I watched The Hunt For Red October yesterday. You might recall that I read it not too long ago. It got me pondering about book to film adaptions (adaptations? I can never figure out which is the right word). Usually one would suspect that you read the books first, then watch the film after. After watching Hunt For Red October, I'm not so sure. While reading it (and knowing that it had been made into a film) I wondered how it would translate, given that near the start Ramius was introspecting for about five pages before he gave an answer to one of his comrades. On its own the movie is still great, but there were certain things missing from the book, but those parts weren't central to the story. That being the other Russian sub that DID blow up from a nuclear reaction, and the US sub that the US scuttled.

It is understandable that a movie adaption will usually have to make some concessions. Some narrative may not be equally conveyed via moving pictures. Perhaps then it may be best to watch a movie first, and then read the book. But I don't recall any other books I've read that have also been movies, so I don't know if this really stands true. I loved the Lord of The Rings movies, but strangely I was never able to make it all the way through the first book, despite a couple of tries. Here was a case where I experienced the movie where everything was fresh. I am still aware that things are missing, as I had read the parts about Tom Bombadil in the book, and on one of the features it was said that if they had filmed the entire council scene as it was in the book, it would taken an extra hour or something similar that would have ruined the pace of the movie.

In my last blog (or maybe it was the one before?) I mentioned I thought I was becoming a screen junkie. So this week from Monday to Friday, I'm going to endeavour to not watch a screen outside of work. I will be breaking that on Wednesday to go and watch Star Trek at the cinemas, and I might break it for a session of co-op Gears 2 if the opportunity arises, but I want to give my eyes a rest. No games, no movies, no youtube or Gamespot. I will still be checking out Gamespot at work though during breaks.

Truth be told, I'm not sure what I will do with myself. I will pick up the reading, but things with screens are my regular entertainment. Perhaps I will invite some people around to play some Settlers of Catan or other board games, and probably clean up a little more. In general gaming news, I am helping dad with the Project Purity in Fallout 3. He has just tasked me to restart the mainframe or something. Apparently this is towards the west end of where I am. I've just put in the fuses. That IS in the west end of that section. What the hell doors is he talking about? I can't find it. I'm sure one of you can answer that for me before next week, or I will look it up in a FAQ. And after playing some Fallout 3 for a few hours, I wanted something a bit more arcade to play. So I played Bionic Commando Rearmed, which I had only played some co-op for a few levels previously, never single player. I'm pretty divided about this game. Grappling around is a lot of fun, but also pretty finicky. It is vastly annoying to swing too far and fall all the way to the bottom of a level and have to climb up again. The boss fights are fun, and I'd love to take the time to figure them out for myself. Problem is if you lose all your lives, you have to start the level all over again. I don't mind repeating the boss fights until I get it right, but I'm not as keen to replay the whole level, which means that if I can't figure out what I'm supposed to be doing by the time I lose my first life, I turn to a FAQ. I lose that sense of discovery you get when figuring out how to beat a boss yourself, but I lose the frustration of having to repeat the whole level. Archaic design choice, or sufficient punishment?

I know I'm about 6 months behind the rest of you with my Fallout 3 impressions, but here are some thoughts that have been running through my head.

Moira has big eyes.... and a lady stache that I can't take my eyes off whenver I talk to her.

Can't they program it so that people don't ask you if you have completed their quest when you haven't even left the room yet?

I wonder if Lucas had any missions for me? The person who wanted me to blow up Megaton killed him just before I hit the trigger and took him out.

Supermutants with Miniguns are bad for your health.

Ditto for people with missile launchers.

What's up with the Jefferson Memorial? There are two doors that are almost on the same wall... but they face each other in the adjoining area (the rotunda). How did that spatial misnomer not get picked up in testing?

The Bloody Mess Perk is actually kind of annoying... in gunfights with multiple enemies, I have to figure out which body parts still need to be searched.

Yay, I've purchased plans to the Rock-It Launcher! Now I just need parts to build it...

Attacking someone in a settled area is a bad idea.

I'm reluctant to kill anyone who isn't already hostile to me. So far I've decided against killing Greta (I think that was her name) and I paid Dukov for his key rather than take it by force. I'm scared I'm going to miss something if I kill people.

After several failed attempts, I think I finally get lockpicking. A tutorial with a pin you couldn't break would have been good.

What happens to terminals if I fail to get the password in 4 tries? Are they available elsewhere in the gameworld?

I'm about 15 hours in. And I have still explored bugger all. I've headed across to GNR, and I've made my way south to the Jeffersons Memorial. I'd be lucky to have explored 25% of the World Map at this stage.

The shotgun is awesome against mutants.

What was so special about the Glowing One?

I think I worry too much about health and radiation. I keep eating irradiated food whenever I'm low on health, so I have over 30 stimpaks.

I listened to the Enclave Radio station for about 8 hours before I changed it to Galaxy. Malcolm McDowell's voice is awesome.

Other voice acting so far is.... adequate. Most of the voices seem just a bit too stereotyped or exaggerated.

I wonder if once I'm completely leveled up, whether I can take out all the citizens in a settled area? I'll make sure I save my game before I try that of course...

It seems that Q got the jump on me regarding my Sequel Me This series on Pixeljunk Monsters. A Gamespot article a couple of days ago showed a PSP version, where it showed enemies flying in on balloons. Crazy prediction or what? Though I'm guessing seeing as nothing was said that the new content won't make it's way to the PS3 any time soon.

I'm starting to think I'm a bit of a screen junkie. Yesterday I watched two movies, an episode of Stargate, a few hours of videogaming, plus some time spent fooling around on the computer on Gamespot and youtube. And then I've done almost the same today. Granted, I have also read a few chapters of Without Remorse (only a few chapters left to go, slow going for the first 150 pages but draws you in after that), did a little clean up around the house, and some scant exercise, but I feel like I'm spending too much time in front of one screen or the other. I think it is a little worse now that I have an office job and look at a screen for most of the day. At the end of the day I'm feeling like my eyes are tired, but not necessarily my body which makes it hard to sleep (and for that reason I hopped on the exercise bike while watching the last movie).

In any case, I've finally started Fallout 3. Thus far it is pretty promising, but I'm finding the inventory system a little cumbersome. I don't seem to be able to go very far without having to figure out what to drop next. There is also the fact that if you try and sell stuff to people, they can only buy with what money they have. This makes perfect sense, obviously no merchant is going to have bajillions of bottle caps to buy everything you find, and I've often pondered this in other games. Now that this realistic restriction has been implemented in a game... time will tell whether I think this was a good addition or not. The other thing that is daunting me at the moment is the radiation. I assume you just get in the swing of things, eating radiated meat and then spending some money to get rid of it. I'm also wondering about the armory in Megaton. I waltzed up to the door and pressed the A button just as the message appeared, not seeing that it was red (meaning danger or unable to access for those who haven't played it) and got blasted by the robot. I assume this is something that unlocks later on, as I got my ass shot to hell by the townsfolk as I tried to retreat.

Last week I also finished F.E.A.R. Files. I think it was RK-Mara who told me to steer clear in an earlier blog of mine, but I was in a shooter mood and it was about the only one on my shelf that I hadn't played. It was competent, but fell short of the original. Full review below. I just got Gears 2 for my shooting fix, but I'm saving that experience for co-op. I hired it a couple of times in the past couple of months for that purpose, and finally bought it. Thus far a great experience, but the section where you have to plant the bomb at the door was a bit tedious. If you were both strafing in the same direction, why couldn't you strafe? The turning mechanic in that section was annoying. On with the F.E.A.R. Files review.

---

F.E.A.R. Files contains two expansions for the original F.E.A.R. which are Extraction Point and Perseus Mandate. These play almost identical to F.E.A.R., and while they include a few new enemies and weapons, they seem to fall just short in other areas.

The story in each of these expansions follow a different F.E.A.R. team, offering a different perspective of the story as you travel through different locations. However, I didn't find myself drawn in to the story element in either of the expansions, and just worried about where I was headed next. You don't need to play F.E.A.R. to play these expansions, but it will help to understand some of the story elements, and the interactions with some of the characters. Generally they play out with much the same pacing as F.E.A.R. with various gunfights, attempts at scares, supernatural foes, hallucinations, and some tense battles against more heavily eqipped foes.

For some chapters of these expansions, you will be accompanied by a team mate or two which was rarely the case in the original. However they don't often add to the gameplay, and best as I could tell they were invincicble and didn't need protecting when you got into gunfights. That said the majority of your time will still be spent fighting alone. The mechanics and gunplay are exactly the same as before. There are a few new weapons to play with in the expansions, with the VES Advanced Rifle becoming one of my favourites, a scoped rifle that enhances low light conditions. The minigun churns up ammo, but can make mince meat out of your enemies in no time. Another nice addition are turrets that you can lay down, which can be helpful in more open areas to help prevent from being surrounded.

New enemies come in the form of armoured minigun toting super soldiers, soldiers that have reflexes like that can 'slide' when they are shot at to avoid your fire, and a few new supernatural enemies. However, what has been made up for in variety has been more than lost in artificial intellgience. The original game had great squad tactics, and all of that seems lost in these expansions. There were a few times when I saw some intelligence, such as a soldier knocking over a box for cover, but these moments were fleeting. Here, the enemies are much more inclined to come through a doorway one at a time, and their flanking tactics are almost nonexistent, though the level design doesn't allow them much opportunity to do so this time around. Also, some of the enemies are just annoying and feel cheap rather than genuinely challenging. In particular are the enemies that wield grenade launchers or percussive weapons, as they rarely miss whether you are strafing normally or in reflex mode, despite the same weapons feeling useless in my hands. One 'boss' fight in Perseus Mandate is of particluar note in this regard, and I almost stopped playing the game at that point as I mashed the medikit button every few seconds until I managed to beat the fight several tries later.

Graphics are the same as F.E.A.R. so they are dated but still look decent. The main detractor graphically is when there is smoke caused bu explosions or by bullets hitting objects and raising dust, which is on the blocky side. Shadows are inconsistent, with some being solid black (mainly your own) while effective in other areas, such as a 'scare' moment where a light has been knocked and shadows play around a room. Soundwise everything is the same with the weapons packing the same punch, and enemy chatter as it was before. There are some fights that are accompanied by tense music, which then drops off after you kill the last enemy. I don't recall whether this same tactic was used in the original game, but I felt it did the game a disservice. The moment the music dies down, you know you can relax, and relaxation is not the tone these games are going for. I felt it would have been better to continue wondering whether you really had cleared out the area, staying on your toes as you progressed. Unfortunately the game was a bit on the glitchy side. Nothing game breaking, but it broke the immersion. Things such as ambient noises continuing to play after you had left an area, dropped guns rattling on the floor uncontrollably instead of coming to a complete stop, and enemies yelling out they could see a flashlight when I didn't have it on.

The scares that the games throw at you are hit and miss, and after a while you just go through the motions when visions appear, as they aren't often threatening. There were still a couple of times when I jumped, and I did find one of the scenes where you witness the death of a team mate entertaining. Some of them can be a bit disorienting (to the games credit) as you enter into a hallucination, continue travelling, and then come back in to the real world in a different place, wondering how you got there. The level design takes you to a few new places, though in Perseus Mandate you will find yourself travelling backwards through a few locations that were in Extraction Point.

If you haven't played F.E.A.R., I recommend playing that first as it is the better game. F.E.A.R. Files is a mild letdown as it doesn't quite reach the level of the first game, but is still enjoyable in its own right.

Score 7.0

Zombie. I'm sure you all have an image in your mind right now of what that word represents, what creature, being or thing that you think fits that description. Zombies have become a semi-popular cultural item in films and games, but how many have pondered the origin of this mythical being? Vampires, werewolves and other supernatural beings have a rich mythology, but zombies seem to have sprung up from almost nowhere. So what is the inspiration for undead beings that want to eat your brains?

A search on wikipedia and also looking in a couple of dictionaries, there are three possible etymological origins for the word zombie. Jumbie is the West Indian term for ghost. Nzambi is a Kongo word meaning "spirit of a dead person". It may also be from the Creole/Bantu word zonbi, which means a person who is believed to have died and been brought back to life without speech or free will.

The mythology of the zombie is most attributed in Haitian culture to Vodou (anglicised to Voodoo), or Bokor, the sorcerers who practices Voodoo. They would apparently raise people from the dead, who would then be controlled by the Bokor. Skeptics tried to determine the truth of this supposedly supernatural phenomenon, but were unable to find any proof or evidence that could lead them to a more rational explaination.

In 1980, a man in a Haitian village claimed to be Clairvius Narcisse. However, he had been declared dead in Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Deschapelles, Haitai on May 2nd 1962. He claimed he had been paralysed, yet conscious, and could recall the doctor laying a sheet over him at the hospital. He was able to answer intimate questions about his childhood and family that no other people could know. His family eventually agreed that this man who had appeared to have come back to life was indeed their relative, Clairvius Narcisse. This discovery prompted the Zombie Project, which ran from 1982 to 1984.

Dr. Wade Davis, ethnobotanist and anthrolpologist, travelled through Haiti to research the zombie phenomenon. While the bokor believed it was their sorcery that was bringing people back from the grave, Dr. Davis discovered that they also used powders to prepare those that they would turn into zombies. He collected 8 samples of combined powders from various regions, and while they were all different, 7 of the 8 had four elements in common. Pufferfish which contain the neurotoxin tetrodotoxin, a marine toad which produces toxins, a hyla tree frog, and human remains.

The inclusion of the pufferfish was what most interested Davis. The tetrodotoxin, which has no known antidote, can cause paralysis and death, and victims of tetrodotoxin oftem remain conscious right up until death. His theory was that if the powder was applied to a living person, the ingredients would cause irritation and break the skin, thus allowing the tetrodotoxin to enter the bloodstream, and before long they would appear to be in a dead state. Then the bokor would retrieve the 'body', and due to cultural beliefs the person would believe they were a zombie. However, the research was found to be inconclusive and has not been accepted by the scientific community. Reasons for this dismissal include repeated applications of the powder to test animals having no effect, potential zombies being diagnosed with mental disorders or mistaken identity, and whether initial testing was done in a scientific and controlled manner.

------

While I originally planned to break this into a series and discuss zombies in popular culture and their passage through literature, movies and games, a pretty thorough job has already been done on the wikipedia page zombies in popular culture, which I recommend you read before continuing. However, everything below should still make sense if you don't.

Of note in that entry is the story 'In The Vault' by H.P. Lovecraft in 1925, which the entry claims may be the first noted bite from a zombie. Which brings us to popular culture when it comes to zombies. When and how did zombies, based on the mystical summoning from bokor and then kept in their thrall, turn into the zombie apocalypse scenarios that are so common today in movies? It seems that each zombie movie have a few major things in common. Firstly, they no longer feel any pain or have a sense of self-preservation. Second, they crave human flesh, but not from those that are already zombies, only from those who have not been turned/infected. Beyond that, there are some other ideas that may turn up, but not always. One of those is the slow shuffle, but there have been an increasing number of representations of faster more rabid zombies. Most zombies are mindless creatures with only the most basic motor functions or reasoning, but George Romero showed us in Land of the Dead that they had developed some form of reasoning or emotion, and ability to communicate with other zombies. Also, most require a bullet or bludgeoning shot to the brain or to have their head cut off to be 'killed'.

Night of the Living Dead is considered the film that popularised zombies. In the wikipedia entry I linked above, it offers a quote from the book Dreadful Pleasures : An Anatomy of Modern Horror by James Twitchell "bred the zombie with the vampire, and what he got was the hybrid vigour of a ghoulish plague monster". So here we see evidence of the more traditional voodo zombie taking on the curse of the vampire, where the zombie converts those that it bites. Of course, every zombie apocalypse has to start somewhere. I've not seen Night of the Living Dead, but apparently this was caused by radiation from a Venus space probe that exploded in Earths atmosphere. In Dawn of the Dead it is not explicitly explained, but one of the survivors mentions (and is also the tag line for the movie) that once hell is full, the dead will walk the earth. More popular these days is that it is a virus (manufactured or otherwise), such as in 28 Days Later and Resident Evil. While the infected may not the dead returned to life, they are usually still considered zombie movies because of their behaviour and the sense of apocalypse they portray, as humanity is threatened to be wiped from the Earth by those already infected. Another movie I watched recently, Boy Eats Girl, took the zombie back to it's roots, and a mother resurrects her son through the use of voodoo. However, because the mystical book she used was damaged and she did not prepare the right ingredients, the resurrection was not a complete success and he did succumb to the urge and bite somebody; while he retained most of his humanity, the recipient did not and caused a zombie plague.

Zombies have also spread to other genres than horror. They have spread into comedy (or 'zombedy') with films like Shaun of The Dead and Undead, which poke fun at the genre, to Fido, which stars Billy Connelly as the titular Fido, a 'pet' who gets in trouble for eating the next door neighbour, but becomes almost like a family friend. A stranger pairing still is the film Zombie Honeymoon. A newly married husband becomes a zombie (I forget why offhand), and his wife decides that she will stick by her husband, even though he starts eating their friends. After hearing about this film I expected this to a Zombedy, and while there is some small dark comedy within, the film is more like a drama than horror or comedy, with a touch of romance.

This whole entry has been inspired from having a desire to watch a few zombie movies of late. Of course, I haven't seen them all and I'm sure there are still some other great ones, as well as terrible ones, for me to watch or avoid. What are your favourites, and what type of zombie do you prefer? I enjoyed Dawn of the Dead 'traditional' zombie, and also liked the progression they made in Land of the Dead. However, I wasn't as impressed by Day of the Dead (the remake, I have not seen the original) where there were zombies that were crawling upside down on the roof (another adoption from the vampire mythos?). I prefer my zombies to have a weakness (slower, less co-ordinated which were still exhibited in Land of the Dead despite their progress) to offset their strengths (numbers, inability to feel pain).

When it comes to games, I haven't played too many games with zombies this generation. I've yet to play Dead Space or Left 4 Dead, but I did have a good time with Dead Rising despite not finishing it. One of my favourite zombie modes in games was a mod for the original Unreal Tournament where zombies spawned in the stage. Depending on the settings you chose, they would start spawning more as you killed them. Despite their slow movement and short range of attack, it became quite a tense affair as they spawned more each time you killed one, forcing you to keep moving while you tried to blast your way through the nearest exit. Having smart AI is one thing, but sometimes I prefer fighitng overwhelming numbers of flesh bricks.

Sources

Wikipedia Page : Zombie
How Stuff Works
plus a few relatedpages and movie pages from imdb I'm too lazy to link :P

I've made it no secret that I love me some co-op PixelJunk Monsters. As per my previous blog, Encore gave us more without really changing much. Here are a few ideas to either improve the game or challenge players in different ways. Some of these might have to be mutually exclusive, but are some ideas that could be fun to explore.

Even out the difficulty
This is more aimed at Encore. What is the point of adding a casual difficulty, and then making that setting pretty hard? Further, the rainbow system can lock people out of levels and frustrate them if a single enemy keeps getting through. Perhaps instead it could be based on how many cumulative babies you have saved. To provide an example, there are 20 babies you are able to lose in each level. Perhaps 5 levels are open to you at the start of the game. Maybe to unlock level 6, you need to save 80 babies. That way players don't even need to rainbow any levels so long as they average saving 16 babies over those 5 levels. Rainbows should still be in the game of course for trophies.

While trial and error is a part of tower defense games and some might argue with this idea, but it might help alleviate this minor frustration by showing players all of the waves they can expect before the level begins. It sucks to get to the last few waves of a 20 wave level, only to find out you need lasers to deal with the bee-type things that are resistant to standard anti-air and you don't have time to build enough. While the game does show what type of enemies to expect over the next few waves, and also shows when enemies are going to be resistant, it doesn't show what they are resistant to. Again, it sucks to see a wave of resistant enemies coming next, building flame towers, and then finding they are resistant to fire.

Make special towers worthwhile
There are a couple of special towers you can unlock, but have severe drawbacks. As well as having to use a high number of gems to unlock them and a decent amount of gold to build them, you are restriced to one. On top of that, they generally suck. Aside from trying them out once or twice and even trying them when they were upgraded to full, I never bothered again. Balance them so that they aren't too powerful if you can build more than one, or if that restriction remains make it worth the players while to invest in unlocking and building it.

Man the towers
PixelJunk Monsters differentiates itself from other tower defense games by having your character walking around the screen. Perhaps he could also man one of the towers, increasing it's range or damage while doing so, or even allowing you to direct where your firepower should be shooting (but probably not). This would be balanced by the fact that your tower would not be upgrading while you are manning it.

Multi-part enemies
Enemies in PixeJunk Monsters have different characteristics that usually mean they are weak to certain towers. Having enemies that have multiple 'stages' could further test players strategies. A couple of examples would be a slow moving armoured enemy who sheds his armour once dealt enough damage, and then starts running at which point arrows would be more effective. Perhaps even more interesting would be if he ran backwards to escape from the level; it wouldn't be as big a threat to babies, but players would miss out on the gold if their strategy allowed him to escape. Another would be a balloon that has some of the smaller enemies in it. The balloon would need to be shot down by anti-air or arrows before your cannons could deal with the little enemies... and hopefully your anti-air measures aren't all near the centre of your base.

Co-op specific levels
By it's nature the game already demands co-operation when playing with a friend. Still, it would be nice if there were some levels that demanded that extra level of co-operation in determining the right strategy. I'm sure there are other methods, but the main thing I am thinking here are levels that are divided by water, or other barriers that prevent players from reaching the other side of the screen in a hurry. Perhaps if one player fortifies their side of the screen too much, enemies won't reach the other side where the base is, and thus the other player gets no money and can't build defenses... which would be disastrous if the enemies got through, or every now and then they took a different path to reach the base.

Include a level editor
Sure, this would lead to a lot of crap, uninspired maps. But it doesn't seem like this would be hard to include, and would add plenty of longevity to a game that is already great value. Give players the basic toolset to build the map itself, then once they are done, they can set the waves, and trace a path for each of those waves to take. Of course, it should be a condition that no map can be published online until its author can complete it with a rainbow to prevent uncompleteable levels from frustrating players. With the standard rating systems used for this sort of thing, there should be a good number of great maps that reach the top in no time.

---

I also realised I am behind on the Looking Back feature again. I'm starting to wonder if this is really Soapbox worthy. I don't really head into the forums much, but perhaps this would be better suited as a stickied (for a short time) forum topic. Thoughts?

Here is the list of games and their Gamespot scores, and once again I am finding myself only having played a few of the games. I've got Burnout Revenge which I will probably give another spin before writing my piece for it (though I can say already it is worth playing). I played GRAW and Battlefield 2 but it has been a while since I played them so I don't think I could be objective about them, and didn't get far in them anyway. Let me know if there are any on the list that you would like to tackle for the feature.

Looking Back March/April 2006

Xbox 360

Burnout Revenge 8.8

GRAW 9.2

Elder Scroll s : Oblivion 9.6

Dynasty Warriors 5 7.1

Far Cry Instincts Predator 7.9

Top Spin 2 8.2

Battlefield 2 Modern Combat 7.5

Tomb Raider Legend 7.8

PS2

Shadow Hearts : From The New World 8.2

Onimusha : Dawn of Dreams 8.0

Midnight Club 3 : DUB Edition Remix 8.2

Metal Gear Solid 3 : Subsistence 9.0

Ice Age 2 : The Meltdown 7.3

The Godather 8.1

Suikoden V 8.1

CMT Presents Karaoke Revolution Country 7.2

Kingdon Hearts 2 8.7

Full Spectrum Warrior : Ten Hammers 7.1

Dynasty Warriors 5 7.2

Major League Baseball 2k6 7.0

Tourist Trophy 8.2

NBA Ballers : Phenom 7.2

Tomb Raider Legend 7.8

Samurai Champloo : Sidetracked 7.6

FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 7.7

Atelier Iris 2 : The Azoth of Destiny 7.0

Ace Combat Zero : The Belkan War 7.9

Outrun 2006 ; Coast to Coast 8.0

PC

Lord of The Rings : The Battle for Middle Earth 2 8.3

Red Orchestra : Ostfront 41-45 7.9

Bookworm Deluxe 7.2

Battlefield 2 : Euro Force 7.7

Onimusha 3 : Demon Siege 7.4

Elder Scrolls : Oblivion 9.3

Godfather 8.1

Space Rangers 2 : Rise of the Dominators 8.1

Full Spectrum Warrior : Ten Hammers 7.3

Hearts of Iron 2 : Doomsday 8.0

Tomb Raider : Legend 7.8

Comdemned : Criminal Origins 8.1

Auto Assault 7.2

Dreamfall : The Longest Journey 8.1

FIFA : World Cup Germany 2006 8.1

Black & White 2 : Battle of the Gods 7.2

Call of Cthulhu : Dark Corners of the Earth 7.9

Take Command : 2nd Manassas

Guild Wars Factions 8.5

I'm sure we have all had those frustrating moments in games where you think to yourself 'You have got to be ****ing kidding me!' I just had my latest one in Viva Pinata of all things. I was trying to have a couple of Mushrooms in my garden to help turn one of the sour pinatas into a resident. However to make a Mushroom, you need to plant a Toadstool and then have Bart stroll out to your garden and change it into a Mushroom. Problem is, toadstools are poisonous. And every time I planted the toadstools, my pinatas would eat them and get ill... usually moments before Bart would change them, so he'd stroll back home. And the god damn freaking Macaracoon in my garden couldn't get enough of the freaking things, and was so fast I could never stop him from eating them when he started running over. My solution? Plant 10 Toadstools. Sure enough the stupid Macaracoon ate one and got ill. Before Bart had come to change them, I called the doctor, he fixed the Macaracoon, and in about 1 second he ate another Toadstool and got ill again. I must have called the doctor on the bugger 6 times before I got my requisite number of Mushrooms.

I was in the mood for a shooter last night, and apart from hiring Gears 2 a couple of times to play co-op, I haven't played one for a while, so I tried Medal of Honour : Airborne which has been sitting in my collection. I played it before and put it down because I got a bit frustrated. I only played it for 15 minutes before I gave up on it again. I think it's the second level, and I didn't seem to be able to get a handle on the parachuting, and the iron sights annoyed me. I ended up getting killed in a scaffolding section and put it down in frustration. I could see the enemy above me and had my iron sights aimed towards him but there was only a few pixels giving away his position. Then his muzzle flashed through the barrier and I died. Screw that.

I started reading Without Remorse. I found this tough to get into, much harder than Hunt For Red October, but now that I'm 150 pages in it's starting to draw me in. Tom Clancy has a habit in this novel of characters conversing without defining who is who early in the conversation, which had me confused a few times as to who was talking. After a chat with my auntie, who wanted to share her enthusiasm and know how for succeeding has got me thinking about writing again. I started writing some fantasy novels a while ago, but they sort of fell by the way side. However, I think I want to get back into reading and expand my horizons more before I start writing again, to give me more exposure to different styles and more resources to draw from, if that makes sense. While I had my first one on the back burner I started reading Raymond E. Feist, and his mastery made me look at my work and realise it was a bit crap and generic really.

And to finish, a mini-review of PixelJunk Monsters Encore, and the patch for the original game.

PixelJunk Monsters Encore is exactly what it says; an extension of the original game. It offers more levels, but there is almost no change to the original core concepts. Rather than rehash if you don't know anything about the original game, you can read my review here. The first thing to talk about is the patch that affects the original game as well as this expansion. The biggest feature included is that it introduces different difficulty levels; as well as the normal difficulty that the game shipped with, there is an easier casual mode, and a more difficult hardcore mode. This is great news for anyone who found the level unlocking system too punishing. Certain portions of the map were locked off until you had enough rainbows, and the only way to get a rainbow is to clear a stage perfectly. It is also great that your rainbows count on any difficulty, so if you get part way through on normal difficulty and can't progress, you can drop the difficulty back to casual to clear those levels. There are also a few tweaks to how much towers cost, and how many gems it takes to unlock a couple of towers. While I have not tested the feature, there is also the option to save video of you playing a level, so that you can review your tactics or upload your perfectly executed levels to the likes of youtube.

There are no new enemies in Encore, but there are more maps. Unfortunately many of the maps just don't feel as fun to play as in the original. Tower Defense games usually have levels that funnel enemies along one or two main paths for you to defend against. The original PixelJunk Monsters seemed great in this regard. There were some levels where there were two or more paths, and you may have had to scramble a bit or bolster your defenses at the last minute, but it was usually doable. In contrast in the first level of Encore, enemies come from four directions. Several other maps have them come from multiple directions, and there often isn't any warning as to which direction they will come from. There are a few levels with interesting twists as there were in the first game, such as a level where the enemies move twice as fast, or where they are lined up like a game of Space Invaders. There is an element of trial and error expected in Tower Defense games, but Encore seems to crank this up to frustrating levels.

It also doesn't help that also cranked up is the difficulty. Yes, there are now 3 difficulty levels, but this expansion seems catered to mathematical geniuses. Even the casual setting seems harder than the normal difficulty in the original game. I only got several levels into the game in single-player, and trying levels on casual I still could not earn enough rainbows to progress. Thankfully co-op is still a great way to enjoy PixelJunk Monsters Encore. To lend more credence to my complaints about the difficulty, the game does not scale with more players, and thus the game is easier with two players being able to upgrade towers at the same time and having more coverage of the map. Even so, we had to drop to casual to rainbow some maps, others we had to try several times, and others we still couldn't get rainbows for on casual. I'm sure it is mathematically possible for players to earn rainbows on hardcore for each map (unless the developer is bitterly cruel to the people who will try) but this task is likely to be beyond most players without resorting to video walkthoughs, and probably some luck.

If you enjoyed PixelJunk Monsters, the basics are still the same. Your enjoyment of this expansion will depend on whether you think the increased level of trial and error and challenge will float your boat. In any case, it is cheap enough that even if your enjoyment only last for several levels, it is still great value.

7.0

Mass Effect offers a great journey across the stars, set to a backdrop where humanity is trying to assert its position on the galactic scale. It offers plenty of opportunity for exploration, dozens of full developed characters to talk to and have varied discussions with, and interesting options in combat.

The Citadel is the main hub of activity in the galaxy, and the Council governs what happens in the galactic space over which they have authority. Humans are not yet awarded a position on the Council, but do have an embassy on the Citadel. You can choose the pre-made John or Jane Shepard, or you can play around and create your own character, though your last name will always be Shepard to facilitate the dialogue in the game. The pre-determined characters are Soldiers, but there are 6 classes you can choose from if you want to make your own. These are the 3 'pure' classes Soldier (better with weapons and can wear heavier armour), Engineer (ability to manipulate technology including things such as overheating enemy weapons and hacking things outside of combat) and the Adept (using telekinetic powers to throw and lift enemies) and 3 classes which are a mix of any of those 2. Which class you choose dictates which talents you will be able to upgrade during the game.

Your first mission is to travel to Eden Prime with a SPECTRE to investigate a beacon that has been discovered. The SPECTRE's are a covert group of soliders serving the Council, and they are beyond the law and are able to perform their duties as they see fit to get the job done. Before your arrival, a signal from the surface indicates they are under attack from the Geth, a sentient robotic race, thought to have been eradicated from within the Council's sphere of power. The events that follow set up the story nicely; the SPECTRE whom you accompanied is betrayed by Saren, a SPECTRE who has gone rogue, and you discover the Beacon left by the Protheans, a race that has long since been extinguished from existence. Something strange occurs when you discover the Beacon, and it seems to impart a vision upon you, something that you can not understand.

The story continues once you arrive back on the Citadel, and you are allowed to explore. There are many characters who you are able to talk to, and who may offer you assignments that are not necessary or related to your main mission, but you will likely feel compelled to see what everyone has to say. Once you approach the Council with enough evidence that Saren may be a threat, a milestone for humanity occurs, and you are the first human to be awarded a position as a SPECTRE for the Council. Once this part of the story unfolds, you are able to board the Normandy, and begin exploring the galaxy. Ships use the Mass Relay system to travel at hyperspeed to reach other systems in the galaxy. Once you have chosen a Cluster, you can then select which System within that Cluster to visit. Once you visit a system, you are shown that systems Sun and all the planets or objects orbiting it. From there you can select planets to get more information on them, and this may be scanning them to search for mineral deposits, or give you the opportunity to land on it if possible.

When landing on an uncharted world, you will be dropped off in the Mako, your wheeled exploration vehicle, which comes with it's own machine gun turret and cannon. The Mako is an all-terrain vehicle and can scale steep climbs, but it can be annoying to control at times. Some worlds are full of cliffs, and it can be annoying to navigate almost all the way to the top to find that the Mako can't quite make it up that final incline and you have to take a much longer way around. The Mako controls by pushing in the direction you want to go as opposed to steering (ala Halo's Warthog) but it seems to be sluggish or get confused as to what it should be doing. Your team can get out of the Mako, which will be required to survey mineral deposits, or enter bunkers.

When you leave the Normandy, whether on the Mako or into any port, you can select two members of your squad to join you. The game begins with two people on your squad, but you will encounter another 3 on your travels that are of varying classes and have different skills. Combat plays out much like a third person shooter, but is strongly affected by the RPG elements. Depending on your characters class, you may be able to upgrade their talent in the 4 weapon classes (Pistols, Shotguns, Assault Rifles and Sniper Rifles). While you lack skill in these areas, weapon reticules will grow large quickly and your accuracy will be terrible. Holding the right bumber also pauses the game and brings up the talent wheel. Here you can use each characters talents, directing them to a target if one is required, and once unpaused the ability will be used, and then recharge and be unavailable for a period of time. You qiuckly learn that it is not wise to run gung ho into most encounters, and that talents will need to be used wisely in some of the more challenging encounters to survive. You have the ability to heal your team mates, which also requires recharging before it can be reused. Should your team mates fall in combat, they will come back with a small amount of life after the combat encounter is over. It is also possible to have your team mates uses some of their talents automatically, and I found little problem with this. In general combat they could be a little dumb at times, shooting directly at walls that enemies were behind or walking out into almost certain death. While noticeable, usually this wasn't too much of an annoyance.

Experience is earned from taking out your enemies, but is not the only way. Experience can also be earned from resolving peoples problems, investigating things in environments, surveying minerals and recovering artifacts. New weapons, armour and items also become available over the course of the game, which can be found in locked containers (which is where the decryption skill comes in handy) or can be purchased once you have sufficient funds. You will earn money from completing certain tasks, or from selling off the items that you have found that you don't need any more. Once you earn enough experience you level up, and all of your characters progress at an equal rate, regardless of whether they are in your active party or not, so you don't need to worry about constantly swapping in characters to maintain the status quo between them.

Where Mass Effect excels is in the story telling. Facial animations are convincing and the voice acting superb. The characters subtle movements during cutscenes add weight and emotion to the discussion. While there is a main story line which doesn't change, certain aspects do change based on your dialogue choices or actions. Two talents you can put points into are Intimidate and Charm, which can open up additional dialogue options, which can help you get your way. It appears that a replay of the game with a completed save may be required to explore all of these options, as even though I had put all possible points at the earliest opportunity to each of these, there were still some dialogue options I found locked. Several side quests allow you to show how heartless you can be, by giving you the choice as to whether you allow some people to live or whether their grievances should be punishable by death. The story has several twists and without wanting to spoil too much, one of your crew members (and virtually his entire race) suffers from a disease that does not allow his people to procreate, yet Saren has discovered a way to counteract it, though only to pursue his own ends. There are other story elements that can relate to certain characters, and having them along particular missions can yield different results than if they were not.

What is great about Mass Effect is the attention to detail. There are plenty of conversations you can have that you don't need to, and these will often fill you in on certain parts of the backstory. Investigating certain objects in the environment can give you experience, but also adds logs to your Codex. You can vist your Codex at any time, and there are some main entries that are narrated which cover some of the more main topics (Mass Effect drives, the Relays, etc) as well as some secondary information you can read at your leisure. No doubt all of this information would take at least a couple of hours to sift through if read all at once, and provides a great complement to everything you will learn from playing the game proper, and gives you more insight to certain races or events, and grants a greater appreciation for the character interactions in the game.

Mass Effect is a fantastic adventure, enough that I started a second playthrough shortly after finishing the first, which is a rarity for me once I complete a game. A small word of warning for explorers; the end of the story 'locked in' a bit earlier than I was expecting. Make sure you explore all of your side missions early if you want to complete the game thoroughly as you will be unable to do so after the game ends.

Score 9.0

The following is a collaborative effort from Foolz3h and I to discuss the meanings of 'hardcore' and 'casual' and related terms.

Foolz3h, much ballyhoo has been made over 'casual gaming', with claims that Nintendo has turned its back on the hardcore gamers that made them successful in generations past, or that simple easy games are becoming more prevalent on all systems. But in essence, what do the terms casual and hardcore really mean? Personally, I don't think there is really such a thing as a casual or hardcore game, though I do believe there could be such a thing as hardcore or casual gamer. Hardcore gamers tend to want a challenging and deep experience, whereas casual gamers want something that is accessible and fun without being frustrating. What do you think of these definitions? Do you think these definitions should even exist at all? Should we all just be gamers and be damned with all these cIassfications?

Well, we definitely should, but probably never will. Labels like these aren't confined to gaming. You'll hear movie buffs bemoaning the casual movie-goer supporting the scourge of romantic comedies etc., so its really just a part of modern society. Naturally, as with most things in modern society, that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss and complain about it!

But I can never talk about casual v hardcore gaming without a bit of a chuckle, because not only are the meanings often disputed, they've also changed over the years. Back in the days before the Wii, when games weren't either a mess of high resolution brown, or a messy waggle-fest, casual gamers used to be the people playing Halo and Grand Theft Auto etc. and, you know what? It made sense. These were the highest selling games---the most popular---and rarely is something that is popular considered "hardcore" in fact, it's usually very conscious of its own popularity and designed with the intentions of being accessible to as many people as possible within its market. Just as the Wii is. Back then hardcore gamers were the guys playing niche games. Things like Katamari Damacy, or even Psychonauts, yet now games like the former are considered casual, and if Psychonauts hadn't got so much hype, it'd probably be considered a kiddy platformer.

Of course, there are others who will say that hardcore gamers are the ones that are skilled, or spend a lot of time gaming, and the rest of us are casual gamers. And those two definitions are probably the two most enduring that I'm aware of. Personally, though, a hardcore gamer is just somebody who has a passion for gaming, regardless of what the game is, regardless of how much they playing, and regardless of how good they are. Not that such a label should exist.

How about you? Got any other interesting definitions, or perhaps your memory goes back a little further than mine, and can add a little more to the popular evolution of the term.

I'm not so sure about your definition of games such as Halo and Grand Theft Auto as being casual simply because they were well received or had good sales., which touches on my belief that there may be casual gamers, but not games. Halo was an accessible first person shooter, but had varying difficulties and had enough variety and content to satisfy those looking for a bit more challenge or depth (of course this is debatable, but we aren't really talking about whether people like the game or not). GTA perhaps isn't as accessible, and in turn you might expect that to lead to lower sales, but I'd like to touch on another possible definition.

Perhaps hardcore gamers are the ones who care for more than just the games themselves and continue to think about them or discuss them when they aren't playing them.... people like us. People who read online reviews, dissect games or genres in forums, and write blogs about their gaming experiences. By this supposed definition, the caual players are those who only find out about games from general advertising, or hear about them from friends, or play at parties. The sort of people who not only don't care whether the next Call of Duty is developed by Treyarch or Infinity Ward, but don't even know these studios exist. Thus games like GTA4, despite not being instantly accesible, sell based on a strong marketing campaign and brand recognition. Thoughts?

Definitely, it would be silly to cIass a game as casual based on its sales, but to clarify, I meant that they were casual because they were designed with the intention of making a highly marketable-and therefore sellable-product. Of course everybody wants their product to sell as much as possible, but you can design your game with the intention of selling in the niche market which would be a safer bet for low budget titles, or the more risky broad market where big budget games need to sell to make a profit.

As for the definition that's quite similar to my definition, though not quite as broad. But here's an interesting thought, there are casual gaming communities. I dunno if you've played many flash games (I am not ashamed to say that I have!) but often on those websites you'll find a thriving community that discusses and talks about the games they're playing. And these might be people who have never read a video game review in their life, or they may not even own a console! The same can be said for the MMO market. I know a lot of MMO players that do not really game outside of MMOs, but they take part in the MMO community, and take their gaming very seriously.

So if we were to deny that they were "hardcore" gamers despite filling much of the criteria, that definition would support the idea of there being hardcore and casual games. Of course, the more important part of what you were saying would be about gamers that might buy games based solely on marketing etc. and it's an interesting point, and if we were to define gamers with your definition it would support there not being casual/hardcore games, because often the most advertised games are what most would consider hardcore ones. I've seen many Saints Row 2, GTAIV, RE5, Zelda, Metroid Prime ads, but few casual game, save the wii, of course! But even then, apart from wii sports, the games mostly advertised are hardcore ones.

Ha, it's all getting a bit complicated.

You know, just going back to the evolution, it's interesting that the current and widely accepted view, is that the majority of the gaming community are hardcore. The ones that participate in the community, and don't play the wii of course. But that does make it feel a little less meaningless to me-that everybody is hardcore. It's like an exclusive club where everybody is invited.

I will pick up on one of the things you said "But here's an interesting thought, there are casual gaming communities" If I interpret that sentence correctly, it would indicate that youare inclined tobelieve that it is the games that should be cIassified as hardcore or casual. I'm not sure I agree. I wouldn't say I have played many flash games, but I have played some, including those that had chat windows or discussion boards that were right alongside the game window. I'd be interested to know the breakdown of the players who play flash games. Is it mainly people who can't afford full games? Those that seek out small independant games with interesting ideas that would not be viable as larger commercial games? Those who obviously enjoy the games, but don't feel it is an important enough desire to spend money on full retail products? I don't know if those answers are available and I'm toolazy to try to look them up, but it is obvious that you and I, and a few readers I'm aware of, that have or do play flash games in addition to full retail products.

Perhaps those that solely play flash games are there more for the social aspect; perhaps they view it as a chat room with a game attached rather than vice versa. MMO's seem to be considered hardcore because of the dedication required and deep knowledge of the universe that the game takes place in. I've never played an MMO and thus have limited knowledge of them. Of the people you knowthat play MMO's, were they gamers before that? It does seem improbable (though I'm not claiming it is impossible) that their first in-depth experience with gaming would be an MMO.

And to pull another quote "But that does make it feel a little less meaningless to me-that everybody is hardcore."Hardcore bywhat definition? We do appear to be going around in circles, don't we? Perhaps everyone appears to you to be hardcore because they are the ones you speak to games about. Obviously you are aware of all the friends you have that play games, and of the hundreds or thousands or posters here and on various websites. But for each of us, there might be one or more that play games, but don't feel a need to discuss them with others or post on websites such as Gamespot.

Indeed, this is getting a bit complicated, and quite frankly, it doesn't seem we have really drawn any new concrete solutions from this discussion thus far. Just thoughts on what these terms could mean, and probably do mean to different people. Now that we've had a crack at it, I've turned for the first time to wikipedia. Looking at entries for 'casual game', 'casual gamer' and 'hardcore gamer' (noting there is no entry for hardcore game) seems to indicate that there are casual games and those that play them are casual gamers, and that hardcore gamers play hardcore games. The hardcore gamer entry also indicates that the term is still pretty up in the air, and it's worth noting that the entry is unverified. I did find this nugget in the casual gamer section "A casual gamer usually has less than 5 years of experience". That is a head scratcher to me. If someone could explain to me how that has any impact on whether you might be cIassed as casual or hardcore I'd like to hear it.

Any more thoughts Foolz3h?

Just to clarify a couple of things before I wrap things up: firstly when I said "But here's an interesting thought, there are casual gaming communities" I was referring to the current popular definition of casual a gamer. As I said early I am definitely against both labels, hardcore and casual.

And as for everybody being hardcore: naturally gamers who do not visit online websites devoted to games exist, but these days the meaning of hardcore gaming (as I said earlier) has morphed into one in which everybody online fits into it. It all seems a bit fishy to me, but here we are going around in circles again! :D

And it depends on what form of "casual" games. A lot of people definitely online flash type games for social interaction and others because it is a quicker and more focused experience than a lot of "hardcore" games. They could play "casual" games to wind down after a long day at work much more easily for example. But then there's things like flash adventure games. Generally social interaction isn't a big motivation for playing, but as far as I can tell, there's often a very "hardcore" community based around them, and in the case of adventure games, it'd definitely be partly due to the lack of them commercially available, yet compared to the commercial offerings, they'd definitely come across as being "casual".

As for MMOs I don't know anybody who hadn't played any games before MMOs, but I do know quite a few who had their first in-depth experience with MMOs. Of course that's just going on personal experience, but bear in mind that a lot of RuneScape players for example start very young! :D

Last things on MMOs I'll say is that it's interesting that you'd call them hardcore. I see a lot of hate aimed at MMOs for being casual because they do not have complex video game mechanics (which isn't really true as it's quite hard to make a balanced PVP environment, for example), and are often aimed at a "casual" audience. It adds further food to thought to the discussion, and perhaps harks back to an older definition of hardcore that I mentioned earlier.

To finish up I will say that it was to be expected that we might end up going in circles considering the discussion. Not only is the word ever-changing and highly debated it's also (as you agree, I think) a little bit arbitrary and meaningless, so that would naturally make it even harder to make sense of! That's not to say it isn't a big part of modern video game culture. You can't get very far on a forum without stumbling across a fear-mongering thread about the evils of casual gaming, or one championing hardcore games in which the posters mostly pat themselves on the back. So in the end while we might not have been able to make much sense out of it, it's certainly a big part of modern video gaming culture, for better or worse. And either way, it was certainly fun to discuss with you! :)

Yes, thanks for the discussion, despite having not come to any real conclusion, it was still interesting to think about what these terms might mean, or do mean to certain people. I prefer to sidestep either term and call myself a games enthusiast. At the end of the day I like games from varying genres, with varying content and varying themes. Does anyone else have anything to say about these terms? Do you consider yourself a hardcore gamer? Have an opinion on what it means to be a casual gamer?

I sat on a high horse and spoke about piracy in an editorial a while back. Recently I've been thinking about my hypocrisy on some levels. Not to say that I've been foaming at the mouth about it while I sit here burning discs to sell to my friends or anything. For starters, I do still have some burnt CD's in my collection. Granted, I don't listen to them... but as yet I've still to remove them. It's kind of like they are reminders that should I see the disc and want to listen to it again, then I should buy it (and I have done that with several CD's since my education about piracy).

I was also thinking about how we sample music these days. In the old days, we would go to stores and listen to the CD in the shop. Nowadays, we can often listen to that music on youtube; it seems that artists have realised they can't keep taking these videos down, and are embracing the medium instead. Recently, a friend lent me a CD to listen to.... a burnt CD. Usually I would not accept these, but in the wake of the apathy that most people around me have regarding the subject, I accepted it. Sure, I could have looked up their songs on youtube... but this was another step in convenience. I don't consider this the start of some slippery slope I'm heading down or anything. If I like what I hear I will be buying the CD. But it does grey areas that I did discuss back then.

I also downloaded a trial version of a program called RegCure. You see, my computer is a piece of crap. It was crap when I bought it on a whim (instead of doing actual research), and it is now slow as all hell. It takes a few minutes to start up, then I'll open up a web browser and wait a few minutes for it to load while it valiantly attempts to load all the other stuff in the background at the same time. So it was time to check the registry. RegCure found over 700 things that could be fixed. Of course, it only fixed 2 things, being that it was the trial version. I'm just not keen on paying $30 for a program I'm going to use once in a blue moon. There are probably other programs out there, but this was one was recommended to me... by someone who I'm sure has a cracked copy of it. It would be easier to swallow given that this is for practical purposes, not entertainment... but someone or some people probably put a fair amount of work and testing into this program too.

What about you guys and gals? Even if you are anti-piracy, are you swayed by the convenience of being able to take a CD for a test drive before laying down your dollars?

Given that I've been a bit poor over the past few months, I've been a bit stingy and haven't hired many videos, and mainly partaking in video games, Stargate, and movies that I have in my collection. I decided recently that I can afford to hire a few weeklies, and thought it would be best to catch up on classic movies or well known movies that I never saw the first time around. So I watched The Godfather last week. A rather powerful movie, and great acting by the main stars. I intended to hire the sequels today, but they are on 3 night hire so aren't part of the weekly deal... yeah, that's how stoogy I am at the moment. I did however, hire Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2. That's right Monco, I've never seen them. For shame, eh? So I watched the first one today. I can see why it is such a cult classic. The time lapse sequences at the end were laughably cheesy. All round a good campy horror flick. I found it refreshing (compared to many of todays horror films) that there is little character exposition and it jumps straight to the demons/zombies/whatever you want to call them in short order. Though the scene where Bruce Campbell is up against the door, sweaty, covered in blood and fumbling with the shotgun was still intense. I also grabbed Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now Redux, two acclaimed war movies I have never seen, and Goodfellas. It's possible I may have seen this long ago, but I can't recall it so if so, a rewatch must be in order. I was also going to hire Scarface but that was a 3 night hire too... I guess we all have 'classics' that have somehow slipped through (my friend mentioned today that he has not seen any Ghostbusters or Aliens films; we will begin rectifying that with Alien tomorrow).

I finished reading Velocity by Dean Koontz a week or so ago. An interesting thriller where the main character receives a note on his windshield; 'If you don't take this note to the police I will KILL a lovely blonde schollteacher somewhere in Napa County. If you do take this note to the police, I will instead KILL an elderly woman. You have SIX hours to decide'. As most people probably would, he dismisses the note... and somebody dies. It continues from there as he receives more notes with more dilemmas, and apparent evidence against him makes it hard for him to go to the police. It's an interesting look into someone's mind as they go about trying to determine who is setting them up while trying to remove all traces of themselves from the deaths.

Since then I've started Pawn of Prophecy, Book 1 of the Belgariad by David Eddings. I've decided after a couple of books outside my normal genre, to go back and read a quintology (is that the right term for a collection of 5), but I think I will break that up by reading a non-fantasy book in between each of them. Cos I'm too lazy to look it up, perhaps Raven can tell me which Tom Clancy book comes after Hunt For Red October, I might make that next on the list.

Gaming wise I'm still playing Mass Effect and Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts. The replay of Mass Effect is going well in regards to the fact that I'm exploring a bunch of worlds I didn't before. On the other hand, I'm a little disappointed with the lack of difference in the story, despite heading on the Renegade path this time around. Sometimes I will select a different option than my previous playthrough, and I get exactly the same response, or maybe an additional line added in, or conversations still end pretty much the same. That said, I'm still only about half way through the story missions, so there is still room for some of those earlier decisions to have further reaching effects... but I'm doubting they will be too significant. Banjo is a great game, but I'm up to the Terrarium of Terror (I think I have about 80 jiggies) and the design of that particular world just annoys me. I know it means I should be trying to design vehicles that suit the environment, but it still annoys me. I played the rail shooting section the other night. I don't know if I want to bother getting the jiggie for that, let alone trying for a trophy. Why is there rail shooting in the game anyway? Several months after buying it, I finally decided to play some more Assault Heroes 2 and finish it. I found it a minor disappointment after the first game, which is why I stopped playing it in the first place, but after a delay in playing it I can say that it is still quite a good game in it's own right. And thus, we have a review.

---

Assault Heroes 2 is a solid follow up to the original. While none of the tweaks deviate too far from it's predecessor, those changes are divided equally between improvement and detriment. The core mechanics are easy to pick up; left stick moves your vehicle, right stick shoots your equipped weapon in that direction.

This sequel introduces a new weapon, the ice weapon. This can freeze enemies who will then shatter if you shoot them again. However, I found it easier to ignore this new weapon and the flamethrower, and stick with the machine gun and flak cannon. The machine gun is a fast firing weapon, and I found it just as capable of taking out infantry as the flameflower. The flak cannon is slower firing but deals more damage to armoured foes. These weapons can be upgraded by collecting powerups throughout the game, though should you die you will lose your powerups. You also have grenades which can be employed with the right trigger, and bunker busters which blow up everything around you, and these are limited in supply but more can be collected.

While the game is not exactly hard (on the medium setting), it does feel slightly harder than the first Assault Heroes. Part of this feels like an intentional design to make it a fraction harder than before, but due to the game being more detailed and the screen often quite busy, it can also sometimes be harder to see incoming fire, and these moments will frustrate you if you die from these unseen bullets. Such frustrations are fleeting, and as before the game is reasonably forgiving. Your vehicle can sustain a number of hits before it's armour is depleted, and not being hit for a short period of time will replenish your shields. Should your vehicle get completely destroyed, you will still go it on foot. This time around when you are on foot, you still have access to all 4 weapons. Additionally you can roll to evade fire, which can be essential as you are more sluggish on foot. After a short period of time, your vehicle will respawn and you can get back in. You can also get out of your vehicle at any time to reach areas where vehicles can't go.

Another improvement is the underground sections, which have been carried over from the previous game. In the original, dying in these sections sent you back to the normal level, but here they are treated like normal levels that you can play until you lose all your lives. Other vehicles also show up every now and then that you can commandeer, such as a tank or helicopter. These make for a nice change of pace when you first encounter them, but you will usually feel more at home in the jeep. There are also some space levels, and these felt quite a bit tougher due to large amounts of debris and faster enemies.

Unfortunately, the traditional dual-stick shooting space missions are a predeccesor to one of the worst additions. The game switches to a behind-the-ship view and has you racing down a tunnel. I could not tell what I was shooting at or how I was dying, and kept getting bounced all over the place for no apparent reason during the times I played with a friend. Thankfully these sections are short, though I must confess my disappointment that the game ends with one of these segments. Another minor annoyance is the 'mushroom field' effect. In a few areas you cross poisonous fields that affect your controls and have your movement and fire deviating from where you are pointing. While this is a point of difference and a cool effect, it is frustrating when you die because you did not have full control. Another minor but noticeable point is that the fire snaps to North South East and West a little too early for my liking, meaning you may not be able to fire upon certain areas in your field of vision.

The game is presented well, and there are even more enemy types than before, and they cross into the bizzare at times. As well as your standard array of tanks, helicopters and infantry, you will encounter such oddities as armoured gorillas, velociraptors, infantry in cadillacs, and infantry riding on giant hogs. They all have decently different behaviour, so they are more than just pallete swaps. The game has several moments where it seems the intent is to simply overwhelm you with numbers, and the screen can become filled with enemies and bullets. The game zooms in and out at predetermined locations to highlight the action, and does a good job of presenting up close action or battlefields filled with enemies. The environments are all highly detailed and filled with destructible objects, but as noted earlier this can make it hard to see incoming fire at times. The game never slows down, with some odd exceptions such as when a boss dies and dust erupts, and it seems odd they would include such features with that apparent slowdown. The game is divided into 30 areas, and should you lose all your lives, you can start the game again from the area where you died. Every few areas culminates in a boss fight, and as with the previous game these are some of the highlights of the game. Often these boss fights are accompanied by swarms of infantry or crablike constructs, and you will find yourself dividing your fire between them in an attempt to stay alive.

Assault Heroes 2 is recommended to anyone who enjoyed the original or likes mission based dual-stick shooters in general. While it's flaws are noticeable, they are not a big detriment to the solid core gameplay.

Score 7.5