Defending Bishock

Poor old Bioshock has become the Tiger Woods of gaming in the last few weeks, its formerly glittering façade apparently showing some signs of tarnish. Why is that? Because of the internet, of course. A digit in the year is about to change and consequently every real and wannabe journalist (and on the internet, who can tell them apart?) has decided to mark the end of the decade with a list. Personally, I think the end of the decade should be marked with an insightful and wide-ranging article full of relevant interviews and research that seeks to encapsulate and learn from the preceding ten years, but I haven’t got the time to write it and nor does anyone else, so lists it is.

Anyway, despite having praise liberally heaped upon it ever since its debut in 2007, Bioshock’s presence in the never ending stream of best of lists which we’re using to finally smother the noughties out of their embarrasingly named misery has got a lot of people’s backs up. “It’s not revolutionary enough.” “It didn’t change the way we play games.” “It holds your hand to much.”

To be fair, those aren’t inaccurate criticisms. At its heart, Bioshock is just another first person shooter. It’s easy to be a little underwhelmed by it, but seriously, don’t write it off the big lists just yet. This is the decade that saw the likes of Madworld and Far Cry 2 hyped to the rooftops. That’s what happens if you don’t keep a firm grasp on the concept of what a good game is.

There’s more to Bioshock than what Yahtzee memorably described as objectivist folderol, although it has to be said, the folderol is a huge part of the experience. Hearing a paraphrase of Ayn Rand’s self-serving philosophies dished up by the game’s Andrew Ryan in a voice that resembles Charles Foster Kane at his most contemptuous is a huge part of the game, as much of the Bioshock atmosphere comes from the contrast between the contorted justification of greed and selfishness with the horrors it has led to. While Ryan booms out Zeus like pronouncements from the tannoy and Atlas charms you over the radio, the reality of the situation is revealed by Rapture’s many audio diaries that paint the real picture of the city’s decline through the fears of its citizens. There aren’t many games that craft such a nuanced, layered story or unfold it with such perfect timing, and all with barely a cutscene in sight.

If the story isn’t enough for you, what about Rapture itself? All gilt and neon, art deco at the bottom of the ocean, Bioshock is one of those games that constantly makes you stop to just look around. Remember how you loved the wide open environment when you first played Halo, but it soon wore off? Remember the way the pre-rendered backgrounds of Resident Evil gave a real sense of place and progress, but they soon wore off too? In Bioshock, Rapture never wears off. Even after several hours of play you’ll still be stopping in rooms and corridors to marvel at the view

Ten there are the achievements. Few games ever get the balance of achievements as right as Bioshock does, and its responsible for my final conversion into a scorewhore. It’s almost as if Bioshock is grateful to you for playing it, the way it constantly drops little 15 and 20g gifts into your score, whilst holding in reserve some slightly tougher rewards designed to make you play more, and harder. Even Bioshock’s big achievements are perfectly balanced between not being instantly attainable, but not being so difficult that they ever reduce the game to the drudge of pigeon-hunting or ingot-collecting.

Sure, Bioshock does have it’s weaknesses. For all the nuance of its story, the games famed moral choice aspect is a blunt and unsophisticated either/or proposition, and don’t get me started on the difficulty. Having heard time and again how tough the Big Daddies were, how I’d feel amazing when I finally beat one of these dangerous behemoths, how they’re among gaming’s best bosses, I naturally erred on the side of caution and set the difficulty a little low for my first Bioshock playthrough. I spent the game with medical kits raining down on me like manna from heaven, got to the point here I was killing Big Daddies in a nonchalant, offhanded fashion (can you wield a rocket launcher insouciantly? I certainly can.) and only died once in the entire game.

Of course, that’s a minor complaint. When a game offers character development and plot material right to the very last, it would be a terrible shame to miss any of it by turning the difficulty level up to the level of a brain aching slog.

No, Bioshock may be ‘just another shooter’, but it’s a brilliantly realised one, full of wit and clever asides, set in a beautifully degraded environment. It doesn’t reinvent the way games are played, but it’s mix of inventiveness and excitement reminds you of why you play them in the first place.

Give them some money...

...it's for charity. You know, for kids! Besides, tell me you aren't jealous of the eye-bleeding fun they must be having while you're at work.

http://desertbus.org/

First Impressions: Left4Dead 2

If the enormous amount of lag was anything to go by, I wasn't the only one to download the Left4Dead 2 playable demo today. While 30,000 boycotters may still be keeping up the pretense that they're not going to play the game, the magically vanishing, twitching, reappearing state of play today suggested that a heavy load was being placed on the game by everyone who did want a go.

Personally, I've never been particularly bothered by Valve's decision to go for a sequel rather than DLC for the original game. Yes, the four campaigns in the original installment can't help but become overfamiliar very swiftly, despite the best efforts of the AI director.The recent addition of an extra DLC map didn't do much to compensate, as it's hard not to cast a grudging eye at the PC players downloading stacks of user generated maps such as the brilliant Coal'd Blood and feel that the console version is looking a little tired. More DLC would have been nice, but a sequel is just as good, its not like we haven't had a year to save up for it. The fear for me was never that L4D would be abandoned, but that the sequel wouldn't be able to create the same cinematic excitement offered by the first installment.

So, based on the demo, how's it looking? Well, the addition of melee combat has brought the expected mild whiff of Dead Rising, as you trade in your second pistol for frying pans, machetes or even a guitar. It works, and provides a comedic, ammo-conserving alternative to firepower, but it doesn't really seem to add that much to the game. Explosive bullets, on the other hand? They look pretty handy, not that I managed to lay hands on any today. The new special infected are pitch perfect, with Jockeys,acid phlegm and Chargers all providing new varieties of peril and creating new flavours of havoc, without being powerful enough to detract from the games uber-threat, the Tank. Yes, you'll still get dreadbelly when that distinctive roar and ominous music kick in.

Best of all, the environments seem to be greatly improved. While there were lots of side paths and rooms to explore in the original, they were always just bolt ons, you never lost sight of where you were going. In Left 4 Dead 2, however, it's easy to stray off the correct path, and should a team member become seperated and incapacitated, you'll embark on a heart-in-mouth trackback through lengthy, meandering maps to rescue them, expecting the horde at any second. It was at times like this that I began to feel like L4D2 might even surpass it's predecessors ability to crank up the tension. Having only had 'The Parish' to play so far, it's to soon to tell, but if the other levels are as good at forcing splits in the group, then L4D2 is going to exceed it's predecessor.

Wolfenstein Preview

Wolfenstein, from the hour or so I've played of it, is pretty much exactly what you're expecting of a Wolfenstein game: A mixture of Nazi's and Lovecraft that has just enough tongue in its cheek to excuse the combination but not enough to make you feel entirely comfortable with it.

It's glossily presented and has a very physical feel to the action. There's a time-slowing mechaqnic and a sort of green mist that can be used to see alternative pathways through the place.

It's extremely messy as well...a glancing shot, apparently unscripted during open play, took the arm off one opponent and carried on into the head of another. It's gleefully messy and violent, with some incredibly powerful weapons, both ballistic and sci fi, and opponents that are dumb as hammers but fast and accurate when they do find you.

Great fun. Nothing new or original, but I enjoyed it.

Yes, I had a lovely holiday...

...thanks for asking. Back to it now, and Wolfenstein previews is on the way.

I've played Batman: Arkham Asylum, who wants to touch me?

Surrounded by mannequins depicting a selection of gaming’s greatest characters, not to mention some preposterously breasted Lara Croft models, I started wondering if Batman has what it takes to join them in gaming’s pantheon. On the evidence I’ve seen it definitely has what it takes to impress Batman fanboys, thanks to endless visual and dialogue references to all parts of the Batman canon and a selection of script and voice talent from the popular animated series. So, as a massive comic geek I can say that I’m deliriously happy with the game. But the question is, what’s it like when you pick up the controller?

I’ve now had about two hours of hands-on time with a copy of Batman: Arkham Asylum that’s so close to being finished that there’s little more than a bit of sound balancing to be done, and from what I’ve seen so far, it’s really very good…but perhaps not perfect. I won’t review on the basis of two hours, but I’m guessing the finished game is heading for a very positive three stars or perhaps even four.

For starters, it’s beautifully presented, with everything from the strangely tinted lighting effects through to the rippling of Batman’s cape clearly showing the benefit of some painstaking work. Huge amounts of motion capture have been used, with the actor playing Killer Croc wearing weights on his legs to get a suitably lumbering, musclebound gait.

Combat is split between three buttons: Y for counters, X for strikes and B for ape sweeps that brush aside knives and batons. Dealing with hand-to-hand weapons is one thing, but Bat’s really doesn’t like guns, and if armed opponents are around you’ll need to use stealth to get above, below or behind them unnoticed, and then use the stealth takedowns you’ve unlocked to take them out. It’s a nice mixture of smooth, combo-based brawling and clever stealth that looks a lot smoother and less scripted in play than it does in the trailers.

You can see if opponents are armed using the game’s detective mode, a visor that scans opponents, walls, hostages and weapons to identify their conditions, weak points and grapple points. It can also be used to follow scent and chemical trails and to spot the question marks left around the asylum by the Riddler.

This mixture of scanning and swinging, combined with the need to re-traverse certain areas, gives Batman: Arkham Asylum the feel of Metroid Prime at times, albeit a Metroid Prime with added stealth and hand-to-hand combat sequences.

The script is excellent, and while there are a few dud moments in the delivery, the important lines from the important voice actors are delivered perfectly.

I have got a few reservations, mind you. The Detective mode is almost too useful to turn off, yet having it on all the time gets in the way of the gorgeous graphics. In two hours of play, I never came across a reason to come out of detective mode apart from my own desire to see the game properly. Without a cost, or a need to recharge it, Detective mode feels like it might become one of those game mechanics so ever-present that it becomes a distraction.

On top of that, the game seemed strangely room-based, having you progress along corridors towards open areas in which large brawls take place, in a fashion that feels more like an old-school beat-em-up rather than a modern action-adventure game.

Small complaints like that don’t mean its not one of the best games I’ve played for a long time, or that I won’t be buying it come August 28th, but they are enough to make me think that it might not get a full five stars.

What's up?

I've reviewed all the Fallout 3 DLC side by side over at The Leisure Lab, which is a bit like reviewing a gorgeous side salad that's been served alongside your crackpipe. It's not really necessary and in some cases incongruous, but it does make an unquittable experience even better.

Apart from Operation Anchorage, of course. That's the brown leaf in the salad, or perhaps the Vim in the crack.

Anyway, Batman, Wolfenstein and Mini Ninjas on their way later, I need to sort my thoughts out, as at present Mini Ninjas seems to be the most engaging of the three!

Ok, ok...

...I'll do some real posts later. I'm going to the offices of Eidos this morning for a hands-on with Batman: Arkham Asylum and Mini Ninjas, and I should be getting preview levels of Wolfenstein this afternoon as well. So, real content is on the way.

Follow diversion

I used to follow an excellent blog called Dave's Long Box, and loved every hilarious post, especially his attempts to turn 80s chopper-combat show Airwolf into an adjective. But do you know what I didn't like? I didn't like it when he left the Long Box unattended for lenngthy spells to write for other blogs.

Anyway, I've just written a head 2 head battle between Grand Theft Auto IV and Fallout 3 for Megabits of Gaming. Check it out, it's totally Airwolf!

A confession...

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I’m very picky about racing games. I don’t care about realistic damage simulation, the effects of tire degradation or the accurate recreation of sports cars that cost the same as a small house.

By the same chalk, I don’t really care for the ability to shoot at the cars I’m racing, or pick up power boosts, or the ability to come off a bump in the road and achieve the sort of pants-wetting heights that should only be attained under the control of a skilled pilot, with an over-friendly air hostess handing you a complimentary gin and tonic and a couple of Mogadon.

So, there you have it, I don’t like racing simulators, and I don’t like arcade racers. I don’t want to feel that my choice of sparkplug is going to come back to haunt me, nor do I want to win by shooting someone with a red tortoiseshell. I want a game that lets me race as if I’m driving a real car on a real track, but doesn’t penalise me for the fact that I can’t drive for toffee.

Which is why I’m expecting to be in the minority when I say that I really enjoyed Superstars V8.

Ok, it’s comparatively limited in tracks and drivers, one moment its penalising you for cutting a measly corner while the next its letting you get away with a massive detour across the grass, and its damage simulation boils down to little more than a wobbly bumper, but if you can get past all that, and the awful heavy metal soundtrack, then you’ve got the sort of racing game they used to make. The sort that makes you call up a bunch of your mates and have them come round to your house (take that, Xbox live) with beers and peanuts and spend an evening passing controllers back and forth, roaring encouragement at each other and feeling like Jimmy Hunt.

Between its howling turbos, surprisingly invulnerable cars and aggressive but not overly intelligent pack, Superstars V8 will have you breaking late, diving for gaps that aren’t there, and generally doing your best to drive intelligently while slowly succumbing to the red mist.

It doesn’t have thoroughly realistic handling, it doesn’t have many tracks, and it’s even missing a few real life cars thanks to licensing issues, but that didn’t stop me having a cracking good time with it.You can watch my in-game footage in my Superstars V8 review.

Fallout falls to Fight Night 4!

Well, it was bound to happen eventually, Fallout 3 has been knocked off the top of my playlist.

What could topple the huge and addictive RPG? Well, partly it’s the arrival of EA’s excellent Fight Night Round 4, but mainly, it’s the presence of a really ill judged piece of DLC.

Now to be fair to Bethesda, they’ve come a long way since cheekily trying to get gamers to part with their money for horse armour in Oblivion. In general, the Fallout 3 DLC has been well worth the money, with the Pitt offering new weapons and a compelling story, Brokent Steel offering new weapons and an increased level cap, and Point Lookout offering new weapons and new environments. But Operation Anchorage? Well, it offers new weapons. Alas, it also offers an incredibly dull gameplay that feels at odds with the general Fallout 3 experience.

Heavily combat oriented and almost entirely linear, Operation Anchorage has you playing what is essentially an FPS with Fallout’s VATS system, placing you in a virtual reality historical simulation of the war that led to the devastation you see everywhere in the main game. Alas, the snowy wastelands, prescribed paths and lack of any real exploration or gameplay choices are completely at odds with the rest of Fallout, and even the addition of the excellent Gauss Gun can’t compensate for the way Operation Anchorage wrenches you out of the Fallout experience.

To be honest, much had been made of the Operation Anchorage’s weknesses before now, which is why I’d gone for all the other DLC first, but when Anchorage appeared with a 35% reduction, I assumed it would be worth it. Don’t make the same mistake-get the later DLC, but steer clear of Operation Anchorage.

The other part of Fallout 3’s temporary removal from my must play list? Fight Night Round 4. It’s a wonderfully nuanced and speedy simulation of the sweet science, one that uses authentic physics, realistic fighting styles and varied fighter to produce an utterly addictive gaming experience, and that’s before you’ve even taken it online, where it really starts to excel. Check out my full Fight NightRound 4 review here.

An alternative opinion...

Over at Topless Robot they're far less moany than me. Instead of worrying about The Wii's good game gulfs, they've come up with 10 Tips on how to fill the gaps.

The Conduit delayed: bad news for The Wii?

Poor old Wii. I still maintain that playing a good game on the Wii is just about the most enjoyable gaming experience you can have, but it’s not an easy thing to do. Given the scarcity of good titles and glut of shovelware, the average Wii sits unattended for lengthy spells waiting for the next arrival of a rarer-than-Hero-dolls Triple A title.

Which is why it probably didn’t need the announcement that the long awaited Wii FPS The Conduit has been delayed due to ‘localisation issues’. It’s only a short delay, moving the game from June 26th back to July 10th, and it goes a little way towards excusing the usually ominous rarity of review samples, but still, it’s a blow to the Wii.

Following an E3 at which Micrsoft and Sony both announced exciting new technology and games, the Wii at present can muster in it’s defence the prospect of four new Mario games, a faint rumour of a new Zelda title and a £15 add-on gadget that simply makes the Wiimote as responsive as most people hoped it would be back when they shelled out £170 for the console in the first place.

Really, with the future looking so unoriginal, the Wii needed The Conduit ASAP to keep people interested.

Ok, so if there are no further delays, it’s a matter of three weeks. But it’s three weeks that will see the release of Fight Night Round 4, Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood, Ghostbusters and Overlord II on other platforms. Ok, its not like the other consoles are getting new Halo or Metal Gear Solid games, but it’s still a list of highly anticipated titles, and to compete the Wii needed to offer more than just re-issues of old Donkey Kong and Resident Evil games (really, I love Resident Evil games, but I’ve got them all on Wii compatible Gamecube discs, am I really going to pay for them again just for added Wii-waggling?).

To be fair, its only a three week delay, but it’s three weeks at the end of dry spell that goes back several months. I’m sure The Conduit will be great when it finally gets here, but it’s a pattern that repeats itself far too often, and when a Wii lies unused during the huge gulfs between good games, it’s hard not to wonder if gamers eyes will start to wander.

Because the internet is a bit obsessive...

I’ve got Fight Night Round 4, Indiana Jones and The Staff of Kings and Overlord II reviews on the way, but they’re all in need of a little more play and polish. In the meantime, I’m curious to know what people think of the standard reviewer’s chestnut ‘Worth a rental’?

I’ve heard a lot of people complain about that as being a cop out from hacks who don’t have to pay for their games and can’t understand the need to help purchasers make a decision about what to do with their money, and also that it displays a lack of gumption, an unwillingness to actually say whether a game is worth having or not.

I don’t get it.

The fact is, for every game I get free from a PR company, I buy two or three more. Getting the occasional review sample doesn’t mean that I buy fewer games than most people, it means I play slightly more.

The fact is, I do rent games and I do look for bargains. I have a three disc LoveFilm account that I queue stacks of games in, and while there are some that I play for an hour and send straight back, and others that I enjoy so much that I buy them, the bulk of my rentals are exactly that, rentals. I rent them, I play them, I send them back and think no more about them and as long as I turn them around in period that covers only one LoveFilm payment then they’ve cost me about £7 to play. So I suppose if you wanted to be really picky you could say that when I claim that something is worth a rental I mean that its worth £7 and up to a month of your time, but not worth £39 retail. That’s not bad is it?

Found him!

And it only took an hour or so of backtracking. Doesn't change the main point though. The accidental loss of a dog offered far more guilt than the average morality choice does.

Lost dog, please help!

You know Yahtzee? That Brooker-esque games reviewer we all claim to watch purely for entertainment and never for buying advice? Well he’s recently repeated his not wholly incorrect assertion that morality choices in gaming are meaningless because they involve such extremes: ‘save Western Civilsation or eat a toddler’, and it got me thinking about a very recent gaming experience.

You see, I’ve lost my dog. I first found him in scrapyard in the Capital Wastelands, and my initial thoughts were grim, Another irritating noisemaker to hoover up medicine and supplies, just like Sheva in Resi 5 or Rufferto (my dog in Fable II). I know, I’ve just compared an AI woman to a dog, but her effect on inventory management is the same.

My mood didn’t initially improve, as my newfound companion did his best to prove me right, soaking up enemy bullets like a meatsponge and consuming precious medicine, whilst throwing himself headlong into battle with everything from Supermutants to Mirelurks, forcing me to abandoned my careful ranged approach and dive in to rescue him.

Bit by bit, however, I began to warm to him. It might have been when he dived into a room full of Radroaches and killed them for me, saving me the trouble of switching from combat shotgun to lead pipe and providing me with some irradiated bug meat in the process, or it might have been when I turned around in the wasteland and found that he’d saved me from an attack by one of his canine contemporaries. Whenever it happened, I grew to enjoy Dogmeat’s company, and consequently was keen to keep him out trouble, ordering him to stay on the outskirts of battle. Which is how I found myself shooting solo through a pack of raiders, who led to another pack of raiders, and a house, and a settlement, and a sidequest, and job, and a cave system, and another settlement, with another side mission…wait, where did I leave my dog?

What’s this got to do with morality choices? (Remember I was talking about them up there? You googled for Yahtzee and got my first paragraph instead?) Only that you can’t expect game designers to do everything, or to know what will push your buttons. I’m feeling so guilty about Dogmeat that much as I want to resist the urge and keep playing through Fallout, I know I’m instead going to spend hours scouring the wasteland looking for him.

In Fable II, despite being a paragon of virtue, I was perfectly happy to off innocent Spire guards for the boss or allow young maidens to be aged by shadowy gods, because I had an important job to do. I had no qualms about harvesting Little Sisters in Bioshock’s Rapture - no matter what Libertarians might tell you, their philosophy of unbridled self-interest regardless of the consequences is inherently corrosive, so the Sisters were hardly going to end up having an idyllic lifestyle if I left them alone. No matter what morality choices are engineered for me in the game, I still tend to put the game first and suffer no real guilt because of it. But lose one imaginary irradiated mongrel, and boy, do I get pangs. Such pangs that I have to abandon my planned defence of oft-criticised reviewers' snowclones in order to tell you about my lost dog. Moop.

What's in a game?

So, having outlined what I think a game has to do to get a particular score, I suppose I should list a few notable games and what score I’d give (or have given) them so you can get a feel for what Robo-thumbs review scores mean.

One Star Games:
Ok, howsabout Iron Man? Not quite broken, but it’s hard to think of a more utterly pointless gaming experience, with the possible exception of that worthless DS game that asked for £20 to allow you to send trivia questions to another DS…which you could do with the stylus and send button for free.

Two Star Games:
Did you ever play Baroque? A great story concept and incredibly evocative character design, ruined by one simple conceit - dying and replaying was part of the game, and vital to unfolding the story. Add to that an annoying rogue-like tendency to re-create each level randomly so you couldn’t even speed through your repetition, coupled with an incessant grinding guitar soundtrack and a berk who kept yelling ‘Goddamn’ every third word…gah.

Three Star Games:
Now here it gets interesting, and potentially controversial. The rest of the internet seems to be giving Red Faction Guerrilla the four or five star treatment, but to me, it's simply a three star game. Great fun, no major flaws, but it just doesn’t quite grab me enough. Also in the three star category would be something like, say, Call of Duty 3. So, can you guess where call of Duty 4 and 5 would place?

Four Star Games:
That’s right, Call of Duty: World at War is a four star game; it’s just that little bit too absorbing to be played casually. Arguably, it’s even more visceral than CoD4, if not quite as polished or dramatic. Also in the four star camp I’d put something like Gun - I know a lot of people hated it, but for me, I just had to keep playing more and more. Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 4, and Fable II all belong here as well.

Five Star Games:
The biggies, these are the games that make you call in sick to work and stay up all night, the games that simply don’t let you consider the possibility of playing anything else. In here you’ll find the likes of Civilisation III, Fallout 3, Resident Evil 2, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Syndicate Wars and Championship Manager.

So, that’s an idea of where I’d place certain games. Now I suppose I’d better go and do some reviews. What’s next? Prototype? Fight Night? No…Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings. Alas.

Hands on with Prototype...

I’ve been having a great deal of fun with my review copy of Prototype (or should that be [Prototype]?) I reckon it’s time to sum it up in one neat, evocative sentence. How’s this: It’s like grafting the free-running skills of Assassins Creed’s Altair onto the shape-shifting powers of Resident Evil’s Tyrant and letting the resulting monster free roam around a plague-struck New York smashing up tanks.

Ok, that’s quite a lot to say in one breath, but that pretty much sums up the experience so far. It’s incredibly fast and furious, with huge crowds of civilians, soldiers and infected people, ludicrously exhilarating runs and leaps up and off the sides of enormous buildings and shape-shifting skills that range from growing a huge blade in your arm, worming your stretchy limbs along under the pavement before bursting forth to impale your enemies, or simply turning your fists into rocky lumps that you can use to smash up tanks.

Phew! And all that is before we even get to the whole consume-and-impersonate aspect of gameplay, or the expanding list of powers that eventually necessitates a petal menu.

From what I’ve played so far, Prototype seems to be determined to rush my speedy free-running hoody-wearing self headlong from one action-packed tear-up to the next, and has already had me smash up tanks, throw taxis at helicopters and steal rocket launchers from squaddies. My only misgiving is that sometimes, when a game tries to set such a full-on pace from the start, to deliver a huge complement of skills and kills from the opening moments, it’s too easy to become jaded very quickly. Be honest, how quickly did you get bored with MadWorld?

Still, it hasn’t happened yet, and hopefully it never will, though I’ll be sure to let you know if it does. In the meantime, it’s also worth noting that Prototype’s graphics, despite what you may have heard elsewhere, look rather good to me: there’s a fair amount of detail, some good smoke effects, a huge depth of field and lovely lighting and reflection effects. My only concern as I explore the huge city is that there won’t be enough variety to build on what we’ve already seen.

Star Ocean: The Last Hope review

Speaking of Star Ocean The Last Hope, I'll be reviewing it here shortly, but in the meantime, you can check out this video Star Ocean The Last Hope review.

What does it all mean?

Ok, with reviews of Star Ocean, Prototype and Fight Night imminent, I figure that I’d better lay out what my scores mean. Shortly after, I’ll give you an idea of what score I’d give to certain games, so you can have an idea of how I mark.

1/5: Pretty much has to be a broken game or at least so poor that you wish it was. In the vague hope that it will provide half an hour or an hour of diversion before you realise that, and because the case might come in handy, it gets one star.

2/5: Not actually broken, but no fun either. Dull, repetitive, hamstrung by difficulty issues or just lacking in any real enjoyment or point.

3/5: A perfectly acceptable game, nothing notably wrong with it, but nothing to stand it out above the crowd either. Sometimes, niche games will make it in here as well, by dint of being ideal for their target audience, but having a target audience so small that giving it a higher score would risk misleading the majority of uninterested gamers.

4/5: An excellent game, one that eliminates all other spare time possibilities. If your usual leisure time options are a trip to the pub, or picking up a good book, or watching a film, then forget it. In my opinion, a four star game will be enough fun that all your spare time will be spent on it.

5/5: Perfection is unattainable and I’m not going to pretend otherwise, but a five star game can at least be counted on to provide you with an all-consuming game experience. Forget taking over your existing free time, a five star game is one that forces you to create extra free time - cancel all your plans, forget about sleeping, phone in sick for work. If it earns five stars it will be as addictive as crack, or even really good Stilton.

What's in a name?

There are certain times when a game really tests you, either because you've been slumped in front of the screen for six solid hours and your mental and physical dexterity has deteriorated to the level of a two-year-old, or just because a boss has been designed to force you through such an infuriating number of interlinked steps to bring about its downfall (I'm looking at you, MP3:C's Mogenar War Golem) that you find yourself wondering how it's possible to continue without being fitted with robo thumbs.

Of course, the absence of hyphen means that I now look at the title of my own blog and think 'Robot hum? BS?'

Oh well, never mind.

What's the plan?

Ok, so the great thing about this being my blog is that I can say what I want. If my first thought about UFC Undisputed is that it contains a disturbing amount of sweaty redneck manwrestling, then I don’t have to convert that into a comment on the ‘complexities of the ground game’.

I can also offer partial opinions and reviews in progress. Frankly, there are entire forums full of professional game reviewers making trumped-up claims to how much of a game they play before writing the review - the baseline is always ‘the whole story mode’, after which the assembled hacks attempt to trump each other by adding ‘several hours of multiplayer’, ‘several hours on all the maps’ or ‘playing the story mode on a higher difficulty, completing all the mini-games and collecting all the special items’. Frankly, I’m waiting for one of those berks to claim that a review isn’t done until they’ve got a full DNA sequence of the lead programmer.

Aside from the fact that I think they’re all lying, there’s a hell of a difference between what I have to do for work and what I have to do for fun, and this blog is for my own amusement. There’s not a chance in hell that I’m going to write a review based on all three discs and 40 hours of play in Star Ocean: The Last Hope when I’ve got Prototype and Fight Night Round 4 sitting next to the Xbox and Conduit on its way for the Wii.

On top of that, it’s my blog, not a news blog, so I don’t have to be timely. When Resident Evil 5 came out, I went on a retro binge and played through Resi 1, 2, 3, 4 and 0 for nostalgia value. I intended to then jump into Resi 5 at the end of it, but strangely enough I was all zombied out, so it just sits in my pile. In any case, I can write about my enjoyment of those decade old games rather than having to worry about whether Killzone 2 being the best looking game I’ve ever seen makes up for the fact that I was a little bit bored by it.

So… you can expect unvarnished opinions that may wander off topic, but will hopefully be useful simply by dint of their honesty. You can expect reviews that might not take into account the annoying fetch quest which happens eight hours in because, hey, I got bored and something better came along, alright? And you can expect opinions, digressions and meanderings based on whatever games I happen to have loved or hated in the past that just happen to have bubbled back up to the forefront of my thoughts right now.

Essentially, this will be a blog on which a professional game reviewer behaves like an ordinary fan, and has a great deal more fun because of it.

While I work out what to do with this site, why not check out my Red Faction Guerilla review? Really, you might as well do something while you wait, because I've not had enough coffee yet to get any fresh content on here straight away.





Ooh, tough pose.

The First Post

What fresh hell is this? I'd better get my thinking cap on, sharpish...