Kry Reviews

Starcraft II Beta Grumbles

2010-05-18T20:28:00.002-04:00

The Starcraft II Beta has been chugging along at a frenzied pace, changes rapidly coming and going as the game approaches its July release date. There is no doubt that this game will consume a significant chunk of my life in the coming years, but that doesn't mean its perfect. In my two months of beta playing, I actually have garnered quite a few complaints about the game's design that are likely to remain unresolved going into release.

First and foremost, the new Bnet is a lonely, desolate place. The removal of chat channels, or really any sort of social interaction past the friend list, forms a stark contrast to the raucous liveliness of Warcraft 3's community, unsavory as it may have been at times. I find it hard to believe that Blizzard considered spam so much of an issue that they would slash any social materials outside of the friend list from Starcraft's infinitely long development. It is confirmed that chat channels won't make release, and that is just a darn shame. At least we have Facebook integration! What a joke.

What I find most mystifying about Bnet 2.0 is the two name identifier system. This makes it difficult to find your friends and distinguish people from each other, reminding me of the Wii's reprehensible friend code system. Blizzard says this is so anyone can have the display name they want, but I suspect this is a veiled motive to protect the more innocent users from harassment. At least one can make funny name combinations for trolling the official forums.

The matchmaking of B2.0 is laudable; it's a great improvement over Warcraft 3's. The division system is an excellent way to divide the user base up and ensure that the games each player finds are fair. My complaint about divisions is that they are also wastelands, where players chase carrots on a stick against specters. I don't think I've ever played against anyone in my division; if I have, I have no way of knowing besides the taxing process of examining every opponent's profile. Divisions need to be more personal. A second problem with the matchmaking is that the game currently puts randomly assembled teams against arranged teams, a totally unfair setup. I can only presume that this is a beta oversight and absolutely cannot be intended for release.

The Zerg race's design is questionable. Though I find the unit composition and each unit's role fine, there are some glaring omissions. It's sad that the lurker, a proud unit within the Starcraft heritage, was cut during development. It could certainly fill the role of a cloaked attacker, which the Zerg currently have none of. The Zerg also lack any cliff-walking units as well, a touted new feature that only went to Terran and Protoss. Most frustrating about the Zerg race is the macro mechanic of spawning larvae. It is boring and gives no room for error. The queen must spawn every forty seconds, without fail, or efficiency is permanently lost. Terran and Protoss have more options on how to use their racial abilities, and allow the player to use the ability multiple times if they store up energy. I stopped playing Zerg because of this punishing mechanic. Zerg is just too hard for me to play effectively in its current iteration. A large consensus among the community is that the race just doesn't seem finished when juxtaposed with Protoss and Terran.

I got extremely vexed by the removal of wireframe casting a couple patches ago. It allowed players to use direct target abilities on other units in a control group. Blizzard removed this because they felt it made the macro mechanics too easy. This is a disappointing reversal of policy from what I've seen throughout the game's development. Nor was casting via portrait ever an option either, two tools I completely expected to be standard issue. The modding community will suffer if these changes are not able to be overridden in the map editor. Starcraft could also benefit from a 'formation move' command. Right now it is far too annoying to move a large group of different speed units across the map. My UI complaints strongly parallel the adage of 'two steps forward, one step backward', which is where SC2 is almost certainly headed.

The brightness in my eyes towards the Starcraft II experience may have faded just a little bit with my prolonged exposure to the beta. I have realized that this game won't be perfect, and on top of that, it will cost $60, but by no means is the magic gone. I have found Terran to be the perfect race to settle down with to eventually dominate the ladder. The campaign remains shrouded in mystery but promises a great delivery. Custom maps, larger multiplayer games, and whatever other surprises Blizzard still holds up its sleeve have yet to take the stage. I can only wait with anticipation for July 27th.

Assassin's Creed II

2010-04-30T12:33:00.000-04:00

Debuting in late 2009, Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed II sets lofty goals, striving to be the paragon for what every sequel should emulate. That mantra should be keeping what is good about the prior game(s), while overhauling and improving the more lackluster parts. I am happy to say that ACII is mostly a success in that department.

In ACII, we move the setting to Renaissance Italy, and continue the story within a story from the perspective of Ezio Auditore, and are much improved in that department. Not only with the plot, but in delivery as well. ACI was guilty of hosting deluges of dialogue that made me zone out multiple times; we have a bit more effort here. The cutscenes and spoken lines are nicely broken up into smaller pieces with bits of humor and even some emotion added. The plot's still a little convoluted, and the designer's decision to end the game with little resolution after introducing aliens is somewhat reprehensible, but overall, I found myself greatly enjoying the story. The inclusion of famous historical characters like Leonardo da Vinci only increased my interest.

What's most overhauled after story in ACII is the progression element of the game. Where the first Creed was repetitive and boring, going from assassination to assassination without the slightest derivation in formula, our sequel here keeps some mystique to its formula as the game unfolds. I was pleasantly surprised multiple times while playing ACII; I never expected to use Da Vinci's flying machine or battle on a horse-driven carriage, brief as those scenes were.

Along the line of progression, ACII also includes a money system for improving yourself. Spending money to build your town and equip yourself is addictive, though somewhat superfluous. By mid-game I had so much money that any sort of thriftiness was unneeded. The fun diversions of pickpocketing and looting corpses swiftly became pointless and consequentially avoided. The same fate befell most of the optional side quests. However, I did greatly enjoy the Prince of Persia derived tombs littered throughout the game.

Combat was good in the original, though somewhat easily exploited. That doesn't change much in ACII, though there are a ton of new options in combat, including disarms and poisons. My sneaking suspicion is that many of these additions are superfluous except to give the animators more excuses for creating gruesome fatalities (Not that I mind). Combat in ACII may be a tad deeper, but it's still easy, especially with almost unlimited health from medicine. The combat rarely gets boring though, and that's a credit to the design.

The best feature of ACI was definitely the living, breathing simulacrums of ancient cities in the Holy Land. While Creed the Latter has more beautiful cityscapes to explore, it falls short in execution. Far too much time is spent in Venice, while Forli and Rome have maybe twenty minutes of action each. It really feels like these two areas got passed over in an effort to get the game out on time. Venice takes up half the game, and we never get a break of it (Those damn canals!). Too much time is spent in the same city without a break in this game. ACI's presentation was far more enjoyable, with being able to break up the time spent in each city very evenly.

I played through ACII on Xbox, avoiding the shackling and controversial DRM on PC, which forces an internet connection to play. I wouldn't recommend the PC version on that virtue alone. Of course, this will be hypocrisy at its finest when Starcraft II releases, for I've been playing the beta with quite a fervor. Blizzard will pose the same restrictions, along with no LAN, and a $60 price tag. But, one can make an exception for Blizzard, right?

Kry Reviews: PAX East

2010-03-31T16:45:00.002-04:00

Penny Arcade Expo hit the east coast last weekend, in a show not lacking for attendance. The convention had pretty much everything your contemporary nerd can want for. Not to mention the choice of locale of Boston, which despite being an awesome city, I did not get to tour much of; I spent all waking hours at PAX, mostly.

PAX East 2010 was my first con since Origins 2002. This one was a lot, and I mean a lot, more packed. It seems foolish that there was never a gaming con held over here before (and very few nerdy cons in general). Well, with it being the first, perhaps I can forgive the prime error of selling too many tickets. The con was unfortunately oversold and/or the convention hall was too small. I found that out almost immediately on the first day, when I arrived half an hour early to go to the Keynote speech but found myself not even able to wait in line. This problem would rear its ugly head everywhere in the convention.

The de facto standard I found was an hour – hour and half wait for more niche panels (and that was only to get average seating). I didn't even bother with any of the bigger ones, as much as I would have liked to attend a panel by the Penny Arcade guys. The Exposition Hall had similar waits to try out any new games (Two hour wait for Starcraft 2, at least; good thing I got in beta already!). It was totally ridiculous and frustrating. Thankfully, I eventually found a nice reprieve with the tabletop game section. They had an excellent selection of tabletops, and more importantly, no wait to get them.

I got to try the more mainstream titles Settlers of Catan and Munchkin, both of which are great titles. I'm definitely hungry for more Catan. Seemingly everyone was though, as all the copies of that game were checked out several times for tournaments. A little bit of poor planning by PAX there as well. Betrayal at House on the Hill was a very interesting board game I got a couple tries in on it as well; it's a nice campy, horror-themed game that generates a 'haunted house' board randomly every game to keep it entertaining. One of my travel mates was ecstatic to play this game as it had gone out of print, and I will vouch that it was time well spent. Last, I tried Starcraft: The Board Game. Never again! That game is a complicated mess. I spent an hour trying to figure it out and was happy when it came time to give up.

Speaking of Starcraft, I hung out at the Blizzard/Nvidia section for a lot of the convention (by virtue of waiting in line, of course). I actually won myself a second beta key by playing in a Blizzard promotional 1v1 game. The game was Protoss vs Terran, and I came back from him destroying my main base with a whole lot of stalkers. I took the economy advantage back quickly with a well defended expansion and came in for the kill, ruining my opponent's day in the process. If people weren't dubious of my claims of having never played beta before, they certainly were after while I was exhibiting my mastery of hotkeys and build order, although my 60 APM was totally gosu.

PAX East 2010, clusterfuck that it was, was a show with a great amount of potential. I'm glad to hear that the convention has already been announced to reoccur, and in a bigger venue. I'm sure my complaints are well known by the show's staff, so I'm willing to forgive and forget in expectations of much greater things next year.

Kry Previews: Starcraft II

2010-02-28T10:45:00.003-05:00

Starcraft II's beta FINALLY arrived last week, to a collective sigh of relief. Or perhaps a mass cry of rage at people finding their inboxes empty. Sadly, I have no beta key myself, but the mass influx of information coming from streams and videos has kept me quite sated, and quite ready to post some thoughts about how eager I am to play this game.

First off, let me preface this commentary by saying that I never really played Starcraft. I got into Warcraft III first, and by that time Starcraft was way past its prime. And indeed, when I tried out the campaign last year, it was a very frustrating experience; many of the things I took for granted as standard RTS items had not yet been invented in SC. Also, I tried to play SC the same way as WCIII, which was quite a mistake. The two games are fundamentally different.

But anyway, I got interested in SCII as soon as it was announced as the next strategy game from Blizzard. I've been following it quite rabidly since it was revealed seemingly an eon ago; that only served to psyche myself up and make the wait more unbearable. The game looks absolutely gorgeous now, especially from the HD videos being uploaded on Youtube. Not only are there beautiful visuals, but the system requirements, as always for Blizzard, are surprisingly low for the level of detail.

Not being a big SC player and having no beta access leaves me with little credence to make any commentary on balance, so I'll spare that (also the game being beta, and changes constant, already the first patch has come out at time of writing). One thing to note is that throughout the development process I have always been amused at the tears and rage from the whinier hardcore players over convenience changes like being able to select multiple buildings or having your workers automatically mine. Blizzard's paradigm is that mindless busywork like that should be lessened, and be replaced with other macro mechanics that offer intelligence and strategy in maximizing your economy. How people can be against that completely boggles my mind.

The single player and map editor are not in the beta unfortunately. Whenever Starcraft II comes out, expect a detailed review on the campaign, which Blizzard has hinted at it being quite epic, despite being limited to only one race. The map editor needs no introduction, to those unfamiliar with it, I only need say that the replay value of SCII will multiply tenfold with the creativity of the Blizzard modding community. I'm eager to try it out myself, if I recall correctly editing will be done with a C-based language; I may need to brush up on that!

Hopefully, watching all these videos will help me get ready to play SCII when it comes closer to release. I'm also really hoping that PAX next month will have the beta for me to try out, else I will be a very sad panda. Speaking of which, my journal on the visit to PAX will be next month's entry. It should be very exciting, my first big con since Origins seven years ago.

Kry Reviews: Estiah

2010-01-25T09:53:00.003-05:00

Estiah is a browser MMO that I spent most of my winter break playing. Unfortunately, my gaming pc was on the fritz, so only the slimmest of pickings were available to me. To put things in perspective, the last time I played one of these games was Utopia some eight or nine years ago. The genre is as addictive as ever.

I was surprised to find information and publicity about Estiah quite scarce. It was created in 2008 by a couple of jaded ex-World of Warcraft players, though it bears little resemblance to WoW. Anyway, the game’s story is a pretty blunt. “You’re in fantasyland, go level up and clear dungeons”, would surmise it quite well; no high marks there, but then again that’s the story and setting of most MMOs these days, so it’s not really a detriment. The story mainly exists to explain why your character must use decks of playing cards (‘charms’) instead of actually using equipment.

Estiah, at its core, is basically a card game with a pervasive element of progression. It’s certainly an interesting fusion of two genres, and what I immediately liked about the game was its unique method of handling character development. You level up through boosting four standard attributes by working various daily jobs or mastering skills. Your attributes determine which types of charms you can use in your deck, and skills are rewarded mainly through battling with charms, but also from non-combat activities. These attributes do not directly affect gameplay at all, only what charms you are able to equip. Two special attributes also exist that determine your health points and the maximum number of cards allowed in your deck (‘spirit’). You get action points every couple of hours, which are the currency for boosting skills in arenas, PvP, or dungeons. There exist three tiers of class specialization so to provide incentive towards reaching the later levels.

Unfortunately, this progression element adds questionable elements to the game as well. What I particularly dislike is the extreme amount of metagaming needed to keep a competitive edge. A player should not need to be playing the system from level one, but that is unfortunately the case in Estiah. This problem is caused from having skills that reward health and spirit exist (at the least, exist that early), which corrupt the whole system by giving unfair advantages to those who exploit the game mechanics. This forces a standard for everyone to keep up that just isn’t fun. Another problem is that it’s necessary to study all the encounters beforehand due to the limited actions awarded per day. This kind of research would not be as significant a pre-requisite if there was a smaller penalty on action points lost for failing encounters. Also, one last concern is that the long leveling time and high degree of specializing mean you might be stuck with something you don’t enjoy. In a free game requiring a significant amount of dedication, that kind of commitment is not too appealing.

So I guess what killed Estiah for me was the massive amount of time I would have had to dedicate to a game that just didn’t seem worth it. However, if you’re the kind of player who thrives on min/maxing and is looking for an extra activity on the side, you may consider giving Estiah a go. I wouldn’t recommend it otherwise. It’s an all or nothing sort of game.

Kry Reviews: Left 4 Dead 2

2009-12-23T09:44:00.013-05:00

Left 4 Dead 2 debuted mid-November, some might say in the shadow of Modern Warfare 2, to fairly strong reviews and sales. As I said in my prior thoughts on the demo, I was left with a very positive impression. After ravenously playing through all facets of the game, I can confirm those initial vibes. Left 4 Dead 2 is one of those seemingly few sequels that truly shine as an improvement in every way over its predecessor.

What really stands out is how much the atmosphere has changed over the first game. Where L4D1 heavily utilized darkness, in the process masking bland cityscapes and wilderness, to set the mood, L4D2 uses it sparsely. Most playable levels now happen in daylight, with visibility rarely impeded even on the darker levels. Indeed, the game takes on more of an action dynamic now (instead of emulating the survival horror genre, which was a bit of a stretch anyway).

Now, with all this additional scenery, Valve has labored to make the settings more interesting. Besides the Southern flair adorning everything in the game, each campaign strives to be unique, even telling a little bit of story besides ‘escape the zombies’. Some examples include attempts at stopping the zombie virus, survivor holdouts, or the military being up to no good. Those plots are extraneous of course, not affecting the gameplay; one of the beauties of the L4D series being that it does not need a cinematic storyline or labyrinthine plot.

Along the aforementioned 'action' line, L4D2 is designed to be much more ‘open’ than the original. The premier strategy there was to go from corner to corner throughout each level; very boring. New special infected, most notably the goo-shooting spitter, have been introduced to render this playstyle much riskier. Also, many new panic events force the survivors to stay on the move rather than bunkering down to stop an onslaught. And lastly, a more subtle change is that melee knockback is now limited to further punish sloppy play. These changes make the game much more exciting, though it can be rough for veterans to adjust to. An especially notable example would be the bridge finale, which the survivors must cross under an unrelenting swarm; it is the hardest challenge offered yet from the series.

There are new weapons and items, but no increased inventory space; survivors are forced to be more selective with their options. Each of the main weapon classes (shotgun, rifle, sniper) have had some variants added to help people tailor the guns more to their preference, but ammo piles are more limited so conservation is a key should one want to keep the gun they're most comfortable with. Melee weapons are an effective addition, but replace your pistols and have a bit of a learning curve (especially when dealing with latency). Bile bombs, taking up the projectile spot, lure infected to the target/area thrown at and serve as an excellent utility to get out of a tough spot. There are also: defibrillators to revive dead survivors, adrenaline shots to give a speed/minor health boost, and fiery/explosive ammo packs, which sound cool but are impractical.

L4D2 has some new interesting game modes as well. Realism is an addition to Campaign offered for masochists who find expert too easy. Within Realism, no teammate glows are offered, infected have more health and dead survivors are only revived by defibs or beating a level. Too bad the mode is trivialized by the one-hit kill magnum pistol. Another addition is Scavenge mode, in which survivors and infected duke it out in an attempt to find more gas cans than the other team. This mode fills a niche for shorter time length games. Versus Mode from the first game is back and offers an improved scoring system with less emphasis on surviving the level and health kits used, and more on total distance traveled; also the scoring total per round has been approximately halved. The tighter score really keeps the pace up and the game competitive.

As with the demo, L4D2 suffered from an imperfect launch. The game was slightly delayed, though I had no expectations to be playing at midnight anyway. For the first couple of weeks, achievement tracking was wonky and repeatedly dropped, frustrating players. The game still has some unresolved problems, most notable of which of course is server selection. Never does it seem to be I can find a game where all 4 (or gods help me, 8) players can find an acceptable ping without a couple tries, but hey, it's in a much more playable state than this time last year. My field of view complaints from the demo also still stand, the guns are much too zoomed in to the point of ridiculousness. And then there are the little things that add up: invisible objects, getting stuck, either as a survivor in some corners, or as a charger infected on traffic cones or mailboxes. Perhaps most infuriating is during expert campaign when special zombies cheat and slash you whilst stunned.

But still, what an improvement over the first game, which I can't really imagine booting up again, unless it's playing the levels ported over to L4D2. I'm really interested to see where Valve takes L4D2 with DLC content (and if they charge for it). They recently announced the first update, The Passing, which includes, among other things, a meeting with the beloved cast of the first game. As a final note, if there were to be yearly installments of Left 4 Dead that offer as much as this sequel has, well I’d be happy buying them all!

Kry Reviews: Modern Warfare 2

2009-11-15T22:56:00.003-05:00

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 debuted last week in a huge splash that Activision is calling the biggest launch of anything ever. Unfortunately, this debut is a bittersweet one for me and my brethren who play on PC. Not a month ago, I was sold as a day one purchase of this game. However, many unexpected, negative things have cropped up about the game, and it is no longer even on my purchase list. Were it not for a roommate buying it for his Xbox and letting me get a quick playthrough of the campaign in, I'd not even have this review.

So what are these blights on the PC version? Firstly, MW2 is priced at $60, $10 above the standard for a new game on PC, which is unheard of; I do not want to support a price hike. Secondly, Infinity Ward, the developer of MW2, has stripped all control away from the end-user with MW2. All support for dedicated servers has been replaced with a matchmaking service, which means there will likely be no user custom content. And worse, within the service, multiplayer has been capped at 9v9. One of my favorite things about other war shooters, like Battlefield 2, are massive battles like 32v32. Taking that away from me was what really did MW2 in for me.

Once again, I played Modern Warfare 2 on the Xbox. As I mentioned in my prior review of Call of Duty 4, console FPS isn't really my bag, so my thoughts on the game only touch base with the campaign. And with regards to that, Infinity Ward's got a pretty sweet formula down (for those unfamiliar, it involves lots of explosions and dramatic narratives). It kept me pretty enthralled throughout the entire game, though that's really not long, maybe 5-6 hours tops. Unfortunately, the story in MW2 is extremely convoluted and left a good experience somewhat marred. The gameplay hasn't changed much from the original besides the addition of a few new interesting weapons and technologies, but when you're making a sequel to a near-universally acclaimed game, there isn't much you need to innovate on. One other small bright note though; the grenade spam so prevalent in the first game seems much toned down here.

Moral of the story; if you really need some Modern Warfare 2 in your life, get it on the consoles. Activision is attempting to set a very dangerous precedent with this release, and it is my fear that it will be successful. If not with MW2, than perhaps with publishing Starcraft 2? I know I have not the willpower to resist that purchase. Oh well, only time will tell.

Kry Previews: Left 4 Dead 2

2009-10-30T10:58:00.003-04:00

Left 4 Dead 2 has been a game mired in controversy since its public debut at E3 in June. The long anticipated Left 4 Dead 2 Demo hit this week for preorders, and I eagerly soaked up everything in it. Though I never really hopped on the boycott bandwagon, I understood and agreed with a lot of the complaints. My research and the demo experience, though not perfect, have left me with a mostly positive impression for its November release.

The exception to this, and the most negative thing about the demo, was the absolutely awful handling of the release by Valve. The demo was delayed five or six times over an approximately one day stretch, with no official word on the matter whatsoever except an expected release time on a Steam community group. Honestly, it was kind of like chasing a carrot on a stick, with some delays not being posted until 5 minutes before the release date. This kind of PR is absolutely unacceptable, no matter what the product or company.

With that rant out of the way, onto the demo! The first two maps of The Parish, which is the fifth and final campaign, are showcased. This is our first time playing L4D in daylight. Besides that, many new gameplay elements are showcased, including: the new special infected, a dynamic panic event, as well as new guns, bombs, and melee weapons. These all add a refreshing amount of variety to a game that had threatened to become stagnant. But, what really psyches me up about the game is trying out the new gore system firsthand; it’s a marked improvement over Left 4 Dead and other zombie games (except, perhaps, Dead Space) in its... attention to detail.

The in-game issues with the L4D2 demo are small and strange. Playing the demo, I get the sneaking suspicion that it’s an Xbox game on PC. Not only do I keep hearing sounds that I know are from Microsoft, but also the field of view perspective is messed up; it’s zoomed in too far. The weapons take up a lot more of the on-screen real estate, which is a negative change. Lastly, L4D2 does not improve upon the loathed server selection system of L4D, and already, poor latency servers have ended games early for me.

Still, the demo makes a strong case for the game. It will very likely be what L4D1 should have been when it came out. And, if you pre-order the 4-pack of L4D2, you can score the game for $34 each, a very solid acquisition. The demo is released to the regular public on Steam next week, and on Xbox the following week. You'll have my full impressions on the game in a future entry.

Kry Retro-Reviews: Call of Duty 4

2009-09-29T16:57:00.000-04:00

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is an acclaimed first person shooter title, released in late 2007 and developed by Infinity Ward; it proved an immensely popular title. As such, a sequel, Modern Warfare 2 is due out this November. Interest in playing the sequel is what drove me to give COD4 a quick run through. This is an abbreviated review. Since playing FPS games on consoles is an extreme source of frustration for me, I only ran through the single player of COD4; my review omits the multiplayer, which is a most significant feature.

COD4 is set in faux modern times, pitting the player as SAS and USMC versus terrorists of the standard Arab and Russian fare. Despite this common setting, COD 4 still offers a fresh, compelling narrative, and is able to keep interest throughout the entire campaign. It also disguises its linearity well. That, along with a very strong visual and aural presentation, makes for a solid experience. The only real immersion breaking experiences are with your teammates’ AI. It sometimes leaves you wondering as to why they will prioritize less dangerous targets or conveniently sit around doing nothing. This is more nitpicking though, and usually the AI is nothing short of stellar.

Gameplay is similar to your standard shooter these days, and it should be, as COD4 set a benchmark that many other titles have followed. Indeed, I do believe COD4 is one of the titles responsible for starting the current fad of automatically recovering health by not getting hit. But I digress. The campaign puts you in a variety of roles, and you can usually pick up the weapons you want to fit your playstyle as you progress through missions, so the game continually feels fresh until the end. You usually are given a surplus of ammo as well as secondary items, like grenades, to complete your mission. Speaking of grenades, my one biggest gripe about the campaign has to be just how many times I got killed by them. It’s pretty frustrating how easy it is to get instagibbed by them, especially because it doesn’t feel parallel at all to how many bullets it takes to kill me. It’s probably more me approaching the game the wrong way, but either way, it’s a cause for rage.

COD4 certainly feels like it’s worth the money, and with Modern Warfare 2 releasing imminently, it should be available for pretty cheap, if you’re into yesterday’s big thing. I will be picking MW2 up on launch, assuming it’s not just hype. Hopefully, it will sate my FPS needs for quite awhile. If not, well, Left 4 Dead 2 is coming out about the same time… so there is a contingency plan in place.

Kry Reviews: Blizzcon '09

2009-08-24T16:26:00.005-04:00

So Blizzcon came and went this weekend to much fanfare. And what a show it was! I certainly wish I could have been in attendance. I’m a huge fan of all products by Blizzard, so naturally this entry shall focus on me gushing over all the news from Blizzcon.

Let’s start out with World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, which was definitely the headliner of Blizzcon ‘09. Despite the huge information leak the week before, I think everyone was still blown away by the gravity of this expansion. The main selling point of Cataclysm is that it nukes and completely redoes levels 1-60. This was easily the most tired part of the game, with the content from newer expansions really underlining how antiquated Classic WoW’s zones are. Along with this come new races (Goblins and Worgen), additional class/race combinations, and a push of the level cap to 85, among other things. After getting bored of Wrath quite quickly into the expansion, I was almost sure that I had put the WoWcrack behind me for good. Now after seeing the Cataclysm, my will has wavered quite a bit.

There wasn’t much left to reveal in Starcraft 2, with it being the Blizzard game most imminent to release. But, we did get to see an excellent preview of Battle.net 2.0, which looks quite satisfactory. It’s about everything I expected. There are all across the board improvements to battle.net, including achievements, better friends integration, and easier searching for games (especially custom games). I’m not too keen on Blizz keeping in a form of macromanagement drudgery with the release of SC2, but this concern is a minor one compared to how far everything else is coming with this game.

Last, and certainly least, is Diablo 3. Though this game is definitely the most anticipated release for me and many of my friends, it is still very much in development, likely not seeing the light of day until late 2011 at the earliest. As such, news is scarce. Regardless, the game looks beautiful, and the monk class debuted at Blizzcon is an interesting and welcome addition to the cast.

Three games and probably three purchases at midnight release day for me. There is no developer as influential in my video gaming career as Blizzard, and I eagerly await each morsel of information on these upcoming titles until I can play them myself.

Kry Previews: Heroes of Newerth

2009-07-16T11:29:00.003-04:00

Heroes of Newerth is a standalone game based on the very popular Warcraft 3 mod, Defense of the Ancients. In development by S2 Games, it is currently in closed beta, and as of now, strangely unannounced. I’m astonished that I’ve heard nothing about this game until I got in the beta last week!

HoN is a faithful adaptation of DotA, and at first glance, seems identical. I do not doubt for all of HoN’s lifetime that people will at first glance describe it as ‘dota with better graphics’. But, HoN innovates beyond that. The UI is improved in nearly every way, in-game voice has been added, and there are new maps and heroes.

The gameplay of HoN is like that of DotA, with the above additions. For those unfamiliar with DotA, it is a cooperative, team-based strategy game where you control a hero with unique abilities in an attempt to outmatch the enemy team and destroy their base. In addition there is a wide array of items to buff up your hero. With so much depth, and a reasonable balance, it’s understandable to see why DotA (and now HoN) is so popular.

There are a few things currently lacking in the HoN beta that are problems inherited from DotA. It has possibly the steepest learning curve of any game I’ve played in recent times. There are many minor nuances that must be learned to play effectively, in addition to becoming familiar with the many heroes and items. There is little to no help, and a new player is effectively on his own to learn the game. HoN direly needs a tutorial system before release.

The other current problem in the beta is the stat tracking system, and its unfriendliness to new players. As of right now, it is the main way you’re judged when getting into public games, and, since a new player can easily rack up a terrible record, they’ll get booted before the game begins. Though this is partially a byproduct of the terrible community DotA has, it is also a problem with the system in its current iteration. Planned quickmatching and advanced rating systems will hopefully alleviate this problem. I like having a stats system, but there’s definitely tuning needing in how it affects the new players and games.

HoN has the potential to be the biggest surprise in gaming this summer. It came out of nowhere and swept me off my feet. No pricing plan or release date have been revealed as of yet, but it is vital for S2 that this game be cheap and/or released before League of Legends (which recently announced a free to play model) in the fall.

Kry Previews: Battlefield Heroes

2009-06-26T15:49:00.007-04:00

Battlefield: Heroes is the latest iteration of the acclaimed Battlefield series by EA DICE, and the first to utilize the ‘Play 4 Free’ mechanic. The game has just hit open beta as of this writing, and with that, the NDA is lifted and I can give you guys my thoughts. All in all, BF: Heroes is definitely worth a looksie. To me, it is the best free game I’ve played since the original Gunbound.

BFH uses simple, but effective graphics, notably the use of cel-shading, for its World War 2 aesthetic. The thought process is that an extremely wide range of computers should be able to play, and I have no problem with that. Nor do the graphics give me a feel that the game looks dated; they sacrifice realism for style. There is a large amount of purchasable clothing, most of which are done with micropayments, which offers a good degree of customization for players’ avatars, and the main draw of income for the developers. My only complaint is that with these simple, unvarying graphics, they should be able to pump out new maps faster; right now the game is limited to only four.

BFH offers solid gameplay for a free title, featuring three distinct classes, with unique, varying abilities and playstyles. Each game is fun and frantic, assuming the sides are even, which is generally the case. Characters level up through playing to gain access to these powers. Micropayments do not affect the gameplay in any direct way, a smart design decision. Players have a lot of health in BFH; you will rarely die before being able to react.

The game is not without flaws. The menu, where you purchase items, change game settings, and customize your arsenal is inaccessible while playing, creating an unnecessary disconnect. Planes are poorly implemented, a recurring error of the BF series. You must use a joystick to effectively fly one. But, thankfully, in BFH planes are noticeably less lethal than in prior iterations of the series, so it’s not as big a problem. And lastly, it irks me that the capturable flags on maps serve no gameplay purpose except a personal score boost. I’d rather there be a little strategy involved there.

All in all, BFH is fun. For a free game, it has a good amount of depth. But, it does not have enough to compare with full-game offerings over the long term like Team Fortress 2 or the Call of Duty franchise. What Battlefield Heroes is though, is a nice distraction for a couple weeks. There is no reason not to check it out. Perhaps you can even get it running at school or work.

Kry Reviews: Myriad Games

2009-05-26T19:01:00.006-04:00

In this entry, I'm going to discuss a bunch of games I either didn't finish or just don't have that much to say about.

Team Fortress 2 is a cartoony, critically acclaimed, first person shooter published by Valve. It's a game I've owned since it's 2007 release, but have only just gotten into. I've come to really love this game over the last couple months; it's probably what I'll be spending the majority of summer playing.

What TF2 brings to the table is a great amount of variety. Not only are there nine distinct, well-balanced classes, but for the classes that have received updates there are a few differing playstyles within as well. There are also plenty of different game variants (although nearly everything has a desert aesthetic). What I especially love about TF2 though are the different characters. Their personalities, backgrounds, and design are all unique, and what more, I would argue that, for a multiplayer-only game, Valve has given each of these characters a better persona than the vast majority of games out there.

I don't really have much to complain about, the game is near perfect. There are two issues, one of which was just cleared up with a very recent patch. The game used to tie weapon unlocks to an achievement system, which resulted in myself and many others having to cheat our way through the achievements to unlock the new weapons. Now unlocks are random, and though I'd prefer all my new weapons immediately, this is a good compromise. The system's buggy and unfinished, but it should be really cool when Valve finishes it up. The other problem I have in TF2 is random critical damage, which lowers the skill-based element. This element of randomness should be removed. But, these problems are minute on the grand scale. Valve has shown their dedication in the games upkeep spanning nearly two years since it's original release, there is absolutely no reason not to own this game if you are into first person shooters. You also get Portal and Half Life 2 with the game, both of which are also exceptional productions by Valve.

Dead Rising came out in 2006, to a mostly positive reaction. What I liked: story, sandbox style gameplay and the in-game photography element (lol Wii version goes here). What made me quit? A very crappy save system. I played for about an hour, beat my first miniboss, and then died in a zombie clusterfuck in the next area. I then realized that the game had not saved any progress I had made in that past hour. What a stupid design decision. After realizing that I would have to start over from nearly the beginning, I pretty much rage quit. I might look at Dead Rising 2 to see if they've rectified this, but otherwise, this game is a wash for me.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is an older game, released in 2003. I played this game then, and I played through it earlier this year when I purchased it on Steam. Really quite a fun game. It was very innovative in its time, with tricky puzzles involving some serious parkour, and especially with the time-control mechanic. This combined with what is one of the better stories in the games industry makes for a great legacy of a game (so good in fact that they're making a movie out of it... we'll see how that goes). The only downside this game had was that the combat was dull, frustrating, and repetitive. And... said combat makes up a good part of the game. Overall though, a good game, and a decent quality port.

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within is the sequel to Sands of Time, and I believe came with an overhaul to the aforementioned combat system. Unfortunately, the port of it on Steam has bogged me down with framerate issues, so I haven't touched it in a while.

Prince of Persia came out last year, and was the newest iteration of the Prince of Persia series. This game has some really pretty graphics; I loved the cel-shaded style. On the other hand, the story and dialogue are absolutely banal. I disliked the slow pace of combat and seeming disappearance of the prince's athletic fighting style in previous games. Prince of Persia trades linearity for an open-ended world; this I also dislike. I jumped, hopped, and flipped my way over to one side of the world only to find the door at the end required me to gather more light seeds. I felt pretty lost, so I started hopping, jumping, and skipping my way back only to have the game crash out of Steam and never load properly again. I uninstalled it and since haven't gone back to it. I really felt like I wasted my money here.

And finally, Lost Planet. I have almost nothing positive to say about this game. I bought the Steam port for $5 during the discount weekend because it looked cool (I'm a huge sucker for the snow aesthetic). Bought it, bashed my head on the wall trying to get through the ass-backwards tutorial that only taught me how to play the game on an xbox controller. Hey you buffoons, I'm on a pc! Whatever... I figured it out; decided to keep playing on. The gameplay is standard fare third person action shooting, with a contrived storyline featuring a bunch of predictable stereotypes. Through the second level and into the third I got sound issues which eventually made the game unplayable; it was quickly uninstalled. The Steam port is an absolute piece of garbage; the game itself might be worth it on xbox if you find it in the bargain bin. Also, all these poor-quality ports have seriously turned me off buying anything third-party on the Steam platform.

Kry Reviews: Star Wars: The Force Unleashed

2009-04-27T11:30:00.002-04:00

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is the latest game in the Star Wars universe, released September, 2008. It was a commercial success, but had mixed reviews by critics. I had the opportunity to play through it, and blasted through in a single weekend. I enjoyed it, but at the same time, I understand a lot of the complaints. The summation of this review: fun, but frustrating.

The best thing Unleashed has going for it is that it is everything Star Wars. It’s a very immersive game, with a very compelling storyline. The acting and graphics are both stellar. If you’re a Star Wars fan, this game will have you riveted from beginning to end.

Unfortunately, you can’t go very far without noticing the lack of polish on the game. Whether it’s the levels that seem just too linear given your force powers, triggered falling deaths on what looks to be safe ground, or the physics engine betraying you, you’ll be raging constantly throughout the levels. With regards to the physics in particular, you’ll discover just how hard those droids work at waxing the Death Star floors when you are hit by blaster fire and slide 30 feet. Also for some reason the menus in this game have a loading screen. That’s pretty damn annoying considering how often you interact with them.

The actual gameplay itself is fun and frantic, while you’re in control. Combat is very engaging, and right from the beginning you feel powerful. You have a rich upgrade system that you are constantly using throughout the game. You have a wide variety of moves at your disposal as you progress. And, almost everywhere, the environment plays a huge aspect in strategy. Chucking jawas into toxic sludge or freezing stormtroopers in carbonite are just two different ways to score quick (and funny!) kills on baddies.

Unfortunately, that whole “in control” thing is fleeting during actual battles, especially towards the end of the game. Many attacks come with a knockdown effect, and when that happens, the enemies show no mercy and kick the crap out of you to the best of their ability. Instead of your multi-button combos, your most effective move for much of the game is the force lightning ability, which is just a button hold. I constantly raged at the targeting system as well, when I turned to aim at an enemy sometimes I’d just do a force lightning right next to him and wind up wasting time and energy doing no damage.

So once again, in summation, fun but frustrating. All the good things in this game come saddled with just as many bad aspects. However, if you love Star Wars, you’ll find the good outweighs the bad… probably.

Kry Reviews: Resident Evil 5

2009-04-09T11:48:00.002-04:00

Resident Evil 5 was released March 13 this year to critical acclaim, much hype, and some controversy about racism. I myself had a very fervent desire to play RE5 after hungrily playing through RE4 and Dead Space earlier in the year. And it was definitely a blast to play through. The game has frustrations and shortcomings, but overall it meets its hype.

First off, what simply must be praised in RE5 is the cinematic element of the game. The graphics are gorgeous, some of the best I’ve ever seen in a game, and they’re so good they make a seamless transition from cut scene to gameplay. RE5 certainly sets a benchmark in the design of a cinematic video game.

It’s unfortunate though that along the way RE5 lost its trademark scariness. There’s no horror in this game, only action and adrenaline; it’s disappointing. And, with all the polish on the game, it’s astonishing how bad the menu system is. It’s frustrating and confusing; an example being that you cannot start a damn game with offline co-op. Instead, one player must join in once the other one starts a solo game. Pretty stupid, eh? Also, you cannot start new games without all your loot and money from previous games, another annoyance.

RE5’s gameplay is almost cut and dry copypasta from RE4, with a few minor innovations/changes. There’s the co-op, which is pretty fun, but I think the game could have been fine with Chris alone as a protagonist. Also, I enjoyed the bevy of new melee attack options with RE5.

The almost universally hated aspect of gameplay in RE5 is the inventory system. Being only able to carry 9 items is pretty harsh compared to RE4’s forgiving inventory system. It becomes a serious hassle midgame, once you have body armor and 3 guns + ammo weighing you down. Trying to pick up healing items with a full inventory (especially trying to combine them) becomes an unnecessary juggling game. It’s poorly thought out, and inventory management grinds the gameplay down to a halt.

I have some more dislikes to quickly note upon. Many of the boss fights in RE5 are gimmick based. The weapon upgrading system is not as deep as RE4; it’s advisable to pretty much just stick with your original weapons and upgrade them to the max. I dislike the tiny laser aiming reticule, it makes shooting anything long distance very difficult. Lastly, I am also greatly displeased that online multiplayer comes at an additional cost, which should be a core component.

All in all, RE5 is really more like RE4.5. It takes the great game of RE4 and puts a fresh coat of paint on it. There’s really not many new innovations in it (I actually thought Dead Space was a more compelling title). But, what can I say, I love RE’s style of gameplay, and if it doesn’t change, heck I’m fine with that.

Kry Reviews: Dead Space

2009-03-24T10:13:00.006-04:00

Dead Space, developed by EA, was released October 2008. It’s a horror-survival, third person shooter game set aboard a spaceship filled with creepy aliens. It was a pretty hyped release, and generally had favorable reviews from the critics. Besides my aforementioned hesitation to play scary games, I had assumed Dead Space to simply be a clone of RE4. I was pleasantly proved wrong, and I was unpleasantly horrified playing through the game.

So, as I said before, Dead Space is set… in space. And, honestly, I really have to laud EA for the artistic design of the game. Not only are the aliens quite grotesque and scary, but also the spaceship interior remains fresh and interesting throughout the game. In addition, there are a couple key design elements I want to note. I loved the design of being in the vacuum of space, and also, the game’s HUD is designed excellently, notably by not existing at all! All of your relevant information is actually displayed on your character, which definitely increased the immersion factor for me. The music is also quite rich and definitely kept me on edge.

Some gripes before touching on gameplay... First off, the story’s quite weak. There is something about your dude looking for his girlfriend aboard the ship, which is hard to figure out immediately when he doesn’t speak. Also, I feel that the game relies too much on Bioshock’s paradigm for storytelling as an example of progressing the plot, not only does the general atmosphere always remind me of it slightly, but Dead Space also utilizes the same ideas of audio tapes/text logs strewn about and multiple parties chatting on the radio with you as a means to perpetuate the storyline. Another seriously annoying gripe I have is with the physics engine, which functions satisfactorily most of the time, except when it comes to enemy corpses. It is a serious immersion breaking factor when I walk over a corpse and boot it into the air. It was the cause of cheap scares several times throughout the game as I saw a corpse pop up and flip behind me as I walked over it and freaked out.

The gameplay is definitely enjoyable through the entire game. It differentiates itself from the Resident Evil series nicely in the unique way you kill enemies, via dismemberment. There are some very, very intense fights throughout the game. Combat in zero gravity and the vacuum were certainly cool instances as well. There is a decent selection of weaponry, and inventory management doesn’t feel like a chore. I felt that the means of upgrading your weapons and armor were unique, and had a decent amount of depth, although I pretty much wound up soaking everything into additional health.

Some serious frustrations included the piss-poor melee combat abilities of Isaac. Attempting to use any sort of melee in this game is just a way to get yourself killed. It is a jarring disconnect from the fluidity of Resident Evil’s solid combination of gunfire and physical attacks. Also there are two very annoying minigames midway through Dead Space that were a cause for rage. You’re basically stuck controlling a cannon and shooting asteroids/debris careening towards the ship. Sounds cool in theory, but turns out they’re hard as hell to hit; using the slow-moving reticule to track them was a serious pain in the ass.

Is Dead Space worth your money? I’d say it’s a solid buy now, with the price cuts. If you’re looking for a good horror game, or are a Resident Evil 4/5 fan, it’s definitely worth your time. Looking towards the horizon, it seems EA is interested in continuing the use of this IP, with a Wii on-rails shooter announced; it is entitled Dead Space: Extraction, likely due for release at the end of ‘09.

Kry Retro-Reviews: Resident Evil 4

2009-02-24T13:05:00.003-05:00

Resident Evil 4 was ported to the Wii in June, 2007, which is the version I played through. It took me a while to try it out because of my distaste for the scariness of the original games. I finally got around to it, and was rewarded with a truly great gaming experience.

RE4 sets a great atmosphere; from the beginning, I was engrossed into the storyline and mystery of the Plagas virus. Despite this, towards the end the characters start to get a little silly, and the dialogue does occasionally get rather... unfortunate at times. The game was still pretty scary, but it is mainly an adrenaline based fear, though there were some genuinely scary parts. The graphics are certainly antiquated for an '07 release on Wii, but it doesn't detract much. It is still totally awesome when you blow a zombie's head off, especially after you start witnessing the insectoid appendages that sometimes sprout out after you do later in the game.

Speaking of decapitation, let's talk about the gameplay, which has much of that. The game has you killing zombies left and right from the get go, combat is completely engaging and fun (especially working in kicks and suplexes on stunned enemies), and the difficulty curve ramps up at a pretty fair rate. RE4 also made an excellent use out of the wiimote as a targeting reticule, the controls never felt clunky. I did enjoy the ability to customize your arsenal through the merchants, but disliked the tedium of inventory management that accompanied it. It's also a break in the action when you're pretty much pausing the game while zombies are in your face to peruse your inventory.

Review is a little short this time around mainly because there’s so little for me to criticize. My only complaints have been minor ones. The standard game is long, and it’s engrossing the entire way through. When that is finished, there are additional minigames that also hold one’s attention for a decently long time as well. RE4 is simply a great game, and I’m very much looking forward to playing RE5 next month to compare/contrast the two (and in the meantime, I’ve picked up Dead Space to keep me sated).

Kry Reviews: Left 4 Dead

2009-02-02T11:56:00.003-05:00

Left 4 Dead was released 11/18/08 to critical acclaim. It continues Valve’s benchmark for top notch quality FPS games, but it does have a few problems that need addressing.

Let me start with addressing all that is good with Left 4 Dead, which is a lot. I absolutely loved the art style within Left 4 Dead; the grainy horror movie look really works well for the game. I’ve heard some complaints that the story in L4D’s too simple. I disagree, the simple story is sufficient for the atmosphere they are trying to set.

The co-op play is a blast, especially with 3 buddies (although the friendly AI isn’t bad). It’s great fun mowing down hordes of zombies, and your group really has to keep their wits about them. Your group gets separated and it isn’t long before you get gibbed. Also, the expert difficulty is seriously hard, and a tough goal to work towards for more dedicated zombie hunters.

Versus Mode is also great fun, and probably is the reason most people continue playing L4D once they beat the campaigns. Playing as a zombie is neat, however if the survivors are organized playing infected really requires supreme coordination. It has a few problems though. Only 2 of 4 maps are available for it, so the locales get stale very quickly. Also, Versus Mode also had a serious luck factor with the timing on tank spawning, which I believe was normalized with the recent patch. Although I saw nothing in the notes about having your tank randomly die (It’s happened to me a lot). Very frustrating, but I haven’t been online to test it for an even more annoying reason.

The server selecting system is Left 4 Dead’s biggest flaw, and a serious turn off. When you start a game you have the option of selecting a third-party dedicated server or hosting it yourself. I don’t want to run it off my machine so I choose a dedicated server to host my games. Night after night I’ll get stuck with laggy, high-ping servers (once even in Germany, serious WTF there), bugged servers, or I’ll just get dropped by them midgame. This makes me irate and has on more than one night ended my gaming early. Valve needs to implement a way to select servers or get better hosts because these server problems are killing the game for me. I doubt I will play L4D much more until I see some news about this.

Left 4 Dead is a good game overall. The first few nights playing it for me were just awesome. The server problems are very noticeable, almost immediately depending on your luck. Bottom line about L4D is this: If you have the patience to keep remaking games when you land on bad servers, you’ll have fun if/when you get into a good game.

Kry Reviews: WoW: Wrath of the Lich King

2009-01-20T13:24:00.005-05:00

The Wrath of the Lich King expansion is World of Warcraft’s second expansion, released 11/13/08, nearly four years after the original release of WoW. I’ve played WoW pretty extensively throughout it’s lifespan, and especially the last month; enough hours that I am certainly equipped to write a real review of the expansion.

The first thing that really jumped out at WotLK’s release is, once more, Blizzard’s stunning eye for detail and polish that’s seen as you adventure through the frozen continent of Northrend. It is equatable to a work of art, whether it be the graphical design of the zones or the monsters inhabiting them, an actual, culminating storyline, or the musical score. The one blight on the music design, however, is the vrykul theme that plays in almost every zone and creates a disharmony with the rest of the score in that area.

3.0 saw the most brilliant addition to World of Warcraft, the achievement system. In a game where you choose to set your own goals and the challenges are what you make them to be, this system truly shines. There are myriad achievements for every kind of gamer, and to some players, they are pretty much like crack.

What was probably the most anticipated addition to WoW in Wrath was the new Death Knight class. This is the class I wanted to make when I first started playing WoW, so personally I was thrilled to play one. And the death knight experience is truly groundbreaking, starting with the epic starting zone, which incorporates an ingenious new mechanic , phasing, that allows for each individual player to see their actions truly make an impact on the world (and this is all over Northrend, as well). The class itself has truly been a blast to play, although they are quite overpowered and are seeing many balance fixes in the 3.0.8 patch. I feel that after this patch, they should really fit the “epic but equal” moniker that Blizzard gave them.

Class balance, raiding, and PvP are where the expansion is marred. Burst damage is at the highest point it’s ever been in WoW’s history, which it not necessarily a bad thing, however, it creates a skewed environment especially in arenas where classes with extreme survivability are notably successful. You will find very few top teams that do not use a DK, rogue, mage, or paladin (all classes with immunity shields or ways to mitigate large amounts of damage frequently).

Another reason burst is so very high at the moment is due to the ease of the introductory raids in this expansion. Though optional, difficult challenges do exist (made possible through the achievement system) for dedicated guilds to show off, the fact remains that it takes little organization to run the current raid dungeons, as a result, a large amount of people competing in arena and/or battlegrounds are bedecked in the best damage gear currently in the game, whereas there is a paucity of resilience this early in the expansion to counter the burst. Blizzard has stated Ulduar (the next raid dungeon, due in 3.1) will be a more difficult challenge, but still designed around the mantra of optional challenges for greater rewards. This along with more prevalent resilience and balance changes down the pipeline should bring everything closer to perfection.

The expansion also saw the release of a new battleground, Strand of the Ancients, and world pvp locale, Lake Wintergrasp. Strand is a map with horde and alliance alternating sieging and defending a keep, with a heavy focus on vehicular combat. I like this idea, and, it’s implemented very well, except for the glaring imbalance of having alliance always starting on offense. Lake Wintergrasp is pretty much the same thing as Strand, but with a lot more people. Unfortunately, Blizzard severly underesimated how many people, and as a result, it is in it’s current iteration one of the biggest design failures in WoW’s history. If you are on a high population server (like me), expect to never truly be able to pvp here unless you play on offhours. The lag from people duking it out here is so bad that it hampers the rest of the server, and at peak hours, often runs the risk of a server crash.

All in all, Wrath’s a good expansion, and I am really looking forward to see how the rest of it plays out. There are problems with it, as aforementioned, but as a whole, it has really revitalized my interest in WoW.

Kry Reviews: Crysis

2008-12-11T13:00:00.002-05:00

The Crysis series is probably one of the more well known and popular FPS series currently on the market. I will be reviewing both Crysis(released 2007) and Crysis: Warhead(2008) in this review.

Crysis is most notorious for its graphics. It has some of the best visuals ever rendered in a video game, but to see them you have to have one of the best computers available. Even with a 512 mb video card I still suffered framerate lag on medium! But the graphics are everything they are said to be. They are so well done that you can easily be completely immersed in the lush environments, especially when the jungle gets frozen over by aliens. That truly dropped my jaw, especially Warhead with the frozen tidal waves. But, I digress; I feel the graphics should have been optimized to better fit a more standard computer, and for me, Warhead for some reason gave me worse graphical returns than Crysis. Not to mention the dumb naming conventions on graphical settings.

So, onto the gameplay... Crysis’s take on the fps genre has been one of the most fun and action packed experiences I’ve had gaming. Most of the battles, be they versus human or alien, are intense. I loved being able to go invisible, sneak around tanks, and dodge individuals. But, using the suit powers drains your defenses. So, you have to use the powers conservatively. I really laud the suit system in Crysis. Also, you are able to customize your weapons to a reasonable degree, and the power levels are really quite balanced between guns, so you’re not using the same one constantly throughout the game.

The AI is mostly good, although it has a couple problems. It could be easily exploited to kill enemies near gun embankments (killing one makes another guy run up to it, boom headshot), and on the other side, when you’re spotted, the enemies have ridiculous laser vision and cut you to pieces while you’re hiding behind a bush a mile away.

Crysis’ presentation is top notch and well polished. The music is utilized excellently to progress the story and highlight dangerous and epic scenes. Both games also employ cutscenes to further the plot. I enjoyed them in Crysis because they weren’t obtrusive; Warhead had a bit too much emphasis on them, I felt jipped when I watched the main villain die in one instead of blasting him to pieces myself.

Concluding, I found Crysis and Warhead both to be excellent games. I’m going to note here however, that I have not played multiplayer on either one, not only because of how graphically intensive it is, but also because I feel the power of the nanosuit would be too frustrating to deal with in multiplayer. Perhaps I’m wrong here, who knows. Either way, the single player on both games is worth it alone.

Kry Retro-Reviews: Bioshock

2008-12-01T10:47:00.004-05:00

Bioshock was released August, 2007 to almost universal acclaim, winning several “Game of the Year” awards. I played through the game and enjoyed it then, but I really didn’t feel it was the end-all, be-all. And what with sequels and a movie planned, as well as a recent PS3 release, I feel it’s reasonably relevant enough to mention in a quick retro review.

First off, Bioshock is amazing simply for its story, setting, and atmosphere. Truly one of the most amazing and imaginative settings I have seen ever. It is worth buying just to explore the underwater city of Rapture and to see the story unfold. I loved progressing through the city and gazing out into the murky depths outside. It is truly that immersive.

Bioshock also has an innovative system for upgrading your character (mutating yourself and gaining ‘magic’ spells). Unfortunately that system does not have much depth. Only a few upgrades are actually worth taking and others are downright useless. Along with the lack of depth are the enemies in the game themselves. They are very homogenous and do not change throughout the game besides gaining more health and damage. I was really disappointed here. The whole city goes nuts for Adam and you’re picking up magical mutating spells from vending machines, yet only the last boss has the same arsenal you’ve got. And then there are the Little Sisters. Either killing them or saving them, the game still plays the same way, except you get an ending where you are either evil or good. That is pretty much the only difference gameplay wise.

Though Bioshock was touted by some as the greatest game of 2007 and a benchmark of gaming prowess, I simply think it was a good game with a very engrossing setting. Bioshock was also very good at giving the player the illusion of choice. There are myriad options in this game, but few useful ones; and it is something most people do not realize until they are finished. Either way, I’m certainly interested in seeing the next game of the series (Sea of Dreams, I believe it will be called).

Kry Retro-Reviews: Smash Bros Brawl

2008-11-17T18:03:00.003-05:00

Super Smash Brothers Brawl was the long awaited and anticipated successor to Super Smash Brothers Melee. However, it was met with a fairly lukewarm reception once the initial hype died down. This is because, despite its many improvements over Melee, Brawl makes some very egregious mistakes. Brawl is the actualization of the phrase “Two steps forward, one step back”.

I am going to just glaze over the single player additions to Brawl because I play only for the multiplayer, and most of it is extraneous fluff to a player like me. Also, the online play is a joke. Epic fail there.

The best thing Brawl did (for me) was fixing wavedashing and other similar exploits that existed in melee. Wavedashing created an artificial, steep learning curve and the top tier of play was defined by it. A few other similar exploits have been toned down, however as a result the game is defined now by the ability to throw ranged attacks ad nauseam. I would have really liked to see more characters have cooldowns on their projectiles. Otherwise the gameplay is still the same thing I’ve loved since the N64 version.

New life was breathed into the game with many additions to the cast. And, along with those, many of the weaker characters in Brawl were given buffs or new abilities. But only a few scant months, and some characters are borderline broken and others relatively weak in comparison. However, the weakest characters stand on their own much better in casual play than in Melee, so props there.

Brawl really feels to me that it could have used more play testing. I understand that balancing some 35 characters is a nightmare, but there are just combos that shouldn’t exist. For example, King Dedede has a chain grab, which can easily infinite bigger characters, and is generally just a cheap, lame technique. Also, Sheik can forward-tilt juggle to 50-60%. A lot of characters will glitch out when holding ‘A’, repeating an infinite weak attack.

Another thing I didn’t enjoy in the transition was the trivialization of recovery and nullifying of edge guarding. Several things have been changed to ruin this: Many of the new characters have crazy recoveries, as well as older characters getting stronger recoveries, the wonky physics engine almost always sends people up and away, making it almost possible to just float back on to the stage, and finally, most characters will ‘snap’ on to a ledge the second they’re in range, instead of being vulnerable.

Brawl’s worst addition is the prevalence of randomness. I am talking about tripping in particular. What a stupid, terrible idea to have a chance to just trip on your ass while fighting. Also, jumping off people’s heads ends up screwing people over on recovery by accident and luck, not skill. And then there are all the new stages, full of random damage. Not only that but the damage is ramped up and has serious knockback and killing potential on some stages. My group of smashers plays with about 6 or 7 stages on and that’s it.

All in all, I still and will always love the Smash Bros series, and none of these flaws are glaring enough to ruin it for me. Eagerly awaiting Super Smash Brothers Brouhaha in 2012!

Kry Reviews: Penny Arcade Adventures: Episode Two

2008-11-06T15:45:00.007-05:00

Released 10/29/2008, Episode Two continues where Episode One left off. There are now three gods left to kill (err... three expansions left to sell) in the steampunk, Cthulhu inspired New Arcadia, set in 1920's.

The best parts about the Penny Arcade series, without a doubt, are its humor, setting and immersion. The storyline is wacky and interesting, most of the jokes will get a chuckle or two, and the artists have created a unique world to explore. EP.1 was better in this regard, but EP.2 certainly isn’t bad either.

Combat is good too, though it’s not any different from the first game. It is generally fast paced and interesting, and the interaction from either dropping specials on your opponents or timing blocks keeps you engaged.

The game feels too easy though. On my first play through, I chose difficult; I never died once. One of the new features touted is the addition of an INSANE MODE, but that is locked until you complete the game, and I’m not feeling like another play through for a while. The last boss fight is also completely trivialized. Instead of an epic fight against a giant robot with your three characters, you bring in another giant robot. Sounds cool, except your robot pretty much kicks its ass to hell and back with no more than a few clicks.

What I hated, hated, hated about this game was all the damn backtracking and fetch quests. Halfway through your progress of the Sanitarium, (the first level) you are halted by the secretary, who you need to run three errands for instead of just murdering like every other fool in the building. You also have to gather reagents for Anne-Claire’s science project. Completing both these mandatory quests constantly sends you ping ponging around the three main locales of the game. It felt like I was playing World of Warcraft with a different skin. Though Ep.1 had similar time sinks, they were not presented in as frustrating a manner. I spent more time trying to figure out how to complete these tasks than actually playing the game. The game would have been much better had we simply gone through the levels in a linear fashion, and maybe a couple hours shorter as a result.

So, in conclusion, Ep. 2 continues the same formula of the Penny Arcade series, does nothing to break out to be different, and adds some serious annoyances. But, it’s still an ok game looking past them, if you’re a fan of Penny Arcade. Otherwise it’s really not worth the buy.