Thoughts of the last few weeks

Some quick thoughts of the past few weeks/last month in gaming:

- I can't say that the quality in games have dwindled...but it hasn't improved either. Maybe I'm just looking at things in a different light when it comes to actual "criticism", but I seem to be less interested in the main details of the game (i.e., graphics, sound, control) and more interested in how the game feels overall.

Say, for example, Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe. I can concede that the game itself is basically the newer MK's with a slightly sillier tone and with a very gimmicky crossover aspect. But you know what, I'm having more fun playing this game on the PS3 than I have had playing Soul Calibur IV. Yes, Soul Calibur IV has the better engine, as well as the better graphics and (in some aspects) a much tighter control scheme, but I've been playing MKvsDC for the past few days now and, more and more, I'm enjoying the fighting mechanics and the absolute craziness that it provides. The game is tons more interactive with its environment and it actually faithfully represents each character in the game, which is highly surprising.

With that and Bleach: Dark Souls creeping up my fighting game time, I think Soul Calibur IV has more competition for Best Fighting Game than I initially thought. Gonna be an interesting race.

- Wow, did Gears of War 2 die on me quick! Me and the Flembot (Ruff3dgz) beat GoW2 last weekend...and I haven't touched it since then. Nor do I think I will for a while, unless someone wants to play Horde mode. Why is that?

Well, in honesty, as stated on the 12th episode on our podcast, I wasn't a fan of the competitive multiplayer. And after playing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, it's more than easy to see why: There's no incentive to do so. There's no bragging rights, no feeling of "I'm better than you," no "Hey, mine is bigger than yours!" feeling I get from the game.

That's not the only reason either: The maps for online multiplayer aren't that great. Just like the first one, too many choke-points to get mowed down, most deaths feel too cheap and the levels just aren't that interesting. For me, too many matches end in specific areas that make the game feel too predictable in multiplayer.

I still stand on the single-player/co-op opinion however: Co-op is excellent in campaign mode. The areas in the game give the feeling of freedom, while keeping the level design compact and tense. The situations that happen in this game only flourish in co-op. And Horde mode is by far the best mode in this game. This is also helped by some outstanding A.I. that keeps situations tense and exciting.

Thus far, I still stand by my score: 85% - 90%, probably just an 86%.

- Which actually brings me to another point: Reviews. I think the concept of Final Reviews are horridly misleading. When me and Bryan started this podcast, we made sure not to call out opinions of games "Reviews" because they are in no way final (because, in honesty, we're still going through the game to give one). But, if you think about it long and hard, does a 9.5 from 2 years ago really stay a 9.5? Honestly, I don't think so.

Take for example a game that was released in 2005 that recieved amazing reviews: Call of Duty 2. Now, play this game. You would not say it's a 9.5 or a 9 today, would you? Absolutely not: Maybe an 8 or a 7.5. But some unwitting person is going to look at a review from that far ago and go "Hey, why would I get Game X that is $60 and came out this year, when this game got a 9.5 3 years ago?!" and not realize that the review is outdated.

I think Final Review scores shouldn't be used in the first 3 months of a games release. I think it should have a revolving score. For example: Fable II came out in the 3rd week of October. Upon playing the game, a player gave it a 9.0 for the experience. However, a week later, Fallout 3 comes out. He starts playing that and seeing the improvements the game has and gave that a 9.0. He then goes back to Fable II a month later, recalling the thoughts he has from the initial playthrough:

Does this game hold up?
How does it stack to the other RPG's that have been released?
Do I see myself playing this game in another 3 months?

If you say yes to the 3rd question, the review continues to revolve until the person decides there's nothing really more to say about the game. Then, you do the "post-op review," which is the score you'll give the game until something else is released that could challenge the game for that score (if it recieves a high one).

This not only helps games that have a long shelf-life, but also games that have been given an initial bad review is given a second lease in life because a reviewer was either distracted by another game or otherwise.

This is actually how I do game "reviews" and such; Hopefully we can implement that in future shows or blogs. Or maybe I'll just do it on this blog.

- So, in the spirit of things, here are my revolving mini-reviews of a few games:

Call of Duty: World at War: The game feels like CoD4, acts like CoD4...even tastes like it at times. But the lack of cool weapons and the fact that artillery strikes and dogs come up as more annoying than exciting and tactical really dampens the multiplayer. I haven't touched single player, but with so much coming out right now I don't see myself getting to it until the next year. So, this score is indicitive only of the multiplayer: 70% (Revolving)

Fallout 3: Initially, I gave the game an 80% - 85%. I liked the game for its humor, art design and its sprawling landscape to travel in the game. The story didn't grab me at all during that time, however, and I felt the combat was on the frustrating side. For example: What I like to call "Cross-Eyed Aiming". I got annoyed by the fact that I'd line my shots perfectly, but for some reason they would still miss my opponent. On top of that, I felt V.A.T.S. was too easy to exploit, leading to me being frustrated by combat in all of its entirety (except, which shocked me, melee combat).

So...for my second run-down of revolving reviews, I have to state something: I am actually growing on the combat. Sure, it took me 12 hours of gameplay, being at Level 6 AND bumping my stats up high enough in Big Guns and Small Guns, but I'm starting to enjoy combat and the actual helpfulness of V.A.T.S. Also, the surprisingly visceral combat is satisfying when you're on your last limb and you use a combat shotgun to blow your opponents head clean off.

But with that, comes more frustration: The map is not detailed enough for my liking, so I get lost getting to certain areas in the game. The perks thus far doesn't do anything for me at all either: they almost seem...negligable, which is completely unlike the other Fallouts which makes your experience much different depending on your perks.

The only thing that hasn't changed is my feeling of the story: Still kinda stinks in my opinion. But, for the time being, my revolving score stays at 80% - 85%: 83% (Revolving)

Mirror's Edge: I'm about 40% finished with Mirror's Edge...and it's freaking frustrating as all hell. Not the game itself, however: The setting is somewhat soothing and unnerving at the same time, which gives a strange sense of dread and zen that few games seem to insue (or at least try to). The platforming is spot-on and the running segments are really exciting.

Emphasis on RUNNING segments. Combat really stinks in this game, which makes me feel like it should have been taken out entirely. Combat, in honesty, doesn't work in this game at all.

From what I can see, Mirror's Edge is a concept that can actually have some ground. This may be one of those pillar games that may either improve on the second part or get someone with a very novel idea to really hit a homer on the game. However, as it stands, it's a great concept in need of a great game: 77% (revolving)

Resistance 2: So, I have to be honest: I'm never going to go into the single player aspect of this game. I'm sorry, it's far too boring and rudimentary for me to slog through...especially since there are games that are far more deserving of my time.

What I will say is that the co-op is nothing short of brilliant. After a few rounds of co-op, I was instantly hooked on its action-RPG like trappings. I strongly...and I mean STRONGLY..suggest that any and every first person shooter with co-op adopt this type of gameplay immediately for now on. Can you imagine if Gears of War 2 had a similar dungeon-hack, level up aspect to it?

On top of that, competitive multiplayer also shines with an excellent experience system and some of the most intense firefights you can come across. Simplicity definitely helps in multiplayer for this game...I just wish it wasn't so simple in single-player: 81% (Revolving)

And Finally...

Animal Crossing: City Folk: It's Animal Crossing. On Wii.

And after 2 days of playing the game, that's really all I can come up with. It's still great...in fact I prefer Animal Crossing on a console than I did on the DS (after 1 month, I was done with Wild World). I can see myself playing this for more than that amount.

So...yeah, it's Animal Crossing. And odds are, if you know you like it, you already bought it and enjoying it.

By the way: Name: Wiz, Town: Forked, Code: 1676-7189-7595

And I got some pears, so if you want what I have, be sure to bring some of your fruit so we can do trade: 70% (Revolving, First Look)

And with that...back to work.