As of late, there's been a huge hole left in the gaming industry by a severe lack of quality stealth titles. I'm not talking about franchises like Assassin's Creed; those games are more concerned with the art of killing (and a bunch of other stuff) as opposed to actual stealth, especially when compared to games like Thief and Hitman. Even a gargantuan IP like Metal Gear has shown that - despite its outward appearance of being a stealth game - it can quickly dissolve into a third person shooter when prompted (and a ridiculously easy TPS at that). It had me wondering what would become of stealth as a whole; will gaming soon be rid of this excellent genre and merely reduce it to the occasional forced section of a much bigger, more varied project? I believed so and used to fear this thought would become a reality.

Then, to my great surprise, Dishonored appears quite literally out of nowhere. To make it even more shocking, it is exactly what I had hoped for; an absolutely thrilling venture that creates a true stealth experience. While this gem is far from perfect, it does so much right that I believe it will give a helping hand in keeping the stealth genre afloat, at least for a little while longer.

Dishonored takes place in the dystopian city of Dunwall, where an epidemic has broken out that is simply referred to as 'The Plague'. Within the game, not much information is given about the sickness; it had spread through a massive infestation of savage rats, and that succumbing to the disease will result in the loss of basic humanity, turning you into a Weeper (zombie). The protagonist, Corvo Attano, is the former Lord Protector of the Empress of Dunwall and her daughter, Emily. He is framed for the Empress' murder and her daughter's sudden disappearance. After breaking out of prison, Corvo sets out to exact his revenge on those who carried out this injustice, but while doing so, he uncovers that the Plague and the death of the Empress seem to be more than just a series of unfortunate events...

The most noticeable aspect of Dishonored is that it's set in the first person perspective, and is presented in such a way that complements the play style. It is rather dark both in storyline and atmosphere, and the aesthetics help bring the game's feeling of tension to the player; polished environments and attention to detail bring the ominous city to life, and establish an eerily hostile aura. This feeling carries over later on in the game, where you meet certain NPCs that are at first hard to distinguish from being friend or foe.

While Dishonored does present itself quite well it is by no means short of inspiration from other popular titles. It adopts a control scheme and game play elements that are akin to Bioshock: managing and upgrading magic spells, combat and scavenging the environment for supplies all have a very similar feel to the iconic series. However, Dishonored sets itself apart by applying these mechanics to an entirely different situation, which in turns creates an entirely different experience. The primary ability that Corvo gains is the Blink - a spell that allows him to teleport a fixed distance in order to help move from cover to cover, traverse obstacles, and bypass enemies while remaining undetected. As you progress through the game you'll begin to experiment with the ability and a whole window of opportunity opens to the player, which is made possible through open-ended level design; there are a great number of paths and methods to reach your objective. The Blink also helps in the games pacing; timing it just right, you can assassinate a target just as you reach the end of your Blink, which keeps the game flowing, fast paced and generates memorable moments fueling great rushes of adrenaline.

Dishonored does not only hit that sweet spot for stealth, it also balances combat and the spells available to you. While avoiding battle altogether is ultimately the best course of action, there will be some moments where it'll be a necessity for survival. Combat is cleverly dealt with as it should in stealth games; taking on one or two guards at a time will not be much of an issue, but handling 4 or more will prove to be problematic. Ammo for gadgets such as your pistol is scarce and you must be very conservative when using it. Escaping and reconsidering your options will certainly be the smarter way to handle a situation where you've bitten off more than you can chew.

Spells aren't all you have at your disposal: gadgets such as grenades, a crossbow and others help you clear rooms of enemies - if you choose to do so.

As previously suggested, Dishonored has an emphasis on methodical freedom, but actions that you choose to take do have consequences. At the end of each mission, you are rated on how much Chaos you have created; choosing not to kill enemies and rarely being discovered gives you a low Chaos rating, whereas obliterating everything in your path and making yourself a known presence promotes high Chaos. Low Chaos makes characters act more toward your favor when at your home base, and high Chaos not only affects NPC behavior but game play as well; there will be far more rat swarms, Weepers, and guards for you to deal with if you go on too many killing sprees. This also establishes a moral choice system which will have significant effects on the games ending.

While Dishonored is at its very core an excellent addition to the stealth genre, it does have its shortcomings. The aforementioned moral choice system, while at face value is a nice addition to the experience, is more weighted toward not killing your enemies. This does in fact conflict with other elements of the game; there are numerous gadgets and spells at your disposal that allows you to dispatch your enemies, both in flare and efficiency, but the game judges you for using such things despite claiming that it does not. The way characters frown upon your actions and watching events unfold in a darker fashion then subconsciously imposes moral sanctions on the player, incentivizing you to change your ways for a more favorable outcome. This, in turn, conflicts the notion of Dishonored emphasizing freedom - if the game truly did want to give a player complete discretion, choosing to kill targets would not be so frowned upon.

Story elements and most characters in the game are also bland and forgettable, while some had great potential to hold more of a presence but are simply not expanded or well-rounded enough. The Outsider - the mythical being that endows Corvo with his magical abilities - is set up to be an ambiguous character that is neither good nor evil, but never amounts to anything more than an occasional narrator, indicating that you have a lethal and non-lethal way of taking out the key target of your current mission, or recaps actions that you have taken during your playthrough. The Outsider's home world, The Void, is also never adequately elaborated and fails to establish its connection to the real world, despite Corvo making several visits to the floating islands throughout the adventure.

The Outsider, as he appears in The Void. He also makes appearances at shrines built in his honor, to serve as narrative exposition during missions.

The atmosphere that Dishonored constructs so well is also disrupted far too frequently by loading times. During a mission, you can be expected to experience quite a few loading screens if you plan to explore every nook and cranny for power ups, supplies and easter eggs. Striving for low Chaos will also turn the experience into lots and lots of quick saving and reloading; being discovered triggers a combat situation that can only be resolved by either fighting your way out or being an escape artist. However, the latter option becomes nearly impossible late into the game because of much more challenging obstacles and a higher number of guards. These can have a very frustrating effect on the player if you strive to take the no-kill route for the best possible ending.

Even when taking Dishonored's flaws into account, it is a great experience that is well varied and keeps the player going for hours on end. With its open-ended missions, replay value and refined mechanics, it can certainly be a different experience each time you play it, making it a worthy addition not only to the stealth genre, but to gaming as a whole.

8.0

Gamers really can ruin a good game.

More particularly, butthurt gamers who suck at fighting games that remove all enjoyment out of playing. Soul Calibur V has some of the worst players I've ever faced, and that's not talking about skill. Just their attitude.

Even high ranking players whine, complain, and all-round lack any sort of basic understanding of fighting games and what they entail. This is really disappointing and bewildering because Tekken, its sister franchise, has nowhere near as many crybabies.

I just don't understand why anybody would even bother playing if they're just gonna throw a fit whenever they lose. It's childish, and they really don't deserve to play if they're going to act in such a manner.

Strange. Ealier this year, I told a friend of mine that I've never played Bioshock. Since he considered this blasphemous, he let me borrow it. I played for maybe an hour or two, and never really liked it. I just didn't find anything in it to be compelling, and the lack of context from the very beginning of the game put me off because any form of exposition following that just fell flat and failed to impress me. So I stopped playing after I beat the first Big Daddy.

So here comes along Dishonored; a game that I was pretty excited about since E3. I love stealth, but I never liked Bethesda, given that their RPGs always left a bad taste in my mouth. For some reason though, at E3 the game piqued my interest. Surely enough, I bought it. To my surprise, not only has a Bethesda game finally impressed me, it took what Bioshock did but made it feel much better in every way possible (for me, at least).

Imagine that. A Bethesda game that is heavily inspired by Bioshock that I actually enjoy. Surely this is a sign; the world's going to end.

This game is generic as hell. Not a single character is even all that interesting either (with the exception of Red XIII, maybe).

The course of action is basically "Go here. Head north. Head west. Oh sh!t! Sephiroth went that way. Follow him."

Not to mention, Barret has literally summarized the story on a few occasions, "This whole thing doesn't make any damn sense!"

It's as if the game knows how generic yet nonsensical it is. At one point it literally asked me if I wanted Cloud to recap and explain the events that had unfolded so far. It really had to be a joke.

Aeris isn't even someone of interest, which defeats the whole purpose of a character being a love interest.

The only positive aspects I can give is that the combat is definitely functional (though standard and no different from other FF games) and the materia system is good, since it gives you incentive to use it, master it, and many combination possibilities allow you to fight your battles more freely. The soundtrack is also full of pretty memorable tunes; I found myself humming along to songs that I once knew many years ago and gave me that good ol' nostalgia fix.

However, over 12 hours in and I'm still wondering why this game is regarded as one of the best games of all time.

If you're reading this, or even care, there's potential spoiler material, so read at your own risk.

When the tech demo was revealed almost a million years ago showcasing the intro of Final Fantasy VII in nice, shiny current gen graphics, fans of the game have been hungry for a remake ever since. But for whatever reason, despite SE saying that a remake was not their priority and probably never will be, it's been constantly reported as "news" ever since as well, and Gamespot is guilty of that. But when this bit of info was once again regurgitated I decided to go ahead and pop in the first of the three white-and-black discs into my PS2 and begin the game anew, for nostalgic purposes.

All I can say is, it's nowhere near as good as I remember it, which shouldn't be a surprise.

Although, that is quite an unfair judgment of the game since I still haven't left Midgar yet. But a few things just popped out at me, which took away some of its merit from the get-go.

For starters, Cloud's character is incredibly inconsistent, and that's not even including the plot device of Zack's personality and memories being part of his subconcious. I mean honestly; Cloud begins as a cold, self-centered mercenary who "does not care about the Planet" and the struggle "does not concern him". Clearly, he's trying to keep himself distant from any events that are taking place. Later on, he meets up with Aeris (or Aerith if you want to be a purist) and he's ready and willing to protect her, and bring her home safely, without pay, when there hasn't been any sort of character development in between. There are also a few instances where there's literally just an incoherent mess of dialogue on the screen, just to make the game seem deep and ambiguous (I guess). It's honestly just bad writing, I can't describe it any other way. Example:

"You alright?"

Cloud: "...Yeah..."

"Back then...you could get by with just skinned knees..."

"What do you mean by 'back then...?"

"What about now? Can you get up?"

"What do you mean by 'that time' [even though the voice never said 'that time']? ...What about now?"

"...Don't worry about me, just worry about yourself now [even though Cloud's question wasn't about the voice's well-being]."

-

^ I honestly wouldn't have caught anything from that if I didn't have prior knowledge of the game's story. I don't know if it was a mistranslation or what, but that just left me with a mix of laughter and confusion.

You may think I'm just nitpicking but between Cloud's inconsistency and the dodgy dialogue, I've been put off, and it's probably because the game fails to make its story interesting in the beginning, and it honestly feels like a chore going from point A to point B.

Also related to FFVII; there's this hiiiiiilaaaarious web comic called Final Fantasy VII: The Sevening which is an exaggerated take on the ridiculousness of some of the game's plot holes, inconsistencies, and mistranslations (plus there are plenty of cameos from iconic characters from other games). Go on, read it. Seriously.

Don't know if I'll make updates on this while I make progress, but I think I'm going to have a grand time taking FFVII in more critically, as opposed to my first playthrough when I was young, and was simply amazed by any damn game that was thrown at me.

Boy, have I not felt such reluctance to play a game in a very long time. Just from seeing the previews and game play videos I wasn't all that excited for Soul Calibur V. I mean, whoever's making all of the deicisions up at Project Soul needs to sit down.

My main problem isn't the aesthetics or character design, because much like Soul Calibur IV, V is very pretty, and I was never particularly bothered by the art direction that's been more or less consistent over the years. I must admit that SC IV and V are 2 of the best-looking games I've ever seen on consoles. But of course graphical quality is not why anyone would play a game. No sir, my problem is the fact that Soul Calibur always seems to make 2 steps forward and ten steps back in terms of overall progress as a series since Soul Calibur II. With any good aspect they implement they always fxck it up somehow; it's almost as if they do it on purpose.

Soul Calibur V has taken a different route and is taking influence from Tekken (it's sister fighting franchise) and Street Fighter IV. Not so much from Tekken than SF however, the only thing they've taken from Tekken are open arenas. They have, however, nerfed characters in terms of the amount of moves they have in their command list, and have taken a more minimalistic approach like Street Fighter does. Super moves and 'Edge Attacks' have also been introduced.

In all honesty I don't know how I feel about this, other than the fact that I'm continuing to lose faith in the series. As of right now I feel as if IV is better than V but both are completely blown out of the water by II. III is more or less that awkward middle child that no one really cares about.

Also, how the hell do you replace Siegfried with Patroklos (pictured above) as the main character? The guy's a pushover. And I swear 'justice' is the only word in his vocabulary. Not saying that Siegfried's is any better (I mean honestly all he ever does is plead for forgiveness) but it's nowhere near as annoying. Besides, Siegfried just looks cooler. And he sure as hell would hand Pat's ass to him on a silver platter in a fight. I've yet to play the story mode of this game because of this, but that's just me being childish.

In more positive news, I'm really excited for XCOM: Enemy Unkown. I'm not entirely sure why, but it looks promising. I'm yearning for something fresh, and a turn based strategy game just might be what I'm looking for. It'll also give me a chance to get my strategy fix ever since I stopped playing Final Fantasy Tactics and Front Mission's 3 and 4.

If anyone is interested, here's the Deep Dive trailer.

It seems to be heavily influenced by 90's Square strategy games (much like FF Tactics and Front Mission) but with a western twist. It has the appeal of an action game but with the same good qualities of TBS. I may even be crazy enough to say it'll be my game of the year when it finally comes out.

Given that I spend quite a bit of my time playing fighting games, I figure I'll discuss a few things that come up every now and then in conversation. If you know me well enough you would know that the fighting genre is indeed my favorite of them all, and that it's appropriate since the very first game I played was Street Fighter 2. This is especially amusing since it was the same game that established the genre. I say established as opposed to created because it's often argued that no-name titles on the Commodore 64 and such from the early 80's implemented the key aspects of what makes a fighting game. The problem with that however, is that the genre didn't exist until Street Fighter 2 hit the gaming market. This isn't to say that every fighting game needs to emulate Street Fighter, but the fundamental aspects of it need to be present. The purpose of me writing this is to show what a fighting game is, why I feel they are of great importance to gaming, and what is unfortunately going wrong with recent installments of some franchises.

A common misconception of fighting games is that all that one needs in order to be in the genre is, quite simply, fighting; regardless of form and core game play. I'm pointing the finger towards games such as Super Smash Bros., Power Stone and others of that sort, but I'll examine Smash Bros. in this case.

As mentioned earlier, to be able to fit in the fighting genre a game needs to have certain aspects that are more or less inspired from Street Fighter 2. These few aspects include:

·Auto lock-on. Now, it is not what it may sound like, since I doubt anyone refers to this as a 'lock-on' mechanic. What I mean by this is, when two characters are battling each other, they (almost) always face each other, no matter where they are standing on the playing field, and this in turn, affects how the player moves.Horizontal movements on the D-Pad (or control stick) correspond to toward and away, not left and right.

·A life bar, or something of such nature, that represents a finite amount of health/stamina for the player (an obscure exception would be the Bushido Blade series, which lacks any status icons).

·Items and/or arenas that in no way dictate the outcome of a battle due to random chance, or sequential environmental change. There's a clear difference between environment interaction and an arbitrarily hostile environment.

·All game play is done on a 2D plain, or in cases of 3D fighters, the '3D' is the ability to sidestep (Once again, Bushido Blade being an exception, which cleverly executed environment exploration with 3D fighting mechanics).

Knowing these four factors, it becomes quite clear that Super Smash Bros. is in fact not part of the genre, but part of a (unofficial) subgenre known as 'brawlers' (which is exactly how it refers to itself; Super Smash Bros. Brawl). Movement is implemented as left and right, there's an incredible arsenal of items and weapons to use in battle (which drastically change the pace of the fight), character move-sets aren't affected by their position on the field, and we all know that the Smash Bros. series is all about crazy environments. What's most interesting about it though, is its damage percentage system, and how it works. Your percentage increases as you take damage, and the higher the percentage means the farther away you can get knocked back, with the end objective being to knock your opponent off-screen, either to score points or decrease their stock lives, or whatever the case may be. It's a concept I've never seen in any other game, but what makes it interesting is that it works, not because of the game itself (i.e. a life bar), but because of human incentive. It works because of the assumption that, in this competitive situation, players will try to knock their opponents off-screen, but in reality, it's a very flawed system to use, despite it's creativity. If players make the conscious decision, battles would never finish or always end in a draw, because it's perfectly possible to hit your opponent with light attacks that aren't powerful enough to send them flying, thus making character 'life' infinite. It's that gaping hole in the system design (which is essentially up to the player to fill) that further prevents the Smash Bros. series from being considered a true fighting game, if its other aspects weren't enough.

So, following that, some examples of fighters are:

2D

·Street Fighter

·BlazBlue

·Marvel vs Capcom

·Mortal Kombat

·Capcom vs SNK

·Darkstalkers

·King of Fighters

3D

·Tekken

·Soul Edge/Calibur

·Dragonball Z Budokai

·Bloody Roar

·Virtua Fighter

·Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance/Deception

·Dead or Alive

Fighting games are widely considered to be redundant and limited in gaming, since the formula is very basic and not much can be done to keep them fresh other than coming up with original engines. I find that baffling since we're currently in the age of multiplayer gaming, which is what fighters are made for. The only difference between fighters and most other multiplayer experiences is that there are no elements in the arena that can determine your victory other than you. It depends entirely on your skills to win a match. In other genres like shooters for example, you have you, your teammates (and the number usually lies between 7 and 11 of them, which is introduces a whole spectrum of variables in itself), maps with different terrain and obstacles, weapons, environmental changes and the list goes on. There are a lot more variables in other multiplayer experiences that can affect that outcome of a match. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, but that's what highlights the beauty of fighting games, and is probably the reason why it doesn't have a large consumer base. It's simple, straightforward, and depends entirely on your ability to handle situations in a one-on-one match.Not to mention, they have a difficulty curve that's far greater than other genres, mainly due to learning command lists and technical aspects of their systems, which leads me to my next point; the fighting genre is one of the few that still holds some sort of difficulty and challenge players. While it is expected that any veteran of the genre will be able to master a game relatively quickly, it is still perfectly accessible to those unfamiliar, only that in today's market, games are expected to hold your hand and merely take you on a tour. It's the fundamental difference in nature that makes fighters important to gaming as a whole, and they should continue to thrive in the industry. They offer a bit of variety; a breath of fresh air from the norm.

Now what I find special about the fighting genre is that it's one of the few that hasn't changed much fundamentally since it first came about, however that doesn't mean it hasn't been affected by the gaming Zeitgeist. With the direction that mainstream gaming is going toward in recent times, fighters are, largely, no longer reviewed just by the quality of their engines, fighting mechanics or physics, but a rather unnecessary focus is also put on their roster numbers, special effects, cinematics and worst of all, their stories. This is what cripples the production of new titles. What needs to be understood is that the fighting genre is a unique case; it is widely known, but it isn't exactly popular. It's a niche market. What developers have been doing in (the later part of) the last decade is trying to make them more accessible to the non-fighting audience, only in the wrong areas. It's a perfectly reasonable endeavor, but the genre is suffering because of it.

Now, the main problem with today's fighters is their attempt to integrate a story, since gamers of today apparently need a story in order to be motivated to play any game (which I personally think is a load of nonsense, in the case for most multiplayer games in general). This wasn't a problem before; most fighting games did have stories behind them, but they weren't an aspect that had much focus, if at all ? now it is completely different, and I'll be looking at the console port of Tekken 6 as my main example.

If you didn't know this before, Tekken is the #1 most popular 3D fighter, and rightfully so. It's accessible, yet technical, and balanced. Tekken had always been mostly about the fighting, with little hints of a backstory with short clips of character endings after you beat the arcade mode. It never really served much purpose however, other than an amusing clip to watch, and this was fairly consistent until Tekken 6 came out. With this installment, not only did they include a scenario campaign, but it also has over 40 identical missions to complete, lengthy cut-scenes, and to top it off, even the two protagonists (Lars and Alissa) are dull, uninteresting, and just feel out of place. It wouldn't be such a problem if this campaign didn't account for more than half than the overall content of the game (and if it was actually fun). Character customization is also impossible unless you play scenario campaign missions to acquire money, so the game forces you to play this half-baked, monotonous dribble if you wish to change your favorite character's look.

The question is, why would they include such a crappy mode? And the answer is simple: to cater to the alienated market. But this is a dangerous thing to do, since not only does it fail to impress fighting veterans, those unfamiliar won't be either. And to what end? To attempt to satisfy those who 'need' a story to play a multiplayer based game? It's ridiculous. It's like asking your opponent to set up a tragic story in order for you to play chess. You don't need a story to play chess, you just play it. So why is it that, when it comes to video games, something as simple as a fighter needs some convoluted plot just to punch someone in the face? It's unnecessary, and a waste of a few million dollars. Tekken is definitely not the only fighter guilty of wasting resources on a paper-thin story. But the only reason why fighters were never good at delivery of stories is because of their very nature; they're simple. They don't require a story for context. It's similar to Pacman. No one ever questions why Pacman needed to mindlessly eat pellets and was chased around by ghosts, so why question the principles of fighting games? It's dumbfounding, to say the least.

The one fighter that I have grown to respect the most is Virtua Fighter. This is because it is the most beautifully designed, most demanding, and most innovative fighter of them all. And this is all because it has no story. Without any distractions from implementation of a story, it has been able to develop their characters to the point that each one requires full attention of a player, due to the richness of their fighting ****. It would quite honesty be too time consuming to master more than two or three characters. The problem is that this is a double-edged sword; due to its lack of story, it excels in the actual fighting, but even veterans of the fighting genre are alienated to an extent because of it's learning curve. It is well above the quality of the Tekken series, or any other 3D fighter for that matter. But it is undermined because it is seen as too intricate, and this is only due to the delusion of fighting games 'needing' a story.

My only hope for the genre is that it at least keeps coming out with new, interesting and hard-hitting titles, and it would be even better if we saw more IPs. It's best for the genre to at least stay where it is, as opposed to keep moving further in the wrong direction.

There's something about Batman: Arkham City that really just feels good. But not just good, pretty damn good. It's been a really long time since I've played a sandbox game that's kept me playing it even after I've finished the story objectives, and to even complete the side missions as well. It's a nearly perfect balance of combat and stealth with a great variation of gadgets and methods to take out your enemies, sometimes to the point where the amount of choices you have may even feel overwhelming. To top it off the game has an overall tone similar to that of The Dark Knight film and many of the elements reminiscent of Batman: The Animated Series. All in all, Arkham City is a game that does more than do justice to Batman as a franchise; it is also perfectly accessible to consumers that aren't a part of the fan base. Of course there are flaws that somewhat cripple the game in key aspects, however.

There are two rather notable disadvantages of this review of Arkham City and those are: A) I haven't played its predecessor, Arkham Asylum and B), I haven't downloaded Catwoman since I didn't find it worth the $10 asking price. These two things will obviously lead to the puzzle missing a few pieces but I don't feel it's that big of a problem (or it might, who knows). So, for the purposes of this review I'm going to look at Arkham City as a stand-alone game and I'm going to pretend that Catwoman is no more than some cleavage for you to gawk at.

Arkham City itself is a section of Gotham with a huge wall built around it (set up by evil bearded scientist, Hugo Strange) and all of Gotham's most notorious and not-so notorious criminals are all dumped there to duke it out and see who can gain control. Naturally gang warfare ensues with the most predominant gangs belonging to the Joker and Penguin. Two-Face does have a following as well but he has so little screen time that his presence is easily forgettable, which leads me to point out the first flaw of Arkham City; there are just too many villains mentioned and/or dealt with over the course of the adventure and it leads to a degree of disappointment. Aforementioned, along with a number of villains having little screen time, some play roles that are so menial that it really just doesn't feel worth having them in the game altogether. Secondly, it also raises the question of exactly how all of these baddies were managed to be rounded up and put in the same hell-hole. What's an even more perplexing thought is how did Strange even gain so much power that he could just command his troops to swoop in and throw Bruce Wayne into the mix (who was merely campaigning against Arkham City)? These are the kinds of questions that imply 2 possible answers, first being blatant plot holes, and second being the setup for a sequel (and it's more than likely to be the latter).

Despite these glaringly obvious issues, Arkham City's story is no short of decent. All of the events which take place are fitting for Batman, and it really shows how Rocksteady took very good care in development and capturing the essence of Batman. There is no one moment where you think "Wait, Batman wouldn't do that?"

When it comes to sandbox games, it's important to implement methods of movement which are reasonably fast and enjoyable to use, since you'll be spending quite a lot of your time getting from point A to point B. On the ground, Batman can walk stiffly with the control stick, and you hold down the A button to run. I never particularly like this as opposed to an auto-run feature in sandboxes because it hinders the flow of movement to a certain extent. Arkham City employs an almost parkour-type of movement system and it feels unnatural to hold down a button to run. This is especially apparent when grappling and gliding from building to building. When you're in the air you can glide and use your grappling hook to traverse through Arkham City. For a certain length of time in the game this can be hindering to movement because nothing feels like it flows, and quite often times you might grab onto ledges or street lights that you weren't aiming for. This is remedied however later in the game if you complete a side mission which gives you the Grapnel Boost, where gliding and grappling become more intuitive. Arkham City's movement mechanics are more or less the opposite of what good controls for a sandbox should be. The Crackdown series would be a good example of fun, smooth roaming with excellent platforming; you didn't feel a shift, regardless if you were roaming the streets, scaling buildings, hopping along rooftops or gliding. Arkham City feels as if its control scheme isn't built for a sandbox. What it has is definitely functional, but it could have been a lot better.

Interestingly though, the combat in Arkham City is all about flow, hence why the system itself is called "Free Flow Combat". Initially, this system may seem confusing because it goes against the normal conventions of combat systems. Generally, once you're in a brawl the first thing you're most likely to do is start mashing the controller to see which buttons do what; you'll be successful in finding which buttons do their corresponding actions, but you wouldn't be too successful in beating your enemies. Button mashing doesn't suit the free flow system at all - rather it focuses on finesse and accuracy to take out your enemies. Once you gain a feel for the combat, it then becomes all the more enticing. Batman takes down enemies and counters their attacks in creative, acrobatic and often brutal ways. This makes it not only fun but satisfying as well. One very pleasant surprise on my first playthrough was that Batman quite often uses the environment during fights (i.e. bashing a thug's head on a wall to knock them out). The system emphasizes 'flow' to the point where everything is seemingly effortless to pull off, which is what makes it so unique and gratifying. The ability to quickfire gadgets during battles also adds a huge level of depth to your strategy; you can freeze enemies on the spot, knock down enemies farther away with your Batarangs, or use your explosive gel to knock down multiple enemies at once. Once you defeat a group of enemies you gain experience points and level up, which will allow you to upgrade your Batsuit, learn special moves and upgrade gadgets.

Combat shines the most when you're surrounded by a ridiculous amount of enemies (which the game does for you quite often) and a challenge is presented to you; there are various amounts of weapons and defenses you'll have to overcome. This then demands that you prioritize and plan the way you'll beat this challenge, since it is sometimes very difficult to regain your stature if you're hit by an enemy. Once your flow is broken it is crucial that re-think your strategy, which makes winning a battle feel more rewarding.

Arkham City almost flawlessly blends stealth and combat together. Although Batman may have no problem taking down enemies with hammers, pipes or bladed weapons, enemies equipped with firearms are a completely different ball-game. The game employs a 'Detective Mode' which allows you see the number of thugs in a room, and marks which are armed with guns. There are instances in the game where you find yourself in a room with just armed thugs and you'll have to take each one out individually (or even two at once, given the right conditions). There are virtually endless ways for you to neutralize your enemies; numerous gadgets and the environment can be used to your advantage. Gargoyles in particular are a valuable asset for you to use. They're used as tactical vantage points to observe the area, and plan for which thug you want to take out first. What's impressive is that the enemy AI isn't stupid; if you're discovered on one of these vantage points they won't hesitate to destroy them. They also become more aware of the environment in other ways, for example if you take down a thug from a ledge, enemies will check ledges while approaching them, preventing you from exploiting that one tactic. One other key element you can use to your advantage is the mental state of the enemy. Thugs start off calm, and then when they discover an unconscious inmate (or you) they become nervous. When you pick off other enemies one by one, they steadily go from a state of nervousness to terror, which can then allow you to use 'scare tactics' and watch your prey shake and look away in fear when they see you up close. These stealth sequences are also complemented quite nicely with dramatic music, which makes you feel the tension in the risk of being discovered.

What makes Arkham City (or any game for that matter) good is not only its mechanics but its overall atmosphere and aesthetics as well. As mentioned in the beginning of this review I said that the look and feel of the game is similar to that of the blockbuster movie, The Dark Knight, with musical scores to complement it. Arkham City is a place of ruin, but one that once held great history. The game lets you explore and find out the history of Arkham City through Riddler's secrets, which emulates the feeling of being in the world of the Caped Crusader. To add to the aestheticism of Arkham City, several of the original voice actors from Batman: The Animated Series, and many memorable themes from the show are evident. This adds to the game's merit, making it a more than welcome addition to the legacy of Batman. Naturally, the game incorporates mostly darker colors, which I would normally dislike but is fitting for a Batman game. The visuals are stunning, and a nice feature which adds to your adventure is the damage done to your suit. Over the course of the game, remnants from previous battles are left as cuts, bruises and tears in your Batsuit, and by the end of the night, Batman looks like hell.

Given that the actual story missions for Arkham City won't keep you occupied for very long, the side missions do make up for it, with the Riddler being the main attraction. What makes them enjoyable is that each one is unique, as opposed to most games where they would include the same fetch quest, just collecting a different item for a different faction, or whatever the case may be. They give way to the more deductive side of Batman ? showcasing his ability to solve problems with tactics other than punching people in the face or breaking their bones. Not that any of the side missions that involve a little thinking are difficult, but it's nice to have some instances where you're working to solve a crime or puzzle, or find and destroy the TITAN containers.

The Riddler plays a big role in Arkham City, which means that (if you're bothered) most of your play time will be devoted to gathering his trophies, solving his riddles and completing challenges, to ultimately save those who he's held hostage. There are a total of 400 secrets for Batman to discover. After saving the first hostage, and if you've found enough secrets, you'll be given the location of the next hostage after you solve one of his riddles from the Enigma Machine. Catching the Riddler will involve you doing numerous challenges to collect trophies, some demanding more creative and cunning ways to retrieve them. Each Riddler challenge you complete unlocks collectables, such as concept art, character trophies, character biographies, and more. The sheer amount of content in the game that is unlocked through the Riddler side mission makes you almost feel obliged to collect all of the secrets, which is the subtle genius behind the concept. The Riddler also has a number of challenge rooms, where there are two types to test your combat and stealth skills. These are (appropriately) more challenging than the rooms you'd find while playing the story, and scores and recorded and put up on the leaderboards to show who's the best. You are also awarded medals by meeting certain requirements, which allow you to become more versatile in combat and stealth, thus improving overall.

As a whole, Batman: Arkham City is an exciting adventure that is cleverly designed to keep you playing for hours on end. With the excellent free flow combat and stealth, and an atmosphere in which you can be completely absorbed in, it easily overshadows its flaws and it is definitely a game that you must play.

Score.

Every time I go down memory lane, I come closer and closer to the realization that life really is nothing more than a race against time, and every waking moment you waste doing absolutely nothing other than getting fatter, instant messaging or crying about something absolutely insignificant really is something that should be regretted. Every second of every day ticks away literally as a time bomb, ticking until that day you meet your timely - or untimely - demise. So why look at the past when with every second that goes by, it's gone; it no longer exists...Surely any logical form of thinking would deter one from looking back on the past for it would appear pointless. But hindsight brings...comfort. Something so surreal that a person just can't help but think of how simple, how pure and innocent life really was. With that simplicity came true happiness - happiness that didn't require any arbitrary 'needs' or 'wants' - happiness that we felt simply because that we were...alive. We weren't hindered by these obligations that society demands from us as late teenagers onward. Nothing to mislead and deceive us as to what's really important to the psyche. But...what about the future, one asks? Irrelevant. Just as every passing second may keep you alive, any passing second may be your last. Life is indeed a commodity that seemingly has no real structure other than the base it thrives on. But even that in itself is a mysterious and perplexing configuration that doesn't really seem to give a damn about an individual. All the more reason to cherish the present more than anything else, for anything behind you and anything ahead of you is unretrievable at that moment, and as days go by you build from your experiences to better yourself for the next eccentric episode of the present. Then it becomes a memory, and the cycle continues.

Well. I pretty much disappeared off the face of the planet. Well, not really, but I did disappear off Gamespot. There is a reason for that. Or might not be...Who knows.

In any case, I realized that my presence on this site is non-existant, so I'll try to start using Gamespot again more often. So, to those who remember me, and to those who's forgotten about me, I'm back. :p It's been over a year. Damn.