So, along with the great masses beside me, I've put on an olive hoodie as a Halo: Reach Beta-Tester.

My first thoughts?

Well... my VERY first thought is: Why are they claiming to have changed anything?

Because there is nothing about it that feels terribly different from any previous Halo multiplayer. Load-outs? Are you kidding me? There isn't much variety in the load-outs and, much of the time, the only real difference between them is what armor ability you are taking. What's that? How can I mention armor abilities after saying nothing is different? Well, because the armor abilities themselves are just replacements for pick-/power-ups that we previously knew and, really, who in their right mind thinks that running or diving for cover (that's Sprint and Evade for you slow people) is something that should count as a special ability? New maps and game types? Invasion stands out here as a shining beacon of freshness to the Halo recipe but nothing else even comes close.

The weapons haven't really changed either. A few adjustments scattered around but nothing worth giving more than a shrug to. And I'm not sure why so many people are talking about how different melee is. "You have to knock their shields down first." Um... you always had to before too. Which is why the old approach of softening with the AR as you close for a (hopefully) well-timed punch is still the most common method of getting a kill.

Beyond that?

Well, being that it still feels much like every other Halo multiplayer, I find it very ponderous. Not in the way that you will hear other people describe it at "slow" when they complain about movement speed or killing someone compared to Modern Warfare or Bad Company but in the actual handling of the game and how it effects pacing for me. Because whining about how "slow" Halo is often comes as a direct result of being killed when "it shouldn't have happened!!" and not any real lacking in the game itself. The problem, as I see it, is that just shooting at your target gets by in other games whereas Halo's system shrugs off the "unskilled" spray-n-pray or snap-fire kills. You have to do more than just hit to maximise damage, so the division between who is really skilled and who is just playing is extremely blatant.

There is far less handicap in Halo multiplayer and people hate to realize, let alone admit, that they aren't quite as good as their performance in other games may infer. For me, I expect a game to be fun and it isn't very fun to spend most of my time getting gunned down because I don't spend as much time devoted to playing as some people. The fact that they will seem to claim great glory from this disparity just makes it even less fun.

As for Reach itself, the "new" features really seem under-developed/-utilized.

Loadouts still leave the tried and true Halo factor of memorizing where key weapons are on each map and rushing to control them. Being able to actually have some say in the weapons available to me allows me to overcome some differences in skill by selecting equipment that I am better with or, at the very least, have more fun using. It really just offsets the fact that the pros were going to beat me to the weapons they wanted anyway and gives me a bit more of a fighting chance. Since Reach is already using a credit system to unlock armor permutation, why not expand that concept to unlocking what is available for selection in your loadouts?

Armor abilities, as I said before, really aren't very innovative, being mostly rehashes of things we could always do. Sprint and Evade should be standard parts of the game. Really. The Jet Pack and Armor Lock aren't so bad as they can end up being their own worst enemies at times, exposing you to straightforward and uncomplicated responses. As much as the slightest movment undoes Cloaking, scrambling sensors is idiotic. So now everyone knows that you are there... defeating the purpose of Cloaking... AND you can't use your sensor either, making it easier for someone to sneak up on YOU. Personally, I'd prefer to see Sprint and Evade pulled out into regular movement and replace them with a regenerator of sorts (stop in place like Armor Lock but regain lost Health) and extra ammo (either a passive, you spawn with and pick up more ammo or another Armor Lock to replenish current stocks).

As for the weapons, the variety is nice and there are lots of fun options but the balance can be awe-inspiring. The magnum seems to be back to its CE performance levels, which is surprising given that it was nerfed for Halo 2. The shotgun seems to have gotten a boost too, since I always die the second time I hear it fire no matter what the distances involved in those two shots. Melee is still just as retarded as it has always been and despite some minor changes that includes the sword and hammer being grossly overpowered. The fact that you can parry the sword now, while neat, is ultimately stupid as it is inconsequential... since they're just going to swing at you again and your odds of another parry are low. The new grenade launcher can be fun but getting use to the rather unreasonable bouncing of the grenades can be a headache. The plasma launcher is likewise entertaining to use but the time it takes to get a lock-on with enough shots to make a difference makes it likewise headachey to use. Finally, grenades seem a lot stronger, both in damage and radius as well as how easily plasma's seem to stick now. More grenades would be fun, to me, since I liked using flame to discourage advancement and some other "utility" grenades like smoke or EMP could be fun.

Overall, Reach will be another Halo game that I get and play predominantly for the campaign while my multiplayer time will be very limited.

Getting on with more of my "How do I feel about the games I got from GameFly in the past year" topic, I was about to sit down to write about Star Wars: The Force Unleashed... then I read the GameSpot Review of it.

There isn't really a whole lot more to say and there are no points of contention anywhere to be seen. I loved the game's intro, both in terms of getting to step into the boots of Vader (who, btw, does NOT run... he just doesn't) for all of the fun that entails but also because it was a good way to teach you the game AND show you what powers you had to look forward too. Malek made for a great character and his development over the story was a perfect exploration of Light and Dark, to me. The gameplay was very nice, even with the occasional irritations brought on by confined camera or the targeting issues it tended to create.

I'd love to get a look at the additional content in the Ultimate Sith Edition and TFU II, even if it is one of those 'no improvements, just more content' kind of sequels will certainly be on my wish list.

After a month of TFU, Too Human fell into my hands. As always, I tend to start with the GameSpot Review for something resembling inspiration.

Again, it was a very clear, concise, comprehensive, and... most importantly to me... reasonable review. Honestly, I feel a little dirty for how much I enjoyed Too Human. For all of its problems (and there are a LOT to complain about), I had fun regardless. I suppose it helps that I already knew the Norse mythology behind the story concept and was being dragged along by my desire to see how they re-interpreted the next bit. I cannot agree more that the Valkyrie death animation, while stunning, was an insanely stupid choice to implement and that the gunplay was terribly unrewarding. All-in-all, EVERYTHING needs improvement for obviously intended but as yet unspoken of sequel... but I'd love to SEE that sequel.

That counts for something in my book.

One more in this batch: Operation Darkness. Same pattern as always but with an uncharacteristic emerging trend, the GameSpot Review once again covered everything that I would want to say. This trio of gems all belong to Kevin VanOrd, so at least there's someone on the ball on the GS staff. Even if it's only one person...

The first line is completely perfect and sparks off a paragraph that is a clear summary of the game. Operation Darkness is unattractive and ungainly... but not quite unappealing. I tried out the demo some time ago, added it to my GameFly list because I HAD to try the full game, and quickly realized that renting it wouldn't cut it. So I bought it.

The time investment is tremendous. Each mission, even once you get use to playing, will take you a hour or more. Trying to rush things is often costly, in terms of casualties, which can lead you to try again rather than swallow the loss. What's worse, if one of your few key characters is lost, instant restart. After this happens a few times, you learn not to take gambles, especially when you see the end in reach (or think you see it, since some of those missions are sneaky). You can save in the middle of a mission but coming back to such a situation after some time away can be troublesome as you try to remember what strategy you or your opponent were using.

And here I sit, thinking about these things that drive me nuts and desperately avoiding convincing my daughter to go watch her DVD in her room so that I can have my Xbox free to play again...

That siren's call has to count for something. Doesn't it?

It has been far too long. As always, with me, there was just too much going on and not enough time to spare detailing what little gaming I was doing. But the other trend is that I always come back and try to catch-up.

So let's get on with that...

The easiest place is looking over my GameFly history and playing "Remember When...", hopefully memory provides something of worth:

Mercenaries 2: World in Flames

An idea of pure, perfect insight. Watch people play GTA. What do they always end up doing? Right. They cause random havoc while giggling at the chaos they cause. No matter who they are or how dedicated to completing the storyline, they will always end up in moments of grinning devastation. Now, I can't say that Pandemic saw this trend and acted on it, but Mercenaries 2 ended up delivering far more satisfying ability to revel in that sort of thing while still providing a fun progression to follow between your moments of mayhem.

Let's start with the GameSpot Review. I don't understand some of these "professionals" sometimes... I really don't. An absurd quest for vengeance? If that's a bad thing then why is it a video game staple, the basis upon which a great many supposedly successful games are built? There is nothing wrong with Mercenaries 2's story that hasn't been seen elsewhere, including GTA IV where ole Niko's absurd quest for vengeance and resulting hijinx earned him an Editor's Choice. Bad voice acting? Where? Sorry, Aaron, but the voices were just fine.

While the gunplay isn't extremely satisfying, this is an Action/Adventure game and not a Shooter, so why would you expecting stunningly accurate depictions of weapons? And, contrary to what is stated, it isn't that hard at all to follow and take down targets. Inconsistent damage? Gameplay was comfortable enough for me not to be troubled to do a statistical analysis of the damage I was dealing. And, go figure, military vehicles aren't a snap to destroy. Who would have guessed? While I love the tear-jerking commentary on the lack of high-explosive ordinance, because how DARE the game not let us just use rockets to kill EVERYTHING, that last bit with the complaints about shops is my favorite. Is he for real? Can he DO that? I mean... to follow complaining that the weapons aren't realistic enough with a complaint that you can't just walk into a store to buy them quick and easy?

Next, and let me get this straight, we complain about the size of the world and there not being enough in it? I hate to keep comparing to GTA IV but the games really are too similar in features to just pass these examples by. News flash, folks, there is just as much to do in one as the other. In terms of moving around the world, playing in the sandbox, and finding missions... the two games are identical in function. Even to the point of it being the player's prerogative to go run amok in the sandbox rather than make the sometimes lengthy and poorly directed drive to their next mission objective. In the end, World in Flames' rendition of Venezuela is much smaller and easier to navigate than most of the GTA cities. It takes more than a stray bullet to destroy your relationship with any of the game's factions, not sure where Aaron gets that or that random friendly soldiers shooting at you bit. Doesn't happen.

Unless you are an idiot and rolling around in a rival factions vehicles, pretending to be them.

As for the information about the NPCs... I never had any difficulties dropping airstrikes that were not easily (and reasonably) explained by having drawn attention to myself before trying. It is insanely hilarious that there are complaints that you have to gather parts for the mechanic. Because things should just come for free, right? No need to put forth any effort to earn them? What's more... you have to find and acquire munitions for your airstrikes and fuel and money just the same way. Why no complaints about those things?

I love this next part so much, I have to directly quote it: "Mercenaries 2 purports to give you all sorts of freedom when it comes to how you exact your revenge, but in reality, your choices are few. Yes, there are different factions and groups spread out across the map, but typically only one of them has a contract that will help advance the storyline, and you can get nearly to the end of the game before having to pick one side over another"

So... he is implying that the game claims to give you freedom but actually doesn't right before he makes a statement that tells you that you can do whatever you want before you have to lock into a path. Are you with me here? How can you have few choices whenever you can take whatever action you like? The statement isn't blatantly contradictory, but man how ridiculous...

While the AI is not particularly gifted, I have never had them not search me out or just stand there. I have never experienced most of that paragraph describing the bevvy of bugs and problems. Yes, I have seen some odd things happen with clipping and objects doing goofy things in the world but I can say the same of GTA IV and many other games too. Is it acceptable? Not if it happens all of the time, which Mercenaries 2 does not. Again, there isn't anything in this aspect that World in Flames does not share similar games and it wasn't the end of the world with those, so why so much attention and importance here?

Bottom line, it isn't a massively impressive game and it doesn't deserve kudos heaped upon it. For all of my comparisons to GTA IV, it is the lesser game in every measurable way. The engine is weaker, the imagery less impressive, the sound quality not a high, the story not as immersive, and the overall gameplay not as satisfying. But being less than a great game doesn't mean that it is a bad one and many of the complaints leveled in the GS review are unsound at best.

If more than a month of silence doesn't say it, things didn't get any less busy. Stressing over work and home has meant little desire write about stuff. Hopefully that changes...

I have waded through almost a half-dozen Gamefly rentals since my last entry. Which is actually a bad thing... the turn-around was so fast because they sucked so bad. Seriously, what I needed was to relax and really crappy games just don't allow that.

I started the trend with Condemned 2: Bloodshot. I'll admit it, I didn't play it for very long. While the ability to grab nearly anything from the environment and beat the snot out of my foes was awesome at first, it quickly lost its appeal. I didn't think it handled well and though it certainly wasn't sub-par in the graphics or sound categories, it didn't really shine either. It felt like the design rested too heavily on the shock factor, which seemed rather lame to me.

The disappointment stumbled downhill from there.

Turning Point: Fall of Liberty intrigued me, despite the poor GS score and review, and after playing the demo, I really wanted to know more. I forced myself to play it through and while there were fun moments (usually the environmental kills), these were few and far between. Everything else about the game was lacking, from the graphics and sound to gameplay. The design team really dropped the ball, wasting the potential their alternate history gave them and delivering an unexciting story.

I had really thought a Turning Point series, where similar alternate stories could be told would be a great, fun idea... but any possibility of that being well received is probably ruined now.

Next was Wartech: Senko Ronde. Yeah, I don't know what the heck I was thinking. I mean, I saw it at local resellers for $10... that should have told me something. But it just called to me and I was doomed to experience it. There's nothing here. At all. It's a very bad arcade-like fighting shooter kinda mess with the implication of a story and depth but no delivery. I returned it the very next day, a new record.

Remaining masochistic, I popped in Vampire Rain next. Again, with all of the negative surrounding the game, I should have known better than to invest any hope in it. I may as well have gotten a bikini wax for all of the fun I had. Another game that wastes such awesome potential. Why the hell even give the character guns in this game, honestly. I never reached a point where I could use them to do anything but startle the birds. The entire premise of the game leaks like a siv whenever it takes combined assault rifle fire from a four-man spec ops team to take down even a single vampire and yet their preferred tactic is to split up individually. It is really more of a puzzle game, where you must figure out the single path through the obstacles to your objective and then follow that line.

Thankfully, Timeshift began a salvage operation. It was another game that intrigued me and I wanted to see what it had going for it. This time, I was not so terribly let down. The graphics and sound were great, the controls were generally efficient, the engine handled wonderfully, and the story fairly good. The time controls were a bit clunky, making for difficulty in some tight moments and preventing some truly devious tactics. Add to it that the handful of time-based tricks to progress changed very little in application, using them felt stale after a while.

Come to think of it, it actually reminded me of playing Assassin's Creed in many ways, including the annoying cliffhanger of an ending blatantly leading to a sequel.

We hadn't gotten a game that Kim wanted in a while, so she bumped Tomb Raider: Legend up the list since she never had a chance to play it before and was nearing the end of Tomb Raider: Anniversary (she actually just beat it as I was typing this).

Anyway, there's a buckshot of mini-reviews that I doubt I will have the energy to do full write-ups for. Just don't have the time lately...

Is that too many :'s in the title?

Anyway, I've been quiet of late with a lot on my plate and a sinus infection thrown in for "flavor" but Gamefly was nice enough to send me Quake Wars to fill my time after the daily exhaustion was over... and the baby was asleep or otherwise distracted.

I have mixed feelings about Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.

For starters, I am not a Quake fan. Not to say that I don't like the series, I have just never gotten into it. Hell, I've never played a single game. In that regard, have no clue whatsoever as to the story of what is going on in the Quake universe. There is a small intro cinematic of Strogg ships slipping into orbit around Earth and generally laying siege to the planet, so it is at least clear they they are the bad guys to be defeated.

Go Team Earth... or something.

As with all of my impressions/reviews, I went to go check out the GS review. I should stop that, since it just makes me want to put three or four nails through a stout board and beat various members of the GS staff for their absurdity and general lack of professionalism. Let's start with the opener...

"Although the objective-based action is still feverish in this console port of Quake Wars, the lack of any upgrades makes this multiplayer-only shooter feel slim and dated."

Okay, the Xbox 360 (and PS3) version(s) of the game are ports from the earlier PC release. The key word there is port. That means it is fundamentally the same game translated over to a different medium. I cannot figure out why anyone, let alone a supposed professional, would think that a port should have to be upgraded or somehow more than the original. It's ridiculous to think less of the game because it didn't do anything differently than it did on an earlier release. Plus, it isn't multiplayer-only. You can play it single-player. What he means there is that there is no single-player story to play through. I know that is a small nitpick, but we ARE talking about supposed professionals here, so be accurate.

"If you're not familiar with Quake, you're not going to learn anything in Quake Wars. From screenshots you may deduce that humans are fighting alien-type creatures on a planet that may or may not be Earth. Evil aliens known as the Strogg have invaded, and our last defense is, naturally, the Global Defense Force. We're told that the year is 2065 and that the events in Quake Wars serve as a prequel to Quake II. Sadly, this paragraph features more story elements than you'll find in the actual game. If you want to learn more, you'll have plenty of time to type "Quake" into your favorite search engine during the frustratingly long load screens."

The first sentance is okay, though you DO pick up a little bit if you are paying attention to the game you are playing. While the second sentance is technically true... they're screenshots... of course they're potentially vague. I don't see you whining about the screenshots from COD4 elluding that that game taking place in a region that 'may or may not be' the Middle East. The remainder of the paragraph just continues the irreverent tone without being accurate enough. Again, if you were paying attention to the game you were playing, you would have picked up more.

To be accurate here, Quake Wars doesn't tell you enough about what is going on and that IS a negative mark against the game. It just isn't the total failure that Jon Miller is making it out to be here.

The next couple paragraphs are alright and not worth complaining about. Some of things Miller says (or leaves out) combined with his previous claims that the game features no story elements (when, in fact, it does have an admittedly scant offering) lead me to wondering just how much attention he was paying while playing this game.

I'm not that good at straightforward, go pick up weapons and kill people FPS play, so the role-oriented nature of Quake Wars is very appealing and appreciated by me. Each role feels distinct in its impact on play and there is something for everyone to do.
The Soldier/Aggressor gets access to an array of guns to fit any occasion and will satisfy the need to get stuck in with enemy. A standard assault rifle is bread and butter, a shotgun for that added flavor, a machinegun for when you want to lay down some fire, and a rocket launcher for when enemy armor looks your way. They are also responsible for planting explosives on objectives as necessary. They hurt or break things, pure and simple.
The Covert Ops/Infiltrator gives a nice range of options for us sneaky bastards to gather intel, harass the enemy, assassinate them up close, or bring death from far away. They start with access to the scoped assault rifle, which just gives a bit of ranged accuracy to the Soldier's primary weapon, and can also select a formal sniper rifle if that is to taste. Their sidearm, whether it is the initial pistol or later SMG upgrade, is silenced. Also, their grenades, rather than standard frag, are EMP and temporarily disable vehicles or turrets they damage for a nice touch. For gear, they can call in a radar unit that displays enemy positions on the minimap, deploy a remote camera/explosive which is static for the GDF but flying for the Strogg, and either a deployable smoke cover for the GDF or a teleport beacon for the Strogg. They handle all of the hacking objectives.
The Engineer/Constructor is all about selecting the right turret for the right spot and denying the enemy easy access to part of the battlefield. They begin with access to the assault rifle and shotgun, later getting an auxilliary-mounted grenade launcher for the assault rifle that can come in handy. For gear, they can place two general purpose mines at a time and any one turret from a selection of anti-personnel, anti-vehicle, and either anti-air for the GDF or anti-artillery for the Strogg. They are responsible for building or repairing objectives (as well as vehicles or turrets) as well as disarming any explosives planted by the enemy.
The Field Ops/Oppressor is very similar to the Engineer/Constructor but rather than being more defense, their artillery options allow for impressive counter to the Engineer/Constructor's control. They start with only the assault rifle but later open the scoped option. Gear is where it is at for this role. They receive supportive ability to toss out ammo crates, a smoke grenade to call in an impressive airstrike, and a target designator which can place strikes from one of three support pieces that they can bring in. The artillery fires a salvo of indirect fire that isn't terribly accurate but does create a swath of destruction while the rocket launcher locks-on to enemy vehicles to ruin their day and the Hammer Missle/Dark Matter Cannon turns a very large radius of the map into instant death for any and everything not on your side.
The Medic/Technician is all about supporting the team, as should be expected. I have to admit to not enjoying the Medic role so I didn't ever level one up to see what they get via upgrades. I can tell you that they start with the assault rifle and shotgun. For gear, they get the prerequisite medkits and can "rez" dead teammates as well as the GDF getting to call in supply crates that the team can rearm from and the Strogg being able to place some spawning thingamajig on dead foes whose purpose I never did figure out.

For the most part, the GDF and Strogg are symmetrical with little difference between them. The same kinds of weapons and effects, the same kinds of turrets and artillery, and the same general abilities. The differences are few and, really, inconsequential. The biggest item of note is that the Strogg enjoy one large ammunition pool for their weapons and do not need to reload but suffer from overheating if they fire too much. Vehicles are little different. Everyone gets a tank, a jeep, and a flying gunship with the GDF getting an ATV and another flying vehicle that I never ran across while the Strogg get an interesting jump-pack and the heavily armed mech.

Following that, the next two paragraphs of the GS review (five and six, if you're keeping track), surprisingly at this point, are spot on. The only problem I have is the end of the sixth...

"You're better off playing on a PC with a USB controller."

This echoes my first complaints, that expecting improvements over the original from a later released port is entirely stupid. Furthermore, I think the graphics looked fine on the X360 and I have no complaints. Of course things will look different on the consoles, but so will two PCs running different hardware. It also falls into a growing trend of saying that a game looks worse than it really does if every little visual bell and whistle isn't present. It must have really stuck with Miller, though, because he basically repeats this paragraph again just a moment later.

"During each battle, you'll earn experience points from secondary objectives such as capturing spawn points or blowing up enemy radar stations. When you accumulate enough XP, you'll unlock extra weapons and proficiencies such as faster sprint and smaller weapon spread. Unlike in Call of Duty 4, these upgrades are not persistent and are reset after each campaign, which lasts for only three maps. This is unfortunate because the two development teams missed an opportunity to add some kind of character customization, a standard feature in any good FPS these days."

Again, the complaint of these ports not being changed from the original. We get it, Jon, you expected the consoles to get Quake Wars 2 and that didn't happen. To quote my favorite internet/MMO douches, QQ.

To say that persistant bonuses is a standard feature of "good" FPS games is ignorant. I, for one, like the lack of persistency since it means that I will start a game on the same level as the people who have far more time to play than I do rather than them getting an immediate advantage. Their familiarity is already an advantage, they don't need to start with upgrades and better equipment, as they will earn experience faster than I will anyway.

The rest of the review is pointless to read, as Miller just repeats himself for two more paragraphs, as I mentioned above.

As bothersome as I find what the review says, what it doesn't say is just as bad. Aside from the rather asinine judgements, very little is said about specifics of the game. I always prefer a review to talk about what a game IS more than what it ISN'T. This one just doesn't do that.

Some things that were left out or barely mentioned:
While the objectives do keep the battle lines moving, vehicle junkies will find their tanks and gunships only available away from the front which helps to balance out the impact that such things can have on a fight and offer a choice as to whether getting such a toy is worth the trip. On some maps, I would even say most, this dynamic has the added feature of granting handicap to a side that is getting rolled over... as your bigger vehicles are more readily available than those of your enemy, who has to travel over more of the map to get to the fighting.

Reinforcements (ie respawns) happen every 15 seconds and there is a readily visible timer to show you when that will be. This is very handy when deciding if now is the right time to switch roles, so as not to waste valuable seconds watching a timer tick away without you doing anything. This ability to change roles as needed in the middle of a match is nice and it allows you to adapt to a situation.

While Miller claims that the single-player campaign lacks any function in training you how to play, I disagree. The length of the campaign being three linked maps means that you will have longer to earn experience in a given role and play with those upgrades. In a single maps are by no means short affairs, it can still be difficult to see which weapons or pieces of equipment you like the most or excel with and it can even be difficult to figure out just what activities for each role net you the best experience to upgrade. The campaign helps.

I've seen some complaining about how hard it is to find a match or how often people were kicked from them. I can't say that I saw any of that. Everything worked acceptably for me.

All-in-all, Miller touched upon the flaws... and then molested them. The problems are there and they are obvious and they certainly hold Quake Wars back. But they aren't so bad as to ruin the game. I had fun playing it and if I catch it in a bargain bin or find out a few of my friends are playing regularly, I'll go buy it.

or Catching Up on my Playing...

I hadn't realized how slow my gaming had become these past few weeks until I started thinking about what to blog about. Except for my browser games, I haven't been playing much by way of "real" games.

Gamefly sent us Cabela's African Safari, because Kim was in the mood for a hunting game and I had GTA to keep me company. Few games are as much of a total letdown as this. Firstly, it wasn't a hunting game but a shooting game. You did nothing remotely resembling hunting but instead just roamed around putting various holes into a selection of wildlife. There is just nothing very interesting or innovative about it in any fashion. It was entertaining for a few moments but quickly lost its thrill.

We got Culdcept Saga next and it has finally been a breath of fresh air in a string of stinkers from Gamefly. I haven't got to play a lot of it, as I just haven't spent much time in front of the Xbox and have been in a GTA mood these past few days. While not amazing or worthy of truckloads of praise, it IS entertaining so far. I'll probably sit down this week and put some more time into it so that I can give it a proper review.

As for GTA, I'm still delighted to play in the sandbox rather than further any of the story through missions. Not that the missions aren't fun... I'm just having fun without them and, thusfar, have only accidentally progressed by stumbling across them. Something kind of neat happened the other night. I was walking down the street and a pedestrian mouthed off at me for bumping into him. I turned to face him and he shoved me, so I clicked over to my shotgun for some "there's a lesson about shoving here" time. While I was pulling the gun, he shoved again and the game glitched. He ended up stuck with his arms extended in the shove while the game bounced back and forth between deciding if he should be fearful or aggressive, causing him to roam around with his arms held out in front of him, sometimes walking and sometimes running. I laughed about the zombie attack and then realized that the GTA engine would be ten different kinds of fun with a zombie attack paintjob involved.

I'm also still roaming around a few browser games and have even been recruited into an alliance on Travian curiously similar in name and description to the SKS...

Whether based in Flash or java or php or whatever, I have been on a Browser Game kick lately. I can't really explain why, except that they tend to be easy to play from the office and generally allow me to roam the office, doing my job, as necessary without impeding my gameplay. They make for an acceptible, if not good, diversion to keep my brain from tying itself in knots over this report, that database error, or the user who forgets how to us their computer... every day.

A List of Browser Games from Wikipedia and a Google's directory entry for them.

So, what I am playing with right now...

I am most enjoying Ikariam, a time-based empire building game with a basic Greek theme to it. You start off with a single colony on a Greek-ish island that is one of many. Each island has ample forests to harvest for its lumber mill, a resource shared and expanded upon by all colonies on the island, as well as one of four other resources, also shared and expanded by all of the island's inhabitants. This makes for an interesting dynamic where you are technically competing with your neighbors, but you also don't want to cripple them else they stop contributing to the growth of your resource gathering potential. Of course, if they aren't contributing and just benefiting from the work of others... well, that can be interpretted as an act near to treason... a fact I found out early on, at the pointy end of a neighbor's spears. Thankfully, a bit of diplomacy led to the simple sharing of the "help the island or bleed on it" mentality that I have applied ever since.

There are a variety of different buildings to erect, each offering different options such as training troops via the Barracks or researching various things at the Academy. As expected, these buildings require gathering resources with the costs becoming larger and more elaborate with each successive level of improvement. Eventually you will have to grow and build a second (and third and fourth...) colony on nearby islands to better procur other resources that you will need. Sure, you can stick with your solitary land and just focus on economic means to acquire what you need... but that gets expensive and the market is not a stable place. Best to be self-sufficient, says I.

Along your way you can build armies, war fleets, merchant fleets, spy networks, diplomatic alliances, and trade networks. You have a good amount of options in how you choose to play, be it in building a large army or fleet to bully your way to power or by building a healthy economic strength. I make enough enemies in my everyday life, so I like to play passively online and have favored economy and trade over military.

Everything you do takes time. Not to say that the game is slow-paced, but that each action has a certain amount of real-time that must pass before it completes. From resource gathering to construction of buildings to loading goods on ships to training troops to researching new achievements... the earlier levels are measured in minutes but as you get more and more advanced, it can take hours and even days to complete an action. At first, I thought that this would get stagnant and boring, but with four colonies and no desire to micro-manage any of them, it has actually paced well with me. You can only construct/improve one building at a time and you can't queue anything, which I don't like, but it's not so bad as to really harm the entertainment.

Of all the games so far, it looks the best on the whole, too. The 3D renderings are nice, if without much variety, and the interface is asthetically pleasing and fairly easy to get around. Ikariam COULD use some more instructions, as some things are not as easy to pick up on as they should be, but again... it isn't anything that ruins the entertainment.

Were I rating Ikariam on GS, I would give it a solid 7-7.5. I suggest trying it out. If you join the Delta server (and are close enough to me), I'll even send some trade ships your way to help you out. :)

A very similar game is Travian, which I have seen far more advertising for than Ikariam, so you've probably already heard of, if not played, it. Despite being nearly identical in function and play, I don't like Travian. I think the key reason is that resource gathering does not feel paced correctly with the needs of play and the only way to improve it is to spend time developing it in lieu of improving your town. There is far more to build in Travian than Ikariam but you can't do as much until your buildings are well-developed. It ends up being a much, much slower game than Ikariam, weighed down by its additional complexity. There is a lot of interesting potential in it, but I find myself annoyed rather than entertained.

It works in most ways just like Ikariam. You have a colony and you gather resources with which to build and expand. As I said, there are a lot more buildings in Travian, but glancing across the list doesn't leaving me nodding in approval so much as shrugging in acceptance. While Travian gives you access to all the various resources you may need right from the start without the need to buy or found further colonies, you have to spend time and resources expanding them in order to keep the gathering rate flowing at a level that comfortable supports your work on your village. Except it isn't that easy and I have yet to establish a steady flow or trend of growth. Instead, I wait a day or two for my warehouse to fill up with resources, chew through those resources in one day expanding my village, wait another day or two to fill the warehouse again, chew through those resources in a day expanding my resource gathering and/or recovering from an attack, and then I repeat that cycle.

The acceptible but flat and not very appealing while the interface leaves a lot to be desired.

My GS score for Travian would be 5, 5.5 tops. Not only would I be wary of suggesting it, I would say just go play Ikariam instead if you are interested in such a game.

The last one, for now, is Tiny Warz. What you get here is a bit of real-time building and economics coupled with a turn-based, but fast, strategy game. It is in instanced MOG, in that you deploy your army to a selected planet at the same time as other players and a global timer clicks down the turns, in one minute increments, while you issue orders to your assorted tanks, buggies, and meka. It is primarily PVP, though there are some NPC bandits that are a common foe and a trio of "training planets", where carebears like me are fairly free from harassment by bottom-feeding veterans out for a bit of newbie harassment.

When you begin, you get some Construx, which are blueprints for building various units, buildings, and mods (ie items to modify your units). You also get a handful of vehicles, mostly combat oriented tanks, and some crews. You, as the commander, have some level points that you can use to improve yourself (though I would suggest playing for a while before you dip into those). Playing is as easy as placing your commander and crews into vehicles, selecting a planet to deploy to, and roaming around to do whatever it is that you elect to do. Your commander and crews will level up by fighting other units, mostly bandits, and while deployed you can have a utility vehicle mine ore deposits or salvage wrecked vehicles you come across (or make via combat). Ore can be used to build things that you have Construx for or sold on the market for credits. Obviously, credits are used to buy things.

The primary resource in the game, however, is Command. Command is used for damn near everything that you do, from building units to deploying onto a planet to issuing certain commands once deployed. You earn 50 Command every night, at midnight, but if you acquire something called Paid Days that jumps up to 100 per night. Paid Days, as well as TinyBucks, are where the game makes its money. Both can be acquired by a skilled player without ever spending a real dime, though the most direct way to acquire either is by forking over some cash. The prices don't seem horrible and there are a lot of options so that you can just spend a few bucks to see if having Paid Days or TinyBucks is worth it to you.

Paid Days, in addition to the increased Command rate, also have the benefit of allowing you to use better units and mods. If you don't have Paid Days, you are limited to only using vehicles or mods ****fied as Simple. No matter how you come to possess Intermediate or Advanced items, if you don't have Paid Days then you can't use them. I find this a little irritating, but it is ultimately not THAT bad.

TinyBucks are a separate tier of currency that can be used to purchase more Construx sets, train your crews more quickly, buy Paid Days, or respec your Commander's selection of commands or abilities. There is ample trading of TinyBucks for Command or large sums of Credits, making it a universal currency that anyone could get and, thus, the road to Paid Days without actually spending any real money.

There is a lot to be said for the complexity of the game, though the community is quite obnoxious in sharing information. Rather than interact with new players and answering their questions, even the supposed moderators just vomit a mean-spirited link to the game's Wiki, which covers everything you need to know far easier than explaining that much via chat but does nothing to encourage a new player to become part of the community. It's a very insular place, with the veterans taking a seeming delight in the inside jokes, hidden tricks, and general torment of the uninitiated. Finding my entertainment in mining and building things, I am leveling painfully slow and have yet to set foot on the PVP planets... and I imagine the vets will enjoy steam-rolling me once I do. I'll probably build up a large stock of ore and credits before I risk deploying, just in case I have to start over nearly from scratch.

While I would give the game itself a GS score of 7, the community brings me down to a 6 without hesitation... which is sad. There are some things about the game's basic design that I don't agree with, but these wouldn't even amount to half a point in their impact.

There are a few more that I have been toying with, but I'll save those for later.

...on top of a holiday weekend closely followed by more busy... and then my daughter's birthday...

I tired.

But that's why I haven't poked my head around here much lately. I most often do my writing while at the office and was just too preoccupied with, you know, doing my job to say much... and it's not like I had THAT much to say anyway. At least, not that much worth sharing. It's not like my opinionated ranting is all that entertaining to you anyway.

But, if you happened to miss me, I'm still here. I'll be napping under my desk before catching up with my gaming updates, though. Throwing a birthday party for a 2-year old is exhausting...

Cutting right into things that are on my mind... the User Soapbox is a source of irritation for me.

For one, most of the page's layout is sucked up by staff blogs. While they are technically part of the community and, thus, users... as staff members they already are on a soapbox and get enough spotlight time. Give them their own section, call it Staff Soapbox, and get them the hell out of my way because while they may be better writers than most of the users, I want to see real people's thoughts and not those of someone paid to write about what they think.

I also want to see some variety rather than the same damned people chosen time and again. Laughlyn, subrosian, tiggerboy, xTHAWx, Gabu, and a few others are ALWAYS up there, week after week. While they have proven that they are capable writers, everything that they say is not golden and worthy of mass consumption. How are these things really chosen, because if the editors will truly "consider every GameSpot blog post marked with the category editorial for inclusion" then the sheer volume of Editorial blog entries is bound to turn up more than these handful of people.

And how about they at least choose items for the Soapbox that relate to the general topic of gaming that people come to this site for. xTHAWx's selection this week has nothing to do with gaming. This is a gaming site and I read it for related news. I'm not saying people shouldn't blog about what is on their mind or limit their blog entries here to gaming related topics, but for the Soapbox I want to see the best Gamespot's users have to offer and not their asinine interpretations of politics, religion, or economics. If I want that stuff, I'll go to sites that cater to that topic. And, finally, it's not like xTHAWx has said anything that we haven't been hearing for decades or that he said it in a poignant way that deserved any attention whatsoever.

There was really no time for second impressions... it is a ridiculously short, ridiculously linear, ridiculously simple... well... ridiculous game.

I normally go into specific details about what has caused me to form my opinions, but I don't know that I can do so good a job of that this time. EVERYTHING about Bullet Witch is mediocre, at best, and could even have a tough time competing with last generation titles. There isn't really anything to be impressed with, so the only satisfaction I can receive out of the time I spent playing it is being able to warn others against wasting their own time.

I'll try to walk through the usual criteria...

Graphically, the character concept of Alicia, the Bullet Witch, is very nice but the execution leaves me wanting. In an apparent attempt to make everything she does snesual, none of her movements look natural and some are even borderline impossible... and that's forgetting that she is slinging a very large gun around with one hand. While their simple animations are relatively unflawed, compared to the extravagent detail of Alicia, all of the other characters in the game suffer greatly in the costuming department. The Geists and other baddies have been lovingly painted in flayed skin and made to look creepy... but there is little to no variety, so all of the assault rifle carrying Geists look like this and all of the shotgun carrying Geists look like that and all the sniper Geists have this body and the LTs have barrets. With the exception of some alternate faces only really discernable during cutscenes, all of the human Resistance soldiers look identical. The handful of demons you will face are unimaginative. Walnut Heads are enormous floating brains, which glow a certain colored so you know which magical barrier will go down when you kill them and whose normal sized bodies hang beneath. Gigas are towering giants who look like melted wax sculptures with a pulsating tumor over their heart and a massive gatling cannon bolted to one arm. There are a few others like the Screamers and possessed/infected humans who dash about all cracked out and gibbering... but they aren't worth more mention than that.

Scores are no better in the sound department, with the assorted combat effects just not sounding right and the various voices often being inaudible thanks to other noise drowning them out or just kewl effects to make them sound demonic resulting in incomprehensible speech. The voice acting during the cutscenes is little better and, again, Alicia's quality is SO much higher than anything else but the attempt to make her sensual and mysterious doesn't work out despite a nice sounding voice. The dialogue is disturbingly amateur.

Gameplay is lacking. Control-wise, the fairly standard layout of how you move around, look around, jump around, switch weapons, and shoot at things is there but interacting with your magical abilities is clunky. Pressing either bumper scrolls through the three submenus, each with three spells assigned to X, B, or A and Y to cancel magic use. You can still move and shoot and everything else with the menus up, but it is distracting and thus not easy to cast dynamically during a firefight. Playing the game is often annoying and sometimes frustrating. Not in difficulty, but in sheer playability. Your crosshair offers no indication of where your shots will actually land and someone apparently thought that bullets travel slowly through the air, making you lead your targets by unrealistic distances. Combine that with an AI that occasionally likes to sidestep back and forth at speed, bouncing around like a spider monkey on pixi stix and meth, and the difficulty of putting even a few shells into a simple Geist trooper can get obnoxious. Your spells fair little better, most of which are an interesting change of pace but ultimately not as effective as just shooting your starting machinegun. While the third tier of your magic, the massive effect/let's mess up everything on screen spells, are devasting but only Lightning Bolt is truly aimable with any efficiency.

As you complete each level you are ranked and score some points with which to upgrade your hp/mp, guns, or magic. In effect, this is pointless as the enemies all benefit from the mysterious video game rule of reality and get stronger right along with you. Upgrading your machinegun or buying and upgrading some of the other gun options just serves to keep you escalating with the increasing toughness of your foes and it still takes just as much ammo to bring them down throughout the game. All of your upgrades do carry on after beating the game, so you can use them from the beginning of your next play-through... but you must play through the levels in a linear fashion to gain any more points as stage select just lets you improve your rankings without reward. There are also some downloadable challenge missions but even a few bucks is too much more to pay for expanding this game.

Finally, the story. It is well told, if a bit lame. The world is in ruins after numerous catastrophes and an invasion of demons. It turns out, a truly desperate man delved into dark magicks and chose to sacrifice himself at a place of power in order to resurrect is beloved daughter, who had died in a plane accident. His sacrifice opened a portal that has allowed of this to happen. Alicia, it so happens, is that daughter... back from the dead and all growed up... and she is burdened by the knowledge that all of the untold misery, destruction, and horror is because of her. If you are paying attention, you can piece this together as the cutscenes unfold but it is not blatantly spelled out for you until late in the game, which was a good try. The problems are that a lot of things just don't make sense and that a LOT goes unexplained. Why is Alicia now a witch? What is the deal with her broom-looking uber gun? What is that dark voice that talks to her throughout the game? Why is this one major demon (the focus of her hunt through the game) so important to her?

Two days. Gamefly sent it to me and I had it for two days, amounting to maybe 8-10 hours of play, before sending it back this morning. I need to go check my GameQ, because two stinkers in a row has me needing something of qualit next.