I am halfway through my Insanity playthrough of Mass Effect 2, and I feel compelled to share what I've learned with people who might be considering the same thing.

The watchword when playing Mass Effect 2 on Insanity is "survivability". When you upgrade a teammate's skills and have to choose between giving them more weapon damage or more health, take the health. When your squad goes down, your chances of survival drop drastically. I recommend taking Grunt and Jacob in your squad, earning their loyalty, and then dumping as many skill points as you can into Barrier and Fortification. (When you max Barrier/Fortification, take the "Heavy" evolution. In combat, a barrier won't have the opportunity to last for three minutes; you need to be able to soak up as much damage as possible.)

Biotics are your best friend. If you try to use firearms all of the time, you will run out of ammo in a heartbeat. Biotics continuously recharge, making them your first choice in combat. But if enemies try to charge you, you will need something with a bit more kick. THAT is when you need a gun. For this reason, don't build up a character who is useless with firearms, just for the biotics.

Early on, when you don't have the loyalty of your squad members yet (and therefore do not have their best abilities unlocked), they will be pretty useless in a firefight. Instead of bringing them to the front, order them to set up a fallback position. You can take care of yourself for a bit, right? Then, when you get overrun, fall back to your teammates and use their help to kill whatever is chasing you. Then move back up to take the enemy on by yourself again.

Don't put yourself directly into cover. Find a tall piece of cover that shields your whole body, and edge around it to shoot at enemies. This leaves you much less exposed than leaning out of cover to line up shots. If you are using shockwave as your main biotic power, you can blast enemies right through cover, leaving you even less exposed.

Enemies can't open doors, so if you get the chance to hit them with shockwave from the other side of one, do it. So what if it's dishonourable? Open either the weapon wheel or the power wheel to view your radar and line up your blasts.

And save up your heavy weapon ammo and medi-gel for the Collectors. You will need both.

That's it. That's all I can teach you. Just remember: Biotics, don't stick to cover, and survivablility. If you have any further questions or just want to compare notes on Mass Effect 2, post a comment or send me a message.

ADDENDUM (20th, Feb): I recently ran into some trouble with the first fight on the Collecter Ship. Apparently it's one of the hardest fights in the game (Harbingers, Scions and virtually no cover). This video helped me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0i3BpxlTc. By the way, this is why I say to save your medi-gel and heavy ammo for the Collectors. And unless you are playing a Soldier, don't count on your ammo holding out the way this guy's does. In fact, Sentinels have the best armour - if you were to take my "survivability" mantra to heart, you might consider playing as one. I started my Insanity playthrough as a Vanguard (stupid, I know), but now that I've come this far, I'm not turning back. I refuse to do the sodding Colony Defense mission again. Not to mention Grunt's Rite of Passage. *shudder* That was a freakin' nightmare.

[tags: mass effect 2, insanity]

Today at noon, Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw posted his review of Dark Void. (If you don't know who "Yahtzee" is, you are a failure as a gamer.)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1433-Dark-Void

A lot of people were looking forward to Dark Void, leading up to its release. I couldn't understand why. I took one look at it and said, "that's it? A jetpack? That's what people are worked up about?"

Once it came out, it got universally bad reviews with the caveat, "the flying is fun, though." And all of the gamers who had been eagerly awaiting it were shocked at the appalling quality.

What bothers me is that not even "Yahtzee" seemed to be able to anticipate what Dark Void would be, and he's one of the most cynical game reviewers on the internet. To me, the jetpack was always quite clearly a gimmick, and gimmicks are used to cover up sub-par performance in other areas. Seeing how much hype the jetpack was getting, it was clear as day that the rest of the game would be god-awful.

Am I really the only person who can see past these flashy marketing ploys? Can no one else extrapolate potential problems when one part of a game is hyped and others are not? Am I the only person who won't allow himself to be taken in? Please, someone, tell me you had the same experience with this game.

[tags: dark void, yahtzee, hype]

I recently wrote a scathing review of Dragon Age: Origins in which I criticized the evident lack of effort that went into writing the story. Naturally, I received some flak for this. Apparently most people wouldn't know good writing if it bit them on the ass.

As a teacher of English and a part-time writer, I feel compelled to point out some of the hallmarks of good - and bad - writing, as well as outline some basic rules for making your writing interesting. I'll be sure to make lots of pop culture references along the way to keep you entertained.

Rule #1 - Stop picking over Tolkien's desecrated remains. Elves, dwarves, magic, creatures of pure evil, long-lost heirs to the throne, dragons...it's all been done before, and it was done better. Hell, even Tolkien ripped off most of his subject matter from old English and Norse legends.

Rule #2 - The antagonist must be believable. I recently watched the movie 'Serenity'. Please understand, I have never watched the television series on which it is based (id est I am not a fan) so my observations here are completely objective. The antagonist in that movie is scary as hell, not because he is evil, but because he is the exact opposite. He believes with every fiber of his being that what he is doing is for the greater good of mankind. He believes it so devoutly that he is prepared to sacrifice EVERYTHING to carry out his mission. That kind of conviction is far more frightening than simply being 'evil'. Antagonists that appear to live by the motto, "what would Adolf do?" are not convincing, and therefore do not come across as a serious threat.

Rule #2(b) - It's worth noting that in the movie 'Serenity', while the antagonist is believable, the body he represents is not. At that point, the writers fell back on the 'evil empire' cliche. The Alliance (or whatever the hell they called it in that movie) set events in motion by perpetrating an act of absurdly evil proportions which is not revealed until very near the end. Without givingtoo muchaway, I would say that their goal is believable, but the fact that they tested their product the way they didrather than in a lab is not.

Rule #3 - If you see a cliche coming, turn it on its head. For instance, who is the greatest superhero of all time? 90% of you will have said 'Batman'. This is, of course, the correct answer. But why is it the correct answer? What makes Batman better than all the other superheroes?

It's because the entire equation has been reversed. Take, for example, the quintessential superhero, Superman. Superman is a super-powered freak, and his nemesis, Lex Luthor, is an extremely wealthy genius. This is the model that we will find most superheroes following. But not Batman. In the case of Batman, Bruce Wayne is the extremely wealthy genius, and the villains he fights are the super-powered freaks. The whole paradigm has been turned over. Batman is the best because Batman is different.

Rule #4 - Do not advance the narrative with flashbacks. Flashbacks are just lazy. A responsible writer can reveal past events without them. Did George Lucas show Darth Vader getting busy with Luke Skywalker's mother? Well, yes, sort of, in the second trilogy, but everyone knows that the second trilogy doesn't count because it sucked. No, the famous line is "I am your father." Showing a flashback at that point would have taken all of the emotional punch out of the moment.

Some of you are thinking, "what about my favourite JRPG with the hero who has amnesia? You have to use flashbacks when the hero has amnesia." Yes, it can get taxing trying not to use flashbacks when dealing with amnesiacs. Here is a simple solution though: Don't use a hero with amnesia! It's overdone, cliched, and boring.

Rule #5 - Have a clear narrative leader. Sometimes you have to follow different people's perspectives to tell the whole story, or to build the suspense. But you should never do this for too long. There should be a main character whom the reader (or player, as the case may be) follows more-or-less consistenly. And never, ever, EVER change viewpoints in the same scene. In Terminator 2, the audience has been following John's perspective for virtually the entire movie. Suddenly, in one scene, immediately after he has a moment in which he teaches the Terminator to high-five, Sarah starts narrating. It throws me for a loop every single time. It doesn't ruin the movie, but it is unnecessarily sloppy writing in an otherwise above-par movie.

Rule #6 - Have a clear final goal. I have played a number of RPG's that set up a goal in which I invest myself, and then, once I have accomplished said goal, I find out that the game isn't over. Breath of Fire II for the GBA is the most egregious example of this. I spend at least a dozen hours trying to clear my companion's name, and then, once I've made him a free man again (or a free dog, as the case may be), the game keeps going, with no new objective in sight. The goal that I have come to care about is complete. You can't expect me to start caring about something completely unrelated. And you especially can't expect me to care when the new goal isn't proffered IMMEDIATELY.

Rule #7 - Action is no substitute for substance. Obviously, this rule doesn't apply too much with videogames or movies. I have had a lot of fun with Darksiders so far, and it hasn't the faintest pretention to telling a good story. As long as I get to cut up huge dudes with a gigantic sword, I'm happy. But when writing a story, gunfights and explosions are the worst kind of filler because they require no effort to create. Tolstoy has long been regarded as one of the greatest writers that ever lived, not because he wrote about war, but because he wrote about the people behind the war. The soldiers, the generals, the czar - their thoughts, agendas and dilemmas.

Rule #8 - Use zombies responsibly. I love zombies, from the classic Night of the Living Dead automoton to the 28 Days Later shrieking variety. But I've noticed a bothersome trend of late: Everyone refuses to call them zombies! In Left 4 Dead, they're Infected; Max Brookes (author of the Zombie Survival Guide) refers to them as Ghouls; the last two Resident Evil games have called them Ganados and Majini, respectively. In the romantic comedy 'Shaun of the Dead', when Shaun's sidekick calls the zombies by their proper name, Shaun rounds on him, insisting that he not use the 'Z' word, "because it's ridiculous." I am beginning to suspect that there is a universally known zombie joke to which I am not privy which is being referred to every time zombies are mislabeled, and I'm the only one who doesn't get it. However, if this is not the case, there is no reason to not call a zombie a zombie.

Let me break it down for you: If a person starts out normal, and then, subsequent to some sort of contact with specimen X, begins to display similar behavioural patterns - namely an irrationally violent and uncontrollable compulsion to cause physical harm to persons who have not come under the same influence as themself - then specimen X is a zombie. Plain and simple. The specifics of the physiology do not matter. Running or shambling, scared of fire or completely undeterred by a hail of gunfire, infected with a virus or host to a parasite, if they used to be human and are now trying to take a chunk out of you, they're a zombie.

Rule #9 - Never, ever, EVER, use the 'it was all just a dream' twist. I will curse Tom Cruise 'til the day I die for making 'Vanilla Sky'. 'Nuff said.

Rule #10 - Get creative with names. I've been playing Divinity II: Ego Draconis recently, and while reading up on the backstory, I noticed that the character representing the side of good was named 'Lucian' ("bringer of light," for those who don't know), and the character representing the side of evil is named 'Damian'. While I understand the desire to stick with archetypal names when dealing with archetypal subject matter, a little extra creativity rarely goes amiss...and there is absolutely no excuse for naming your wizard character by the 'start with a 'Z', then go nuts' method.

Worthy of note is the character Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins. In Irish mythology, [the] Morrigan is a goddess of sorts, associated with war, death, and fear. It has been postulated that the 'mor-' in her name shares the same etymology as the '-mare' in 'nightmare'. Before the Battle of Mag Tuired, she is said to have offered victory over the Fomorians by means of magic in exchange for a certain service rendered to her by the ruler of the Tuatha De Danann. Those who have played Dragon Age can probably hazard a fairly accurate guess as to the nature of said service. Some might ask, didBioware's writers pick the name to suit the story/character, or did they write the story/character to suit the name? It doesn't really matter either way. Anyone who knows about the Irish Morrigan would be able to immediately divine Morrigan's role in the game. This isn't always a bad thing, but in a story-heavy game it can be disastrous. They should have taken the time to come up with a better name - perhaps not as fitting, but certainly less revealing.

More to come in future...maybe....

[tags: writing, dragon age, tolkien, serenity, batman, superman, flashback, george lucas, darth vader, star wars, terminator, breath of fire, darksiders, tolstoy, zombie, left 4 dead, max brookes, resident evil, shaun of the dead, tom cruise, vanilla sky, morrigan]

(Please note that my experience with the Dynasty Warriors games proper is limited. I am mostly speaking of the Dynasty Warriors: Empires games.)

We fans of the Dynasty Warriors series of games have been much derided for our tastes. I do not wish to rebut every criticism, so I will address the one that I hear the most, and then move on to what I really want to discuss.

The number one criticism of the Dynasty Warriors games is repetitive gameplay. And I suppose this is true. In many cases, you can beat a campaign by mashing the X button the whole time (that's 'Square' button for Playstation users). I will not deny the allegations of repetitiveness. However, let us examine the core appeal of these games: Being an ultra-badass general leading a massive army.

Without wishing to be confrontational, I contend that if charging into battle at the head of a hundred-thousand-man army does not appeal to you on some level, then there is something wrong with you. If you can appreciate sheer magnitude; if you think MAG sounds like it will be awesome; if you watched the Lord of the Rings movies over and over just to see the battles, then you can surely appreciate the Dynasty Warriors games.

With the main selling point of these games in mind, I DARE you to design a combat system that doesn't feel repetitive after killing 1000 enemy soldiers in 15 minutes. Can you come up with anything? That's what I thought.

Moving on - while the core element of the Dynasty Warriors games has its appeal to us fans, that is not what really keeps bringing us back. It's the potential we see in these games that has us hooked. We can see how good these games can really be with just a little extra work, and we keep wondering if the next installment is going to get it right. Each installment gets a little closer, but Koei seems to keep having a little trouble hitting their mark, so I've decided to outline some suggestions in the hopes that maybe they'll take notice.

1. Keep the Officer mode of Dynasty Warriors 6: Empires. Forming personal relationships with other officers and seeing how those relationships affect your experience is deeply rewarding. You might consider expanding the relationship mechanic for a more in-depth experience, such as officer-specific friendship rewards, or adding nemeses. The Mercenary battles are also an inspired addition.

2. Bring back the Ruler mode from Dynasty Warriors 5: Empires. If I get a bunch of my soldiers killed in battle, I should have to pay to recruit more! The automatic troop replenishment system of DW6:E removes any sense of consequence for engaging in armed conflict. War is supposed to be expensive. Having to pay for the upkeep of one's army gives a real sense of control, as well. ... Lose the strategy cards - we're trying to conquer China, not play poker. Let us buy fire archers, Sorcerers and Juggernauts from a Tactics menu during the Strategy phase. ... Make us decide in which provinces to post which officers so that we have to make tactical choices about what we want to defend and from whom, as well as where we want to strike next. ... And finally, if I have ten provinces, I should be able to hire more than twenty officers: If I have the land (and the coin), I want to be able to put my men on it!

3. Online co-operative multiplayer! If I'm a Ruler, I want to be able to hire my online friends as officers. If one of my friends is a Ruler, I want to be able to serve in his corps. You've already got the splitscreen co-op going; this is a really basic - and important - step forward.

4. This last one is optional, but I think it is well within your means: More epic. What this means is, more provinces (perhaps around 30 or so), more strategic (holding a certain set of provinces gives you a bonus to defense, or a discount on troop replenishment, for example - think Risk), and larger scale battles (10 officers to a side, 30,000 troop maximum each, and larger battlefields).

With this short and relatively easy to achieve list, I believe that Koei can make the Dynasty Warriors game fans have been waiting for. All that remains to be seen is whether they take notice.

It all started when Alex Rigopulos pitched Microsoft Vice President Ed Fries an idea for a music-based game called Frequency. Fries turned Rigopulos down. He said that a music-based videogame wouldn't be popular enough without a specialized piece of hardware to go with it. The rest, as they say, is history.

(Reference: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/698333/Microsoft-Passed-On-Harmonixs-Frequency-Indirectly-Inspired-Guitar-Hero.html)

Harmonix teamed up with Activision and Red Octane to make Guitar Hero, and later, Guitar Hero II. After unexpected commercial success with these games, Harmonix left the Guitar Hero franchise to pursue a more ambitious project.

Suddenly finding themselves in the deep end of the pool without their floaties, Activision and Red Octane did the only thing they could do: They over-compensated. Guitar Hero III was released with a broken battle mode and cameos by Slash and Tom 'that guy from Rage Against the Machine' Morello. The casual players were shut out by the ridiculous difficulty of the last venue, while the hardcore players were sucked in for endless hours by the most punishing track ever released in a Guitar Hero game, "Through the Fire and Flames".

Harmonix released their much anticipated Rock Band, reassuring the casual gamers that they still had a place in the music-game world, and opening the door for aspiring drummers and accomplished drunks to play with a couple of friends who had been in on the whole music-game phenomenon at the ground floor.

Guitar Hero: World Tour shamelessly copied the successful Rock Band format and, once again, brought unneeded, unwanted clutter to the game in the form of more battle modes and a music making tool that was only slightly more difficult to use than dropping writhing lizards onto a xylophone from the top of a twenty-storey building.

By this time, the music-gaming community had been polarised. Casual gamers for Rock Band, hardcore gamers for Guitar Hero. But Activision continually failed to notice this as they kept trying to win back the fans of Rock Band through imitation, and refusing to follow up what they started with Guitar Hero III - they should have been pandering to the players who could now play Through the Fire and Flames with their eyes closed.

And now we have Guitar Hero 5. Activision have taken 'casual gaming' to an extreme. And yet, they haven't won back the Rock Band fans because they, like everyone else, don't really understand what Rock Band is.

Everywhere you turn, you'll hear people call Rock Band a 'party game'. But Rock Band is NOT a party game.

Avid Rock Band fans know what happens when you bring the game out at a party. Someone's shrill, harpy of a girlfriend thinks that she can sing; Some guy who can't can't even keep a rhythm when knocking on a door says, "Hitting pads with sticks will be easy!" It turns into a disaster.

Rock Band is not a party game - it's a 4-player co-op game. The bassist needs to rely on his band to keep him alive during Panic Attack. The drummer needs to rely on his band to keep him alive when playing Blackened. EVERYONE needs to rely on the vocalist when playing Visions. Bill needs to rely on Zoey to save him when he's pounced by a hunter.

That's right; Rock Band has more in common with Left 4 Dead than any party game. And yet, it's more than that. Someone who likes to play as Francis cannot honestly say that his performance is hampered if he's playing as Louis. However, someone who has been playing guitar on Rock Band for two years probably won't do so well on Drums.

Rock Band is a co-op game that is uniqe in that in addition to every member of the team having their own role, each requires a specific set of skills to accomplish it. No other game even comes close to creating that feeling of being part of a team, AND being special at the same time.

Activision think that Rock Band is a party game. They're wrong. Guitar Hero 5 couldn't have been more off the mark if it had been a turn-based strategy game. People have suggested that Harmonix imitate the party-focused style of Guitar Hero 5, but I hope that they do not listen.

And then Harmonix release The Beatles Rock Band....

I understand their position. Where do you go after a game as successful and ostensibly flawless as Rock Band 2? About all you can do is make it again with more cities and stadiums, but that isn't good enough....

I have heard people suggest that The Beatles Rock Band will help bring an older generation into the world of gaming when they retire and start looking for new ways to entertain themselves. This is a fair point, but there are two problems with it: The first problem is that the older generation WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH VIDEOGAMES. The last thing anyone wants to do when they retire is spend hundreds of dollars on a machine that is difficult operate (I've seen my mother try to play a DVD on my xbox 360...it wasn't pretty) and will probably break or become obsolete in a couple of years. And they are certainly not going to do this on the off-chance that they might enjoy ONE game.

The second problem is slightly more insidious: Trying to win over a difficult to reach audience is more-or-less what prompted the Guitar Hero games to start circling the bowl. The difference is that Activision can afford to keep throwing money at their franchise to keep it afloat, whereas Harmonix cannot. A few missteps and we could very well be saying good-bye to Harmonix, and then where will we be? We'll be playing the exact same thing as the other three guitarists on Guitar Hero 7 - no teamwork, no specialization, just trying to score a longer note streak.

Whatever happens next, the pinnacle of music games is past. It'll all be downhill from here, no matter how realistic the new turntable peripherals are.

[tags: harmonix, activision, rock band, guitar hero, music game, beatles, alex rigopulos]