has ever made and some of the "3d remakes" done by Square-Enix on the DS) in order to be pulled off well.

Graphics in this case, however, are irrelevant. The game itself is very uninteresting, the gameplay was wonky and hard to figure out (the tutorial, as long as it is, hardly helps), and overall the experience falls flat. I certainly couldn't get into the single player campaign and, even though I beat it, only did so to try and see if the game had any redeeming qualities later once you unlocked stuff (it does not). Two player almost made it worse - with the exception that the game could now be "MST3K'd" - and we never even made it past the first few levels.

Maybe I'm just hating on the genre. Maybe I'm not competitive enough for the multiplayer or not interested enough in the "deep" strategy (hint: faster == less powerful, SO DEEP). Maybe I'm being unfair... but that's OK, because I didn't like the game and that's how it is. I've certainly played worse on XBLA (Yaris, I'm looking at you) but even for free, I couldn't really see myself recommending this. It shows some promise but compared to, say, Geometry Wars it is hardly worth the investment of your time, let alone your money.

Next up, the good news: Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rain Slick Precipice of Darkness.

If you've never heard of Penny Arcade, you should go online and read some of the comics assuming you like any of the following (more is better):

- Video Games
- Technology
- Cartoon Violence
- Vulgarity
- Big Words

The Penny Arcade Game acts as a sort of 3d cartoon, where you are thrown into the world with well known heroes Tycho "I like big words" Brahe and Jonathan "Simpleton" Gabriel (nicknames my own). The plot is unique and the humor is spot-on for the series, and the animation parts are even extraordinarily well done, especially when you consider it was done in Flash and not by Gabe. Tycho does some of his best writing in this game, using the narrator, item descriptions and sequence of events to both mystify and humor you at the same time. Gabe's artwork is well mimicked and translates decently into 3d - the characters at first glance don't look quite right but as time goes on (and you focus less on them) you become more accustomed to it. Gameplay is solid and incorporates an interesting twist on the turn based RPG genre, similar to how the Paper Mario series works (timed buttons to gain extra defense or miss attacks, minigames to do extra damage with special attacks, et al). The learning curve is quite steep and the timing on some attacks feels very unnatural and is hard to get down, but if you play enough and pay enough attention you should be well prepared to face the final boss. I especially like how items are actually useful in this game (in most RPGs they are ignored as they are a waste of your turn).

The problem with the game honestly is not the presentation, gameplay, story or graphics... but price. For $20 - a kingly sum on the XBLA - Penny Arcade Adventures can make you feel like you aren't getting what you paid for. The entire game takes a paltry 3 hours to beat, assuming you do 100% of everything (that include running around looking at all the item descriptions). The number of character customizations you have available are almost pathetic, although that is probably because every item has to be translated into 2d for the flash movies. The replay value is slim to nil as the number of enemies is pre-set and your level caps out 15, presumably so you can carry your character over to the next episode. While those 2-3 hours you play will be filled with laugh out loud moments and some solid, challenging RPG action one can't help but feel that the game is... lacking. Compared to the next highest price game on XBLA, Puzzle Quest, which offers dozens if not HUNDREDS of hours of gameplay with an RPG twist, it's a hard sell to make. I played through PAA and enjoyed it, but it really would be up to you as to whether or not you think 2-3 hours with of Penny Arcade humored gameplay would be worth the investment.

And last but certianly not least, the Great: Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords.

I'll be upfront and honest. I haven't beaten it yet. I'm probably only halfway there. And yet I've already put over 20 glorious hours in this game. It is really hard to try and explain what is so great about Puzzle Quest, when I first heard of the concept and saw screen shots I personally thought it was nothing more than a flash-based "Pop Cap" like causal game being pawned off to the DS crowd. Then I lost one friend to the game - so much so that he stopped playing WoW, perhaps the most addictive MMO available today, just to play more Puzzle Quest. Then another friend. Then another. I even saw the Penny Arcade guys write several comics about it. And while I'm a stubborn guy, I'm also open to the idea that sometimes I can be wrong. I tried finding it on the DS almost a year later - no dice, couldn't find it anywhere, even used. Then I saw it was available on the 360's XBLA in all it's HD glory and for a measly $15.

After playing it, I probably would've paid $30 or more for it. As is, $15 is practically a steal. It is a game that just does everything well and while it may not excel in any one area and has flaws, the overall game is still incredibly enjoyable. The gameplay mechanic - essentially "match gems" - is simple enough. As a big fan of puzzle games, this might have been enough to keep my interest, and yet, it gets better. They take this simple gem matching game and wrap a deep RPG-esque battle system around it, complete with Hit Points, Mana, casting spells (offensive and defensive), leveling up, buying items and even item creation. The system seems to be much better tuned on the xbox, where some of the super-powerful spells on the DS have been toned back to be more reasonable (or have cooldowns). There are several classes to choose from, each with a different approach to how they do damage or how they fight and each requiring a unique approach to how you match gems. I played a druid, who relies more on green and yellow magic to do damage, and so it comes with certian benefits (more powerful spells than say a warrior) but more weaknesses (relies on mana so early levels and enemies that drain mana or do damage based on mana reserves are more dangerous). The length of the game is not in the puzzle system, which may take only a few minutes or possibly 10-15 if you play more conservatively, but in the fact that these smaller puzzled games are strung together over an RPG-like "arc" where you play game after game to level up your character, obtain new items, complete storylines or quests, or take over towns. There are also different "twists" on the game mechanic for special rewards, such as clearing a board of preset gems to "capture" enemies (you can then learn spells from them), collecting "scrolls" for new spells or "anvils" for new items without getting a game over and even playing with a specific turn time limit to level up your mount.

As such, puzzle quest is not the type of game where you sit down and play it all in one sitting (although this theoretically could be done), but the smaller gameplay sizes and a feeling of progression make this game very easy to pick up and put down again. So not only will the game last you 40 (or more!) hours of true, "human time" gameplay but you will likely play it in between playing other things (or, if on the DS/PSP, on the go) which will help prevent the game from feeling too repetitive. The possibility of playing as another class adds even more to the replay value, as the game mechanics would play so differently that you would be more inclined to find it interesting than if the differences were more cosmetic or subtle. Different classes require very different strategies and completely alter how you play the board and which enemies are harder/easier to you.

The game is by no means "perfect", but then again no game is. The actual "story" feels weak and trivial given the size of the game. The story is not "horrible" and in no way gets in the way of actually playing the game, but I doubt that many (if anyone) are playing the game for the story. Often times you will feel that the game is not truly "random" and that the computer seems to almost know what is going to fall down when they make a move, but perhaps this is equal parts paranoia and truth. Obviously if played for too long at one time, the game can begin to feel repetitive, and this is not helped by the fact that random monsters are spawned on the road. As the game world gets bigger and bigger, more monsters will spawn than one could actually hope to keep off the map, meaning that getting from point A to B (especially for quests that require travel over long distances) could require that you beat 10+ enemies on the way there and another 3-4 that have respawned before you could make it back. When you are attempting to get somewhere (a town to buy new spells or make new items) or when you are trying to finish quests, this can become frustrating as it feels forced. The ability to "skip" over these random battles would have been a great addition to the game, even if it was limited to monsters you had already beaten several times. Some of the final-level items you can make also require a painstakingly long amount of time to "craft" and you can lose hours and hours attempting to create since, even if you get a "game over" with only 1 anvil or scroll left, you must start all over. When this is caused by the random placement of items on the board instead of a mistake by the player, this is especially frustrating. Overall, its flaws are forgivable given the price and the amount of fun gameplay and replay value offered.

I'm already looking forward to the promised XBLA expansion, including new classes, spells and areas, as well as the true sequel, Galatrix. I missed the boat the first time, but I'll be sure to make it this time around.

Since you last heard from me I've started (and promptly finished!) Bioshock, perhaps the most refreshing FPS I have played in some time. I've also taken Final Fantasy Tactics Advance 2 for a spin (25+ hours) and am generally pleased. The World did NOT end with me, as I have beaten The World Ends With You and I've also started the (so far incredibly nice looking) Eternal Sonata, who has already piqued my interest with crisp, bright HD graphics and an interesting spin on your standard RPG battle system. This also includes games that I'm way behind reviewing (Mario Kart, Smash Bros, GTAIV, Saint's Row) so be on the look out for more in the coming weeks and months.

Also, going to PAX at the end of the month. That should be a blast!

Mass of Text

I've been playing "catch up" on the Xbox 360 since I purchased it last November, and so many good games have been coming out for it lately that I seem to be farther behind than I was when I first got it. Assassin's Creed, Rockband, Mass Effect, GTAIV, Beautiful Katamari, Lost Odyssey and Penny Arcade Adventures have all been released since I started playing the 360, and those were piled on top of the nearly half-dozen older 360 titles I was trying to dig through. With the exception of Lost Odyssey, I've at least made an attempt to play all the 360 titles I own, so I may actually be nearing the end of my stack. Of course, that doesn't include the Wii titles I am still chipping away at (Fire Emblem, Mario Kart) or would like to start (Baiten Kaitos [technically a Gamecube game], Okami, Boom Blox, No More Heroes, Lost Winds, My Life as a King... amoung others) or the dozens and dozens of DS games I am trying desperately to catch up on (just finished Dawn of Sorrows, although I got the "bad" ending so I may go back and try to get the better one, trying to start The World Ends With You). By then it will be fall, with its promise of AAA 360 titles (Banjo Kazooie, I'm looking at you) and possible surprises from Nintendo on Wii/DS. Just when I get a chance to catch my breath, things will start to really heat back up again.

That being said, however, I seem to be moving through games a little faster than reviews, which is why I am here: This week's item of interest is Mass Effect which, surprisingly, may be relevant to some because it is coming out on PC soon. So, allow us to begin, without delay!

Mass Effect

Mass Effect, at first glance, is BioWare's attempt to take your largest 360 install base (people who love FPS's) and entice them into playing an RPG. The battle system is not your standard RPG turn-based battle system: it is much more fluid and action oriented, leaving a large majority of the 'RPGis' portions to be done between battles. I've personally never played Knights of the Old Republic (a travesty, according to many) but I hear the battle system is similar to how those play. You can still 'pause' combat, when you are attempting to make some kind of choice - to use an ability or switch weapons, for instance - but generally speaking your battles will be much more fluid and fast paced than standard RPG's tend to be.

In many ways, I approve of these kind of steps forward in the genre. The RPG essentials are there - leveling up, inventory management, special skills, party members, experience, etc - but instead of being wrapped around a battle system that has been designed, perfected, and then run into the ground repeatedly, Bioware introduces a completely new, fast paced battle system. Think of it as an advancement of the genre - like Active Time Battle or FFXII's Gambit system - but instead of trying to improve upon the old model, they just threw it out and started from scratch. While I do love standard, turn based combat (Blue Dragon, FF everything, etc) it is nice to see a new twist to the battle system every now and then. Several other games have proven these kind of action-oriented RPGs could work (Diablo, etc) so it's no surprise that Mass Effect's approach works very well.

That is to say, of course, it works whenever you are actually able to battle. The amount of preparation necessary to keep your party up to date and ready to battle is borderline insane. The weapon customization options available to you are deep, so deep that you will often find yourself lost in a whirlpool of tungsten bullets and medikits. With a possible 4 weapons, dozens and dozens of customizable weapon mods and ammo, and 2 other (current) party members to keep track of, you will often (I can not stress that enough) find yourself sitting there sifting through all of your items and messing with your party's equipment for 30 minutes or more. Add to this that you are almost always swamped with items after each mission (one look into a medicine cabinet, next thing you know you are knee deep in Assault Rifles... no wonder these people we came to find are all dead) and the sweet, delicious, run-around-and-kill-stuff parts of the game are completely overshadowed by the constant "YOU HAVE TOO MANY ITEMS, PLEASE SELL SOME" spam you see each time you decide to look down at something. This makes it difficult to play Mass Effect for extended periods of time, as you will slowly begin to become annoyed by the constant barrage of seemingly meaningless, yet utterly important, inventory management.

It does not help, of course, that the menu structure and buy/sell mechanics surrounding items are, at best, an annoyance and, at worst, an obstacle. Sometimes I felt like my character should level up in mercantilism (which, FYI, is not really a stat) because of the work it took me just to search for a new upgrade or sell all of my unwanted items. With no discernible way to search, sort, or even organize the nearly 200 items your characters are dragging with them through each of their dangerous, life threatening misadventures, the process of trying to determine whether an item is worth saving or selling becomes not only unbearable, but moot. You are likely to stumble upon 50 new weapon mods and 20 new guns on your next mission to save someone's puppy (who knows how), so if you did really need it you are bound to run into it (or something better!) during the next fun part of the game. If the game was even the slightest bit more intelligent on how it managed your items - let's start by letting me equip items while at the store, or even just letting me see what my party members are currently wearing while shopping on the Normandy - it might become less of a chore and more of a chance to really customize and tweak your party for each new planet. As it stands now, however, your best bet is probably to just plow through as much as possible, selling anything you pick up as you go. Once you start having a really hard time with enemies, spend 20 minutes (the same amount of time it would have taken you even if you had been updating all this time...) and put your spoils of war to good use.

Another gripe on the battle system is your squad mates which, as is the standard with co-operative AI, are completely useless at best and often a hindrance. I cannot begin to count the number of times my teammates stepped into my line of fire, or would just blindly run out and get killed by the enemy. Other times, they would take cover in some of the better positions... and then do nothing (or next to nothing). The game is nice enough to let you at least manually control their special moves, which is nice in pinch when you could really use another classes ability other than your own. It makes you wonder, though, why the enemy AI does not suffer from the same fate. Ruthless and cruel, the enemy (especially in the early levels) seems to dauntingly out-number you at every turn and often times you end up dead, a fate only further frustrated by the poorly designed auto save feature.

I suppose, however, that is not to say that the AI is crafty more so than the tutorial is, well, non-existent. Even for someone who has been a gamer all his life, the endless list of buttons, menus, options and skills is available to you almost instantaneously, and without proper introduction. In one sense this is nice, because as you replay the game you can get right back in to the action and don't have to waste hours trying to force your way through a tutorial, but a baptism by fire isn't exactly the best way to try to introduce your users to the game mechanics. It took me nearly 10 hours of gameplay before I realized that my mobile APC had a cannon on it - a fact discovered by sheer accident. Of course, perhaps the reason they never explained the APC portions are because it handles so poorly and drives so slowly that maybe giving you something to try and learn on your own would mask the otherwise mediocre gaming experience. Traveling on foot had its quirks (not being able to "run" unless in combat, constant interruptions by loads and, worse, elevators) but trying to drive, let alone fight, in that giant hunk of worthless metal was torture. Add to that the fact that the giant sandworms (or whatever they were) can kill you while in your vehicle in one hit (despite taking nearly a dozen to take down) and the experience as a whole can be quite frustrating.

Aside from the amount of time you have to spend customizing your characters, the overall game system is very well done. The number of different choices available to you - from character customization to item customization to even dialouge options - keep much of the dialog feeling fresh and adds a lot more credibility to the fact that you are, indeed, role playing. In many RPG's, your characters are on a set, linear path that you hardly (if ever) deter from. In large part, the story has been decided and the means by which it occurs was chosen long before you created your character. While much of this is still true in Mass Effect (the game does seem to end the same regardless of your choices) the path that you take to get there can be wildly different depending on if you act as a paragon or a renegade. Having played the game through twice, with the exception of a few major plot points, I felt like I was playing a completely different game. My first time through I was a female soldier class and acted in a largely paragonical manner (is that even a word?), while my second time through I was a male biotic who was as much of a Renegade as I could possibly be. The dialog trees, missions, and even character reactions to me were as different as night and day. Of course, this means nothing if you do not want to replay the game in the first place, which could be feasible if you have had enough of the tired inventory management system. With the story playing out in a totally different manner, and playing as a biotic being almost polar opposite to playing as a soldier, the game was as enjoyable as it was the first time I played through it - perhaps even more so since the biotic class relies on weapons much less and so it was not as important to nit-pick with my inventory.

Of course, if you don't like story, you might as well just give up right now, because Mass Effect stuffed to the brim with story - character development (dialog), plot development ("cut scenes") and background (text) are pervasive throughout the entirety of the game, from start to finish. Every planet you visit has some unique summary written about it, from a few sentences to several paragraphs depending on it's importance, which is no mean feat considering the massive size of the Mass Effect universe. You can talk with your squad mates between missions to learn more about their past, get their thoughts on the last mission, or just chat (the "just chat" options, however, are few in number and largely repetitious). To play Mass Effect without indulging yourself in it's back story and characters would be to rob yourself of the very essence that makes Mass Effect so unique and enticing, but at the same time spending 45+ minutes after each battle to try and see if your lieutenant has heard back from her sister about how school is going on Earth can become very tiresome very fast when all you want to do is gain more levels and kill more stuff (all the worse when you also have to upgrade weapons, sell items, and move between galaxies, all of which take up even more of your time). In some ways, Mass Effect is like a roller coaster: you trudge through the slow, uphill climb for the few fleeting moments of pleasure you get from the downhill rush.

As predicted, the whole Mass Effect "sex scene" story was blown way out of proportion, almost to the point of being pathetic. Someone at Bioware needs to get an award for genius in marketing because this probably drove more publicity for the game and spurred more sales than any other campaign I've seen in recent years. The scenes - neither of which are very long or, for that matter, explicit - have less in them that one might see on prime time TV (say, in your standard episode of LOST). Disappointing to some, I'm sure, but in the end nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.

Mass Effect, while by no means perfect, is overall a very enjoyable game. If you can take the game at a leisurely pace and really stop and experience the world BioWare has created, you will constantly be amazed and surprised at the amount of effort that has gone into creating the game. Of course, if you are impatient, or used to the speed and action of your more standard FPS's, Mass Effect will feel more like work than it is worth. I've personally played through the game twice, and could easily see myself playing through it a third time to play as the engineer class later on, which is a testament to just how much fun I found the underlying gameplay mechanics to be, but it is perhaps one of the most frustrating "good games" I've ever played. You will often times feel that the game is dragging, or even fighting you tooth and nail (bad AI, terrible menus, etc) but if you can overlook a few flaws and stick with the game you are in for one great roller coaster ride. Perhaps, when they release the game for PC this week, they will have many of these problems fixed. If they find a way to make the 360 version better, well, that's just icing on an already delicious cake.

Currently playing:
The World Ends With You (DS)
Crystal Chronicles:Ring of Fates (DS)
Mario Kart (Wii)
Tons of new DS games while in China.

What should be next (Still working on Mario Kart, sorry):
Penny Arcade Adventures: Rain Slick Precipice of Darkness (XBLA)
GTA IV (360)
Puzzle Quest (DS + XBLA)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)
Saint's Row (360)
Smash Brothers Brawl (Wii)
Undertow, (XBLA)

Bold games and completed and most likely. Saint's Row and GTAIV will probably be done together to show how they compare.