Magic_B

Magic_B is getting tired of all the social networking sites he never uses

My Feed
  • Aug. 1, 2008 - 4:41 p.m.
    Magic_B just created a new forum post on the topic Giant Bomb suggestions, anyone? in the General Discussion
    Hardware/Peripheral info and reviews.

    And a forum search so that I can tell if it's already been suggested or not.

  • July 30, 2008
    Magic_B just added a new image to Laguna Seca
  • July 29, 2008 - 2:10 p.m.
    Magic_B just added a new blog
    Meh
    Well, I've gotten my first sour taste of Giant Bomb. I submitted a request to have a page created only to have that request denied. Last week I wanted to add information for the Laguna Seca racetrack - being that it is my favorite course. But since there wasn't a page for it already, I couldn't edit anything and had to submit a request to add it. Now normally this isn't something I would consider adding to a game website. However, GB considers "Locations" as valid game information and a way to cross reference games. Seeing as how Nurburgring and ...

  • July 23, 2008 - 11:54 a.m.
    Magic_B is now friends with Polsci
  • July 23, 2008 - 11:32 a.m.
    Magic_B added a review of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter
    A superb launch title that raised the bar for next-gen games.
    When the initial line-up of games for the 360 was announced, what caught my eye was Ghost Recon. Even over the summer the visuals were stunning, and after playing the two previous incarnations, courtesy of my roommate's game collection, I was hooked on the series. I've always been a fan of squad based, tactical war-games. It started way back with Maxis' RoboSport. A turn based strategy game where you controled a team of robots fitted with assorted weapons. The best strategy always involved quarterbacking your team like an elite commando squad. Why it took so long for squad based shooters ...

  • July 23, 2008 - 11:26 a.m.
    Magic_B added a review of Marvel Ultimate Alliance
    Exciting concept but doesn't quite pull it off
    First and foremost, I didn't finish this game so my review of it is pretty shallow. Then again, I guess that should say something about the gameplay. I say this though because there's certainly elements to this game that I missed and can't be taken into account.

    This also most likely isn't the fairest review as I was never really into comics, and as much as I keep trying to convince myself otherwise, apparently I'm not that big on RPGs either (or rather just very finicky - I mean I absolutely loved Fallout, Final Fantasy, Fable - ...

  • July 23, 2008 - 11:22 a.m.
    Magic_B added a review of Crackdown
    More fun than a duck on steroids
    Crackdown is somewhat of a conundrum. A game that was first blown off as nothing but an easy way to get in on the Halo 3 beta has exploded into a wildly popular free-roam, sandbox game drawing inevitable comparisons to Grand Theft Auto and the "other" GTA spin-off for the Xbox 360, Saints Row. Amidst which, it's been able to hold its own ground quite successfully. It's also an extremely fun way to do absolutely nothing - as long as you enjoy doing nothing in particular. But once you start actually completing missions and progressing though the "story," it becomes ...

  • July 23, 2008 - 11:04 a.m.
    Magic_B added a review of Forza Motorsport 2
    Forza 2 delivers. Fans of Gran Turismo should feel right at home.
    The good:
    Intelligent AI unique to each driver, damage modeling affects car behavior, well rounded variety of cars, excellent physics model, gameplay options make it suitable for all types and levels of drivers, car customization, integrated website to show off in-game photos

    The bad:
    Limited body mods, limited vinyl shapes and manipulation options - especially with groups, leveling system plays out more like an RPG rather than focusing on skill, range of AI skill levels and car classes in a single race is too large, not enough race tracks; can become repetitive fairly quickly
    ...

  • July 23, 2008 - 10:24 a.m.
    Magic_B is now friends with Nocoolnamejim
About Me

My Blog
Meh
Added by Magic_B on July 29, 2008 | |
Well, I've gotten my first sour taste of Giant Bomb. I submitted a request to have a page created only to have that request denied. Last week I wanted to add information for the Laguna Seca racetrack - being that it is my favorite course. But since there wasn't a page for it already, I couldn't edit anything and had to submit a request to add it. Now normally this isn't something I would consider adding to a game website. However, GB considers "Locations" as valid game information and a way to cross reference games. Seeing as how Nurburgring and Suzuka courses already have pages it only seems to make sense to build on that. So I submitted my request to add a page for Laguna Seca with the reason that it was a very famous racetrack featured in many prominent racing games.

Denied.

You have entire sections dedicated to hamburgers but you refuse to have a single page for one of the world's most renowned racetracks?! Whatever. Has Giant Bomb already become more elite that Wikipedia?

*edit*
WTF?! So I just did a search for Laguna Seca to see AGAIN if maybe I had missed it and lo and behold, there it is... with the very same overview description that I gave it. So apparently it wasn't rejected after all. They just chose to tell me so. Well, chalk it up to beta I guess.



Added by Magic_B on July 21, 2008 | |
Well, here we are. Giant Bomb is up and running. I'm sure a lot of us have been highly anticipating this. I'm just going around, doing some exploring, posting some of my Gamespot reviews and getting used to the different features. Everything's running a little slowly and looked like the server crashed earlier today but overall, things seem like a pretty good experience so far. Can't say yet if it'll replace my Gamespot account. There's a lot of features (and friends) over there that I'm not sure I'm willing to give up and I'm not willing to manage two accounts. It's taking a bit of trial and error but I really like being able to incorporate CSS classes into my blog. Just wish there was a way to write blogs in full HTML. Looks like my little hack way of doing things is working pretty well though. But if you notice things out of place, just bear with me while I figure out what can and cannot be done.



Added by Magic_B on July 21, 2008 | |
SUMMARY: Though extremely challenging to casual players, GRID is rewarding and brings the fun back to sim racers.

Highlights: Fun, competitive racing; Wide variety of race types; Excellent damage modeling; Team racing; Sponsor goals; Customizable voice over

Lowpoints: Hard; Driving model is a little too responsive for a sim; Very high learning curve; Repetitive voice over at times; Limited painting options


Did I mention that this game is competitive?
To start things off, let's get one thing straight: GRID is hard. If you don't think it's hard then you're either great at racing games or you don't have the difficulty set high enough. GRID's driving model straddles a no man's land between simulation and arcade. While it certainly leans to the simulation side, the handling is just a touch too responsive making it feel a bit like an arcade racer. Just getting accustomed to GRID's nuances is part of its difficulty; knowing that you can drive a little more recklessly than you could in say Gran Turismo or Forza but then suddenly the realism switch will turn on and you'll go sliding out of control - only to have it switch completely off and go into the realm of fantasy as your car hits a curb or barricade and goes spinning off into the stratosphere.

OK, so I'm exaggerating just a little here - but not much.

But because this is a driving game, mastering those nuances is going to greatly affect your opinion of the game.

Actually, let's back up a bit: GRID is a simulation racing game developed by Codemasters. The same people that brought us the rally racing game, DiRT. Using the same driving engine, GRID handles much the same way although I think the responsive engine is much more suited for the asphalt than it was for the earth. Like DiRT, GRID also features a gorgeous interface that's easy to navigate, a pleasure to interact with, and loading screens that are informative and just as attractive. This might sound like a minor thing but the interaction design here is really one of my favorite aspects of the game.

Just one example of the attractive interface style.
But why am I talking about menus when I should be talking about racing? When the game starts, you'll be placed in the position of a driver for hire working to make money for other racing teams until you have enough money to start your own team - which is a bit weird because when you do start driving for yourself, your "team" will consist of only you. The game progresses simply by winning races and taking home event trophies as you make your way to the top of the leaderboard. Single races can be played for fun but you'll only make progress in the game by playing in the career mode known as, GRID World. Here too you can race in single races for other teams where your reward is big cash prizes. GRID also has a reputation system that tells how you rank against other drivers in the world. Racing for other teams in single races will win you big money, especially if you complete the bonus objective (things like getting a podium finish or simply beating another team) but it won't impact your reputation points as much.

GRID World Events are the bulk of the racing where each race is restricted to a single car class and consists of 2 or more races where you're competing for points. The driver with the most points at the end wins the event. Teams also factor in here as you'll get additional cash for getting overall team wins. Events are broken down into three regions, each with 6 event races for that license class. Oh, yes by the way, there are licenses. However, they're based not on passing any tests but rather reaching certain reputation levels. Earn enough reputation points in a region and you unlock the next license for that region. Eventually, you can gain enough reputation to unlock the global license, unlocking more races and allowing you to race in any region.

What really separates GRID from games like Gran Turismo or Forza is the variety of races. Touring, open wheel, endurance, drifting, drift battles, downhill drifts, touge (which I hate), city races, tracks, daytime, nighttime, and even the infamous 24 hour Le Mans which lasts for 24 minutes - taking you throughout an entire day and night, on poorly lit roads - which somehow, the AI cars seem unaffected by lack of light on both Le Mans and Touge races. Heck, there's even demolition derby races. Sure, GT and Forza feature hundreds of cars that will determine the race style, but something about them gets bland and repetitive. Maybe it's only because it's still fresh but GRID feels like you're never racing the same race twice. Each event is also limited to the class of car that can be entered and this is what I feel is the hallmark of GRID. With the exception of the Le Mans, in each race you'll only ever have 2 or 3 different car makes on the track at once - despite there being up to 20 cars on the track in some races. And because GRID doesn't offer any way to add performance upgrades to cars, each driver is on a level playing field. The result: close competitive races where one mistake can cost you everything. What's more, the computer AI is racing for the same stakes. You'll never find one or two cars that blow the rest of the field away because they simply have the best car. If someone's winning, it's because they're racing well and if someone's lagging behind well... either they suck, but more commonly it's because a car spun out in a turn, blew a tire, or even blew an engine. Regardless of what car someone is driving or even who is driving, who will win is never certain and no one is immune to happenstance accidents. It's an incredible feature that makes your opponents feel more alive and because each race is competitive with no certain outcome, the fun factor skyrockets. Winning races is no longer a matter of who has the fastest car, but rather who's the best driver. Having to avoid car pileups because someone crashed while your screen is filled with white smoke only adds to the excitement and unpredictability of races.

The great challenge of GRID is it's steep learning curve. Typically, racing games start you out in everyday $20K drivers. The result is that you're able to get a feel for the driving engine as well as learn the tracks at low speeds. Then as you get better cars you're able to drive the courses faster as you're already accustomed to them. While GRID doesn't put you in a Nissan NSX from the very beginning, you do start out driving Mustangs (old and new), Vipers, and even Skyline GT-Rs. Your typical Civics, GTIs, and Celica's are nowhere to be found. What this means is that you have to learn tracks at high speeds; nor is it always clear which track you'll be racing since tracks are listed by location and route only - no helpful pictures. During an event, you'll also race tracks both directions and even change locations after each race. Mix that up further by different races racing only on certain courses and each location having at least two tracks (normal and reverse) and some as many as 6, it can take awhile to get accustomed to each race.

GRID does offer a few driving aids to make things easier, and like Forza, turning these aids off and making the game more difficult will increase your reward for each race. These options are limited though: overall difficulty (basic, normal, serious, savage, extreme), traction control, manual or auto, anti-lock brakes, and stability control. I personally found turning off stability control made the game a bit easier to drive as it reduced the super sensitive responsiveness of the cars. What the game is lacking is a driving assist line to show you the best path and when to brake. Honestly, the only other game I've played that used such a feature was Forza - and that became a crutch for me. What it does have is a little light in the bottom left corner that blinks when you're approaching turns too fast. It's a little too inconspicuous when you need it and at times, unreliable, but it's certainly helpful and unobtrusive to more experienced drivers. In GRID World races, there's also an option to turn on Pro Mode which will make you unable to restart races onces begun. This game would kill me [on Normal] if it weren't for restart so I don't play on Pro Mode.

There's an achievement for winning while locked to this view. I won't get that achievement.
There is another option to make races a little more forgiving. A feature called "Flashback." Although it'll be available automatically when you crash your car to the point where it's un-drivable, it can also be activated at any time in the pause menu. What it will do is let you rewind the race a few seconds so that you can retry that turn you took too fast the first time and sent you careening into the jersey barriers. Your difficulty setting determines how many Flashbacks you're allowed and you're never required to use them. However, doing so will lower your both your rewards for reputation as well as prize money so it's at your advantage to do without.

Keep the patience dial turned to 11 and you'll eventually learn the tracks and how each car handles differently. Once you cross that line, racing becomes considerably easier but still, ever challenging. No two races ever play out the same and, depending on your difficulty level, even the best drivers will have those occasional mishaps. Even when you're comfortable racing, it's the unpredictability and challenging AI that keep winning races a satifying and rewarding experience - especially when each one of your sponsors has to pay you big bucks.

While the driving engine can be a little unpredictable at times, it is executed exceptionally well and Codemasters' attention to detail in every other regard makes up for any minor deficiencies. The damage modeling is fantastic and, in most cases, how your car is damaged will effect how your car performs - though I've found that your car can take remarkable amounts of abuse and have no ill effect whatsoever. Sometimes. This is one of those cases where GRID is remarkably inconsistent. In addition to your car handling differently, pieces of your's and others' cars will fall off as they take damage. These pieces don't just disappear either. Rather they stay on the course where they landed, becoming themselves, obstacles that will impact your can when run over. Perhaps one of the most overlooked details of other racing games, Codemasters decided to make GRID's tracks themselves interactive by allowing you to crash directly through walls or having tire barricades explode, with tires sailing through the air and rolling across the ground when struck. Glass will shatter and eventually break out. Bumpers will hang down on one side, rubbing along the ground with sparks flying off until the entire thing eventually falls off.

Your home away from home.
And to top it off, your team manager and pit boss, as well as your racing teammate, will be talking to you, updating you on race status the entire time... addressing you by name. It's a small thing but it's just another one of those details that Codemasters seems to be so attune to. For the most part it never gets repetitive or annoying, although depending on your teammate, they might be a complete moron, a pretty decent guy, or hardly say a word. The only time I've really found the voice over to get tiresome is during drift races. For some reason, the pit boss feels the need to remind me at the beginning of every race that I need to get close to the flag to score points. Or repeatedly tell me that I need to be physically leading the other drift battle cars, despite leading in point score. Where this really gets irritating is if you have tendency to restart these races often [as, umm, someone I know does...], then you'll hear the same words each and every time. Thankfully, a quick trip to the options menu will quiet him down.

GRID isn't a long game and it doesn't have the extensive car collections that Forza has, never mind anything close to Gran Turismo. I think the car count is somewhere close to 45. Which honestly, that's really all you need. When a race only allows two or three car models, your not likely going to be needing 20 cars of the same class. As I already mentioned, it also doesn't have any car customization options like Forza or other arcade racers like Need for Speed or Project Gotham Racing. It will let you do a few limited team related things; such as choose 3 paint colors and pick a design from several (around 20 or 30) patterns. (If you want to paint cars, stick to Forza. If you want to race, well...) You can also pick a team name, choose between sponsors as they become available, (with some limited control over where sponsor names appear) as well as hire and fire teammates as you see fit. Teammates, usually have a signing fee and will take a percentage of each win. The better the driver, the more they're going to cost.

Talk about responsive. Try driving one of these.
Multiplayer is the standard fare. The online is a bit of a drag since when looking for a match it'll simply plop you in any ol' race, regardless of your skill rank or where the current race is at in terms of progress. This means it may take you a few tries to find a game that's close enough to over that it's worth waiting for it to end or find one that hasn't begun yet. Somewhat unique to GRID is that races are selected democratically. Rather than the host getting to select whatever they please, each player has a small window of time to vote for their race preference. The race with the highest votes is the one that's played. With the exception of getting matched up with some people that had obviously been playing for a while - and were insanely better than me - I didn't run into any problems while online. Framerates stayed smooth and lag was occasional but minimal.

When all is said and done, I'm feeling generous with this one. Once you're able to overcome the steep learning curve [for casual gamers], GRID is a tremendously rewarding and satisfying race game that stays competitive and unpredictable. It puts the focus on the driver rather than what car you drive. Like any race game, it'll benefit those that learn to drive well consistently and take advantage of the opportunities that arise - not to mention have the wherewithal to react to ever changing track conditions. But it's always challenging and despite its short career mode, upping the difficulty level and the game's competitive online multiplayer, should keep you coming back for more. Most importantly, it makes simulation racing fun again. Heck, even the replays are exciting to watch. If only there were a way to record and share them online...

Final score: 9.0



My Lists

1. Favorites

A list of 2 items by Magic_B last updated on July 21, 2008

Magic_B: Favorites


2. Wishlist

A list of 5 items by Magic_B last updated on July 21, 2008

Magic_B: Wishlist


Top Contributions

Laguna Seca
27 Points

Gran Turismo
1 Points

My Reviews
Reviewed by Magic_B
July 23, 2008
A superb launch title that raised the bar for next-gen games.


When the initial line-up of games for the 360 was announced, what caught my eye was Ghost Recon. Even over the summer the visuals were stunning, and after playing the two previous incarnations, courtesy of my roommate's game collection, I was hooked on the series. I've always been a fan of squad based, tactical war-games. It started way back with Maxis' RoboSport. A turn based strategy game where you controled a team of robots fitted with assorted weapons. The best strategy always involved quarterbacking your team like an elite commando squad. Why it took so long for squad based shooters to follow up on this format is beyond me. Hand it to Ubisoft and Tom Clancy for finally figuring it out however.

Unfortunately, G.R.A.W. was not to be had when the 360 was released. Nor was it ready when I finally got my own 360, a month later. Still, what will become the flagship game for the 360 (until Halo 3 is released), was worth the wait.

Unlike previous incarnations of the series, Advanced Warfighter puts you in the role of one man as you battle your way across a sprawling, intricately detailed, "present day" Mexico City. I only have two gripes with the game, and as all I have for this game is praise, it's worth mentioning those problems now.

The very fact that you're restricted to one player is a drawback. In previous versions, you were able to carefully assemble your team, arming them with a variety of weapons, each suitable for different jobs. When you encountered a certain situation that your present character was ill equipped for, you simply changed characters and took someone that could handle the situation appropriately. No longer is this possible. Ubisoft's alternative is that you can choose a target and tell your team to attack it. In some cases this works well. Such as telling a helicopter to destroy a partcular armed transport. The dissadvantage is most notable when sniping however since if your team can't see your target they won't engage - or move into place to engage. What I've found is that this limits what kind of weapon you can select since you essentially always have to be a sniper; not by character but certainly by role. If your gun doesn't have a scope, you're at a serious disadvantage.

For example: while pinned down after a long fight through the city, I found myself out of ammo for my rifle and left with only my hand gun. With two snipers eyeing my team down, it was up to my hand gun to place a few lucky rounds to take them out. That took awhile. Being able to swap characters at that point would have been nice.

Previous versions of the series also had the feeling that the results of each mission could have a serious impact on future missions. When a team member died, they were done for the entire campaign. When they got injured, they took time to heal. And the more you used particular members, the better they got. Not so anymore. Now, selecting team members has more to do with who's name you like better. Except for weapon type, there's no reason to choose one member over another.

G.R.A.W. also has a new feature called rally points. Getting to a rally point will let your entire squad, including yourself, fully heal. A nice feature simply because of the difficulty of some missions. But realistic? No, not at all. Same with your ability to revive fallen teammates in the heat of battle. That said, however, it is a nice addition - just not in line with the original sim concept of the game. With multiple save points, G.R.A.W. plays much more like Halo than it ever did before.

And that sums up my biggest complaints. Not terribly impactful. Certainly not a reason to pass this one up. The visuals are remarkable. My roommate walked in while I was playing one day and thought I was watching a movie. An over-statement perhaps since her reaction was only momentary, but certainly noteworthy nontheless. The pacing is spot on and there's always an air of tension. The entire interface and game play has been refined so that commanding your squad, giving orders to helicopters and tanks, spying via airborne drones, swapping weapons, reloading, crouching and standing, healing teammates, taking cover behind walls, peaking around corners, throwing grenades... all of it's just a finger click away.

The primary new feature of Advanced Warfighter is the HUD system your character wears. It displays tactical information, allows you to see what your teammates are seeing, and even identifies enemies. That last point was one of my main concerns as I thought it would make the game too easy. Happily, it's not entirely so. The system won't acknowledge an enemy until you've seen them first. And even then you have to maintain some sort of contact with them to know exactly where they are. It is certainly an advantage however, since you don't need to be able to explicitly see your enemy. A glance around the area will usually allow your HUD to pick out the targets, without much work on your end. That doesn't mean you can rely on it though. There'll be times when it won't pick out your opponent until they're shooting you - or if you don't see them shooting it'll never find them. Also, there'll be times when you have to go in "blind;" when your HUD is being jammed. There are times when you definitely learn to appreciate the advantage that it gives you - namely, when it's not available.

In the end, if you own a 360, you owe it to yourself to have Advanced Warfighter. Nothing has ever looked this good on a console, and few have had PCs capable enough to do the same. As impressive as the visuals are, this is only the beginning.



Reviewed by Magic_B
July 23, 2008
Exciting concept but doesn't quite pull it off


First and foremost, I didn't finish this game so my review of it is pretty shallow. Then again, I guess that should say something about the gameplay. I say this though because there's certainly elements to this game that I missed and can't be taken into account.

This also most likely isn't the fairest review as I was never really into comics, and as much as I keep trying to convince myself otherwise, apparently I'm not that big on RPGs either (or rather just very finicky - I mean I absolutely loved Fallout, Final Fantasy, Fable - maybe I'd like the game better if it started with an F).

When I was younger I think I only had maybe four comic books. A couple issues of Spiderman, a Black Panther, and one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Oddly enough, I still know more than the average "non-comic person" simply because, for awhile, I collected those Marvel trading cards that had the stats and history of each Marvel character. I knew enough from those little cards to fully recognize nearly every character (save for the newer ones) in the X-Men and Spiderman movies.

Even with my lackluster enthusiasm for comic books, I thought the idea behind Ultimate Alliance was pretty rad. Being able to create a team of your favorite characters regardless of time or team affiliation sounded like a blast. And maybe it's here that I reach my first stumbling block. Except for Daredevil, there really aren't any characters that I'm attached to (and Daredevil is locked to begin with); so right off the bat I don't have a connection with my team. The upside of this is that I can freely choose characters based on their skills and abilities and build a team that compliments each other.

So there's the key: although you can easily just use the default team or throw together a bunch of random superheros, you're not going to get much out of Ultimate Alliance if you don't spend a little time getting to know it. And although there are a couple characters that you want to stay away from, typically it really doesn't matter who's on your team because they'll usually do very little to help you and most fights can be won through simple button mashing.

Each character of course has their own unique special powers and most characters have an inherent ability type that lets them heal faster or have immense strength. You'll start the game with two unique powers and unlock more as you progress. The range of special powers is pretty good as well so once your character is powerful enough, you'll be able to do some pretty devastating attacks.

Characters will also gain experience points to be used on upgrading their powers as well as coins that can be collected and spent on additional character upgrades. The experience points are somewhat universal so although the characters you use will level up faster, the ones you don't will advance as well; staying near to your main team. The coins however have to be carefully spent as they'll only affect that character and in some cases, a particular costume. Luckily, coins are about as common as dirt. Break something and coins pop out. (Kind of like the Lego Star Wars game but not nearly as fun.)

All of this is still salvageable if it weren't for the poor gameplay, story, music, and camera. Right away you'll notice that the camera is very restrictive making it difficult to get a good angle on the action. The music and sound is buggy, often cutting out for no reason. Controls are pretty intuitive and easy to handle. It's a simple matter to use a special power or call for back-up. But the gameplay is terribly repetitive, requiring pretty much no thought at all and it's not uncommon to be left wondering what you're supposed to do next. There are elements of the game that feel like an old 8-bit RPG or side scroller. The simple, restricted presentation and limited movement at times feel like you're playing Contra - but without the ultimate coolness that is Contra of course.

And while the story is laughable to begin with, it's presentation makes it harder to sit through. Unless you're a fan of the old-school, 8-bit RPGs. Then it might be nostalgic for you. I couldn't quite get those warm and fuzzy memories going though.

Graphically, Alliance is nothing to write home about. It does the job just fine but there's nothing next-gen about it.

I haven't played any of the other games in this series so I don't know how it compares. My impression is that if you enjoyed those or love the Marvel Universe, chances are you'll get some enjoyment out of this one. For my taste, it just didn't measure up or hold my attention long enough to warrant really getting into it.



Reviewed by Magic_B
July 23, 2008
More fun than a duck on steroids


Crackdown is somewhat of a conundrum. A game that was first blown off as nothing but an easy way to get in on the Halo 3 beta has exploded into a wildly popular free-roam, sandbox game drawing inevitable comparisons to Grand Theft Auto and the "other" GTA spin-off for the Xbox 360, Saints Row. Amidst which, it's been able to hold its own ground quite successfully. It's also an extremely fun way to do absolutely nothing - as long as you enjoy doing nothing in particular. But once you start actually completing missions and progressing though the "story," it becomes quickly apparent that the game is very shallow and you'll find yourself with little else to do but run down pedestrians once all the gangsters are wiped out.

The basic premise of Crackdown is that you're a cop in a city that's been overwhelmed by violent gangs. Your job is to clean up the city. It's a pretty simple concept. Something akin to True Crime actually. Run around, "commandeer" cars (remember, you're a cop so it's not hi-jacking), and take down the bad guys. What sets Crackdown apart is that you're not some run of the mill cop, but you already knew that of course. Instead you've been biogenetically enhanced using questionable techniques to make you something of a superhuman. In the end you'll be jumping several stories high, picking up and throwing small cars at your enemies, shooting with greater accuracy, generating bigger explosions, driving faster, and surviving falls of a few hundred feet.

Crackdown is built on the "sandbox" free-roam formula that made games like Grand Theft Auto so popular. You'll leave the Agency Headquarters in the center of the city and walk into a war-zone free to do almost whatever you like - as long as it's outside, and involves cars, jumping from rooftop to rooftop, or killing lots of people - gangs or otherwise. Really that's about it. There is really no depth to Crackdown. What's amazing is that it's easy to spend an hour or two scaling the sides of massive skyscrapers, blowing up Russian troop transports, throwing cars at groups of gang members, performing impossible aerial stunts in cars, sniping people from several hundred feet up, shooting the tires out of cars whizzing by on the freeway and watch them careen wildly out of control. As long as you get a kick out of causing chaos and destruction, you'll have a good time.

On the flip side of all this random, do nothing, destruction, is that there actually is a story here (though very loose and non-linear) with actual objectives and missions. In short, you're supposed to locate and kill gang leaders. Take down the lower bosses first and you'll weaken the more difficult Kingpin's defenses. Each mission is straight forward and not subject to any time restrictions. Just walk (or jump, or drive) into a boss location and take down the boss any way you can. Once they're out of the way, that area will become significantly quieter and nearly devoid of gang activity. Clear out all the bosses and eventually the Kingpin of a district (there are three districts) and you'll reclaim that part of the city making it a peaceful oasis for the citizens of Pacific City.

If you haven't guessed it already, the very thing that you're supposed to do in Crackdown, is the very thing that removes the funest elements of the game. Clearing out a district means eliminating all Agency sanctioned chaos that was so fun before. Without bad guys to blow-up you're left with everyday citizens. And although the Agency gives you a little leeway for people that get killed in the crossfire, it won't take much before your fellow cops have had enough of your reckless behavior and turn on you. Killing innocents also has a negative effect on your skill progression. Kill too many people and you'll start losing points.

No big deal though, right? Just don't save your progression. Cause chaos. Lose skill points. Reload. Repeat.

No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. Crackdown employs an auto-save that saves when you collect a hidden orb, knock-off a gang leader, enter a supply point, or die; and no way to turn it off. And there's the real conundrum. With games like GTA or Saints Row, or even Oblivion and Fable, you were free to do as you pleased without impeding your character's progress. Crackdown believes that no matter what, there should be consequences for your actions.

As long as you're causing havoc that involves killing gangsters, as well as the occasional civilian or fellow officer, your point progression will balance out. So long as a gang exists in a territory you can be free to run amok. Say sayounara to a gang and you say good-bye to chaos.

Crackdown handles pretty well, though it's not free from quirks. Picking up items and entering vehicles is generally easy but it's not uncommon for your character to be in the "wrong" place and not have the option available. Aiming is aided by a target lock by holding down the left trigger. While locked on, you're also presented with some options for precision shooting (head, arms, torso, legs), though it's rarely necessary. However, it is fun to shoot the gun out of someone's hand then run up and punch them for strength points early on. Jumping and scaling buildings is simple and intuitive. You even have the old skool ability of changing your direction in mid-air.

I've heard complaints about how that cars handle but frankly I've never had a issue with it. There's a pretty good variety of cars and each handles and performs differently so it's really a matter of finding a car you like. My preference has always been for the Agency SUV. Built like a brick with good speed and will drive over anything. Especially gang members, and cars, and mountains - yeah, like I said, anything.

Crackdown's multi-player is also a blast, but doesn't add any more depth or modes to the game. It essentially just turns it into a co-op with two super agents running around the same city causing mass hysteria. It is fairly well implemented in that if you can adjust your co-op settings for who's allowed to join any game in progress. So if you're playing solo and one of your friends happens to pop online and see you playing, they're free to join you as long as you say it OK.

Graphically, Crackdown's comic, cell-shading treatment works pretty well. Some elements seem overlooked though. It would have been nice if more of the environment got the same attention to detail. Sometimes it's easy to feel like you have this beautifully cell-shaded character stuck in the middle of an incomplete warehouse. That aside, the environments work. They may not look like much in the screen grabs, but they're definitely suitable and better than those screens make it look.

As for the audio, overall it's a winner. While you're driving you'll be rockin’ out to some great music that reflects the type of district you're in (although you can change it to whatever you like). Sound effects are all solid as should be expected these days. About the only other sounds you'll get is the voice in your head from your "friend" and intel man at the Agency. A voice reminiscent of the original Mission Impossible TV show ("Good morning, Mr. Hunt.") which matches the feel of the game perfectly. Unfortunately it can be a bit buggy at times and simply say the wrong thing (i.e. "That was quite an ascent, Agent", while standing on a road).

All in all, it'll be interesting to see how Crackdown survives this post release euphoria. Does it have enough value to stay strong over the long haul? Those that play straight through in a matter of a couple days will tell you no. Those that like to kill an hour by blowing **** up will tell, hell yeah. In the end what you're left with is GTA without all the mini games and story based missions. Except you can jump REALLY far - and yet, in some way, that makes up for it.



Reviewed by Magic_B
July 23, 2008
Forza 2 delivers. Fans of Gran Turismo should feel right at home.


The good:
Intelligent AI unique to each driver, damage modeling affects car behavior, well rounded variety of cars, excellent physics model, gameplay options make it suitable for all types and levels of drivers, car customization, integrated website to show off in-game photos

The bad:
Limited body mods, limited vinyl shapes and manipulation options - especially with groups, leveling system plays out more like an RPG rather than focusing on skill, range of AI skill levels and car classes in a single race is too large, not enough race tracks; can become repetitive fairly quickly

There's really nothing more to say about Forza 2 that hasn't already been said. It's a rock solid simulation racing game. And since comparisons to Gran Turismo are inevitable, let's just say that Forza 2 is a worthy contender if not the new king.

The game boasts over 300 cars, which is significantly less than Gran Turismo's 800 (or whatever). The biggest difference here is that Forza's cars are all designed for driving fast. You won't find any Japanese K class, 65hp "go-karts" here or quaint but useless Model Ts. Even the most common, daily driver cars that you'll start out in are ones that you'd be likely to find racing Solo II at your local SCCA event. In fact, it's difficult to find many cars with less than 150hp.

When you start up, Forza is divided into four sections: Arcade, Career, Multiplayer, and Options. Arcade is where you'll go to just get right to the action and is further divided into three more categories: Exhibition, Time Trials, and Free Race. Exhibition mode is just a single race. You'll have access to a pretty good selection of cars from the get go but limited tracks. As you race and win, you'll unlock more cars and more tracks. Time Trials puts you in a specific car on a specific track with a time to beat. Beating the time generally isn't difficult - but beating the players around you can be. A feature of Forza 2 is that it shows lap times for each track based on players on your Xbox, players on Xbox Live, as well as your Live Friends. It provides a great way to challange yourself as you try to get those last 10ths of a second off your time. It's also not limited to Time Trials as all courses, Arcade and Career, display this feature. Free Race is simply you driving around a course. It's similar to Time Trials in that after each race you can have a ghost car drive your last lap line and will record your best lap times, but you're not limited to a specific car and it's a great way to get familiar with tracks.

Multiplayer allows you to play against friends, play online, give cars to friends, or even sell cars to other players in the auction house. You can also take pictures of your cars and upload them to Forzamotorsport.net to share. Options is your standard array although Forza does include the built in ability to set up multiple screens - no hacks or mods required. It does require a hefty investment however as for each additional screen you want to hook up you'll also need another 360 as well as another copy of Forza.

The bulk of Forza however is its Career mode. It's here where you'll race in series events, purchase cars, buy upgrades, and paint your cars.

The racing is solid. But in case you didn't know yet, Forza, like Gran Turismo, is not an arcade style racer. You can change some options around to get it close but the engine here is designed to be a simulator; meaning that if you drive like a bat out of hell you'll be spending most of your time sliding across the grass and into baricades instead of winning races. Luckily, even if you're not about to spend $150 on a steering wheel, the Xbox controller is well suited for the finesse control that demanding driving requires. Trying to gently throttle or brake in Gran Turismo using the Playstation controller was nearly impossible. Using the Xbox controller's triggers for gas and brake, however, provide a wide range of control that allow you to brake without sliding, maintain speed around corners, and accelerate out of corners without spinning. And be sure, if you turn off the driving assists, you'll appreciate that extra level of control.

Still, the racing can be finicky at times and it's not uncommon to find yourself losing control because of a small over-correction. It's these instances that can be frustrating and you'll swear that the physics engine sucks. Is there any truth to it? Probably a little, but I'm not a race car driver so I can't say how a car should respond when taking a J-turn at 75 mph. If you can remain focused and drive with a smooth, consistant touch, however, you won't find many races that you can't win.

The exception would be races where the range of car classes and driver skill is just too great. The AI may be top notch but as long as you're driving well, you'll never encounter 2/3rds of the other cars - while the lead car will generally get a ridiculous lead. I would have really liked to have seen car class not dictate where an AI oppenent finishes or what kind of car they have to drive. Closer skill levels would mean closer races, regardless of car class. It's unfortunate that each race plays out fairly predictably according to car class, with drivers having little impact on each other.

Speaking of which, Forza 2 ships with a handful of driving assists to cater to different levels of drivers. Those that want to simply race and not have to worry about their brakes locking up because they hit a button too hard or think about the best line to take through a turn will enjoy the ability to turn on things like the Braking Line or Stability Control. Others that want the full experience of challanging driving can turn them all off - plus they'll receive additional credits for their trouble with each race.

The driving line is nice, especially that you can just use a braking assist line rather than a constant line that's always on, but it definitely becomes a crutch. It's easy to find yourself watching the line more than the road. That said, the line isn't a hard rule either. To get the best times, you'll have to drive faster when it's telling you to brake, and based on your own driving technique, you may find the line to be relatively out of place. Still, it's a useful tool, and one that's hard to ween yourself off of if you find yourself constantly relying on it.

The other assists are helpful as well (Stability Control, Anti-lock brakes, Traction Control) but my beef with these is that these are real things that many cars have. What car doesn't come with Anti-lock brakes these days? Most AWD vehicles have Traction control. They're nice features but I would have appreciated them more if they were implemented differently. Not as difficulty options but instead how Gran Turismo implemented them as purchase upgrades. And not cheap ones either. Just seems to make more sense this way. Why handicap yourself by disabling a feature that the car you're driving actually has?

As you race in the Career mode you'll unlock new race series, be awarded new cars that can be upgraded or sold, and up your personal driving level. This level affects your relationship with car dealers and part manufacturers. It increases based on how much money you make winning races and the higher it goes, the more discounts you get and more cars you have access too. Drive a particular car enough, and it too will develop a reputation with similar benefits. Personally I think its a good idea and I like the car rep thing. But to me this sort of thing plays out more than an RPG that only cares about how much you play rather than how well you play. Gran Turismo's license requirements may have been tedious, and in some cases, extremely difficult, but they rewarded you for actually accomplishing something. You simply weren't allowed to race with the big boys if you weren't qualified to do so. Forza takes the stance that, if you race enough, eventually, you can race whomever you please. For me, I prefer GT's take on this sort of game progression but it's only a small aspect of the game and as Forza has it set up, how you drive has very little impact.

Forza 2 looks gorgeous. There's a great attention to detail both during gameplay as well as in the interface. The cars themselves are very well modeled, although, along some curves, you'll still see hard points. The one thing that stands out about them is that the cars are immaculately clean. Too clean. They seem a little out of place on the tracks when they're not a spec of dirt on them - ever. The damage modeling is decent. It gets the point across and the job done but doesn't go to any great lengths to accurately represent the damage you've taken. You'll get some small dents, severly scratched paint, broken glass, and fenders that fall off but nothing beyond that. No crumple zones or anything that distorts the shape of the car. If turned on though, damage can be more than purely cosmetic and will affect how your car performs. Taking damage and trading paint with other cars also means that your car will have to be repaired and the costs for those repairs will come out of your winnings. Just another reason to drive with some intelligence.

The tracks looks good as well. They're well detailed with good lighting but there's something missing that makes them feel sparse. It could be that most of the courses take place in open areas on actual race tracks. There's very little driving done in cities or mountains. Perhaps the developers intentionally left out complex environments to mainain its smooth 60 fps. And while Forza does a decent job at making the most of the tracks that it does have, with different track configurations, there is just too little variety to those courses. There's only one course through a city (New York) and it's only a fairly straight-forward loop; as well as only one run through the mountains - the devilishly long Nürburgring. Which is really a shame because as much as I love the Laguna Seca, there's something to be said for driving through tight European cities or the "rolling hills" of downtown Seattle.

When it comes to upgrading your car, you're only limited by how much cash you want to spend. Each upgradable item usually has about 3 levels of performance (Street, Sport, and Race); depending on the initial performance level of your car. Upgrading your call will also affect its class. Make enough changes and you'll jump up into a new car class. Really this only affects what types of races you can run, although if you upgrade a car too much you'll probably find yourself racing against high performance cars that while in the same class, will rip you a new one on the track. Though well implemented, the upgrade system isn't flawless, mostly due to the games autosave. There's no way to throw on a bunch of upgrades to see the overall performance increase without committing to them. The game will let you see how a single upgrade affects your car before purchasing it but if you want to put on multiple parts you're going to have to buy each one. This is unfortunate. One of the things I enjoyed about Gran Turismo was fully upgrading cars I would normally never drive - such as the stupid mini-vans. Take them around the track a few times for fun then restart the game, recouping all the credits I spent. Forza on the other hand will autosave just about everything you do. You can't even leave the upgrade garage before it saves and it will save a couple times after every race. Heck, the game saves when you leave the home screen.

In addition to performance upgrades, you'll also have the option to make some cosmetic changes to your car such as unique paint jobs (individually painting brakes, hoods, and spoilers), tinting windows, and adding body mods. While it varies from car to car, there generally aren't a lot of options in the mod department. You'll usually get a couple good options but if you're looking for anything like Need For Speed Underground, you're simply out of luck. Yet, with all these options, I find it odd that the developers left out wheels with black spokes and chromed lips - or the ability to paint them as such.

Then of course, there's the painting system. Games like Need For Speed simply throw a ton of different designs at you called "Vinyls." With these you could change the color and layer a few on top of one another but nothing more. Forza takes the concept of vinyls and gives you complete control over them allowing you to change the color, placement, size (both horizontally and vertically), rotation, and even skew them a bit. Not to mention that each region of your car has a thousand layers. Although there are some interesting pre-built designs, most of Forza's vinyls are simple shapes and for those that are willing to put in the time, they'll be sticking mainly to the primitive shapes to layer together some truly amazing works of art. Check out the forums at for some examples. Keep in mind that there is no way to upload your own images into the game.

For the most part the layering system works pretty well. Manipulate the right shape enough times and you can create some pretty incredible stuff. Some additional options could have really made the system better however. Such as a way to mirror a layer without having to adjust size and rotation and better yet, providing the same options to groups that's available to individual layers.

If you're a long time Gran Turismo fan like myself that found themselves jumping platforms and need a fix for your addiction to speed, Forza is the answer. Frankly, I found GT lacking in its later iterations anyway. It lost its sense of speed and natural handling. Forza seems to pounce on all the things that made a driving simulator like Gran Turismo enjoyable to begin with and only improve upon them - all the while adding elements that GT has always lacked.

When it comes down to simulator superiority who knows what the future has in store for Gran Turismo, and it may be unfair at this point to say that Forza has won the next-gen war since GT has yet to make its next-gen debut. But for what it's worth, I have no problem crowning Forza the undisputed king.



Reviewed by Magic_B
July 21, 2008
Riddled with technological hiccups, a great story prevails


Fair. What's a fair score for a game that is rich with story and character development with breathtaking visuals to boot but fails in technical performance and repetitive environments? A game that leaves you speechless by the end but trying to drive around to complete missions and actually get to the end is a frustrating chore? A game where every choice you make will have an impact on how that mission, and possibly future missions, plays out but auto-saves are so poorly placed that failing a battle will have you talking through the same dialog over and over?

Before I go any further, let's get one thing straight. I loved Mass Effect. Certainly one of the best games I've played in a long time. It could possibly go on my "ever" list. Despite all its technological shortcomings, 35 hours later I can't wait to start all over again with a completely different character. It's story isn't original and is something of a hodgepodge of Halo, Star Wars, the Matrix, Contact, you name it. Some may call it predictable. But it works. And the characters make it work on a personal and emotional level as well.

Unfortunately, the game is riddled with problems that ruin the game for many. So let's get those problems out of the way first.

Biggest issue? Definitely texture pop in (up?). The graphics in Mass Effect are gorgeous and understandably it takes time to load them – especially in open world environments where the system is trying to buffer data around your location before you get there. While a few games have been successful at this in the past it seems developers haven't quite got the handle of it yet on the new consoles. So the biggest visual drawback is lots of texture pop in. Mostly only after loads but it can really occur anywhere. I even had it happening during cut-scene conversations which I think is inexcusable. That's just bad programming and resource management.

Random loading. While you're playing, Mass Effect is trying to load content into its buffer before you get there. Unfortunately, the buffer can't always keep up, even when you're not moving quickly. While it's not nearly as bad as Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, it happens and anytime you're walking around freely, only to be interrupted by a frozen screen trying to load content, it breaks the mood and takes you out of the environment. An interesting side-note: All the slow-moving elevators that people complain of are actually cleverly disguised loading screens.

Inventory management. This one has come up a lot. It was even discussed with the people at Bioware in a 1up.com article who said they didn't think it was a problem. And no, it's not huge. Inventory management is certainly doable. The problem is that there is no way to sort your items. So like Oblivion, you're stuck scrolling through long lists of items. This is so easy to fix. Why can't developers get this sort of thing right? And how do these poor management systems get approved to begin with?

Poorly placed auto-saves. Part of the problem here is that they're inconsistent. On some missions they'll be at the perfect spot – right after long dialog and right before the battle. In others, even if you save manually (which you can at any time as long as you're not in combat) you're forced to go through long sections of dialog before the difficult boss battle. Fail the battle and you restart from your last save (however far back that was) only to have to go through the entire dialog again... and again, and again. Very irritating.

Terrain variety and the Mako. Driving the Mako around in and of itself isn't so bad. Sure, trying to back up or get turned around can be frustrating but I can deal with that. Mostly though it's the terrain that you're constantly bouncing wildly over that's the issue. Why is it that every planet you land on has very little flat ground and instead has super steep cliffs that take ages to crawl up? Although it is nigh impossible to flip the damn thing. I did however manage to do it: on flat ground nonetheless. Which sucks because there's no way to right the thing.

Terribly written love saga. For such a wonderful story this inclusion sucks. Seriously, who wrote this part? The same people that wrote Star Wars: Episode 2?! "Hi, we just met. We're suddenly awkwardly in love. Let's do it. No, we have to wait." I'm all for a little love story but it could have been handled much better. For how quickly things start, the mood just wasn't there.

Mission environment variety. It's not really that the missions are repetitive. In any game you're pretty much going to be doing the same thing over and over. The missions here even do a pretty good job at distinguishing themselves. But every moon base and cavern is exactly the same. You can walk into each one and know exactly which rooms the enemy will be in – also because there's only four rooms. It's for this reason that non-story missions begin to feel tedious. Enter a system. Pick the one planet you can land on. Bounce around wildly for 10 minutes. Reach objective, maybe encounter outside base defenses. Enter base. Enter hall. Enter main quarters. Defeat bad guys. Explore other two rooms and wrap up mission criteria if necessary. Blah.

Short. At 35 hours?! Yes. Truth is, if you skip all the side quests Mass Effect only has about 6 "chapters." Each chapter may take you a couple hours to play through but it's a little disheartening when you look at your mission list and can see 3 objectives that, once completed, will lead right to the last mission. More story development and searching the galaxy would have been excellent.

Crates. Yup, just like any RPG you have your standard crates full of weapons and health packs. Ok, cliché but no big deal. Except you have to play some little "Simon" mini game for nearly every one. Fine, but is that really necessary?

Unrelated dialog options. Admittedly, this isn't a big deal and most RPGs of this nature are guilty of it but, to me, I feel it affects the mood of the game. The scenario is some kind of heated situation when suddenly you're presented addition dialog options to inquire the person on a more personal level. It's not the response you'd make naturally. And that response is present in your options. But you know that if you want to get more info and experience you'll have to take that awkward dialog detour. So it's a matter of do you stick to the feel of the situation or do you play the points game? I wish developers would come up with better solutions for these types of situations.

Still with me? Good. Because if you can overlook all of Mass Effect's little inadequacies you'll be immersed in an imaginative world full of unique and memorable characters with a great story to boot. Which is what this game is all about. If you can lose yourself in the story, then just like a good book, it'll be hard to put down.

While it's unfortunate that the revolutionary dialog system (the one that let you interrupt NPCs while they were talking) got dropped from the final build, you're still left with several dialog options that will affect the outcome of that meeting and may impact future missions. Increase your Charm or Renegade attributes (I went Renegade which was a blast) and you'll open more options that can dramatically change the course of a conversation or even avoid a conflict altogether. It's through these options that you'll face some tough choices – the outcome of several which will lead to some amazing "holy ****!" moments. The ability to make choices with a real impact as well as the number of different character c1asses you can create and teammates you can play with really adds some worthwhile replay value. It'll be the same story of course, but it certainly won't play out the same way twice.

Example: In one side quest I found myself confronting a soldier holding a scientist hostage at gun point. Well, no, not hostage. He was about to kill him. The scientist was meek and non-threatening so my initial reaction was to simply take down the man with the gun. I am a Renegade after all. But rather than hastely kill him, I chose to ask some questions and it turned out that the situation was related to an earlier mission and the scientist was part of a group that I had dispatched of earlier - so technically, I was on the same side as the would be killer. With this info I now had four options: kill the soldier; try to convince the soldier to "stand down;" let the soldier kill the scientist; or kill the scientist myself. I won't spoil the ending but my version was definitely a "holy ****!" moment. I'm eager to find out how that, as well as many other missions play out when I make different choices.

And yes, that little irrelevant side mission was superbly detailed with unique actors for each part - or well unique enough. Which brings up the point again that the story and the visuals are really the hallmark of this title. If you're willing to immerse yourself in this universe, the cut-scenes will be a joy and will carry you through to the end. And really, any time you're talking with another non-player character it'll be easy to get wrapped up in it. While the lip sync is far from perfect, it's good enough to be believable. Add in the excellent voice acting, lighting, modeling and textures and you're left left with truly cinematic scenes that are engaging and fun to watch as well as play through.

But the story is only half of it. This is an "RPG-shooter" after all. Even with some squad based tactical elements. This too I've heard complaints about. For me I thought it worked well. Your teammates may not be the smartest but I never once found myself at a disadvantage or killed because of their actions. That's not to say that you or they won't die. It's not uncommon for them to die but it isn't the norm either. Plus, you'll eventually get a handy little ability to resurrect fallen teammates during battle so it's not really an issue. Unless of course, "dead" teammates returning to "life" ruins the feel of the game for you. The key to combat in Mass Effect is using your team's powers to your full advantage. Everyone has something to offer and in difficult boss battles it's worthwhile to make use of those abilities.

Except for some frustrating boss battles, the combat is straight-forward and relatively easy - especially as your hero(ine) levels up and acquires more powerful weapons. Playing as a Vanguard, I found the Pistol/Shotgun combination to be quite effective - the shotgun taking down lesser foes with just a single shot on the Normal difficulty level (from just about any range). A nice feature of Mass Effect I feel is the leveling system itself. On normal your team will level up by themselves. As you increase the difficulty, enemies will level up as well to match you. Personally, I've never cared for enemies leveling up. I think it defeats the point of leveling in the first place. (If we're going to remain on even ground, why go higher?) This seems to be a really good compromise however, allowing the player to adapt the game to their preference of play. On the whole, my teammates did a fair job of protecting themselves: they'd take cover and use shield power-ups when necessary while I managed their attack biotics and special abilities.

Mass Effect's version of "magic" or "the force" is biotics. A special case that grants the wielder the ability to physically manipulate others around them. This includes things like pushing groups of charging enemies away with an invisible burst of energy or suspending them helplessly in the air, to disabling enemy shields or causing their own weapons to explode and damage them. While it's doable to play through the whole game just shooting your way, I found it much more enjoyable when I employed my own biotic abilities in conjunction with those of my teammates to easily bring down difficult foes. There's just a very satisfying sense of power when you can have one teammate disable the shields of a Geth Colossus while you lift it helplessly into the air with another going fully automatic on it with an assault rifle, then finishing it off with a shotgun blast of exploding bullets.

Despite side missions taking place in similar locations giving them a somewhat repetitive and tedious feel, they are enjoyable. The real meat of the game though is within the main storyline. Some of the side quests feel a bit tacked on as if Bioware was just trying to fill out the game and make it longer. While the story is very well developed as it is, I wish Bioware would have spent more time creating a longer story that involved more missions and more exploration and detective work.

When all is said and done, I think Bioware put out a remarkable product and I can't wait for the sequels. While the ending of Mass Effect sets you up for the next chapter, it ends well with a fairly solid conclusion, albeit a bit cheesy. There's still questions left unanswered of course. Mass Effect is intended to be a trilogy however and one that I'm quite looking forward to completing. And with any luck, Bioware will be able to complete all 3 for the 360 before the next-gen consoles.

While there are many technical problems, I never found them to be so distracting or insurmountable that they detracted from the enjoyment of the game. Driving the Mako got laborious and repeating scenes of dialog over and over after dying in battle was frustrating these were minor instances and once overcome they were quickly forgotten. Even the constant texture pop in after loads weren't enough to disrupt my pure enjoyment of this story.

Whether or not Mass Effect is a must buy depends on your personal taste and own buying habits. Personally, I quite often regret outright buying games without trying them beforehand. Mass Effect is not one of those. I enjoy it immensely now and it's the kind of game that I'll be able to go back to a year later and enjoy all over again without feeling like I've "been there, done that."



Reviewed by Magic_B
July 21, 2008
An addictive shooter with fluid mechanics and fantastic visuals


Let's face it, most video games are a dime a dozen. Every genre has its standard bag of tricks. The simple premise of shooters makes them an easy target. Run. Shoot. Kill. Gears of War changes it up slightly. Here, running around in the open will quickly get you killed, making your only alternative to take cover behind anything you can find. Walls, columns, doorways, rubble, sandbags, couches. Like in real combat, if the enemy can see you, you're already dead.

The campaign plays out over a series of Acts each with about 5 chapters where you take on the role of Marcus Fenix; an imprisoned soldier of the Coalition of Organized Governments (COG), commonly known as, Gears. An apparently, tough as dirt team of huge soldiers wearing bigger armor - that, despite lots of wear and tear, has a tendency to be exceptionally shiny on the edges. The story never really explains, or even hints at why you were imprisoned, though it becomes quickly obvious that you're not entirely welcome back on the force.

Your first mission will be to escape the abandoned prison where you've been held - with the aid of the man that's busting you out in the first place. First time players will have the option of completing a brief game play tutorial before jumping into the battle, while experienced players can get right to the action. From here on out you can expect a lot of non-stop peek-and-shoot combat as you battle against the Locust. An alien invasion that's managed to embed itself underground in a series of complex tunnels in its ongoing effort to eliminate the human race. Your objective will be to place a type of 'bomb' called the Resonator, that will map these tunnels. Once the tunnels are mapped, a massive bomb will be used to eradicate the Locust.

Personally, I felt the difficulty of Gears stays pretty constant throughout the campaign. Although some characters are tougher than others, really, no stage of the game is more difficult than others. The challenge will come mostly from the number of enemies you have to face. On the easiest setting (Casual), this is never overwhelming and you can usually depend on your teammates to do a fair job of assisting. As you up the difficulty, however, you're faced with greater numbers and your teammates seem to get dumber. You can generally count on someone dying in just about every fight and in the bigger fights, you'll more often be the last one standing. There is an ability to revive your teammates in the midst of a fight, but this usually means running into whatever clearing they were dumb enough to get into in the first place, in which there's little chance for survival. Alternatively, killing all the enemies will revive everyone automatically and this is most often the way to go. Most of the battles can be pretty intense, especially as you up the difficulty, but many enemies have a simple weakness that, once exploited, make certain scenes a bit too easy and anti-climatic. Part of the fun, I think, is discovering these weaknesses by simply observing how different characters behave. But once you find them, they become somewhat routine.

Overall though, the difficulty could have used a bit more tweaking. From "Casual," the next setting is "Hardcore" and from there you go to "Insane." By name alone it sounds like a big jump and it certainly translates to gameplay. Enemies don't necessarily become harder to kill, there are mearly more of them and they have better accuracy. If you were able to cruise through the story on the Casual setting, you'll find yourself replaying many fights over and over as you up the difficulty. These are almost random fights though and not the "boss" fights that you'd expect to be tougher. Personally, I found the upping the difficulty had the most impact on fights when normally weak enemies swarm over you is giant numbers. As your AI teammates become more and more ineffective, this can get frustrating. Yet, the areas that feel like they were meant to be the most challenging were still relatively easy.

Though most of the game employs the same tactics of taking cover, then popping out momentarily to shoot, there are a few instances where the pacing is changed up such as driving the "Junker" through a rubble covered highway while fending off the flying Kryll or trying to defeat enemies that can't be killed through conventional weapons.

Really what defines Gears of War is your ability to take cover with the tap of a button. Obviously, hiding behind objects is nothing new and more and more games are using a cover mechanism. But Gears does it so seamlessly, with such fluidity, that the action become effortless and natural. In reality, there are few times when you won't be behind cover and once there, you'll have a number of options to poke your head out and shoot or quickly move to another position all while staying as hidden as possible.

Gears' simple, yet effective, means of taking cover is just one of the many aspects that set it apart from other shooters. To state the obvious, Gears of War is visually remarkable. The fact that is just won at the Video Game Awards for Best Graphics is a testament to this. But as with anything, it's the attention to detail that allows something to rise above the rest. With Gears of War, it's hard to feel as though any detail was left out. Textures are tremendously rich and never looked aliased or stretched. Smoke rises in clouds and wisps from burning buildings and cars. Rain comes down in heavy sheets against a black sky as it falls on drenched mud, concrete and steel.

Above all, the lighting sets an intense and brooding mood; adapting well to whatever location you're in - whether it's being filtered through paned glass, burning red from a sky of fire, or barely there at all as you struggle to avoid being decimated by what lies in the darkness. Gears also manages to find a good balance of visibility in light and dark while still maintaining excellent contrast and definition.

Gears offers a simple, attractive interface that matches the gritty, destroyed feel of the game. Though the only time you'll notice it is in the game selection menu. While fighting, everything disappears leaving no part of your view obscured. While you're shooting you'll get a small display showing your current weapon and ammunition level - which disappears when not being used. If you get a hit, a red gear will appear in the middle of the screen and grow in intensity as you take more damage. Stay out of the line of fire long enough and it, too, will disappear as your health recovers. Your health also recovers fairly quickly which helps keep the game moving quickly. A nice balance since you don't have much health to begin with. One of my favorite features of the interface - though one you hope to never see - is when you've taken heavy damage - or are in the midst of grinding up a Locust with your mounted chainsaw, is the thick blood that's splattered across the screen. At times it can be so thick that it's hard to see a thing, giving a great sense of panic to already intense situations.

For such a high quality game, it's a shame that the voice acting isn't held to the same standard. That's not to say that it's bad, the pacing is just very choppy and the voices don't really match the size and toughness of the characters. The dialog itself is pretty decent however, and characters will make remarks throughout the campaign, whether scripted or situational, that really adds flavor and suits their personalities well. In other aspects, the audio is exceptional and everything sounds just as good as it looks. You'll really feel explosions or the sudden presence of an Emergence Hole just by the way they sound. Gameplay is complemented by a variety of musical scores that adapt to the situation and accentuate the feel of the environment yet are never distracting or overpowering.

It's a shame that this game only clocks in at around 10 hours. Even a more polished and thought out storyline could have made up for the short campaign. If you enjoy playing through the same story over and over, you'll get some good replay value by completing the game on the different difficulty levels - though completing it on Hardcore will automatically unlock the points for Casual. (You'll have to beat it once to unlock Insane.) The bulk of replay here is going to come from the co-op and online multiplayer modes. Both of which are well implemented and easy to get into. While playing through the campaign alone, you can even have a friend jump in at any point and take control of one of your AI teammates. For those that count Achievement Points, there's a hefty dose to be had in the multi-player mode for everything from hosting a certain number of sessions to getting kills in different ways. And although none of the Achievements come easily (with the exception of completing the Training Mission), none of them seem impossibly out of reach.

In the end, Gears of War is a worthy addition to the Shooter genre. It offers a nice change of pace by bridging the gap between typical Run-N-Gun shooters and slower, tactical, squad based action. There'll be no surviving if you simply run out hoping to take everyone down before they can kill you, but there's a sense of urgency and a fluid rhythm that keeps the game play moving at a steady clip.



Reviewed by Magic_B
July 21, 2008
The fundamentals are there but it misses the mark in the long run


The Good: Enjoyable gameplay; nicely detailed Nexts

The Bad: Missions are too short; building personal Nexts is fairly useless in the single player campaign; control can be erratic

THE BREAKDOWN
Growing up in the 80's with the likes of Transformers, Go-bots, Voltron, and MASK, I've been a big fan of big robots and mechs for a while. In the 90's my interest in the genre was revitalized when I played MechWarrior II for the first time (and later enjoyed Neon Genesis [Shin Seki] Evangelion, and Gundam Wing). Pretty much, if it has big robots with even bigger guns I'm gonna be attracted to it and probably naturally like it to a degree.

Armored Core 4 is my first experience with the series so obviously I'm jumping on board pretty late here. But with Chromehounds leaving me wanting I was anxious to try out the "Gundam" route. After-all, it was the fast and agile Japanese types that I grew up with. And with it being several years since I had played the glorious dream that is MechWarrior I couldn't wait to hop inside another Exo-skeleton and blow sh*t up.

I wasn't all gun-ho however. I'd read the reviews. And I knew that the same company that was responsible for the uninspired story and gameplay of Chromehounds, was also behind AC4. Most unfortunately, my reservations were not unfounded. Anyone in a similar position as myself should not expect anything like MechWarrior - on any level.

GAMEPLAY
Without question, AC4 take a little getting used to to control with any proficiency. And while the two pre-set configurations aren't all bad, it doesn't help that the developers made the preferred set-up the non-default one. I imagine they did this only because to use the second set-up effectively, you have to hold the controller a bit unorthodox; index fingers on the bumpers, middle fingers on the triggers. Once you get the right control set-up for yourself, controlling gets substantially better.

The Nexts (mechas) themselves handle well enough. They can be a bit erratic at times and they certainly require a soft touch to pilot well. A tad frustrating is that your Next will respond differently depending on the soft touch - all of it undocumented. i.e. it's possible to do quick, 90 degree turns or transitioning between gliding across the ground and taking off to full flight.

The biggest gameplay issue has got to be the short missions. Honestly though, the length of them really didn't bother me much. It's nice to play a game for a change where you can sit down for 20 minutes and play through a few missions rather than get half-way through one. My gripe has more to do with your expected behavior and how missions are scored. AC4 is all about efficiency. Complete the objective as quickly as possible with as little ammo and taking as little damage. Which sounds right. That's how wars are fought. War is costly. But blowing stuff up is so much more fun. So instead of being rewarded for destroying everything the enemy throws at you, you'll be penalized for taking too long and using up your resources. It's this mindset that makes the game ridiculously short. And yes, just about every mission will be completed in a couple minutes.

GRAPHICS & PERFORMANCE
Visually, AC4 is nothing to write home about. The Nexts themselves are superbly detailed but you never really get to see them unless you view them in your hanger - in which they look badass. Why couldn't the whole game look like that? Environments are sparse but acceptable. Personally I think they're better than those in Chromehounds but barely. But there's not much detail done in models or textures.

The framerate clips along pretty smoothly as well. When there's a lot going on it might stumble a little but it's not really noticeable. Where performance suffers is load times and the number of times things have to load. Jumping between screens or even pictures of Nexts will cause ridiculous load times. Starting missions are the worst and replaying a mission if you fail makes you start from the mission briefing so you get to enjoy all the loading again.

VALUE
AC4 is oozing with potential, it's heartbreaking that FROM didn't capitalize on it. Games these days suffer so much from repetitive play and while you're pretty much doing the same thing from mission to mission, there's good variety in how those missions are carried out so you won't ever feel like your replaying the last mission you just did. Most missions offer a unique challenge as well which only adds to the enjoyment of playing through each one.

In terms of difficulty, AC4 is a roller-coaster ride. I myself started out beating the missions fairly well but would get pwned on 1-on-1 matches against the CPU. Then I unlocked the uber-weapons. From there on out the game is ridiculously easy. For the "A" rating at least. Trying to complete both difficultly levels for high marks is unforgiving. You'll cruise through the game on normal - even with S grades. But go to Hard and forget about it.

Also, because each mission is centered around one objective with no regard for enemy defenses, each mission will play out the same and will be fairly predictable the second time around.

Mech customization is a mixed bag. For the campaign you only need 2 or 3 variants of the same design. For player-vs.-player matches you'll get a chance to play around a bit more and develop a mech that suits your style. While there are lots of options in terms of weapon choices and body parts (not to mention combinations of such) you won't be creating any wildly experimental types and the customization process in terms of what you can actually build is fairly limited.

IN THE END AC4 could be so great. The story is a bit loose and not nearly as engaging as say, MechWarrior II, but it's there and it works a lot better than Chromehounds. The missions may be short but they're fun and with good variety. But ultimately, they prove to be too focused on the end-game, penalizing players for having fun. Complete the game for the parts, then build your dream mech and try to find a nice person on LIVE to play against to extend the value of this one.