Game reveiw #9: Fallout 4 (Released November 10th 2015)

Image source: http://www.idigitaltimes.com/fallout-4-concept-beginner-guide-basic-game-details-why-everyone-obsessed-491424

Ok ok, I know that its a bit late for this one especially considering that Fallout 4 has been out for a few months and that everyone from the most humble YouTuber with a mere 40-60 subscribers to the biggest corporate game website has reviewed this game from the ends of the earth and back.  Therefore, if some of you think that this review is a bit irrelevant. well...that's understandable but I care about as little about said critique as Mel Gibson does about his public image.

So to put it short and sweet for the introductory summary?  I fucking love this game like the cliff-racers from The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (2002) love being annoying, swarm-mentality zerg-rushers.  This is probably my favourite Bethesda game to date and call me bias all you want but keep in mind that I don't like quite a few Bethesda games and with particular regard to the previous Fallout games (1997-present).  I never really got into the previous Fallout games for a few reasons that I'll shortly get into but I want to say this before I do;  Falllout 4 is objectively not the best RPG, adventure or shooting game of all time and when people say that this is either their least favourite game in the Fallout series or just an average shooter/adventure title with some decent crafting systems then I absolutely understand. 

Image source:

I was talking about this with my friend Pujge on skype recently and we both agreed that there is no such thing as a perfect game and nor will there ever be and even though I might love the shit out of Fallout 4, I can see why people have been lambasting it here and there, all within proportion of course though.

So, of course the plot in this one as in the previous Fallout  games is pretty light and left to your volition to find and fulfil.  Add in some bath salt-smelling mad side-quests with an overlaying sense of apocalyptic gloom and BOOM!  you have yourself a Fallout setting.  In Fallout 4 we follow the same basic criterion for setting up the main story as in Fallout 3 wherein we see the main character start out their life bright and full of modest hope and prosperity.  However, while I do think that the intro to Fallout 3 is masterful in showing the infant death of your mother and growing up in the confines of an underground vault before going initially-blinded out into the post-apocalypse of Washington DC, I think that the intro of Fallout 4, while practically less immersive is still a bit more investing.  This might sound a bit contradictory and I apologise if this does seem the case but for me I really was drawn more in seeing the life of the main character in the clean and happy world of pre-apocalypse Massachusetts on a bright and happy October day before Halloween planning to go to the park and enjoying the calm life of American suburbia.  Only then, for this all to be smashed apart by the jarring explosion of a nuclear bomb on the horizon that then forms the basis not only for the underlay of the whole narrative of the game but also for a large section of the in-game map later on.  After seeing a great personal tragedy in the confines of a cryo-chamber (which I won't spoil here, go play the game for yourself), you then set out to hunt down the people who wronged you and take back what is yours in a post-apocalyptic world that you barely recognise.  On top of this, some have criticised the game for being less batshit mental than previous Fallout games but if I was in a post-nuclear apocalypse in semi-urban America I'd expect things to be a bit more nuanced and grey.

So that's the narrative and honestly its pretty easy to follow once you get into it and while a bit cliché at points is still very much engaging later on down the line.  Similarly, the gameplay is also pretty easy to follow as Fallout 4 is much more of an action/adventure game rather than a strict and traditional RPG as compared to the previous games in this series.  This is probably the biggest critique aimed at Fallout 4 and while it isn't the biggest for me, I understand that a big appeal of the previous games was how they blended an attractive mix of sparse and reasonably realistic shooting with the in-depth roleplaying of a specialised survivor in a post-apocalyptic world.  It does admittedly seem like this has been streamlined allot more in Fallout 4 but oddly enough, this is one of the things that really drew me into the game.  Its also part of the reason why I never really got hugely into games like Fallout 3, Fallout (1997) and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (2006).  Call me mainstream but I didn't like those aforementioned games because they just struck me as too in-depth and stoic in terms of gameplay.  Yes I know this is a big plus for a great many people and really that should be what people request for their RPG's and games in general.  Some games like your everyday shooter or puzzle game can afford a bit of streamlining and simplicity here and there but I will admit that while I like the streamlining of Fallout 4, I think that it might not be the best route for the series to take while paradoxically being the main thing that drew me into the game.  And keep in mind that this is the guy who throws a spitting fit of rage whenever a new RTS is streamlined and minimalized in terms of customisation and in-game depth.

I suppose then that the other main criticism of the game would be its dialogue system.  It sucks.  It sucks more than a stock M3 Lee medium tank on World of Tanks (2010), it sucks more than virtually every bit of artwork every produced by Tracy Emin and it sucks about as much as when they removed the machine for House of the Dead 3 (2002) from my local bowling alley when I was 12.  I have NEVER liked the wheel-of-misfortune-style of dialogue selection as seen in the much vaunted Mass Effect series (2007-present) and when I saw it was being implemented into Fallout 4, I was indeed sceptical but decided to give the game the benefit of the doubt in order to give it a fair chance.  I found that while this system was nowhere near as badly implemented as in the Mass Effect games or Dragon Age 2 (2011), it still sucked succubus pus through a razor-wire straw and looked about as bad too.   I know it might seem like I hate the game more than I really do but while that isn't true I'll just mention one more major criticism.  This is probably some of the worst graphics for the context of the gaming era in which a game is made that Bethesda have ever produced.  Human models are unnaturally glossy particularly with the eyes and texture pop-ins, while thankfully rare, are want to happen when a big explosion happens to you albeit not all of the time.  Admittedly, it would be hard to make a game of the sheer size and scope of Fallout 4 look as beautiful as a tapestry done by Vincent Van Gogh, Picasso and Leonardo Da Vinci but even still, Bethesda really missed the mark on the specified graphics here.

Image source: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2015/06/14/fallout-4-gives-voice-to-vault-survivor.aspx

But do these problems detract from the overall enjoyment of the game itself?  Well for me, not so much really as they're annoying and do get in the way but I never really felt that they were together or singularly problematic enough to constitute that kind of issue.  What really won me over was, as mentioned earlier, the great action/adventure gameplay where customisation of one's weapons and armour has taken untold importance in this game as a humble 10mm pistol now has infinitely more options to turn it into a hand-cannon of fiery death.  With at least 2 modifications for each module on each weapon in the game there is more than enough modding of weapons and armour to be done and while it isn't imperative to completing the game, it is nice to know that there is some variety and option there.  This does mean that you might lug around tonnes of guns and unwanted armour to scrap for screws and scraps of leather and glass but you can easily find enough scrap if you adventure around enough.

This scrap and forging system plays nicely into my other favourite part about the game which is the settlement building function which I have already sunk many, many hours into.  True, it can be very fiddly with where you put constructions like beds, guard posts and generators but aside from that, the settlement system gives you something to work towards when the side-quests are tiring you out or the main quest is pissing you off for some reason.  It is hard work once you have at least a dozen settlements across the state of Massachusetts but I kind of felt like I was actually working towards something bigger than myself aside from the odd side-quest or main-quest.  It perhaps isn't the most impactful system of its type ever in gaming but I found it truly enthralling to establish well-defended settlements where I saw NPC's begin their lives anew in admittedly dusty and rusty little havens.

Image source: http://fextralife.com/beginners-guide-settlement-building-fallout-4/

By the way that link  just beneath the above picture is a good little guide to building a nice and solid settlement so maybe check it out if you're new to the game.

On top of this, I have to mention that aside from the games' crafting systems and combat being top notch, so too is the voice acting.  Some of the writing is a bit cliché and run of the mill and like I said, the dialogue wheel is about as much use as a poo-flavoured cold & flu tablet.  However, some of the lines particularly if you choose the female as the main character are superb with easily the best voice acting seen thus far in the Fallout series.  I find it weird though that people critique this game for not having very many voice actors when having an abundance of voice actors has never been the case in ANY Bethesda game.  I mean, have you even listened to some of the dialogue in Fallout 3 or The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion?  The writing isn't bad but the repetition of some of the voice actors in these older games is sometimes downright insulting and the fact that people then go on to critique The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011) and Fallout 4 for not having enough voice actors makes me absolutely baffled and perplexed.  Maybe its a bit of a nit-pick about the criticisms aimed at this game but its been something really bothering me over the last few months since the game came out.

Just before I cap off this review I must praise one more major thing about the game.  While the main story is certainly enthralling, engaging and genuinely dark at points, the companion characters provide more than enough extra story muscle to the meat of the games' internal narrative.  These individual character stories could be told slightly better and some of the writing at certain points in some of them is a bit iffy but they provide some of the most profound dialogue exchanges I've ever heard in a Bethesda game not to mention some pretty decent side-quests with the reporter Piper being my favourite in terms of her personality and Nick Valentine easily having the best dialogue and individual, personal quest.  The moments when you get your selected companion to like you more and more are easily among the most engaging moments in the entire game and while perhaps not the best written all of the time, easily convey for the most part how these different people interact with the world they find themselves in.  Except dogmeat, he just acts as a pack animal being cute and running through minefields to fight one radroach like an adorably furry fucking idiot.

Image source: http://wccftech.com/fallout-4-official-direct-feed-1080p-screenshots/

So in conclusion, would I recommend Fallout 4?  Well overall I would but to fans of the franchise itself I would recommend taking it with a shaker-full of salt and be wary that allot of things have indeed been streamlined down from previous entries into the series and thus may not be what you look for from a Fallout game so do be wary about that.  Even despite that though, I would still recommend this game with gusto.  It isn't great as an RPG and the graphics and dialogue system are pretty naff but on the whole it easily makes up for one of my favourite games released in 2015 and easily my favourite game thus far in the Fallout series so whether or not you want to see what the series has just produced or are looking for a new shooting experience with some crafting and exploration added on then I'd give this a massive thumbs up.

And of course, until next time, have fun with whatever you're playing, stay safe and take care!

Graphics: 5/10

Optimisation/FPS: 8.75/10

Internal game content: 8.5/10

Gameplay: 8.75/10

Design: 8/10

Writing: 7.5/10

Voice acting: 9/10

Story: 8.5/10

OVERALL RATING: Great bit of pub grub pie and chips with a cold pint but not quite a top quality medium rare steak with dauphenoise potatoes and pan-fried asparagus.

Respectful disagreement #2: Why bad endings to games do not always ruin them

Ok, so undoubtedly since the rise of story-driven game titles in the late-1980s particularly with the Castlevania and Legend of Zelda franchises, there have been those few special games for whom many are enthralled by until they get to the ending and are crushingly disappointed either by the final boss or the conclusion to the games' overarching story.  Perhaps the greatest examples of this in recent years are Mass Effect 3 (2012), Halo 2 (2004) and the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy (2009-2014).  Now for the first two I have to say that the anger towards their controversial endings was somewhat misguided.

Out of these three examples, Mass Effect 3, the final segment of the massivley popular trilogy of space-adventure epics featuring what many call one of the best video games of all time (Mass Effect 2 (2010 for PC & Xbox 360, 2011 for PS 3)), probably gains the most disproportionate hatred for its admittedly pretty weak ending.  Now don't get me wrong, while I didn't perhaps get into the franchise as a whole (with exception to the final level of the first game and most of the second game of course), I do freely admit and firmly beleive that the three not-all-that-dissimilar endings of the third game were pretty bad and didn't represent the full potentional of how the developers and designers could go about ending this truly epic storyline.  I don't think its as much a mishandling of the material as it was a struggle to find a suitably epic ending to the story of the franchise and while the epic aspect in this case was more than acheived, the actual excecution and meaning of it was cluttered, flimsy and each different ending on its own and also compared to each other were pretty weak compared to the enticing end of the third game and the heart-stoppingly action-packed ending of the second one.

But did the ending of Mass Effect 3 really ruin the game as a whole?  Okay sure, the ending was a pile of crusty wank but the game itself was still suitably epic up until that point, the gameplay was almost as good as in Mass Effect 2 and the impact of your choices in previous games as well as in the current one had a deep, meaningful set of both moral and philosophical implications to them.  Regardless of how you look at it, even with the shitty ending, Mass Effect 3 still works as a game and experience.  Think of it like having the best 3-course meal you've ever had but when the waiter offers you an after-dinner mint he/she instead sucks on an imperial mint for 30 seconds then spits it at you but then apologises for doing so.  ....Ok...that metaphor might be a bit extreme but you get my point.  People applauded the game itself for staying true to its predecessors while allowing for a more epic story and more difficult and challenging circumstances within which the refreshingly simple game mechanics could truly flourish.  Combining this alltogether with the series' recurring aspect of allowing decicions made in playthroughs of previous games to impact the story of the current one and you have am experience that is emboldened by so many well received strengths even going so much as to include.

Of course this is just the opinion of one person, a man who in fact has never been any good at any of the Mass Effect games.  Regardless, even as soemeone who sucked as bad at playing these games as Square-Enix are at convincing everybody that the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy was worth any good will, I have to admit that the story of the Mass Effect series is something so bombastic, large and epic that you have to admire it for its scope as it just manages to elevate itself above the crappy ending at the end of the thrid game.  Yet sometimes there might be a bad ending which when looked at closer, actually reveals a clever thematical and narrative ploy to raise the plot of a game from average to hihgly enthralling.  Take a step forwards, one of the most famed and popular FPS games of all time, Halo 2.

Image taken from: http://www.avwproductions.com/techheads/wordpress/why-halo-2-is-the-greatest-game-of-all-time/

To all extents and purposes, one could just as easily argue that the Halo Series (2001-) has as much of an epic storyline and plot as that of the Mass Effect games.  In Halo as in Mass Effect, we follow an elite corps (in this case the mighty spartan marines) as they combine with the united forces of either humanity or an allied galaxy to fend off the advances of an enroaching alien speacies hellbent on total annihalation.  I was perhaps never that into the Halo games as much as my two best freinds Brendan and Sam (aka Thunderrunner487 and Telescuffle respectivley) perhaps best shown by how a good chunk of their millenial memorabilia is tied to the original Halo trilogy while mine was tied to games like Spyro: Year of the Dragon (2000) or Company of Heroes (2006).  Regardless, I have to admire the Halo series for combining its likewise bombasitc and enthralling storyline with its refreshingly simple gameplay and sometimes very relatable characters particularly in games like Halo Reach (2010).  It is perhaps not too hard then to see why the series as a whole has gained such a widespread following in the mainstream gaming public and why my freind Sam (aka Telescuffle) has pointed out to me that his favourite game in the franchise to this date is Halo 2.

Image taken from: http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/File:Halo_2_028.jpg

But what about the ending to Halo 2 that has so many people up in a tizzy when they talk about it?  After all, the game was released in 2004 and so its been quite a while since the initial controversy about Halo 2's ending has died down.  If you don't know however, Halo 2 ends with Master Chief (the main character of the series) boarding a battered warship headed towards a swirling sapce battle around planet earth asked by the character Admiral Hood what he is doing before Cheif calmy replies "Sir, finishing this fight" as the game then fades to black after which the credits roll.  In a purely thematical sense, I can perhaps see why people were pissed by this ending when the game first came out as it is indeed very abrupt, leaves little closure on the story of the game individually and leaves us unsure about the fate of Master Chief other than his oncoming glory in the fight that he's yet again heading towards. 

Now to be fair, this would be frustrating to a first time player.  However, contextualised within the game itself and the original trilogy as a whole, the ending to Halo 2 makes a twisted sort of sense.  The game itself rides narrativley upon the idea that humanity is in a desperate struggle with the alien forces known as the covenant and the flood,  in order to defeat this threat, Master Cheif and the player are repeatedly thrown into harsh and bloody missions throughout with many citing Halo 2 as having some of the hardest in the franchise to date.  Therefore, the openess of the ending leaves it up to the player to realise that as the initial threat has been dealth with, there is still much to do and it is only up to Master Chief (and in turn the player, thus creating a narrative connection between Chief and the player) to deal with it and thus 'finish the fight'.  This in turn creates an interesting advertising and narrative hook as 'finnishing the fight' was the general tagline of Halo 3 (2007) resulting in a strong narrative link between the two games.

Image taken from: http://www.avwproductions.com/techheads/wordpress/why-halo-2-is-the-greatest-game-of-all-time/

Now personally, my favourite game in this particular franchise will always be the orignal Halo: Combat Evolved (2001) which revolutionised the idea of the modern FPS after the era of Doom and Quake and before Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007) came along years later and came to dominate the culture of modern FPS games in the 7th game generation.  Arguably, next to games like COD4, Unreal Tournament (1999), Serious Sam (2001), Resistance 2 (2008), Battelfield Bad Company 2 (2010), Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 showed that simple gameplay combined with a straightforward plot intertwined with large scale situations and stakes and threatening situations that challenged your abilities as a gamer and hero could not only create for a grabbing game that shook you to your bones but drew you into its gameplay and story to play more and pay more attention to it.  I've certainly experienced this with some series that I've had alot to complain about such as the original Dawn of War (2004-2008) quadrilogy or the Supreme Commander games (2007-2010) but Halo 2, out of most of the games that seemed to define late-6th generation storytelling and gameplay acheived this more than most as Halo 3 went on to become one of the most highest-grossing games of all time and one of the best reviewed and most popular FPS games of recent memory.

So with Mass Effect 3's ending expained in a technincal sense and the ending of Halo 2 explained from a standpoint of narrative storytelling and player interraction through gameplay and dialogue, where does this leave the also controversial ending of Final Fantasy XIII developed by Square Enix and released in 2009?

Image taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XIII

Now in comparison to the Mass Effect  and Halo series, with exception to Final Fantasy VI (1994) and Final Fantasy IX (2000), I've never had a huge amount of interest in the Final Fantasy (1987-) series as a whole or even for most of the individual games.  However, as a (for the most part) indifferent game to the franchise, I can understand the attraction of the series within itself as a whole and within the individual games thanks to the enthralling RPG elements, the usually epic storylines, the engaging struggles of the characters and the inclusion of some of gaming's most iconic and nastiest vilains like Final Fantasy VI's Kefka or VII's (1997) Sephiroth. 

But anyway, enough contextualising, what about Final Fantasy XIII's ending.  Well, this might sound bad, but I really can't remember much about what the ending was like or what it represented.  This might stem from how unengaging the plot of the game was or how much I disliked the main protagonist Lightning or how much the game seemed to drag later on or how disinteresting the main vilain was but I really can't remember much about this game's ending.  At the end of it all (a nice little reference to Final Fantasy Dissidia's (2008) final boss there for you all) Final Fantasy XIII is a perfect example of not involving your player through some means or another (for me it was mainly the grinding length of the game and the unlikeable main protagonist) which in turn kills the involvement of a player in the game's ending and story.  Now I've played good games with one or two aspects that have killed the prospect of a good ending such as Darkstar One's (2006) ending being incredibly cheesy and going against the style and ethos of the game or Max Payne 3's (2012) ending which was severley weakened by the suprising unlikeability of the main character souring the ending.
However, whereas those games were still enjoyable for the most part and were only partially soured by their endings, I didn't enjoy Final Fantasy XIII for the most part, wasn't drawn into the main protagonist's main struggle despite their shortcomings like in Darkstar One and as a result, combining this with the excrutiating length of the game and its disgustingly sequel-bait ending, I couldn't bring myself to remember or care much about the ending after I finished slogging though the game as a whole.  Subsequently, when I found out how much of a sequel-bait ending the game had with the onset of overly-expensive paid-DLC and a trilogy that not even the most devout Final Fantasy fans asked for, I felt deflated and disinterested by Final Fantasy XIII's ending.

As a result, I think that the evidence is pretty clear from looking at these three games that it isn't a bad ending that ruins the game, its a bad ending combined with either a bad or unengaging game that ruins the game.  Mass Effect 3, despite the ending that essentially went against the entire series and all it stood for, did not ruin the overall experience either I nor many gamers had with the game itself.  On top of this, the prospect of cheap DLC soon after the game's release that sorted out some of the narrative problems of the ending sweetened the deal a bit and besides, from my viewpoint at least, I would argue that the ending of Mass Effect 3 was not just down to bad writing but perhaps a great deal of admirable but misplaced overambition.  Halo 2 in turn is perhaps a greater example of misinterpreted storytelling a-la the ending to Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising (2010) that tried something ambitious, pulled it off, but could've perhaps done with being a bit clearer and more elloquent as telling from the general reaction to it.  Final Fantasy XIII in turn is an example of how even with great production value and design as well as graphics, a game that does not involve the player on a personal level or interest them as such will fail regardless of the ending and even if the ending is good (which it wasn't in this case), the game will still struggle to rise above it's flaws, especially if it's a poor follow up to a series of very popular games.

But hey, even if you still don't get it, let me sum it up to you guys with this analogy.  Mass Effect 3 and Halo 2 are like classy dinners with great service and music where the starter is a 5 star meditteranean tapas and the main course is a perfectly seasoned and well cooked moussaka but the pudding is just a bag of jelly beans served on a paper plate.  Final Fantasy XIII on the other hand is a takeout from a crappy 2-star chicken 'n'chips shop where your order is late and wrong, the only music on hand is the same 5 tunes all day from Capital F.M radio and the server has left a hair in your vanilla milkshake when you clearly asked for chocolate.

Ted R's Top Tens #3: My top ten strategy game units

Okay, compared to the last two top tens that I did, this one might cause a little more one-sided arguments considering the fact that its my personal opinion compared to the last two which were based solely on historical fact.  Regardless, this is a top ten that I've thought about for a while considering the fact that as mentioned before; 1) I like lists (not to sound like Brick from Anchorman (2004) or anything), 2) despite my disdain for individualism I believe that it's important to express one's opinion and 3) if there's one genre of games I like more than adventure, racing, FPS or puzzle then its RTS (Real-Time-Strategy).

Naturally in games like these there always has to be a core plan in your mind regarding how you aim to take down your opponent and at the core of this is usually one or a select few units playable through a certain army/faction that express your strategy style.  For me this can vary from slow-moving and methodical attritional strategies to swift strategies tuned to keep the enemy off-balanced and disorganised.  So without any further delay ladies, gentlemen and fellow RTS enthusiasts I present to you my top ten strategy game units.

#10: The Goliath from Company of Heroes (2006)

Now this first unit is more so a unit to simply fuck around with rather than build a strategy around.  Don't get me wrong, it does huge amounts of damage in single hits, scares the crap out of the enemy and is hard to spot on a war-torn battlefield thus making it great for sabotage and ambushes.  In particular, the Goliath which features in the legendary World War Two strategy game Company of Heroes is a remote controlled box on fast-moving treads that the German army deployed during the later stages of WW2 when it was clear that they had to start fighting dirty and using terror as more of a tactic in order to have a chance of turning the tide against the Allies in France and Italy and the Russians in Eastern Europe.

In the war, the Goliath didn't have a huge deal of success as it did have some psychological impact but never really changed the strategic prospects of the German army.  In Company of Heroes however this is quite the opposite.  In the game, the Goliath is fast to move around, except around corners, and so can be used to pounce upon gun positions, slow-moving mobile artillery or columns of infantry and inflict crippling amounts of damage by blowing up right in the enemy's face.  The only two big problems with the Goliath however is that 1) it has pathetically low armour and so can be destroyed at a distance by even lightly-armed scouts and 2) its nastily expensive at 125 ammo points just to build one.  However, if you like using the Germans in Company of Heroes and enjoy scaring the shit out of your opponent then this is the unit for you.

#9: Amphibious tanks from Supreme Commander (2007)

Now sometimes when you face a certain problems you will need someone or something that can sustain a multitude of helpful roles in any number of given situations.  In the world of strategy games when I think about things such as these, amphibious tanks from the sci-fi RTS Supreme Commander are one of the first things to pop up into my mind.  The good thing about Supreme Commander is that all four armies playable in the game including the extra one added on in the expansion pack Forged Alliance (2007) share the basic premise for many of their units albeit with different weapons and capabilities so there's not a great deal of preference between any of them for me (although I do like playing as the Aeon Illuminate allot). 

In particular, I like amphibious tanks allot above other ground vehicles in Supreme Commander due to the fact that whereas other tanks have to be transported over water via vulnerable and unarmed air transports in order to attack a river stronghold or an island, amphibious tanks, as you probably can guess, just go gliding straight over the water like Moses if he had been encased in armour and had his head replaced with a gatling cannon.  Therein lies one of the problems of the amphibious tank however, as it is armed with a weapon that performs well against low-flying aircraft and infantry, its kind of weak in head-to-head fights with other tanks and gun turrets.  But regardless of this, if you build an armada of these things and send them ashore on the enemy's bank with heavier tanks coming in from the air then you will be sure to inflict some nasty damage on the enemy.

#8: Graal Knights from Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion (2005)

Now what is slower than David Cameron's so-called rebuilding of the British economy?  That's right!  Internet explorer with good connection and the Graal Knights.  In the context of what the term "cavalry" stands for actually, these heavily-armoured horsemen from the first Rome Total War expansion pack are an oddity in the sense that 1) they are not swift and quick, 2) they are not hard to hit with archers and such and 3) they look more grim and imposing with their grey armour and green cloaks with gold face-masks rather than the chivalrous image painted of most cavalry throughout history.  However, despite the fact that the Graal Knights are slow as hell and super-expensive to employ as mercenary bands in the campaign mode, they are an in-game investment worth making.

The main reason for this is the sheer shock value and gravitas that these horsemen have in the attack and even in the defence as both they and their horsemen are heavily armoured in scales of metal thus giving them greater weight and therefore striking power.  What's more is that as these warriors are so heavily-armoured, if you give them enough defence upgrades then they will probably be able to withstand any missile-fire from the enemy.  So despite the high cost, small unit number and rarity of these human tanks they are a force to be feared by any unsuspecting infantry and artillery.

#7: Assault squads from Dawn of War II (2009)

Much like the Total War games, the Dawn of War II series forces players to usually form a strategy that combines a mixture of close-quarters-combat units and ranged units in balanced harmony to rip the enemy to shreds like a bloodier and more fleshy version of Mattersons fridge raiders.  As for the assault squads available to the Space Marines in the Dawn of War II series however, they combine the best of both worlds sporting a vicious array of weapons such as electrified claws, electrified axes and chainsaw swords (yeah you heard me right, fuckin' chainsaw swords).  

This is because of the fact that despite mainly concentrating on melee weapons, the assault marines are equipped with jump packs allowing them to traverse rubble-strewn battlefields while scattering enemies like scattered M&M's of death when the assault squad lands.  Thereupon after being scattered like the pieces of a collapsing Jenga tower, the enemy are then set upon by the blades of your assault marines who can also jump away to safety if aforementioned scattered enemy is too strong to overcome.  The one problem with these unsubtle knights of the sky is that they die easily due to slightly lighter armour compared to other space marine infantry but make up for this with their mobility and cheap production costs.

#6: Sonic dolphins from Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3 (2008)

Okay, this is a weird one, whereas the last few entries included ideas for army units that at least sound halfway respectable, this one just sounds like a navy officer and maritime naturist got stoned then drew up stupid ideas for weapons for the navy before passing out from idiocy and the ridiculous levels of weed smoke in the air.  But how are these plucky little maritime dolphins with sonic cannons attached to their backs in a battlefield situation?  Actually they're not all that bad despite poor armour and lack of a concept that can be taken seriously.

In fact if you spam enough of these leaping and tenacious little critters then you'll be able to take down enemy shipyards and battleships while also making the enemy feel like the bad guy in a knock off version of Free Willy (1993) but with dolphins and sexualised support characters instead of whales and a stoic native American that looks oddly allot like an older Steven Segal.  Regardless, combining the novel weapons that these plucky little creatures pack, a cute demeanour and noise and a low production cost they are definitely worth employing in any navy that doesn't mind looking like complete fucking idiots.  Just to be off topic, why the HELL does Free Willy have three freaking sequels?

#5: AT-AT's from Star Wars: Empire at War (2006)

Now even for people who don't really play RTS games but at the very lease recognise popular culture, this entry should be recognisable and obvious why its here to allot of people particularly those who enjoyed Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980).  In the Star Wars universe, the galactic empire makes use of the heavily armoured, huge and slightly camel-shaped known as All-Terrain-Armoured-Transports to transport their infantry while scaring the enemy shitless with their huge and thunderous gait and huge blaster cannons.

Naturally, because of their huge size, power and diversity of roles, the AT-AT's in Empire at War are quite expensive to build and on top of this they find it as tricky to shoot close-up targets as it is for a Dyslexic with a fear of numbers to solve algebra equations.  Yet regardless of high costs and poor mobility, the AT-AT is rated among the top 5 on this list due to its devastating firepower, psychological impact of making opposing players crap their breeches and also being able to deploy squads of infantry with no population cap consequences.

#4: Redeemer from Command and Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath (2007)

Come on Ted, again with the huge and overpowered super-walkers?  Well readers, despite your misgivings, there are a good few reasons why the Redeemer is on this list.  Firstly, it is the first super-only-build-once unit that I only had to build once to win a campaign mission in a Command and Conquer game but aside from this and much like the AT-AT, the Redeemer has a multitude of different roles to fulfil.  Whereas the AT-AT is limited in these roles however to a certain extent on account of the fact that it can only act as a line-breaker, tank/building killer and transporter of support infantry.  The Redeemer can top this by also crushing enemy vehicles and infantry as well as sporting self-repair domes, rocket launchers, machine guns, flame-throwers and chemical waste-throwers depending on what infantry squad you choose to garrison the mighty walker with when you first build it.

Again however as with the AT-AT, the Redeemer is agonisingly slow and so is vulnerable to WMD's, aircraft and hit-and-run tactics equipped with anti-tank weapons.  Furthermore, the build time of 50 seconds means that if you mean to build this multi-purpose walker then you'd better be pinning the enemy down with counter-attacks or build so many gun turrets around your base that you call it a homage to the fortress of Verdun.  Still, if you're like me and can live with the occasionally slow unit that has enough fire-power to level an entire regiment of tanks single-handedly then the mighty and indomitable Redeemer is a unit for you.

#3: Rangers from Company of Heroes

Again with a unit from Company of Heroes?  I know, I know.  Look, while there is no doubt that this WW2 RTS is one of the best if not THE best of its kind then there is a chance that references to it in such things as top tens will be notably frequent.  Yet still, I can't help but not ignore the might of these fearsome American shock troops that were immortalised by famous feats during WW2 such as the freeing of many prisoner camps in the Philippines in 1945, the crushing of German forces in Western Sicily in 1943 and the sterling efforts made by these brave men in the fateful D-day landings on the 6th June 1944.

As you would expect from assault troops, these tough yanks are capable of wielding a multitude of weapons and come in default when you spawn them with a pair of bazookas and four rifles.  However, for 100 ammo points you can upgrade these fellows with sub-machine guns and make them into truly fearsome assault troops.  Admittedly, it can be a slog to push all the way up the infantry tech tree on one side for the Americans but it is worth it when you are rewarded with assault troops such as these that have a greater value than most infantry units in the game.  So be prepared, these plucky boys from the land of apple pie, liberty and really fucking awful reality daytime TV are a fearsome force on any map on Company of Heroes, so if you play as the Germans, you'd better have some machine guns and snipers handy.

#2: Imperial guard cavalry from Shogun 2 Total War:Fall of the Samurai (2012)

Yet again we have a unit with a multitude of handy roles on the battlefield ladies and gentlemen.  Yes I know I sound like a broken record at this point but these fearsome infantrymen on horseback are the cream of the crop of the mobile part of my force when I play as a pro-imperial clan in this marvellous expansion pack to Shogun 2: Total War.  Admittedly, all cavalry units in the Shogun 2 games can dismount from their horses and fight as grim foot sloggers as my beloved sharpshooters, imperial infantry and black bear infantry brigades can and therefore act as striking units but also assault units in a siege operation.  In particular, my favourite unit to perform this double task is imperial guard cavalry.

These elite troopers are basically the imperial guard of the Japanese emperor in the late 1860s on horseback so they have all the benefits of their foot-soldier counterparts by being able to hold the line and deliver volleys of fire in waves more rapid than most infantry regiments while being able to displace to a new position at short notice like someone with the runs rushing to the toilet after having eaten half a dozen lamb vindaloo curries.  The one drawback is that like cavalry throughout the Total War series, these soldiers number less men per-unit than infantry regiments do.  But being able to both deliver shattering volleys of gunfire to said enemy infantry and doubling this with the capability to run down fleeing enemies and artillery positions with alacrity means that imperial guard cavalry are more than capable of delivering savage amounts of damage in a multitude of different ways.

#1: The Flak 88mm 37 anti-tank & aircraft/artillery cannon from Company of Heroes

You're probably scratching your heads for a few reasons at this entry.  Why is another Company of Heroes unit so far up on this list?  Why is Company of Heroes so popular?  (I swear do not ask me that) Why is a static weapon beating more mobile units on this list?  Why does Vimto taste so danm tasty?  WHY, THE, FUCK, DOES, FREE WILLY, HAVE, 3 SEQUELS?!??!?!?!???  Again I could say that the Flak 88 is number one because it too fills a number of roles but that would be too easy.  So furthermore, I decided to put the unit at number one because 1) It can kill most American and British units in the game really easily and with only a few shots, 2) it fires as fast as a plate of pot brownies at a stoners meeting and 3) its one of the most iconic weapons used by the Germans in WW2.

In fact, most if not all tanks and aircraft used by the Americans, British and Soviets during the second world war must have, at some point, come up against this powerful and multi-purpose heavy weapon.  Not only that, but later in the war, the Flak 88 also became iconic and feared among allied troops as a quick-to-set-up artillery weapon that the Germans could use to pummel them with before vanishing into the safety of the distant hills.  The one problem with this mighty cannon in the game however is the fact that its cost for just building one is insane and will force you to spend your manpower and fuel points very wisely.  Still, if you want to instil gut-clenching terror in the enemy and turn entire armoured brigades into scrap metal then the Flak 88 will serve you well.  But seriously, protect it and use it wisely because it costs a fucking mint to make.

So there you have it, my top ten units in strategy computer games.  As may be the case with other players I tended to build this list on the basis of equal amounts of diverse roles, reasonable costs, power and manoeuvrability.  Tell me what you guys think of this list, what your favourite strategy game units are and suggest ideas for future top tens.

Until next time...shit... I forgot what to say.

Game review #8: World of Tanks

In this modern day and age, video games have come along way from when they were simply pixelated adventure quests about unlucky-in-love Italian plumbers or matches about tennis as shown by moving white blocks that had to captivate their audiences with little else besides retrospectively primitive graphics and game-play with little pretence towards a story of sorts.  In this modern day and age we now have games that are able to focus on all of these holy tenets of video games by combining increasingly realistic graphics with more extensive writing and immensely more advanced game-play on consoles that are a world apart in sophistication compared to the consoles of the 1970s and 1980s.  However, with this advancement also comes the possibility that some games such as Final Fantasy XIII or Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots will focus more on the storyline and eschew game-play in order to advance the plot which let me tell you, is far from the best method of immersing the common gamer in your game.

That's where games such as World of Tanks, made by Wargamming Studios and designed for use on computers, comes in as this particular MMO (Massively-Multiplayer-On-line) has no story whatsoever and virtually, if not entirely, focuses solely on game-play and the development of game-play over story.  Now I am most certainly impartial to both story and game-play-biased games, but when a game such as World of Tanks concentrates solely on game-play and manages to do it so well as the first Mario land games in a day and age when story holds such a strong reign over much of modern gaming my black, bitter heart soars to the heavens above.  Now if you don't know what an MMO is, its a game where you advance slowly in a large-scale on-line community by participating in adventure quests in small parties and battle against mythical creatures as shown by the much-acclaimed World of Warcraft series in order to achieve higher ranks and better equipment and skills.  In World of Tanks you advance in tiers rather than ranks and most of the game-play rather than some of it is based around harnessing your personal skills in combat.  Initially you start off with a slot for a vehicle in your garage filled by the first tier vehicle of each of the playable nations which include; the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, America, France, China and Nazi Germany.

As expected with all MMO's, when you start off in World of Tanks you will be very weak and most likely die allot  however, the more you battle, the more you will inevitably learn the weaknesses and strengths of each tank and earn greater amounts of experience points and in-game credits to advance to higher tiers of tanks.  On top of this, the relative ease with which you will be able to advance up the first few tiers of vehicles will allow you to try out different tank types (specifically; Light tanks, Medium tanks, Heavy tanks, Tank destroyers and Self-propelled artillery) from each individual nation to properly sum-up what the play-style of your garage will inevitably represent.  As is also the case with allot of MMO's, some content in World of Tanks can only be bought with real money with which you can by in-game 'gold' which allows you to create more garage slots and buy 'premium' tanks which are unavailable by other means except as a gift to be bought outside of the game itself.  However, the good thing about this is that it is not always necessary to advance without buying gold and that when it is necessary  most 'premium' tanks and other similar actions that are only available through paying real money don't cost too much money unless you buy higher tier 'premium' vehicles or a year-long 'premium' account.

That's enough for the technicalities, let's now move on to the glorious, tread crunching, armour-smashing, cannon-blasting tactics and types of game play that are to be found in this world of steel beasts!  As mentioned before, there are six nations and four types of tanks, the differences between the different types of tanks are in themselves, very notable, but what is even more important to take into account is the play-style attributed to each tank tree of each country.  One of the foremost countries in the game is Germany: these tanks are generally good for their wunderbar-tough armour, range of their main guns, ability to penetrate heavier armour and, in the case of heavier heavy tanks, tank destroyers and self-propelled artillery vehicles, fearsome damage output.  On top of that, the Germans also have some of the highest amounts of health points on their top/tenth tier heavy tanks and tank destroyers.  The one problem with the Germans however is their speed and manoeuvrability   despite having tanks on their medium and light tank trees, many German tanks lack the speed and manoeuvrability of their main rivals, the Soviets.

The Soviets are largely at the other end of the spectrum of tank design in the sense that they seem to mostly focus more on the damage output of their main guns, speed, manoeuvrability and well-designed rather than simply thick-as-mushroom gravy armour.  therefore, unlike the German tanks which excel at holding flanks and sniping, Soviet tanks equally excel at ambushes due to their low profiles (heights), flanking attacks and close-range assaults.  In contrast to the Germans, the main weaknesses of the soviets are lighter armour on many tanks (excluding the frontal armour on the most popular soviet tanks amongst the heavies and tank destroyers such as the KV-5 heavy and Object 263 tank destroyer), lower penetration and accuracy on the guns of many heavies and some artillery and some tanks that take the Soviet penchant for speed so far that they take a great deal of taming in order to prevent crashes.

Similarly to the Soviets, the tanks of the Chinese also centrally focus on speed, well-designed rather than heavy armour, manoeuvrability and damage output on the main guns.  The reason for this is that seeing as how all of the tanks are from the years between 1917 and the end of the 1960s, and this was the period that communist China and Russia were very close allies, it is only natural that the communist Chinese government which came about much later than the one in Russia holds some influences of Soviet tank design.  The one thing that sets out the Chinese apart from other nations however is that whereas the other nations all have individual tank trees, all Chinese tank trees share the same first 5 tanks imported from other countries; the French FT-17 (tier 1), the British VAE type B (tier 2), the Japanese Type 2597 Chi-Ha (tier 3), the American M5A1 Stuart (tier 4) and the Soviet T-34/76 (tier 5).

Similarly, the French also start off their tank trees rather oddly in comparison to other nations.  Whereas the tanks of other nations are generally slower the higher the tier they are, French tanks oddly enough start off snail-like slow while the higher-tier French vehicles go faster than an ice-cold bottle of French white wine on a warm summer's afternoon. On top of this, tanks of tier 5 and below for the French tend to have very tough armour for their tier while the higher tier tanks have comparatively weak armour for their tiers.  However despite these oddities  the French combine well-designed armour, guns with great penetration and rates of fire, heavier tanks with both crazy top speeds and auto-loaders (loading chambers that allow you to fire in quick succession) to create lower tier tanks that excel at defending and higher tier tanks that can overrun the enemy superbly through flanking attacks.

In comparison to all these nations, the American tanks may seem to be the most balanced and perhaps suit players with a generally flexible and freestyle approach to this type of game.  Lower tier American tanks on all branches and higher ones on the medium branch follow the speedy, raider-like approach as most Chinese and Soviet tanks, many American artillery vehicles rival German and Soviet ones in damage output, the Americans have great frontal-armour like the Soviets and French and also like the French, have guns with great penetration, accuracy and rate of fire.  What makes the American vehicles stand out from the crowd however is the terrifying range of their main guns, damn tough turret armour and finger-licking' good acceleration.  With these advantages in play, many American vehicles are able to find de-elevated positions,  dig-in, snipe away the enemy's health and move with immediate alacrity when danger rears its ugly-ass head. However, the one downside to these fine examples of American ingenuity is that for the most part, the hull armour on American tanks is pathetic meaning that they are best used in sniping positions and on un-defended flanks.

Lastly we come to one of the most talked about nations of them all, the tea-drinking, roast beef-scoffing, pint -guzzling, queen-glorifying bejewled sceptre that is Great Britain.  Naturally, as it was the British who invented the battle tank you would expect British tanks to be the best designed and most powerful in the game, but as it is they are not the most damaging and have some rather odd designs indeed my old-chaps.  For the most part, the British tend to have some of the lowest damage outputs for their main guns and have only just been introduced into the game recently meaning that they only have tank trees for mediums, heavies and tank destroyers.  Furthermore, the British heavy tanks are compounded by nail shatteringly, irritatingly un-couth and downright 'I dare say!' slow speeds between tier 4 and 8 while medium tanks of the same tier have armour that is notably easy to penetrate.  However, the British are surprisingly versatile for a number of play-styles in the sense that all British tanks have good accuracy, guns with great penetration, 10-year-old-Christmas-cake-tough frontal armour on higher tier vehicles and in the case of most light, all medium and some heavy tanks, the British are superbly mobile with truly splendid top speeds.

Subsequently, it might be a good idea to fight up the first few tiers by yourself or with just a couple of friends by creating a temporary 'platoon' to go into battle with each other.  However, as your garage and kill-ratio progresses, you may find it more preferable to join the many number of clans that are constantly battling across the world, specifically ones centred in the country you live in.  There is no reason to do or not do this depending on your viewpoint but if you take one bit of advice on how to play World of Tanks it is this; always co-operate with your team-mates and promote teamwork through your actions otherwise it might not only be the enemy team you find firing armour-piercing shells at you.

In conclusion; I strongly recommend this game.  I know it may seem daunting with all this speak of multiple play-styles and nations to be found in the game but that's all part of the fun of playing World of Tanks as it allows you to be creative and have fun playing the same game in an uncounted number of different ways.  What makes this game truly fabulous aside from the increasingly sophisticated physics engine, increasingly refined graphics and increasing variety of vehicles is the fact that it is totally free!  OH FREAKING YEAH!!!     This game is so free I could write an essay about how marvellous it is to simply go onto www.worldoftanks.com or .eu, click 'play for free', wait to download the game for 2 minutes and make yourself a well-earned cup of mint tea while the game takes its time to install which despite the wait is well worth it as you then venture forward into the World of Tanks.

Oh and BTW: congratulations to the World of Tanks European server on it's 2nd birthday!

game review #7: upcoming releases

What with the first of the big releases of the next year already out (Warhammer 40k SPACE MARINE) I think that its a good time to look forward to the other big releases coming out in the near future, and perhaps seeing wether they'll be as great as rasberry and white chocolate cheesecake or as useless as the Kardashian twins (yes I am unfortunate enough to know of theire existence as well).

The first title that everybody is talking about is the much anticipated Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.  As I said a couple of reviews back I don't think that the COD series has brought much to the gaming world in terms of new ideas and innovations since the mighty Modern Warfare emerged nearly half a decade ago.  The COD series overall still retains it's generic consumer-charm but that charm is deteriorating fast and took a heavy knock with the legendarily crap Black Ops.  Things aren't looking great with the upcoming MW3 though because the gameplay looks virtually the same, the graphics have for some reason advanced very little since MW2 and whoop-de-doo, its mostly coloured grey, white, brown and black (just like every other bloody shooter these days).  All in all I don't think MW3 is going to be a real cracker of a shooter like say Left For Dead 2 or Modern Warfare were but it does actually look considerably more fun than Black Ops was so I could be wrong.

The other of the biggest two releases coming out over the next several months is of course Battlefield 3.  As I've said before I like the Battlefield series quite a bit and my favourite installment to the series is still the underatted Battlefield 2142, I'm not sure however what to feel about this new installment.  My gut keeps giving me a sense of impeniding doom about this game but then again my gut is a right idiot who keeps persuading me to pig out on boring snacks like digestive buiscits.  It does seem to be quite appealing and fun though, in fact it seems like its taken and combined aspects from many of the battlefield games; the great vehicle driving/piloting of the Battlefield 1942 triology and Battlefield 2, the fantastic reward system of the Battlefield 2142 duology and the intense 'reaction time-workout' shootouts of the online and campaign modes of the Bad Company installments.  It could be good, i'm not really sure.  I mean there hasn't been must talk about the singleplayer and they seem to have kept the advancment on melee combat on a minimum as usual, but generaly I have an alright feeling about this one.

Now we move onto less popular and less intersting titles.  The first of these smaller titles is Resistance 3 which has...wait...this bloody game is already out!  Ah whatever, I'm pretty sure I can find a few words for it. Compating it to its two predecessors, Resistance 3 seems to be the most advanced and fun installment of its series yet what with taking many of the greatest gameplay aspects of Half-Life 2 (e.g. no automatically regenerating health, being able to carry at least 12 weapons at once etc) and applying them to the amusing Resistance storyline.  It does look to be a promising new game and the graphics are pretty good, the only problem from the sounds of it is its quite formula plot, however it also looks as fun as hell so it shouldn't sting too bad..

The next game that is soon to come out is The Heist: Payday which by the looks of things is pretty appaling. Even just looking at the trailer you can see loads of problems: No plot whatsoever, graphics that make it look like it was made for the Xbox or PS2 in 2001, unimaginitive gameplay and combat scenes that are even more generic than Call Of Duty, no juicy character development, no exciting objectives, no brilliant variety betweeen different enemies and challanges and of course it only has 6 maps.  JUST 6 BLOODY, SAMEY MAPS.  Oh yeah there are are no missions with more than a minute outside of a building.

Of course there are many other titles coming out in the nexy several months or year or two but if I listed them all then I'd be here for ages so I'm only going to say this once; if you are thinking of gettign any of the new releases later this year just get Resistance 3, Serious Sam 3 and Battlefield 3.  The reason why I am saying this is because all the other big releases this year look like utter s***...*sighs*...oh well.


P.S Happy Jewish New Year!

Game review 6: Warhammer 40k Space Marine

Here's your average 3rd person shooter of today, you are the leader of a group of genetically (or at least inexplicably bad-ass) marines sent by humanity (or in other cases the US) to a factory planet/region to combat a fearsome and seemingly un-stoppable invasion by either brutal aliens, Russia or mystical cults with stupid names.  Supprisingly however this is an alright game, of course with any game it has its faults such as slightly "eh" multiplayer mode and having a pretty pants last boss in the singleplayer.  But despite that it is a fairly well balanced shoot-em-up with varied kinds of enemies, a multiplayer mode that's actually an alright laugh and it features my favourite warriors in the whole WH40k universe: the Ultramarines space marines 2nd company.


I know that the Warhammer 40k universe is somewhat nerdy as a whole (that goes for its storyline too) but as I've said before I can't stand the board and card games, when I want to talk about WH40 its about the storyline, pivotal characters and the big ass battles.  And this is what this game is like, it keeps to the nerdy roots of the franchise it is from in terms of how the different members of each species and organization behave and operate but it appeals to people who might not really be into WH40k by giving them a game that is neither too unique or too generic.

The campaign in Space Marine starts off by quickly telling us that a forge/factory world of the imperium of humanity is under attack by space orks who are trying to steal 100 foot -tall walking war machines called warlord titans.  You are then told that the imperial guard soldiers on the planet are being pummeled into hamburgers and that a huge reinforcement fleet is on its way, however, this fleet is going to take days to arrive in system to the planet and so a force of genetically enhanced space marines from the Ultramarines is dispatched.  We are then introduced to the 3 main good guys who are preparing to make a combat-jump from a soaring gunship; Leandros (a slightly annoying and pretty thick headed novice), Sidonus (a typical grizzled and battle-hardened seargant who is your 2nd in command) and the main character Titus (the commander of the Ultramarines 2nd company who is possibly hiding a dark secret.

After clobbering the orks in a few hard-fought strikes and battles the Ultramarines find an inquisitor (a psychic agent of humanity who roots out evil) and get him to take them to some sort of weapon that can win the war.  But suprise suprise the inquisitor is acting all suspicious-like and is not all that he seems to be, oh yeah, humanity's mortal enemies (the demonic forces of chaos) show up at some point out of nowhere.  So the storyline is a bit typically-warhammer 40k but the same is for every computer game from this franchise.

There are really only 3 major problems with the game but they are glaring ones; 1-the weapons available to use are varied but some WH40k weapons have been left out entirely, 2-the Multiplayer is glitchy and somewhat laggy and most annoying of all 3-the final boss battle in the single-player campaign is easily beaten. 

And that's the extent of what can be said about this game, it's a good all-rounder of a shoot-em-up based around a fantasy sci-fi universe that is highly uniqe and thus balnces out how generic the gameplay is.  Bottom line is; if you are into games like Gears Of War but want something with at least a bit of the grit and gruntyness taken out  then by all means play Space Marine.

Game Review #5: Battlefield VS Call Of Duty

I thought it might be a good idea to do this for my first review back from my week of summer camp in Norwich mainly because I've always taken quite an interest in the differences and heated competition between these two legendarily popular 1st person shooter series'.

On paper, these two series' look very similar; they both have been going for between 10-15 years, have many of their games set in different eras and also put a lot of emphasis on their multipayer modes.  On the whole these two series' are very similar but for the first half of its existence, the Battlefield series kept bringing out games that were getting worse such as Battlefield Vietnam and Battlefield 1942-Road to Rome.  This began to change however, when out of nowhere rode a magnificent knight in polished black armour riding a magnificently white stallion...uh, sorry.  What I meant to say was 'then out of nowhere came the gaming gem that was/is Battlefield 2142'.  Unlike It's predecessors, Battlefield 2142 wasn't bland and samey but interesting and fun as hell.  It introduced a new unlock function to the series whereby you could get funky weapons, gadgets and power ups for your different classes (recon, support, engineer and medic) and changed the setting from today or the second world war to a mad global conflict amidst a mostly frozen earth in the year 2142 where the powerful Pan Asian Coalition is on an unstoppable drive to conquer everything.  Although it didn't have any good single-player, Battlefield 2142 was an intense and highly enjoyable game.

Whereas the first half of the Battlefield series may not have been so great, the first half of the Call Of Duty series was pretty alright.  I say that it was only all right because as a whole the first half of the COD series was pretty samey, it was however full of fun titles (all set in WW2) where you were able to fight through various different famous campaigns in widely varying environments (such as a snowy airfield or a town in the middle off the sahara).  After several years and quite a few titles, the people behind COD decided to take the series to a whole new level and transform the setting from WW2 to the modern day in the appropriately named Modern Warfare.  This gave the series a new edge as the mad, runny-jumpy-stabby gameplay was combined with cool looking modern guns allowing the player to fight groups of enemies with a greater variety of weapons than any other before it in the series.  The huge boost in the popularity of the series has lasted since then but has been marred by the utterly dreadful Call Of Duty-Black Ops.

Okay now that we've discussed the history of Battlefield and Call Of Duty a little bit, lets get into what's good and bad about their games.  On the whole I personally prefer the Battlefield series mainly because with every new instalment they seem to look at what they did well or bad in the last game then bring in a new development that negates that problem.  I do like the COD series as well though, in each campaign you fight alongside engaging characters and are able to perform some awesome tricks with a large variety of weapons. The most striking difference, I think, between the two series' is that whilst Battlefield games usually have better multiplayer and weak singleplayer, with the COD games it is the other way around.  I can't think of a way to explain why this usually comes to be through the actions of the people who make the games but I can explain somewhat through the games themselves.

The biggest reason why this is so is because whereas the layout and the including of many types of vehicles to drive in the Battlefield games emphasize that the series as a whole is aimed at a more varied sort of audience.  The only way to go into battle in a COD game is to go in on foot by yourself with just your own weapons, this in itself contributes to the online mode of COD games being always repetitive and boring which is helped hardly at all by the lack of variety in the online maps for the COD games.  I always think that a game should have not only a well balanced and enjoyable multiplayer but also a truly excellent singleplayer that you can use to just have fun on your own or practise certain tactics.  Now despite the fact that most Battlefield games have poor singleplayer (bar Battlefield Bad Company 1) the multiplayer is so varied what with the staggering number of maps in each game, countless ways to approach an objective (be it by land, sea or even air) and balanced game types.  As I already pointed out, the multiplayer in COD games is not so good due to a lack of considerable, overall variety.  I could overlook this due to the campaigns always being filled with great characters and fun missions but the gameplay style of Call Of Duty is getting old fast and this was very glaring indeed in Black Ops.

I suppose, at the end of the day the reason why I seem to enjoy Battlefield games more is due to the fact that in both singleplayer and multiplayer you are forced to work with your allies as a group or you get your arse handed to you on a plate with coleslaw and chips.  This gives the series a real sense of authenticity, sort of like as if you're in a real combat situation, therefore you get a much more intense and enjoyable experience.  In the Call Of Duty games, working as a team gets boring after a while and although it does work you eventually just have to go out yourself.  This showed me how samey the combat in COD games can get where 10 men can get easily done in by 1 man with a revolver.

So if you want my advice go for the Battlefield series for a fix of 1st person shooting.  Because despite COD having good singleplayer and going well with chips and ketchup, you just can't beat the Battlefield experience of having made it through a blazing war-zone because you had your friends watching your back

Game Review #4: Serious Sam-The second encounter

Sometimes when you're at home you may get angry at someone or something and just want to take your anger out on a bunch of jackasses.  Of course this would get your ass arrested really quick if you did it to real people in the street so I suggest playing Serious Sam-The Second Encounter.  The reason why I say that about the game is that it is not only fun, funny and offering many ways to explore but it chucks you into so many huge battles with enemies that outnumber you many times over that you can't help but be relaxed by the carnage you can create.

Unlike with the plots of all the games and films I've reviewed so far, I can't really say much about the plot of this game.  It's hinted at quite a few times, explained somewhat in the beginning video and hinted at some more through the enemies you face.  But the plot isn't important in this game.  What's really important is getting your weapons, walking out into rolling fields and then facing off against regiments of enemies all at once in a mad display of carnage and pure fun.  The extent of the plot that I did understand was that Serious Sam is humanity's finest soldier and he is being sent through different time periods to do something to some guy who is mentioned through out the game like 2 or 3 times.  The main bad guy has no option than to send wave after wave of demons, headless assault troops, biological walkers with fish-looking heads, chain-gun wielding giant scorpions and leaping bull-like skeleton creatures to grind Sam into meaty dust.

Overall there are only 6 settings over the course of the 4 time periods in the campaign: ancient Egypt, ancient Babylonia, medieval Poland, an underground lava cavern, abandoned ancient cities in the Amazon and snowy mountain towns. Despite there only being so few environments you always feel like you've stepped into a totally different world each time you complete a handful of levels and that's really the way the setting in a 1st person shooter should be.  One slightly annoying thing about the settings in this game however is that no matter which time period or location you are in, the enemies are always the same, "sigh".  But I am however prepared to overlook that because like  I said: the environments are nicely balanced and the enemies and bosses are as fun as a bag of drunk parrots.

The weapons in the game are somewhat similar to what you'd find in any other adventure/1st person shooting game but the variety of weaponry you get is fun nonetheless.  All in all you get; dual revolvers, a combat knife,  a pump shotgun, a double-barrelled shotgun, a sub-machine gun, a mini gun, a chainsaw, a laser chain-gun, a sniper rifle, a flame-thrower, a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, a ridiculously over-powered cannon that fires rolling cannon balls and of course, a hand-bomb that if you detonate it kills EVERY enemy in the room.  These weapons don't have a massive deal of variety between them and the enemies always come at you in big waves and ambushes but the enemies are varied and the weapons fun enough so that this problem is pretty easy to overlook.

Like with the legions of grunts and such that you face in big battles, the bosses that regularly pop up are also uber-enjoyable.  They can range from 65-foot tall demons that unleash volleys of miniature suns to experimental bio-titans that dwell in dungeons and have laser beams blasting from their shoulders.  With some bosses you can only use certain weapons, for example: with the Mayan wind god that you face off against at the end of the south american time period you can only use explosives which forces you to really conserve your ammunition.

And that's all I can and will say about Serious Sam-The Second Encounter.  Partly because I want you all to see for yourselves how good it is and also because it is such a simple game. It's just you (a wise-cracking muscle-head in a white T-shirt and jeans) with a hoard of weapons facing against legions of varying enemies.  definitely get this game people because by the laws of gaming I have found that it is bad-ass.

Game Review #3: Dawn Of War 2 (released in 2009)

Ever since I started playing the Dawn Of War games I've had this odd little soft spot for the general storyline of Warhammer 40k.  I mean, I'm not into the monotonous tabletop game and confusing card game but the stories and ideas behind the whole WH40K universe are surprisingly captivating and interesting.

The story for this game is relatively simple yet quite enjoyable; you are an unnamed force commander of the Blood Ravens space marines sent to the home-sector of the Blood Ravens to help defend it from an invasion of Orks (a brutal, green-skinned race of savages with rough English accents).  After only a few battles on a desert and a jungle planet you suddenly discover that there are two other alien species assailing the sector as well.  The numberless Tyranids arrive suddenly to  attempt to devour the sector and the mysterious Eldar arrive to prevent this happening, by blowing up the sector.  Of course however, this being your home-sector.  you are thrust into battle after brutal battle against these enemies in an attempt to hold the sector until reinforcements arrive whilst also finding a way to destroy the Tyranids.

The best thing about Dawn Of War 2 is that in contrast to the four Dawn Of War games that preceded it, Dawn Of war 2 concentrates on the player wielding a few squads rather than a whole army.  In every mission in the campaign (except for one in the middle and one at the end) you are dropped into combat with your commander and a choice of 3 of your 5 other units.  The units you get are made up of; an infantry squad led by a bald guy, a scout squad led by a dude with a ridiculous robot eye, a heavy weapons squad led by an asshole, a jump pack assault squad led by a newbie and a massive heavy-armoured walker.  because you have such a small force to into battle with each time, you are forced to really think about what squad weapons load-outs and combos you want.  If you are facing an attacking mission then use swift-moving squads etc, so on so forth.

On top of that the difficulty level is a bit odd.  The first two difficulty levels are bloody easy but the top two are harder than a 10-year old Christmas cake.  But If you are having trouble doing a certain mission then simply do loads of side missions and unlock some powerful weapons (e.g. a hammer that can take down tanks or a plasma cannon).  That brings me to my next point: the campaign's side missions.  All in all there is roughly 20 missions as well as the many side missions that vary from 'blow up some generators' to 'kill a big alien in an arena'.  Whereas the main missions provide plenty of varying combat situations the side missions offer like 3 or 4, each of which is relatively similar to each other.  But aside from that, the campaign is tremendously fun and challenging. What also emphasizes this greatly is the fact that the space marines are genetically enhanced super-soldiers.  They are all hulking, heavily-armoured brutes but swift-moving troopers and because of this you get a real feel that you can just power through any enemy.  Now let me tell you, when you've got that feeling playing this game you literately can beat anything.

Another thing that makes Dawn Of War 2 so enjoyable is the great voice-acting.  I'll admit, I have seen better-voice acting in other games but the voice-acting in this one makes the characters all feel genuinley believable.  You even get a feeling that the Ork and Eldar characters are believable in the sense that the Orks are all incomprehensible brutes and the Eldar being massively arrogant.  The only race in the game that doesn't have great voice acting is the Tyranids, namely because they don't talk whatsoever but make up for it with some awesome unit names.

Don't get the feeling that the single-player is the only good thing about this game though.  The multi-player battles that you can join are truly entertaining, especially having been based around the legendary strategy game Company Of Heroes. One aspect of the game however, that is brilliance incarnate above all is the 'last stand' mode.  In the 'last stand' mode you choose a champion from one of the races in the game, select a weapons load out and then drop into an arena with two other players to fend off against wave after wave of enemies.  Seeing as how there is only 3 of you facing huge waves of attackers you really have to work as a team; when one of your buddies gets downed you help them up, you must co-ordinate your different fighting styles etc etc.
As with the campaign, in multilayer and 'last stand' the more you play the more goodies and unlocks you gain (as well as going up in the worldwide rankings).  This can be very satisfying especially when you've been slaving away at the multi-player mode for days on end and you finally gain your wanted upgrade after several slogging matches with other players.

I can't think of anything else, bad or good, to say about the game.  It forces you to time and co-ordinate every decision so carefully that you have to be paying attention to your whole force, not just one part of it. So I say "buy this game yer frigging gits" because in a genre of gaming that has been defiled so many times, Dawn Of War 2 is a strategy game that like Company Of Heroes and Red Alert 2 is fun no matter how many times you play it.

Game Review #2: 007 Agent Under Fire (released in 2001)

First things first, I'd just like to quickly apologise for not bringing a review out yesterday.  You see, I was traversing the sea of souls, whilst trying to play Guitar Hero on my way to the book store and long story short; I wasn't able to bring out a new review.  So because of that here's a review of an old and really good Bond game that I grew up with!

The premise of this old, gem of a PS2 game is; you are the legendary bad-ass MI6 agent James Bond on a mission to stop a sinister organisation, with a dramatic emblem and even more dramatic name, from cloning some world leaders in order to take over the world... or something like that.  See, the weird thing about the plot in this game, is although it’s very much like the plot in all the other Bond games and films (i.e. Bond meets a woman who may be evil and discovers from her about an evil organisation and then teams up with a good woman to knock it out etc etc), the plot of 007 Agent Under Fire actually gets pretty difficult to follow at some points.  Thankfully however, the game compensates for that with some awesome guns, some unintentionally comedic aspects to the game (eg: the most inaccurate sub-machine gun in a game ever), a truly entertaining split-screen mode and of course a laser gun in split-screen mode that can only be described as the "you lose, bitch" cannon.

Like the plot, the graphics aren’t up to much. I mean, it looked good back in 2001, but today it looks like every character has been constructed out of bits of cardboard and toilet rolls.  Nowadays though, that in itself contributes to the game being all the more comedic and appealing.  There are some cut-scenes in the campaign where, because of the graphics, you get the feeling that all of the characters are completely void of any emotions, which may also be due to the slightly pants voice acting.  Now you're probably wondering why I'm saying so many bad things about a game that I said I've always liked.  The truth behind that is that all of the flaws in the game are balanced by other flaws; crappy AI in the campaign compensates for dreadful accuracy in most of the guns and great deals of unintentional comedy compensate for a pretty token plot.

The best thing about the game funnily enough however isn't the gameplay, comedy, cracking vehicle sections or women with box-shaped boobs, but the typical, trademark bond gadgets.  In the campaign you're given a typical bond-style selection of gadgets to help you achieve your objective; a laser for locks, a decryption device for large doors, a grapple hook for grappling onto hooks, etc etc.  On top of getting plenty of handy gadgets in the campaign you're given a couple in split-screen mode; the Q-Jet and Q-Claw.  As far as names go these two gadgets are pretty self-explanatory, with the Q-Jet you press the button to activate and you can blast around on rooftops having dogfights with rubbish assault rifles.  The Q-claw is also bags of fun. In the campaign you can only use it on all-too obvious grates scattered around each level, but in the split-screen multi-player mode you can use it on any surface which means that you're transformed suddenly into a frantic version of Spider-Man wielding a rocket launcher and revolver. The gadgets consequently add hilarious and endless possibilities to the generally close combat multiplayer maps.

As well as the unimaginative names for the gadgets in the campaign you're also forced to do several vehicle sections.  Now vehicle sections are hard to pull off especially in a shooting game where you spend the rest of the time in 1st person view.  Surprisingly though, the vehicle sections in Agent Under Fire are actually not half bad.  In total the game has only three or four and for a pretty short campaign of 12 levels that's a pretty good number of driving sections. In most of the vehicle sections you zoom about in a beautiful car fitted out with missiles, chain-guns, oil-slicks and whatnot.  The best vehicle section by far however is half-way through the game where Bond crashes his car into a warehouse and surprise, surprise; he steals a cold-war heavy tank to rampage around the city streets with.  Although being highly un-realistic, this section is balls-out fun especially when you shoot a passing fuel train on a bridge to collapse the bridge onto two other tanks.

So aside from the stupidly easy campaign (especially the bosses) and graphics that makes Mortal Kombat look like the nuts, 007 Agent Under Fire is actually a pretty damn good game especially for revisiting the days when the latest bond game or film wasn't total crap.  So get an old second-hand PS2, then get this game and I guarantee that you'll  be shaken not stirred (ba-dum-tish).

Game Review #1: Duke Nukem Forever

Let me just say off the bat that Duke Nukem Forever is not a very good game.  Oh yeah, sure it has a muscle-bound kick-ass guy with an Arnold Schwarzenegger hair cut as the main protagonist, but on the whole it’s really not all that good.  One of the main reasons for it not being a very good game is due to the fact that the anticipating public has had to wait more than 12 years (12 freaking years!!!) for this game, only to find out after release, that it's less use than a poo-flavoured lolly. What I really mean though, is that it under-achieves tremendously, and not just with the game play.  The characters fighting alongside Duke are all one-note, the music isn't as blood-pumping as it was in the many, many trailers and on top of all this the ending is a massive fart.

The annoying thing however, is that I was expecting the gameplay to involve many different weapons, which you used in a variety of different environments and a multitude of situations. The reality of this of course is very different. Unlike in equivalent, but much better games, like Serious Sam, there very few weapons or power ups in the game, and the whole experience is made up of near-identical shoot/go action sequences broken up occasionally by slightly more interesting sections where you're shrunk to the size of a rat.  As well as a lack of weapon varieties there isn't much to look at in terms of environments; you spend the first third of the game in a tower and city, the second third in a desert, and the last part running around in a brownish-coloured industrial plant (whoop-de-bloody-doo).

I could go on and on listing how bad and utterly time-wasting this game is (i.e. its lack of enemy varieties, the last boss being a copy of the first one but with more health), but I won’t waste your time.  Do yourself a favour; if you see Duke Nukem Forever being offered at a price that's good or bad do not buy it whatsoever.  It is by far the biggest computer game disappointment I’ve had since buying Mass Effect, which was so tedious I nearly cried.  There is however, one good thing about this game; its excessive amounts of nudity (Huzzah!).