Raymond Camden's Blog - Video Games

Sunday OT Post: Tomb Raider

Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:21:00 -0400

I've been a gamer for a long time (Atari 2600 anyone?) but I've never played Tomb Raider. For a series that has been around for as long as it has, I've avoided it (outside of trying a demo once) for two reasons. First, the puzzles always seemed to be a bit too complex. Second, I'm not a big fan of games that require absolute precise actions. I had a copy of Assassin's Creed a few years back and I kid you not - after 30 minutes I popped it out and never played it again. (I ended up giving it to someone else though so it wasn't wasted.) I like my action games to be more "run and dumb" since I've got enough stress in my life without video games adding to it.After I heard Brian Rinaldi praise the game I thought - maybe it was time to check it out. I also asked him specifically about how "delicate" the game play was and he assured me it wasn't too tough. A reader graciously sent me a copy via my Amazon wishlist a week or so ago and I pretty much played it every free moment I had since then. On Friday I finished it, but I'll be playing it more to get to 100% - just to give you an idea of how enjoyable it is. Right from the beginning you can see that the game is beautiful. Every scene, every area, everything is just damn beautiful. I'd definitely place it up there with Skyrim in terms of graphical quality, maybe even a bit higher as I think there was more variety in Tomb Raider. Game play is - as Brian told me - not difficult at all. Of course, I played on the lowest difficulty, but I found almost every jump/grab/etc to be somewhat easy to do. At the same time, your stomach tends to clench up as you see yourself jumping across a chasm. I typically only screwed up these parts of the game when I didn't pay attention. It was rare for me to miss a jump, but as I said, it still felt pretty damn intense. Not having played Tomb Raider in the past, I don't know how much combat was a part of the game, but I really enjoyed the fighting. It was visceral, intense, and bloody. The enemy AI was a disappointment at times. I mean, on one hand they correctly handle the fact that if you kill a guy in front of another, he will react. Cool. On the other hand, if you killed someone ten feet away and his buddy didn't notice, he could literally turn around, see the corpse, and just carry on as normal. What surprised me was the lack of puzzle solving. As you play, you run across tombs that are clearly marked optional. If you choose to skip these, you miss nothing, outside of the resultant experience points. I was surprised they didn't require some puzzle solving as I had always heard that was a big part of the Tomb Raider genre. I always did them when the opportunity arose and found them to be just about the right level of difficulty. None required precision reflexes and mentally they were slightly challenging but not stressful. The best part of this game though is the story. This is - easily - one of the best written games I've ever played. As this is meant to be an origin story, Lara does not start off as a bad ass. She starts weak, ignorant, and scared. As she is pushed around, shot at, and almost killed multiple times, she grows, quickly, into a hero. The progression is well done and really connects you to the character. There is a scene towards the end where Lara passes by a mirror and is shocked by how much she is changed. It is a stark, quiet moment in the game. There is a strong "Lost" vibe to the game. The Island is mysterious and seems to have a life of its own. Like the TV show, there is a long history here with ruins/remains of various groups. I kept expecting to see a Dharma logo hidden away. Anyway, I definitely recommend it, and if you pick it up from the link below I get a little kick back.

Sunday Mega Video Game Review

Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:35:00 -0400

Over the holiday weekend I binged a bit. Certainly on food and good beer, but mostly on video games. I've been on kind of a XBox rejection lately. Ever since I finished Red Dead Redemption (amazing game by the way), I've not found anything interesting enough to actually turn on the console. But over the past few weeks I've been lucky to get not one, but three really good games. What follows are my thoughts on each, and as always, I can't wait to hear what my readers think. (As a reminder, the product links are affiliate links. If you purchase through them, I get a little kick back.)

Forza Horizon

Before I got my XBox 360, my primary console was the PS2. I owned an original XBox, but didn't play many games on it. One of my favorite games for the PS2 was Gran Turismo. To be honest, before Gran Turismo, I didn't know there were other forms of racing outside of NASCAR. I had heard of F1, but it never really entered my mind. Thirty minutes into Gran Turismo and I was hooked. And when I discovered rally racing? Holy crap. How could anyone watch NASCAR after that? (And to be fair - I've seen grown to appreciate NASCAR quite a bit!) Switching to the 360 meant I had to leave GT behind, but I was encouraged enough by reviews of Forza to give a try. I loved it. In fact, I thought it did things better than Gran Turismo. I've gotten the most recent GT for my PS3, but it simply didn't excite me as much as Forza did. When I heard that the newest Forza was doing the "open world" thing, I was a bit worried. In terms of "serious" racing, I definitely had my favorite games. In terms of "arcade" racing, I was a huge Burnout fan. When Burnout went open world, I was pretty disappointed with the result. As an example of where I thought they failed, imagine this. You spend a few minutes driving to a race. You begin the race and are kicking ass when all of a sudden you make a wrong turn. Since the race is in the "real world", that's actually pretty easy to do. With one mistake you've ruined your chances of winning or even getting a decent place. And here comes the kicker - no restart. From what I remember, the developers said they felt race restarts made the game unrealistic (because racing in a city at 100+ MPH is realistic) and they intentionally left the feature out. To me, this just made the game frustrating. Pretty much every time this happened I simply gave up on the race and did something else. So as you can imagine... I was worried. But luckily I didn't have to be. Forza Horizon is an incredibly fun game. So fun that even the task of driving to events is made fun. Every bit of driving you do in the game is full of opportunities. While exploring you can earn popularity points which increases your rank among other racers. You can find hidden items that reduce your part costs. You can challenge random racers for an on the spot competition. You can get records with speed cameras. And again - this is all non-event stuff. The events are pretty damn fun too. You've got standard lap races, point to point races, "illegal" street racing, even exhibition events that have you racing against air planes. I found the game's difficulty to be a bit odd at times. I'd do races that were just the right level of challenge, and then do a supposedly "easy" race against a computer opponent and find myself smoked quite soundly. Races are typically divided by classes of cars, so you don't have a MINI Cooper going against a 500HP+ Dodge Viper. In most games, if I tuned my car to the very tip top of the class, I found the races easy to win, but in Horizon, even at the max for the level it was pretty hard to win. To be honest, I ended up setting the difficulty down to easy and that made things a bit more simple. The graphics are top notch as well as the sound track, but after playing for 10 hours or so you will hear the same tracks. (Yeah, I can't really fault them for that.) I'd use this opportunity to once again point out how sad it is that video games have better music than terrestrial radio, but, yeah, I'm old, get off my lawn, etc. Over all - this is definitely my favorite Forza yet.

Black Ops 2

This one is a bit of a mixed bag for me so far. I really enjoyed BO1 because of its historical nature. Sure, Modern Warfare is, well, modern, but I actually preferred the missions in BO. Maybe it's more my age than anything else, but it just felt cooler. BO2 continues this trend, but mixes in missions set in the future as well. I believe I'm about 20% through the single player campaign and so far the modern missions aren't really that exciting to me. The historical ones still kick ass though. The mission in Afghanistan was especially cool. I kept waiting for Sly or Arnie to show up as a co-star. I've spent more time in multi-player though and I'm really enjoying it. MP in BO2 isn't majorly different then the last few COD games. This is an incremental update rather than a huge change. But the changes that were made are pretty damn smart. As an example - your class has a certain number of things it can select. This includes weapons, attachments, and perks. You can imagine it like an old school inventory system. When I first ran into this it was a bit disconcerting, but then I realized I could actually remove things I never use. So for example, in terms of thrown weapons, I use my grenades, but I never use my tactical option. (Mainly because i can never remember what button to push or what I even have.) When I first maxed out my inventory, I simply got rid of that option and I was all good. I love that. I feel like i have more control over my class now than other CODs in the past. The maps are decent, but more different than spectacular. I also like the fact that you can do games by yourself with robot opponents. Since I'll never get some of the better score streaks going on, this gives me a chance to play around a bit. (And pretend I'm really, really good. Which I'm not.) Over all, I'm not quite sure I'd recommend this. I know MP is huge for some folks, but I expect both a strong SP and MP in a COD game. (Note I said in a COD game, not all games. I very rarely do MP outside of COD.) I'm definitely going to finish the SP for BO2 and hope it improves a bit.

Halo 4

Of all three, this is my favorite so far. I've only done SP so far, but the graphics, the art, the game play, is just awesome. The game still has some of the frustrations I've seen in earlier Halo games. For example, on multiple occasions I've finished a hard fight, looked around, and realized I had no idea where to go. You only get "objective arrows" on a few occasions and that just annoys the heck out of me. But luckily I don't get lost all the time and the action is enough to make me get over it pretty quickly. My biggest worry is that I may be almost done. I'm about 5 hours in and I've heard of one person finishing the game in around 6 hours. To me, the story feels like it's just begun, so I'm going to assume that I've only around 1/3 or 1/2 of the way. As I said, the art is amazing. Multiple times I've found myself stopping and just looking at the scenery. The amount of detail is outstanding. I do have one big complaint though. The game doesn't auto-save. Don't get me wrong, if you die, you restart in a fairly recent location. (Although with some battles lasting 10+ minutes, it can feel like a bad loss when you die.) But yesterday I had been playing for about two and a half hours when the plug fell out of the socket. (Damn cats.) When I got back into the game I had lost everything from that morning. Seriously. I thought maybe I was imagining things. There is a Save option in the menu, but it forces you to quit your game. I have no idea why the designers did this. Perhaps saves were too slow. And what about MP? To be honest, I don't like Halo MP. I know I said that for COD I expect a strong SP and MP experience, but frankly, I'm fine with just doing SP with Halo. I've tried to get into Halo MP and people I know and respect love it, but I've found it just a bit too - well - difficult. If that makes me less of a gamer, well, so be it. I'll definitely give it a try once I finish SP but I don't expect to be playing much MP in this Halo. Finally, Halo 4 was purchased via my Amazon Wish List. Unfortunately, Amazon does a pretty poor job of telling me who gets me what. So if you are reading this and your purchased this for me, thank you!

Got a new Chrome? Got a joystick? Check out the Gamepad API

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:20:00 -0400

The latest release of Chrome (21.0.1180.57, you know, one of the fifty or so updates that were released over the past week) includes preliminary support for two very cool APIs: WebRTC, the Audio/Video one I've blogged about before, and the Gamepad API, which gives you access to game controllers via JavaScript. Roll that around a bit in your game for a second and think about how cool that is. When I built a demo with this API a few weeks back and showed my son, he immediately declared that I was the coolest person he knew and that I should sell the app for money. Luckily he isn't reading this blog so he won't see how uncool I am.The Gamepad API contains two basic areas of support. First - you have access to a new property under the navigator object called "gamepads". This is an array of all attached gamepads. Since you could - in theory - connect multiple pads via USB it's nice that there is support for working with any number of them. Note that in Chrome this is currently prefixed by "webkit", so the actual property is navigator.webkitGamepads. Inspecting the gamepad object gives you access to the name, up to 16 button states, and the axis values for 4 joysticks. The second part to the API is event driven. This lets you listen for events like a gamepad being connected or a button being pressed. Unfortunately, Chrome doesn't yet support this part of the API. Want to quickly test if your Chrome is working right with the API? Chrome developer Scott Graham whipped up a super simple demo. Check out the code first: And here is a quick screen shot from my machine running it: And finally - you can run the JSBin version Scott set up here: http://jsbin.com/acuhig. Note that sometimes I've had to click a button first before it triggered. So given that we don't have the simpler events yet in Chrome, it still isn't terribly difficult to add support to a game. Consider the game below... While I won't be quitting my job anytime soon to go build games, it was a good way for me to practice with Canvas. (See - I don't totally hate the tag!) I had the logic done already so I was curious how difficult it would be to add in support for the gamepad. First, here is a subset of the code I had initially: You can see the event handlers for the keyboard and a loop function that handles animation. The paddle.move() function (not included above) simply checks the value of "input" to know if it needs to move the paddle left or right. Now here's the modified form of loop to support the gamepad: That is a little over 10 lines of code. And again - when I showed my son this he was amazed and - in all fairness - it does make the game a heck of a lot more fun to play. Want to check it out? Try here: http://www.raymondcamden.com/demos/2012/jul/31/test3.html. I'll warn you - the code is messy. Also - I've noticed that I have to reload sometimes for the game to 'notice' the pad. Want more information? You can find the spec here and read up on the API at MDN as well: GamepadAPI. Note that gamepad support for Firefox is in one build. No, I don't mean the "Alpha" version. Literally one nightly build. p.s. By the way, to test this I had to pick up (research!) a XBox controller that had a USB connection. All I had were wireless controllers. I picked up the most gaudy one I could find...

New Chrome Extension: Diablo 3 Server Checker

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:17:00 -0400

I built this because I was trying desperately to procrastinate while finishing an article for HTML5Rocks.com. The Diablo 3 Status Checker does exactly what it says - it pings the English server status page and does a bit of regex on the result to see if the American server is up. If it is up - you get a happy face. If not - you get a frowny face. Not exactly rocket science - but it works (especially if you want to avoid writing). Curious about the code? Here is the JavaScript behind it. It is based heavily on one of the existing sample apps. You can install it via the CRX I Have hosted here... http://www.raymondcamden.com/enclosures/diablochecker.crx I was going to put it up on the Chrome store, but ended up rage-quitting when it asked me for 500 different screen shots of an extension that has two small icons.

Sunday Review: Kingdoms of Amalur

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:04:00 -0400

I've played two really good RPGs over the past few months. Late in 2011, I was immersed in Skyrim. Skyrim is an incredible game. It has a great story. It has great mechanics. And the graphics are - in my opinion - the best you will see on a console today. Heck, even the last Elder Scroll game (Oblivion) has better graphics than most games released today. That being said - as much as I think Skyrim is a better game, I think I had a lot more fun playing Kingdoms of Amalur (KoA). In some ways, I'm reminded of Grand Theft Auto versus Saints Row. GTA was an incredibly good looking game with amazing gameplay and artistic direction. It's also a game I never finished. Saints Row - which was certainly not as pretty or dramatic, was just fun, and relatively simple to finish. While I did finish Skyrim (I've got 110+ hours in it), I found KoA to be a heck of a lot of fun and just a pleasure to finish. The graphics are fine (not great, not bad) and the sound is forgettable. The RPG elements though work real well. Like most modern RPGs you aren't exactly locked into a class and you can even reset all your character decisions during the game. While game play is pretty much divided between stealth (finesse), fighting (might) and magic (sorcery), you can create many different combinations of these to fit your particular style. (I chose might/sorcery.) One thing the game does very well is providing you with a sense of continuous improvement. I'm not talking about just advancing levels but an overall sense of growth into a kick-ass adventurer. Even though I've finished the main game, I'm planning on getting the DLC just as an excuse so I can see how far my character can progress. Anyway - if you are looking for a fun RPG and are a bit worried about a Skyrim-level commitment, consider picking up KoA. p.s. It has been a while since I posted a review. Sorry - going to try to get back into the habit.

How I cheated Mozilla's new HTML5 Game

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:09:00 -0400

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating cheating as a good thing. I'm not insinuating that Mozilla's code was somehow lacking (actually the code is pretty kick ass). Nor am I trying to pretend I'm some super hacker. Rather - I thought I'd share how I modified Mozilla's new game to cheat as a way of demonstrating things you have to look out for when coding HTML5-based games. Also - my very first programming experience was pretty similar. I had to learn hex so I could edit my Bard's Tale game saves via a disk editor on my Apple 2e. I figured a legacy as rich as that deserves a rebirth. ;)

So first - some context. Yesterday Mozilla announced the launch of Browser Quest. This is a multiplayer online roll playing game. The mechanics aren't terribly complex (non-gamers should give it a try), but it is a pretty cool example of what can be done with HTML5.

Simply connect to the site, enter a name, cross your fingers (it is a bit overwhelmed right now), and start playing.

What's really cool is that Mozilla has also open sourced the entire game - both the front end client and back-end technology. You can peruse the code here: https://github.com/mozilla/BrowserQuest

I played it for a bit (research!) and noticed right away that they were using LocalStorage. I've got a Chrome extension (LocalStorage Monitor) that highlights when a site is using LocalStorage and lets me examine the contents quickly. Here's what I saw on the site:

First thing I noticed - my inventory was stored in LocalStorage. That meant I could modify my inventory. After looking at the code, I realized they had a simple list of swords and armors that were ranked by a simple numeric index. If you gave yourself the top weapon/armor, then you would be set.

So step one was to pop into console and copy out the value:

copy(localStorage["data"])

This copied the value (a JSON string) into my clipboard. I pasted it into notepad, and simply edited the two values:

{"hasAlreadyPlayed":true,"player":{"name":"Romana","weapon":"goldensword","armor":"goldenarmor","image":""},"achievements":{"unlocked":[2,5,11,6],"ratCount":3,"skeletonCount":1,"totalKills":5,"totalDmg":11,"totalRevives":0}}

I took the string, went back into console, and did...

localStorage["data"] = (pasted my string here)

Reloaded the page, and voila - I'm an Epic Avenger of Mighty Awesomeness:

Just to repeat - I'm not trying to diminish anything Mozilla did here. It's a great demo. Just don't forget that localStorage, like any client data, is inherently insecure.

p.s. Wondering why you see a 5Tagger character and Romana? Just different tests, that's all.

Review: Dead Island

Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:54:00 -0400

Many months ago I posted what I consider (still today) to be the best trailer for a video game yet. I'm probably being a bit dramatic, but I thought the trailer was a piece of art. Graceful, haunting, and emotional all at the same time - it was a complete surprise and made me want to add a zombie game to my 'must get' list of games this year. The last zombie game I played, Dead Rising, was fun for a few hours but quickly grew boring. I figured if the game was anywhere near as good as the trailer it was worth picking up. I can tell you right now that this is not the case. But I still strongly recommend picking up Dead Island. Let me explain why.The game begins innocently enough - your at an island resort - zombies have risen - and your given various tasks to help people. I discovered right away that the zombies in this game had a surprising amount of variety. A typical encounter may find you dealing with 3-4 different types at once. Some slow, some fast, some that start some and speed up. Unlike a typical shoot where you simply mow everything down, your zombie encounters in the game turn into intellectual encounters that force you to use strategy to figure out the right way to take them down. The fights themselves are glorious gorey fun. I know - I've said many times I'm not a fan of gore. But the first time I noticed that I could break the arm of a zombie and it impacted it's ability to fight - I was addicted. There's something incredibly satisfying about the violence of this game that I never got from playing Dead Rising. It feels incredibly physical. Both Dead Rising and Dead Island have a large amount of weapons. Dead Rising probably has more variety. But I love the selection of weapons in Dead Island as well as the ability to upgrade them. Weapon management does become a bit of an issue though. Every time you knock a zombie across the head you do a bit of damage to your weapon. They are constantly degrading which means you have to manage which weapon you want to use carefully. There's repair desks spread throughout the game but on more then one occasion I found myself down to my last decent weapon and praying for a break soon. The environments of the game were a surprise to me. I had assumed the entire game was the resort. The first time I left the resort and ventured into the city I was incredibly impressed by the level of detail and the variety. I've been to other zones now and it reminds me how bored the shopping mall was in Dead Rising. Probably the best thing this game does is ramp up the fear. Imagine being in a dark, inner city alley way, and you hear something running towards you. At the same time, you hear the roar of a zombie in the distance and need to figure out if it's behind you or in front of you. This game is scary. I can't remember the last time I played a game where I jumped more than once and generally just made me nervous. One of the coolest things I noticed was that the game was able to produce fear even when no zombies were around. I can remember turning a corner, seeing a large empty space and no zombies and coming to a complete stop. I thought - no way this place is empty of zombies. They have to be around. Pure fear - and I loved it. Another good example is driving. You don't get to drive often, but when you do, it can be a lot of fun. (And I love that they give a "Karmageddon" bonus - I was a huge fan of Carmageddon back in the 90s - anyone else remember that series?) However - the first time I was driving along and rammed a tree - and got stuck - and heard the zombies running to me I freaked out. I was hitting the gas, breaks, going forward, reverse, you get the idea. I loved it. So what about the trailer? I said earlier the game didn't match it - what exactly did I mean? Well, the trailer implied a large amount of emotional context to the game. There is a story here and there are some sad moments of course. Nothing in the game approaches the level of that trailer though. I'm at the point of the game where we are close to figuring out what caused everything and to be honest, I'm kinda "meh" on it. I do want to get to the bottom of it, but the story itself isn't that important to me. I don't mind. I'm having a hell of a lot of fun and really recommend it for anyone looking for a game. That's if - of course - you aren't planning on spending every second playing Battlefield and Call of Duty over the next three months. ;) It looks like the detail view for screen shots from GamePro is a bit borked. Sorry if they don't work for you.

Sunday Reviews: Strange vocabulary and killer robots

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 08:19:00 -0400

I've recently completed two incredible books I thought I'd review today. As always I'm curious to see what others think so if you have read these as well, definitely chime in. I've also got two super quick video game reviews at the very bottom. Enjoy. The first book is the latest by China Miéville, an author I've mentioned a few times here. He is - to me - the most interesting writer alive today. That isn't to say every book is a winner - but at minimum - every single one of his books is just plain unique. His previous book, Kraken, was a bit of a disappointment. It was definitely interesting but it didn't really grab me. Embassytown was like a slap in the face. I'll be honest and say I'm not sure I even understood it completely. The core concept of the book involves an embassy (no big surprise) on an alien planet. What makes this book so freaky is the description of the alien's language. I don't want to ruin it for you so I'll keep it vague. But when you finally begin to understand how these creatures communicate and why it was so difficult for the humans to speak to them you will truly be surprised. One of the complaints you hear about Sci Fi is how simplistic alien cultures are described some times. What China has created here is the most unique view of a species that I've ever encountered. The book can be a bit of a struggle to go through at times - but it's well worth the effort.
Robopocalypse, or the book I hate to spell, is a much simpler read than Embassytown, but is no less interesting. Written in the same fashion at World War Z, the book presents multiple short takes of a greater story involving a robot uprising. I really enjoy this style of writing as it gives you a much broader view of an event. The book is basically a more involved, more intelligent version of the Terminator series. Unlike Terminator though you get a much deeper look at the robot's point of view. There's some truly cool, and chilling, parts to this book. Apparently the movie is already in the works and I can't wait to see how they visualize some of the robots.
And finally - I recently finished Crysis 2. I never played 1 and I really felt kind of lost. Maybe I should have read the instructions. That being said, the game has some pretty incredibly graphics and is fun to play. It seemed to have a pretty long single player campaign too. I just started Vanquish, which is pretty similar so far (guy in suit theme), although it's much more "acarde-y", not that there's anything wrong with that. I started on LA Noir too - but will save my thoughts on that for later. Oh - and currently I'm reading Stephen King's "Just After Sunset." I wanted a collection of short stories so I could stop reading once the new Game of Thrones novel comes out on Tuesday (just in time for vacation).

Few quick reviews

Sun, 22 May 2011 09:42:00 -0400

As it is a lazy Sunday morning I thought I'd share a few quick reviews on some games, books, comics I'm consuming lately. If you purchase any of these via the links provided I get a small kickback. (Just an FYI, not sure if I should 'warn' people about that or not. ;)

This is the second collection of short stores I've read edited by John Adams. His first collection (well the first I read) was an incredible collection of zombie stories. (The Living Dead) When I heard he was editing a collection of dystopian stories I figured it was a no-brainer. The collection is pretty good. I'd only read one story in the entire book and only recognized another one. There's quite a bit here to like and I definitely recommend it, but I have one problem with the collection. For some reason, Adams feels the need to provide - at least to me - spoilers for every single darn story. Not huge stories mind you. But consider this. In a zombie collection, you can be pretty assured that every story will contain, well, zombies. In a collection of dystopian literature, you really don't know much at all. Sure you have the broad strokes, but the details are where things will get interesting. Will it be a more bleak world like "1984" or something else entirely like "Brave New World"? The odd thing is - Adams introduced each story with - what I thought - a telling clue that ruined the surprise for you. Imagine seeing "Logan's Run" for the first time (see it - don't read it - the book was pretty awful) and having no idea what the "catch" was. Certainly you figure it out pretty quickly, but that's what Adams seemed to ruin before each and every story. After I noticed this before the first few stories, I simply skipped his introductions.

And now for something really different. Bulletstorm - AKA the game that got you the GOW MP beta - was a hell of a lot of fun. I can't remember the last time I laughed out loud so many times while playing a game. It's fun. A lot of fun. Is it as cool as "Call of Duty"? Nah. But for pure FPS fun, this was a great game. Every aspect of the game is focused on making shooting bad guys an enjoyable experience. From getting bonuses for shooting them in the no-no spots (yes, I said no-no spot) to additional bonuses for sending your target into a giant cactus. I didn't try the multiplayer so I can't comment on that, but the single player game was great and I'd recommend it to anyone.

Have you ever begun reading a book where you only had the vaguest idea of what the story was and found yourself completely surprised? That's how I was with the Hunger Games trilogy. All I knew about it was "young adult dystopian fiction". That's it. Within about 5 pages I was completely addicted. I honestly don't know how this could be young adult fiction. Sure the writing is pretty simple but the content is... well - not inappropriate. Just dark. Incredibly dark. I can't remember being so depressed by a book since I read "1984." They are making a movie out of this and I honestly don't know how I feel about it. On one hand if they truly honor the book and keep the incredible darkness of the novels intact, it could be too difficult to watch. If they neuter it though that would be a shame as well. Either way - I'd recommend the entire series. You can probably read them back to back over a week - just keep the Lithium handy.

And just to wrap things up - a few comics I'm reading lately:

Sweets - a New Orleans-based crime story over 5 issues. Created by a guy local to me, the art is incredible and the story is pretty darn good too.
GI Joe - there's about 4 lines out now. Some silly - some pretty darn cool - especially the Cobra titles. You should also check out the "Hearts and Minds" mini series that was created by the author of "Wolrd War Z."
Fantastic Four (Future Foundation?) - I figure with the 'relaunch' after Johnny Storm's death it may be cool to start reading the series. I never read FF growing up. The first issue was neat so I've added this to my monthly collection for now.
Y the Last Man - Yeah I'm a few years behind on this. Basic premis is that some disease wipes out all males on the planet - except for one human and one monkey. I'm on issue 30something now. (Affiliate link: Y: The Last Man, Vol. 1: Unmanned)
Star Wars: Empire - I pick up a trade back collection of these about once a month. Basically "Empire" themed Star Wars comics and as we all know - the bad guys are always more fascinating then the good guys.

Review: Homefront and Bad Company 2

Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:57:00 -0400

I recently finished two very different shooters (for the XBox 360) and thought I'd share a quick review on both. It's kinda sad that I seem to only finish shooters lately. I grew up on RPGs but lately I find it real difficult to actually finish them. I've had the latest Final Fantasy for a while now and haven't put more than an hour in it. I've had Fable 3 for a while as well, and while I've played it a bit I just don't feel very motivated to finish it. (And let me say again - it pisses me off that the unnecessary adult content on Fable 3 prevents me from playing it with the kids. It's stupid, out of place, and adds nothing worthwhile to the game.) Anyway - the games in question are Homefront and Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

Homefront

Homefront - the game that apparently everyone hates. All I heard was about how badly this game was reviewed. Apparently it even sent the company's stock prices into a tailspin. I'm not sure about other reviewers, but I freaking loved it. The basic premise is simple. In the future, a unified Korea has grown extremely powerful and attempts to take over the United States. That sounds pretty far fetched, but the intro video to the game makes you a believer.

When the video started off with Hillary Clinton, it got my attention. Most games refrain from mentioning real people. Heck, most games refrain from even naming real countries. Did they ever tell you where you were fighting in COD:Modern Warfare 2? I mean outside of Russia. The game seemed to take pains to not say where you were in the middle east. Homefront has no problems being very specific about names and places. That's a theme that continues as you play. You pick up random tidbits of history via newspapers left behind. It may be a small thing - but when I read a report about food shortages at Walmart - it just made it seem more realistic to me. Sure it's free advertising for Walmart, but still. In another scene you fight in a typical American commercial area and all the stores were real. Again - I know this is just advertising, but it made it all the more real to me. I think that's what surprised me most about the game. So many small little things that just felt right but seemed to be missing from other games. Consider this. One of your buddies in the game is an Asian-American. At multiple times in the game he will encounter racism from other characters. It's direct and blunt, and frankly expected, I mean you're in a country attacked by Koreans, but the fact that the game actually included it made me think the creators were treating me like an adult gamer as opposed to a 12 year old boy. The game is also very blunt about the war itself. There are scenes in the game that are absolutely brutal. If you've read my video game reviews before, you know I don't like it when violence is used in an unnecessary/exploitative way. I despised the fact that Prey included violence against children. It was out of place and served nothing to further the story in the game. While Homefront doesn't have children mowed down in front of you, you certainly see the impact of the fight upon families in a very direct, incredibly realistic way. (Ok, to be honest, I'm a computer nerd who hasn't fired a gun in the past ten years so it isn't fair for me to speak about "real" war. Just giving my opinion obviously.) There is one fight early in the game where a mother and her baby take shelter behind you and your companions. So imagine - you've got a large group of enemies attacking the home your hiding out in, gun fire all around you, and a woman and baby screaming behind you. I don't think I can adequately describe how freaking insane that is. I wanted to yell at the mother myself to get her to shut her baby up. If the point of a good game is to get you into the experience, Homefront does an incredible job at it pretty much all throughout the game. So - why is it getting bad reviews? Most likely the graphics. I'm including screen shots below, but the graphics are definitely the weakest point in this game. They feel approximately 2-3 years old. When compared to Bad Company 2 they look even worse. Does the poor graphics make the game completely ugly? Heck no. There's plenty of scenes/areas that look well done. It just feels old. While I certainly noticed the graphics (right away), it didn't take away my fun of playing the game at all. I can't talk much to multiplayer. I tried it about an hour and it seemed ok. One cool thing they have is in game upgrades. While you play a game you earn points. Points can be spent on little upgrades like armor and weapons. The fact that you can do this while you play adds a real interesting factor to game play. As I said, I just tried for about an hour, but I'd like to try more. One last note - the difficulty in Homefront is pretty darn hard. It never got to the point of wanting to make me stop playing, but it did get frustrating at times. There's times when you just turn a corner and get killed in a second. That's pretty realistic I guess and I did get used to going a bit slower as I played. I will say that after finishing Homefront, I found Bad Company 2 almost a bit too easy at points.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

I really had no expectations for Bad Company 2. I never played the first part and had not tried a Battlefield game since I had a PC back 5 years or so ago. I had hoped for a Modern Warfare clone. Considering that I consider Modern Warfare to be one of the best games ever made, a clone would be fine by me. I was pretty surprised though. The tone of the game is very different from Modern Warfare, primarily in terms of the humor in the game. Don't get me wrong - you've got serious stuff going on - lots of drama, but the game has a lot more joking around than MW. Primarily this is via the cast of characters in your group. Each of the three guys with you have a distinct personality and all bring something to the game. It just made the game more personable I think then the Modern Warfare series. Speaking of MW, Bad Company 2 has a few zingers towards that game which are incredibly funny if you're paying attention. The story is pretty cool too. Not as dramatic as Homefront, but certainly good enough. This may sound crazy - but towards the beginning I was reminded a bit of "Lost". I won't say why as it would be a mild spoiler, but maybe those of you who played will agree with me. (Or just call me crazy - go for it. ;) As I said when talking about Homefront, the graphics are really well done. I'd say even better than MW, but as I don't have both right in front of me now it may just be the BC2 is more fresh in my mind. I can't speak to multiplayer. I tried - multiple times - but the game simply kicked me out to the title screen. I hate it when a game does that without some kind of message. Certainly BC2 isn't along in "tricky" multiplayer. I can't tell you how many problems my friends and I have when playing Black Ops, but at least freaking say something if a game connection fails. To me, it's like throwing an error in ColdFusion and not actually providing exception details. Useless. I'm going to give multiplayer a try again, but so far, that's a big fail for me. So - that's it. Do I recommend both games? Heck yes. Which do I recommend more? To be honest, Homefront. As I said, it seems like everyone else hates the game but I found it to be one of the most unique, and daring, games I've seen in a while. I think it deserves a lot of respect for some of the choices it made. As always though - I know my readers have lots of opinions, so let's hear em!

Offtopic (and NSFW) blog post - Dead Island Trailer

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:00:00 -0400

I typically try to save my video game/movie/off topic stuff until the weekend, but when I saw this video today I had to share it. As a warning, this video is incredibly NSWF for violence reasons. I consider us all adults here so if zombie level violence turns you off, please stop now. Anyway, watch the video, then I'm going to chime in with some thoughts. Wow. So I've watched this video close to 5 times now and I'm still not sure if I'm disgusted or impressed by it. I am not a fan of bloody horror shows. I much rather a suspenseful show where the gore is kept to a minimum. I've like some of the recent zombie flicks, but in general I'll avoid shows like Saw. It just feels too real. I know there is real death out there. I'd rather my monsters be the Cloverfield variety or ghosts. (Ghosts aren't real - no matter what weird sounds I've heard in this house.) But - it isn't the violence really that hits you. It's the kid. I've found that my lack of interest in really bloody horror films seems to have come about right around the same time my wife and I grew our family. It seems that kids (teenagers) are the prime victims in horror films and I'm not ashamed to say I find it hard to watch. Back a few years ago I reviewed Prey. The game featured the very violent and very realistic murder of a child. In my mind - even though the game takes place during an alien invasion - and yeah - if these guys are eating us like a drunk at Taco Bell then certainly they are eating kids - I just don't need to see that. I'll take my realism in frames per second and resolution. I don't need that much realism. I felt the same way in Revenge of the Sith when Anakin (off screen though) slaughters children. Yeah - I get that the Empire is bad. But you know what - I didn't need some Nazi comparison in my Star Wars movie. I wanted escapism - not the monster that may actually live next door. So that's a long winded way of saying - I don't want to see kids getting butchered in my video games... but in this trailer - it didn't feel quite as inappropriate as I'd expect. From what I know - the story is that you and your family are on an island when a zombie outbreak occurs. If there are very real consequences to not keeping your family safe and it's not gratuitous as it was in Prey - I could see this being a damn good game. And wow - just the mechanics of this trailer and freaking amazing. The cuts between the different time flows. It's awesome. You see and appreciate more with each re-watching. So I've probably over analyzed this to death. What do you think?

Quck Review: Spider-Man Shattered Dimensions

Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:11:00 -0400

Before I added this game to my wishlist I had heard that - for the most part - all Spider-Man video games sucked. I'm not sure how true that is but I can say the last time I played Spider-Man on a console it had a wood finish to it. But I had heard good things about Shattered Dimensions and the concept intrigued me. The basic idea behind Shattered Dimensions is that you get to play four different versions of Spider-Man. You got your "regular" Amazing Spider-Man, your Ultimate Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2099, and the Noir Spider-Man. Each of these different versions have their own story and unique design, but gameplay wise only the Noir version is really unique. For the most part you'll be spending your time beating bad guys up when in the non-Noir worlds and playing a stealth game as the Noir Spider-Man. The game has you hopping between dimensions hunting down pieces of some kind of magic rock. Along the way you encounter many of Spider-Man's classic villains. Now - growing up - I was a Spider-Man fan. I didn't buy many of the comics, but I'd pick up an issue from time to time. I was also a big fan of the corny cartoon growing up. Even with my probably mediocre understanding of Spider-Man's villains I find the game has an incredible line up. Even better - many of the baddies are presented in alternate versions which makes things even more interesting. Enemies like the Vulture, Hobgoblin, and the Sandman are presented very cool. Game play wise everything works well - but swinging - at times - can be a bit confusing. I was concerned that it would be the weakest point of the game - and it probably is. But it isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Once you get used to the basic concepts of traveling by web you get the hang of it. There are a few points in the game where control is frustrating but for the most part - it just works. My youngest son is playing the game currently and he's farther along than I am so I think just about anyone can pick up the game and play well. Graphics are well done - see the screen shots below. I've commented already that I really like the design of the bosses, but the levels are also great. Audio wise there isn't much to comment on. There is no background music that I'm aware of. I can say though that the Spider-Man "chatter" is dead on perfect. Multiple times both myself and my kids laughed out loud based on some smart ass remark Spidey made. I can also say that the Deadpool level is very funny. (There is - I kid you not - a conversation about henchmen uniforms that will have you cracking up.) Any way - this is one of those games where I did not expect to enjoy it nearly as much as I am. I definitely recommend picking it up - especially if you like the comics. (As a side question - what's the best Spider-Man comic for a person to start picking up again?)

Review: Transformers - War for Cybertron

Sun, 07 Nov 2010 09:50:00 -0400

I've been a fan of Transformers ever since I was a kid. So I was pretty excited when the movie was announced. I had such high hopes for the movie (and the sequel), but obviously a geek's dream are never what going to be truly realized. Outside of the horrible acting and plot holes an Optimus could drive through, the main thing that bugged me about the "modern" Transformers was how they looked. Don't get me wrong - they looked pretty realistic. You can't knock the special effects. What bothers me though is how... unrecognizable they look. Outside of Bumblebee and Optimus, everyone else just kinda blends in together. The movies did get some of the personality right and I remember remarking on that after I saw the first movie. But in general I didn't feel any real connection to these new robots. (Wow, I can't believe I wrote that. I am a complete dork.) When I got "Transformers - War for Cybertron" I had much of the same worries. First, the game was all on Cybertron, not Earth. Secondly, these were all definitely "modern" Transformers. I had not read any reviews on the game so didn't really know what to expect. First - lets talk about game play. This game is nothing more than 100% shooting. There isn't much stealth. It's basically run through corridors and keeping your finger on the trigger. It is complete fun. I never got bored once. It is essentially all the cool fight scenes from the movies without any of the lame jokes. As a Transformer you obviously get to spend time both in robot and vehicle mode. The vehicles themselves don't have much variety. You are either a beefy looking car or a jet. But the game uses these modes pretty well. It's typically a 'get to point X as fast as you can' levels that work great. There is a good mix of opponents to shoot up as well as a good set of weapons. From nice sniping rifles to guns that look almost as big as the Transformer itself. And speaking of size - the game throws a few "jumbo" opponents at you that are absolutely epic to fight against. The story is also really well done. I don't want to give anything away. Yes, there is a war going on. You get to play through first the Decepticon campaign and then the Autobot. What I really liked though and what surprised me was how well they tied it into "our" Transformers. It's obviously a good lead up to a sequel (which I hope they make) and was much better than I expected. But all of the above is bunk. Let me tell you what I really liked. While playing as Megatron during the first half of the game, each mission involves you performing some task. Get to X. Blow up Y. Whatever. You always have two other Transformers there helping you out. What made me laugh out loud more than once is that throughout every single mission Megatron is being a complete and utter ass to his subordinates. It's like the manager from hell. It's awesome. And unlike the movie which touched on the Starscream/Megaton rivalry a tiny bit - the game nails it perfectly and has a lot of fun with it. On the flip side, playing as Optimus means you get to hear the constant prater about how they "must" get it done for the good of all and blah blah blah. It was dead on. I haven't yet given the multiplayer game a try yet but I've heard great things. I can say I definitely recommend picking the game up. It wasn't deep, but just a heck of a lot of fun. Oh - one last note. The ending credits? Best credits song ever.

Review: Halo: Reach

Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:40:00 -0400

It's been a while since I've done a video game review, mainly because I've been addicted to Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (hereafter CODMW2), so I thought I'd write up some quick thoughts on the last game I wrapped, Halo: Reach. This is the third Halo game I've reviewed (Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST) and is close to being the best. Unfortunately, I don't see myself playing it again. Before I talk about what I consider to be the big disappoint, let me talk about what I really like.First let's talk about the single player experience. I finished that a few days ago. I've heard some folks call it short, but felt about right to me. Maybe shorter than CODMW2's SP game, but I don't think significantly so. I dinged Halo 3 for having a mediocre story with confusing directions (go to X, ok, what direction is X?). To be honest, I don't remember much of the story at all. Halo 2 and ODST had incredible stories. Reach brings back the excitement. Every part of the game was thrilling. It's hard to describe the feeling of Halo but if CODMW2 is like the best action film ever made, Reach is closer to one of the best Spielburg films. Sure there is plenty of action, but the drama is there as well. Maybe it's the music, which has always been good in these games (especially ODST), but the overall mood/atmosphere of Reach really worked for me. I played the game on medium difficulty (not really the name, but the level above noob) and found it to be just right. I ran into 3 or 4 sections that were pretty tough but for the most part, the difficulty was just right. I did find that you could kind of cheat in some areas by simply running around a tough adversary, but hey, if I was told to get to a point and I can do it by running like a scared little school girl then more power to me. Speaking of that - I still run into a few places where I had no idea where to go. But it seemed easier this time then in Halo 3. I'm tempted to just blame myself. I've got a horrible sense of direction and I guess it applies to the virtual world as well. So - single player is awesome. How about multiplayer? I hate it. I don't just dislike it. I despise it. To be fair, I haven't given it a heck of a lot of time. I've played for maybe two hours. I haven't covered all the modes even. But the experience is just plain frustrating. Let me describe a typical MP game for me in Halo Reach (and this isn't just me - most of the guys I play with regularly would describe it the same) - I'm running down a corridor, come across a badie, and then pump 10+ bullets in him only to have him kill me with one shot. Ok, so maybe I'm using the wrong gun. In a typical game you only chose from one of two or so presets. You can't customize your character. So I go pick up another gun and get the same result. In fact, out of all the kills I've gotten in Reach (which isn't much), 90% of them were from melee attacks. I'm sorry - but I thought I was playing a first person shooter?? I've heard others say I should just go for head shots. Well, I get that a head shot will always be better. Fine. I'm not that good of a shot in COD either, and I can still get by well. As for game advancement - again it feels much shallower than COD. Gaining levels seems much slower. I gained maybe 2 levels over the couple of hours I played. From what I can see I'd probably need 3-4 more hours to finish the level I'm on now. However, from what I can see advancing gets you absolutely nothing at all. You can buy armor, but it's all cosmetic. Woot. I can't wait to spend 10 hours so I can buy new shoulder pads that add absolutely nothing to game. Yeah. To be clear, I don't mind cosmetic changes - they can be kind of cool - but if that's the only thing you gain why should I bother? Reach's MP isn't all bad. It is much easier for your friends to join your party compared to COD. In COD you have to invite people, and I can't tell you how many times I'll invite friend A at the same time he invites me. Then you have an awkward situation of wondering if you should accept his invite or wait for him to take yours. Reach just plain works. Also - I like the idea of the Firefight mode. I think I tried it once (I'll be honest - I think I played it once a bit inebriated) and the idea is cool - basically see how long you and your friends can survive against waves of enemies. So do I recommend Reach? Absolutely. I've got multiple games where I enjoyed the SP and never even bothered with the MP. (I'm playing Transformers now too and will write up my thoughts when done - but to be honest I don't see bothering with the MP.) If you enjoyed Halo at all, I think this is easily the best game in the series for SP. While I hate the MP, and some of my friends agree, not all of them. So that being said, I'd definitely recommend picking it up.

Review: Need for Speed: Shift

Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:47:00 -0400

When it comes to racing games, I tend to go between enjoying pure sims (like Forza, and in the past, Gran Turismo) and arcade types (Burnout, Need for Speed). When I heard that the Need for Speed series was going "serious" I was a bit unsure what the end product would be like. Need for Speed:Shift (Shift from now on) is an interesting racer. It's certainly a simulation style game, but it has a smattering of arcade elements that work really well. For example - one thing I've often done in sims, and I'm not ashamed to say it - is what I call the push. I'll be approaching a corner with a rival ahead of me. I'll hit the gas and ram them as they make the turn. This pushes them off the track and slows me down at the same time so I can make the turn. Obviously this only works with damage turned off, and yeah, it's a cheap move, but it works. Shift allows for moves like this, and rewards it. In fact, all kinds of "dirty" moves are allowed, if you want to play like that. If you would rather play it safe and serious, then that works as well. Shift follows the typical formula of most sim games. You start off a low level racer doing easy races. As you play you earn experience (well, points) and stars that give you access to higher level races and events. What impresses me the most though are what Shift does differently. The more I play the more I appreciate these changes and the more I think the game improves the genre as a whole. So what changes do I mean? First off - every race lets you earn both points and stars. Points improve your racer level, and while in general most of the rewards are cheap (new stickers for your cars), some give you great heaps of money. Stars are rewarded mainly for your final position in the race, but you can also earn stars based on the points you earn or by performing some task. What this means is - if you are kicking ass in a race and then screw up at the end (and how many of us have done that more than once?!?) you still end up earning something. You never feel like you've wasted five minutes racing and that I think is one of the biggest faults in most sims. Second - there are multiple race types that allow you to use different cars. These cars are given to you. This helps with another common Sim complaint - car boredom. Maybe it's just how I play sims, but I typically end up with a "Beginner Car", a "Intermediate Car", and an "Advanced Car." So while the game may be include 200+ cars, I'll typically spend hours in just 3. Shift helps with this by giving you multiple opportunities to try races with other cars. One great example - there is one race that involves TVRs (google it- one of the coolest cars around). This is a car that I'd probably never be able to afford in the game. But the race let me use it for free. Awesome! The game's audio and video are perfect. Ok, maybe not perfect, but they work really, really well. In fact, this is the only race where I've enjoyed playing "in the car". I normally do the "a bit behind and above" but I found it much more fun to stay within the car when I was racing. You feel every bump as you play. It is incredibly immersive. When you hit the really high speeds you will even seen things get a bit fuzzy as if your eyes can't physically handle the strain. It's a bit hard to describe. It kind of reminds me of how Burnout handled the higher speeds, but it's definitely more intense than what I remember of Forza. I also liked how they simplified tuning. While I like cars, my knowledge of tuning and performance is pretty rudimentary. I know more horse power is good. I know that when I increase HP I should probably improve my brakes as well. Outside of that though its all greek to me. Every upgrade in the game comes with a nice audio description of the benefits. If I don't remember what a part does then the audio help is pretty useful. All in all - highly recommended. I'd like to compare this to Forza 3 however. Anyone have that game and would like to comment?