Quite often I surprise myself when I go back to previous reviews. I’d forgotten just how much I had enjoyed Battlefield 1 when it came out, seemingly loving the new Operations mode which kept me coming back for a while (although no longer than what I did for the review it seems). I hadn’t really been following the development for Battlefield V but on the surface it’d seem that, if you liked its predecessor, you’d like the enhancements that were coming along with this latest instalment. However this time around it felt like more of the same as there was nothing particularly innovative or novel about this latest Battlefield that grabbed me. That coupled with some rather egregious launch day issues made for a very middle of the road experience, neither completely terrible nor something I’d recommend you’d seek out and play.
Much like its predecessor Battlefield V retains the same story vignette style for its campaigns, although there was far fewer of them this time around. They all follow pivotal stories of World War II but they are all, of course, entirely fictional which seems to annoy the history buffs to no end. They’re incredibly simple in their construction, taking place in the multiplayer maps and almost entirely consisting of running from one base to another, completing some rudimentary objective before moving onto the next. It seems that DICE is taking a kind of softly-softly approach to killing off the single player experience, rather than take the direct (and more controversial) route of just killing it off completely.
The Frostbite 3 engine is looking as good as it ever has although it is starting to show its age in some places. Mostly this comes up when you’re in tight environments or up close to things where the numerous visual tricks that the engine uses start to come into stark relief. The Battlefield games have always been at their best in giant environments where you can enjoy the wide vistas before a sniper takes you out from the other side of the map. Performance is still workable although it seems that DirectX 12 support is still a little patchy, glitching out hard on me and causing a few crashes even after installing the latest drivers. I’ll touch more on that later though as there’s definitely some larger issues at play here with the usual DICE jankiness turned up a couple notches in this release.
At its core Battlefield V feels the same as it has for quite a while now, retaining its penchant for large battles on in huge spaces with all the trimmings you’d expect from a large war simulator. The classes are the same, sticking to the same 4 tropes that were defined so long ago. There’s supposedly some improved versions of other game modes but, in all honesty, I never really got around to playing them. No I spent the majority of my time in the game playing with friends in the one game mode that they never get wrong: conquest. In that regard the Battlefield experience I had felt pretty much the same as it always did, for better and for worse.
Combat remains much the same, favouring a slower paced strategic type of engagement rather than say Call of Duty’s flurry of bullets and respawns. That still brings with it all the less desirable aspects of course, like snipers being able to one shot you from places you can’t see them and one shot kill headshots from guns that really have no right to be that effective (like the Medic’s MP5 which netted me far more kills with that then even I felt was fair). The large scale battles in conquest do retain their larger than life feeling though, something which precious few games have been able to achieve. Surprisingly though even with many players taking advantage of the insane 11 day head start (my mate being one of them, dumping some 52 hours into the game before its official release) I didn’t feel as disadvantaged as I previously did. Indeed unlike previous games where a maxed out tank player could ruin the game for an entire team this time around things felt an awful lot more balanced. Either that or I’ve improved dramatically over the last few years but I doubt the countless hours I’ve spent in COD have really helped me that much in Battlefield…
The single player missions are a relatively short affair with most of them being over in an hour so. If you’re so inclined there’s a bunch of hidden collectibles strewn about the place which, if you complete the associated challenges for the mission, will give you an unique melee weapon for use in multiplayer. Honestly given how basic they are I really wasn’t inclined to search blindly around the giant maps looking for them, especially when the combat wasn’t exactly fun or enjoyable. You see most of the missions are meant to be tackled stealthy, but they don’t equip you with many tools for doing so outside of throwing shells to distract people or highlighting them with your binoculars. The AI is so extrucingatly dumb that DICE counteracted that by making them all top tier marksman, able to hit you with a pistol with sniper like accuracy. Of course you can counter this by alerting them and then running behind a door, which they’ll all then happily run towards allowing you to mow them all down.
Honestly I’m starting to get on board with the idea of not having a single player campaign at all if they’re going to be this basic. I can understand the idea of wanting to provide glimpses into various parts of the setting but I’m not particularly interest in that as a subject and, from what I’ve seen, the things depicted in there aren’t exactly what the history buffs enjoy either. Honestly I’d prefer a shorter campaign, maybe say 3~4 hours or so, that was a polished end to end experience. Heck that used to be what most of these games delivered (although I admit many derided them for the short length) so maybe their return to their roots simply hasn’t gone far enough.
I’d probably be a little more generous if Battlefield V wasn’t so unpolished on release, both for the single and multiplayer experience. Every new release of Battlefield seems to bring with the same old bugs, chief of which is a physics engine which gets routinely confused on how to simulate the most rudimentary of things. I had one instance in the single player campaign where someone spawned inside a vehicle, immediately died then started to vibrate violently as they bounced between the outside and inside of the vehicle. I had the bomb on a couple maps spawn in the ground (in an area that wasn’t destructible either, see below screenshot), preventing the team from picking it up and forcing the game into a neverending stalemate. This is somewhat par for the course with Battlefield games but, honestly DICE, it’s time for you to either develop Frostbite 4 to address these problems or find a new engine entirely.
All of this culminates into an experience that isn’t so much different from those of Battlefield games past which, depending on what you’re looking for in this game, can be a good or a bad thing. For me personally the Battlefield games have always had a pretty limited lifetime for me; the lack of repetitive hits to my dopamine centers that other competitive shooters provide meaning I’ll go and seek out my fix elsewhere after I’ve had my fill of Battlefield. For others though, those who play Battlefield as their goto hobby, it’s going to mean that they’ve got more of the same experience that they want.
For me though? Battlefield V feels like it was off the mark a bit, getting just enough things wrong to make it feel a bit more middle of the road than it otherwise has. Many of the things that make the series great are still there: the massive environments with huge battles, a deep progression system that will keep players engaged for ages and new game modes which, whilst I didn’t particularly engage with them, shows that DICE at least wants to try some new things. But for every one of those positives there’s a handful of negatives as well, enough so that after 12 hours in the game I think I’ve had my fill. Sure, part of that is because Black Ops 4 has managed to get its hooks into me again, but even then I’ve played this Battlefield for longer than its predecessor and I liked that one far more. I know there’s precious few people who read these reviews to figure out what game to play but if you’ve been sitting on the fence for this one, waiting patiently for my opinion on it, I’d probably say give it a miss for now.
Maybe pick it up just before Christmas so you can own all the noobs when they get their copy 😉
Battlefield V is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One right now for $59. Game was played on the PC with a total of 12 hours play time and 26% of the achievements unlocked.
Titanfall was well received when it was first released, garnering numerous awards and praise from both the industry and players alike. It was also something of a redemption story for the studios founders, proving that their decision to leave Activision was the right one. For me personally, someone who enjoys traditional FPS games and lost many an hour to the Mechwarrior series as a teenager, Titanfall was a perfect blend of FPS and mech based combat. However the lack of variety in the multiplayer did mean that I left the game shortly after reviewing it, racking up another 6 hours before I finally gave it up. With the success it garnered however I was hopeful that Respawn’s next title, whether it was Titanfall or not, would be a much more well rounded. Thankfully that hope was not misplaced.
Titanfall 2 takes place shortly after the events of its predecessor with the Militia now on the offensive after their success in segregating the IMC’s fleet at the Battle of Demeter (if you don’t quite remember which map that is, like I did, here’s a good summary). You take the role of Jack Cooper, a rifleman in the Militia who’s undertaking pilot training at the hands of veteran pilot Captain Lastimosa. When you’re sent to attack the IMC held world of Typhoon Lastimosa is struck down but with his final breath he transfers his titan, a vanguard class called BT-7274, to you. It’s now up to you and your new titan to complete the mission.
The heavily modified Source engine that was used in the original is back in Titanfall 2 with a few improvements to bring it into line with more modern engines. The engine improvements bring things like physically based rendering, a new texture system, HDR, bloom and DOF. This means that whilst the models and environments all feel about the same when you get up close to them it definitely feels like a more modern game overall. The trade offs here are most certainly in aid of ensuring a smooth, consistent framerate even in high action scenes, something which happens quite often in both the single player and multiplayer experience. If I’m honest I probably expected a bit more of a step up from Respawn graphics wise, but I can definitely understand the reasons for not going for Crysis levels of fidelity.
The core of Titanfall 2 hasn’t changed much from its predecessor, retaining all of what made it good whilst adding in more variety in both the single player and multiplayer components. There’s now double the number of mechs to choose from, numerous weapons for your pilot, a multitude of modes in the multiplayer and a fully fleshed out single player campaign. You’ll still be alternating between playing as a pilot on the ground, jumping and wall riding to your heart’s content, and the venerable titan mech. The single player campaign functions as an extended tutorial to the main game, giving you a view of all the weapons and titans so that once you jump into multi you’ll be instantly familiar with the arsenal at your disposal. However like all good multi player games these days most of the weapons are hidden behind a persistant levelling system, something you’ll have to grind out to get your weapon of choice. Overall Titanfall 2 feels like a fuller, more rounded game than its predecessor was; one that could potentially have the longevity its creators hope for.
Combat is well executed, maintaining the same levels of polish that the original Titanfall brought with it. Considering Respawn’s pedigree this is no surprise but it’s good to see them not messing with things that weren’t broken. The weapon roster has been expanded considerably although the controversial smart pistol (which honestly was my favourite) relegated to being a boost rather than a primary weapon you can choose. You’ve also got a wider choice of various augments for your weapons and pilot allowing you to really specialize in your preferred method of combat. Thankfully even though most of these things are locked behind levels (or in-game currency, which I don’t think is available for purchase) the base weapons are still highly competitve.
One of the major complaints many had for the original was that the multiplayer campaign was somewhat confusing and underdone. Indeed whilst I didn’t mind it myself, I do recognise that it was far below the standard set for your typical FPS campaign. Respawn have taken this feedback to heart and Titanfall 2’s campaign is true to its name, giving you an extensive single player experience. As I mentioned before it serves well as an introduction to Titanfall’s mechanics and weaponry, giving you a taste of what’s to come in the multiplayer experience. The highlight of it is definitely the exploration of the relationship between Titan and Pilot, something which I don’t think was really elaborated on much in the original. It might not be the deepest story around, following your typical one man army action trope, but it’s definitely more than enough to keep you motivated and pushing forward through the campaign.
The multiplayer follows the current FPS norms pretty closely with your profile, guns and titan all having separate levels attached to them. This does mean that players who’ve played for longer have an advantage over you, something that can be a little frustrating when you first start out. However the levels come with a relatively reliable pace so you shouldn’t be without a particular upgrade for too long. The in-game currency, which comes in at a slow but reliable pace, is one avenue to short circuit the levelling system and buy a particular thing that you’re after. One improvement for this system would be the use of a trial of a certain upgrade (even just a one time trial would be useful) as the cash I’ve spent has, honestly, been completely wasted. That’s on me though really, I should’ve probably looked into them a bit more before laying out my cold hard in-game currency.
Again I preferred to stick to my anti-titan build for both my pilot and titan, although the delineation between specs of titans is somewhat murky in Titanfall 2. The reasoning for this is pretty simple: titan damage and take downs charge your abilities way faster than pilot or AI kills do. Of course this means early game is a bit hit and miss, especially if the other pilots are heavily anti-pilot geared, but afterwards it usually means that I’m rarely without my titan. Of all the titans I tried the Tone seems to be the overall best, having great all round capabilities and not as many drawbacks as the rest of them seem to have. It does require you have a bit better aim than some of the others but honestly the hit boxes are so generous in Titanfall that I don’t think many would struggle with it.
Whilst the overall experience in Titanfall 2 is bug and crash free there is one irritating aspect of it that has caught me out multiple times. If you’re inside a room and you call your titan it appears that whatever determines the fall location doesn’t clip with certain walls. This means that, if you position cursor in the wrong place, you can end up spawning your titan all the way on the other side of the map. This can sometimes be the difference between getting your titan instantly and losing it to the enemy team since it’ll become active and start ploughing head first into them with the usual AI tactics. I’d much prefer a “titanfall out of range” error or something similar as it has happened often enough to be something of an issue.
Titanfall 2 is a most worthy successor, building on all the great core aspects of its predecessor whilst addressing many of the issues that the community raised. You now have a full single player campaign, one that you can actually get engrossed in rather than distracted by. The expanded multiplayer experience is much welcome and the promise to provide free DLC packs in the future will go a long way to ensuring the game doesn’t become a graveyard. Titanfall 2 is definitely one of those rare sequels that manages to markedly improve on its predecessor, no small feat given the high bar the original set. It will be very interesting to see how this game tracks in the coming months given its rather interesting release date that was smack bang between two other heavy hitting AAA titles.
Titanfall 2 is available on PC, Xbox One and PlayStation 4 right now for $79 on all platforms. Game was played on the PC with 13 hours of total play time and 68% of the achievements unlocked.
The last decade was saturated with FPS games that revisited the two World Wars, so much so that I was soured on the Battlefield and Call of Duty series for quite some time. This decade saw a turn towards modern day warfare, with the Call of Duty series then pushing even further forward into the world of fictional, future based combat. It was something of a surprise then to see DICE return to their old haunts, pulling themselves back from modern day to explore World War I. If I’m honest I was sceptical, the World Wars have been visited so many times that a fresh take on them seemed all but impossible. Surprisingly though DICE has managed to bring a fresh perspective to this well trodden field whilst retaining much of what made some of their previous Battlefield titles great.
Battlefield 1 visits many of the large scale battles of the first World War, picking out 6 different stories that you can play through. These include such events as the Battle of Cambrai during the Hundred Days Offensive, a fantastical air battle between zeppelins and the first fighter craft and even a show from the ANZACs as part of the Gallipoli campaign. There’s no story tying all of these different stories together, instead they each serve as little vignettes that give us a glimpse into the horrors of war from different perspectives. If there’s one thing that Battlefield 1 does well is impress upon us the true costs of war rather than glorifying the combat and sacrifice that the millions of troops made in this war.
The Frostbite 3 engine returns once again to the Battlefield series and brings with it the exceptionally high level of graphics that we’ve come to expect from this series of games. As all of these in-game screenshots will attest to Battlefield 1 is an absolutely stunning game, making good use of any amount of graphical firepower it has at its disposal. The environments are gigantic, brimming with detail and surprisingly destructible (if you have the right weaponry, of course). This will mean that you’ll probably need to spend a little bit of time tweaking settings here or there as the defaults seem to be geared more towards beautiful, 30fps gaming rather than slightly less stunning but buttery smooth game play. Of course such prettiness is really only appreciated in the single player campaign, rarely do you have a moment to think when you’re in the middle of a multiplayer match.
Battlefield 1 sticks to its roots in terms of game play with the equipment layout being instantly familiar to fans of the series. You’ll have 2 guns at your disposal (with numerous ones littering the map so you’re never wanting for something new to try out), a couple gadgets that line up with the traditional Battlefield classes and your trusty melee weapon. The war stories follow the typical FPS mission style with Battlefield’s trade mark open environments, allowing you multiple avenues to approach your intended goal. The multiplayer modes will be familiar, however there’s one new mode called Operations which are probably the best aspect of Battlefield 1. Other than that Battlefield 1 is pretty much what we’ve come to expect from DICE with the exception that everything is set almost 100 years in the past.
Combat feels much the same as it always has in the Battlefield series. You’re a small cog in a very large machine, both in the single player campaigns as well as the multi. Slow, considered approaches to the battlefield are rewarded whilst rushed, less thought out strategies are likely to get you killed. It’s the line in the sand that Battlefield and Call of Duty have drawn between each other, one favouring small scale, chaotic engagements whilst the other favouring large, more strategic battles. Whilst I tend to prefer the former I can see the appeal in the latter, especially when you’ve got a group of 5 or more mates to play with and can actually get some objectives done. However it can be an exercise in frustration sometimes, especially when you walk out of your spawn location only to be nailed by a sniper who you had no chance of seeing.
The Operations game mode, the stand out feature of Battlefield 1, takes its inspiration from Star Wars Battlefront’s Supremacy mode. Each map is divided into sections with points that need to be captured. Once each point is captured the enemy then retreats to the next section to start the battle all over again. The attacking team has limited lives however and should they run out the defenders win that round. When the attackers lose a round however they get reinforced by a giant weapon of war, potentially a zepplin or destroyer warship, which helps them turn the tides in their favour. This back and forth can happen a grand total of 3 times before the game is over. What makes this game mode so great is that it can feel like both sides are making progress at one point or another, preventing one side from completely dominating. Of course that’s not always the case but at the very least it feels little more fair than say Conquest when a really good squad can make the other team’s life a living hell.
The class system is the same as it always was with the only real change being the weaponry, all of which are from the World War I era. You have your medics which can heal and res, the support who will ensure you’ve got an endless supply of bullets, the scouts which will make sure that you can’t get anywhere without a couple shots coming your way and the assault class which is capable of dishing out endless amounts of hurt. Battlefield 1 also brings with it the hero class idea from Battlefronts, allowing a single player to become far more powerful than everyone else for a short period of time. You also have classes for the various vehicles including the calvary which can be both fun and a complete waste of time depending on good your enemy’s aim is. Indeed many of the ideas which were so-so in Battlefront have been refined significantly for their inclusion in Battlefield 1 and, hopefully, that means Battlefront 2 has a chance at being a lot better than its predecessor was.
Battlefield 1, like all games in this series, brings with it a certain level of jank that pervades both the single and multi experiences. I can’t tell you how many times the physics engine has completely bugged out on me with ungodly winds tearing flags and people’s capes in all manner of weird directions or tanks moving in ways that just weren’t possible. It’s certainly a lot better than it was in the beta, if the videos on YouTube are anything to go by, but the trademark weirdness that all Battlefield games built on the Frostbite engine have is ever present in the latest instalment. It’ll likely get better over time, as it always does, but you’d think that DICE would’ve figured out all the kinks by this point in the engine’s life.
The war stories were, for me, not particularly engaging. Whilst I’ll praise DICE for their depiction of the true horrors of war the experience was, for me, not the most enjoyable thing. That might be the point (and indeed I’ll applaud them if that’s the case) however it meant that after playing 3 out of the 6 campaigns available I simply didn’t feel the urge to play the rest of them. It’s a shame really as I’ve always enjoyed the various campaigns in the Battlefield series but this time around I just didn’t feel compelled to go back and play through them. This could also be a testament to how good the Operations mode was in comparison as I definitely drawn back to that, time and time again.
Battlefield 1 is an excellent return to form after the disaster that was Battlefield Hardline. The graphics return to their trademark industry leading standard, bringing us glorious battlefield filled with detail that few other games are able to deliver. The game play is familiar yet fresh, integrating the best ideas of the Battlefield and Battlefront series into a cohesive experience. The single player campaigns, whilst undoubtedly well crafted, failed to grab my attention like the previous ones have. Battlefield 1 also suffers from the few teething issues that seem to plague all of DICE’s releases of late; things that will no doubt be fixed but definitely sour the launch day experience. For fans of the Battlefield series the latest instalment is very much worth your time to play.
Battlefield 1 is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One right now for $89.95, $99.95 and $99.95 respectively. Game was played on the PC with 11 hours of total play time and 26% of the achievements unlocked.
The Battlefield series of games has always felt like the more strategic brother of Call of Duty, opting for a slightly slower game pace that favours more careful, considerate play. As someone who only recently found himself enjoying this genre again it took me a while to get accustomed to this as I had gotten used to the high action spam fest, quickly unloading my entire inventory in the vague direction of where the enemy stood. At the same time Battlefield 3 demonstrated what powerful PCs were capable of with Frostbite 2 engine giving us graphics on a level that few other games had yet to achieve. Battlefield 4 feels like the organic progression of the world that its predecessor set up, offering a very similar experience that’s seen many improvements.
Battlefield 4 takes place 6 years after the events of Battlefield 3 and the escalating tensions between Russia and the USA are at an all time high, threatening to turn into an all out war. At the same time Admiral Chang, a high ranking Chinese military commander, is plotting to overthrow the Chinese government in a coup d’etat. You play as Recker, a member of the special forces squad designated Tombstone, who’s attempting to return vital intel that confirms Chang’s plans. Worse still you’ve found out that should Chang succeed he’ll have the full backing of the Russian government, ensuring that large scale will come to America’s shores. Your task is stop Chang’s rise to power and avert a global scale war.
Just like its predecessor Battlefield impresses with its high standard of graphics thanks to the improvements brought by the Frostbite 3 engine.The environments certainly look and feel more alive, especially considering that nearly everything is destructible now. Indeed everything has a very cinematic feel about it as the level of graphics in game surpasses that of many others pre-rendered cut scenes. Surprisingly even though I haven’t upgraded my computer since the last Battlefield I was still able to play at extremely high settings, albeit with anti-aliasing turned off. The only time I got noticeable slow down was in some of the larger conquest maps where a good chunk of the players were all converging on one point. This is likely due to my ATI graphics card which supports the Mantle API which DICE have included support for in this new engine.
Battlefield 4’s campaign is, for the most part, your typical run and gun FPS although unlike most other corridor shooters there are usually several paths for you to take to achieve your objective. It is somewhat more constrained than what I previously remember which I think is partly due to the set pieces DICE chose with many more closed in spaces. Still I can recall multiple moments where I’d see multiple ways of achieving my objective, some guns blazing and others with a much more subtle approach. At the same time there are some paths that look like viable options which simply aren’t but Battlefield 4’s check pointing system is good enough that you don’t feel overly punished for experimenting once in a while.
One of the key differences between Battlefield 3 and 4 is that you now have the option to customize your load out during missions via the use of weapon crates. You don’t have access to all the weapons to begin with however, instead you’ll unlock them by achieving a certain number of points, much like you would during a multi-player game. One thing they didn’t mention, although I will admit I might have missed it, is that you also unlock weapons by picking them up off fallen enemies. This was particularly frustrating for me as since I was favouring a sniper rifle there weren’t any upgrades unlocked through the points system (at least none I can remember) and I only lucked out on an upgrade when I accidentally picked one up. That was when I found out of the 2 different ways of unlocking weapons, something I would’ve liked to have known about a lot earlier.
There’s also a rudimentary stealth system incorporated for some reason and it takes after the Splinter Cell way, showing you a little bar that’s pointing in the direction of the person who can see you. Once it flashes that means they’ve detected you and will alert everyone in that section to your location. Whilst you can get a whole bunch done by taking out enemies stealthily it’s quite obvious that the game doesn’t expect you to do this as you can be right in front of someone and still not break stealth. Additionally there’s no way to reset back to a state where the enemies no longer know where you are, even if you manage to escape without them being able to see you. Honestly it would have probably been better to leave that system out altogether and do the stealth bits via cut scene as it doesn’t really add much to the game overall.
The story of Battlefield 4 is a really mixed experience as there are moments which could have been quite amazing however I just didn’t have the emotional investment in the characters required to make said moments possible. This might also be a function of this genre’s inability to get away from the clichéd plot of America (FUCK YEAH) vs the world as whilst it makes for some intense action and drama it does not make for a deep and engrossing plot. Still I can’t say I was bored during any of it and the length was extended slightly above its predecessors which was honestly just a tad too short. One part where it really fell down however was the ending as I can never give a game props for using the Endotron 3000 to give you multiple different endings.
However the multiplayer retains that larger than life feeling that I only seem to get from Battlefield games. The new large conquest maps are an absolute joy to play and the chaos that ensues from having a 32 on 32 battle is really hard to beat. It can be a little daunting coming into a game like this so many months after it’s been out as everyone has levelled up way past you but once you find the class that fits you best it becomes quite easy to stack on a few levels and unlock some better kit to help you out. There’s enough unlocks and awards in Battlefield 4 to keep even the most adamant achievement hunter busy for months and even after spending a good 4 hours playing through the various maps I still feel like there’s a lot more to discover.
What lets down the entire experience though, and something I was rather annoyed was still present considering how late I came to Battlefield 4, was the number of crashes, bugs and glitches that plague the experience. I had the single player game crash on me numerous times, often several times during a single mission, without any rhyme or reason as to why it was happening. This continued into the multiplayer where doing certain things, actions which I assumed were part of the core game (like jumping off a tall building and parachuting the ground below) would again result in a crash. This persisted for the last 2 weeks as I stumbled my way through multiplayer and whilst it’s been fixed now (at least I didn’t have any crashes in the last couple days) DICE really needs to get their act together when bugs at that level are still persistent almost 3 months after release.
Battlefield 4 is a solid game, improving substantially on its predecessor in many respects whilst being different enough to stand on its own. The campaign is a solid 6 hours of fun, offering you a varying number of challenges that can be accomplished in many different ways. The multiplayer is, as always, larger than life and filled with so many choices that people will be theorycrafting for years as to what the best builds are for various situations. The experience was unfortunately let down by its horrendously buggy nature, something which has only just been recently fixed, but I’m glad to say that people buying the game now are coming in at a stage where it isn’t as bad as it used to be. Battlefield 4 then is well worth the price of admission, especially for long time fans of the series.
Battlefield 4 is available on PC, Xbox360 , PlayStation3, XboxOne and PlayStation 4 for $79.99, $78, $78 , $98 and $98 respectively. Game was played on the PC with 6 hours on the campaign and 4 hours on multiplayer.
In the digital distribution world there’s really only one player: Steam. Sure there are alternatives like GoG or Desura but they’re essentially niche branches that cater to a specific audience, ones that favour no DRM and modding respectively. The one notable competitor to Steam is Origin, the platform that was built solely for the purpose of distributing EA’s games. Love it or hate it if you want to play one of their games you’re going to have to download Origin and, for people like me who like to review games, this means a non-zero portion of my game library is on there. The only reason it exists is so EA can capture that part of the market that it was losing to Steam although if the words of EA’s EVP Andrew Wilson are to be believed it’s all about creating a better experience for gamers:
“I think your perception is absolutely correct,” Wilson agreed. “I think when I look at the journey that service has taken, I think the transaction component of that service has taken a disproportionate amount of the communication and mindshare of what we really try and provide, and the barrier that that puts in between you and the game that you want to play.”
“We think of Origin, in this new world, as the gracious host of the party. It’s not the center of attention; it’s not the DJ, it’s not the dance director, it’s just a gracious host. It’s someone who greets you at the door and ushers you in to where you want to go and points you in the direction of your friends so that you can go and party with them together. That’s really how we see it.”
Wilson is trying to change the narrative around Origin, pushing it away from the widely held perception that it’s just a money grab (which it is, there’s no doubt about this) and trying to guide it more towards it being something of a value added service. Indeed this is apparently where the future of Origin lies, in adding more features to it that mimic those that have been a major part of Steam for years. He’d like to think of Origin as the place gamers go to play their games because that’s where all their friends are, they’re just the facilitator that allows them to join up. The rest of the interview reads like the ramblings of someone trapped in a fever dream as the world that Origin exists in is so vastly different from the one Wilson paints for it.
I’ll be frank when I say that any game that’s on Origin puts up an instant barrier for me, both as a player and as a reviewer. As a player I know that a game being on Origin means that the vast majority of my friends won’t be playing it because they just can’t be bothered with Origin as a service. Indeed for many recent games that I played on there like Simcity and Crysis 3 I was either alone or one of 2 people on there at any given time despite the long list of friends I have on there. Worse still trying to simple maintenance tasks on it, like backing up game files so I can move them (and the fact that that link is on the Steam forums should tell you something), is a royal pain in the ass which eats away at the time I could be doing what I wanted to be doing: playing the damn game. This is on top of the lack of screenshot functionality which means I have to run FRAPS in order to get the screenshots for review which doesn’t help to endear Origin to me.
It’s not just the simple fact that Origin is yet another piece of software we have to install and maintain, that’s just the beginning, more it’s because Origin is an inferior service, one that we’re locked into using should we want to play an EA published game. It may make the experience for EA games better due to the common installation and patching platform but that’s all it does and it’s not something that couldn’t be accomplished through other, more established channels. It’s akin to all those social services that every game seems to have these days (and as we’ve seen are massive security risks) which are required to play the game.
Gamers don’t want this; it took us years to warm up to Steam and the idea that we’ll somehow cosy up to yet another service that provides next to no benefit for us is a ludicrous proposition. If EA really did understand gamers like they’re purporting to they wouldn’t have bothered with Origin as a digital distribution service in the first place, they would’ve just made it a back end platform that all their games can use should they not want to use Steam’s. EA might think that it’s just a matter of layering on some more services and features but it’s going to need so much more than that before gamers will consider it on the same level as Steam. With Origin’s primary focus being EA games I don’t believe that will ever be achievable, especially when Valve keep going from strength to strength with Steam.
You don’t have to look far to know what the greater gaming community thinks of the latest installment in the SimCity series. The first couple weeks were plagued with issues with many people being simply unable to play while the lucky few who got in experienced multiple, game breaking bugs. Accusations flew left and right with Maxis eventually stating it was all their fault although it was hard to deny that EA had a hand in it as well. It was so bad that EA even offered all purchasers another free game in order to compensate for it (even if you bought after they announced this offer, which I did). Still with all that in mind I tried to approach SimCity with an open mind as possible, hoping to see the game outside of all the teething issues that have plagued it relentlessly.
SimCity is, just like all its predecessors, a game that revolves around building and improving your very own city. You’re given a small amount of cash and your choice of various plots of land to begin with and after that its up to you to make it on your own. There are numerous factors that influence how your city develops, from your layout to natural resources and even how well developed the greater region is. There’s no in built narrative to speak of but the story of each individual city will be different which leads to some great conversations about how you overcame the various adversities sent your way.
Graphically SimCity is very reminiscent of other Maxis games in that they’re not exactly cutting edge but that has the advantage of running on pretty much everything. The use of tilt-shift perspective for when you’re zoomed in quite far is a nice touch although it doesn’t help hide some of the extremely low poly models used. A quick bit of searching reveals this isn’t the first 3D SimCity and its predecessor, SimCity Societies, looks pretty similar. Considering that game was released over 5 years ago now I would’ve expected a much bigger jump up, especially considering neither of those titles were available on consoles (and before you ask why they’d release it on consoles they did exactly that with SimCity2000).
You begin by either joining someone else’s region or creating one of your own. Joining someone else s has the advantage of potentially giving you a lot of benefits if they’ve got some big cities set up already, like access to upgraded buildings before you’d have the capability to build them, but like most people I chose to start out on my own. After creating your region you’re then sent to select a section of it to begin building your town in, and thus your journey begins to becoming the world’s best mayor.
From a core game play perspective there’s not a whole lot that’s changed over the years. You build roads, which now come with handy guide lines so you don’t make odd sized sections, zone them up for Residential/Commercial/Industrial and then wait for people to arrive. As more people come into your town their requirements for various bits of infrastructure increase so you’ll quickly be adding things like water towers, power stations, sewage outlet pipes and so on. Unlike previous SimCity games you don’t have to lay each bit of connecting infrastructure separately as everything follows the road which makes things a heck of a lot easier. Eventually you’ll reach a point where you want to start attracting higher wealth individuals to your town and that requires some rather careful planning.
It’s all well and good to lay everything out in order to maximize the amount of space available for people to build on, and indeed that’s what will drive your population forward in the beginning, however you’ll eventually need to add additional services on which have circular areas of influence. This is somewhat at odds with the regular way of doing things, especially if you’re using the guide lines which can lead to some hard decisions. Early on its not too bad but later on when you’re dealing with giant skyscrapers the decision to knock one down in an attempt to make the rest of the region more desirable can back you into some painful corners. This is all part of the challenge however as your progression from a low density, low wealth town to a high density. high wealth one is predicated on how well you can make decisions like that.
Like I mentioned previously one city’s progress benefits the whole region and thus there’s really no shame in starting another town should you tire of your current one. Indeed I found my stride somewhere in the middle of my third city, one that was able to leverage off all the other upgrades my previous towns had. It’s also very clear that some locations are far more ideal than others as any place with hills in them is pretty much guaranteed to be unusable, so whilst choosing a lake frontage with mountaintop views sounds like a good idea initially you’ll likely hit its limit far faster than you would a boring, flat patch of dirt in the middle of nowhere.
Now I deliberately avoided playing Sim City until things had calmed down in the hopes that I could avoid some of the issues that causes such an uproar. I did have a few teething issues stemming from my Origin not being installed properly (although all other Origin games work fine, strangely) and the installer simply refusing to run but I was past that I was always able to login. Unfortunately I was unable to play with one of my friends due to him starting on region 2 and I on region 1, something which I thought wouldn’t be a problem but EA has locked those regions down to only those who’ve played on them before. Sure we could start over again but that’s not what we wanted to do, which was a little annoying.
Whilst that was irritating it was nothing compared to the dumb as a rock AI that SimCity uses. Now there’s been quite a bit of investigation into why this is but it all boils down to the pathfinding algorithm which is used for pretty much everything in the game. Sims, cars, electricity, etc. all use the absolute shortest path to get to a destination. Because of this you get a whole lot of really illogical, emergent behavior from various systems. The best (or worst, really) example I can come up with is in one of my towns there’s 2 garbage dumps, each with numerous trucks. However upon picking up rubbish they will all go back to the same garbage dump, even though it’s full and the other one is not much further away. The only way to get around this is to make them almost identical in length (I.E. right next to each other) which is a right pain in the ass. You’ll also find that this will affect things like buildings in certain areas (some commercial/industrial places will never get workers and be routinely abandoned). You can work around this with careful city planning but realistically you shouldn’t have to as the AI should be smart enough to apply costings to paths that would avoid those situations completely.
There also comes a time when your city has reached a certain point and there’s not much more you can do to it until you get more money or your population increases. When this happens you’re pretty much relegated to waiting out the clock which can get rather boring. Indeed I found that once I was getting around the 75,000 population mark there was little I could do to speed up the population growth as anything I did either did nothing or caused a dip before it recovered again. Now I just might not be getting it or reached the limitations of my current city design but since all my advisors weren’t saying anything productive and my approval rating was 85% I struggled to see what else I could do. Searching for some guides also didn’t really help out either, which just led to me giving up on the city and trying again.
I found it pretty easy to lose a lot of time on SimCity as the initial stages are always a fun little balancing act that drew me in much like Anno 2070 did. Still there was always a timer ticking in the background, counting down to the point where I’d be unable to see a way to grow my city further and would simply go again. I’m glad to say that the majority of the issues that plagued its launch are gone now but there are still some teething issues with the initial game process and the dumb as bricks AI can’t be updated quick enough. Overall it’s an average game which unfortunately falls short of many of the expectations placed on it, but none of them are beyond fixing. Well, apart from Maxis/EA’s reputation however.
Sim City is available on PC right now for $99.99. Total play time was 9 hours.
When I started out with this idea of doing 1 review a week it was mostly because I always seemed to find myself with a backlog of big name titles to play through. There aren’t however enough titles like that to sustain that kind of pace throughout the year and for the first 3 months of this year most of the titles I was reviewing were actually things released last year that I hadn’t got around to playing. Consequently I’ve found myself playing a lot of games that I wouldn’t have otherwise given a second thought to and Warp, the action-puzzle-stealth hybrid from Trapdoor, is one of those titles that I wouldn’t have considered playing.
Warp has you playing as an oddly shaped alien who’s named Zero (something I don’t think was made clear in the game, I certainly can’t remember anyone saying his name) waking up in an undersea laboratory. You’re surrounded by scientists who begin to perform surgery on you to remove a disk shaped object from you which turns out to be your internal power source. After a short obstacle course, which serves as the tutorial for the basics of the game, you are then reunited with your power supply and regain your ability to teleport short distances. Warp flows on from there, following Zero’s quest to escape the confines of the laboratory.
On first appearances Warp isn’t too much to look at, mostly due to its roots as a Xbox Arcade game. For the actual game play the graphics are fine with Warp making heavy use of lighting effects to cover up their less-than-stellar models but the cut scenes unfortunately didn’t appear to get any extra treatment to make them any better. Thus the artwork, graphics and sound work are all around the level I had come to expect from say around 5 years ago when I had friends tinkering with 3D models. Sure I can understand that there are limitations thanks to the target platform but when you don’t even bother to try and do rudimentary lip syncing for dialog scenes I get the feeling that a lot of this was done due to budgetary constraints rather than a lack of technical ability.
The core game play of Warp revolves around Zero’s ability to teleport short distances and also hide inside objects and people. At first it starts off with rudimentary things like finding non-obvious was to get around your environment but as the game progresses the challenges start to scale up dramatically. Zero also gains additional abilities as you complete levels augmenting himself with things like producing a controllable decoy (so you can get guards to kill each other), using said decoy to swap places with other objects and being able to launch objects a great distance. The combination of all these abilities makes for some rather interesting puzzles, some that are actually quite challenging to figure out.
Also thanks to the integration of a half decent physics engine there’s actually the opportunity for a lot of emergent game play which makes it a whole lot more interesting than your rudimentary puzzle game. Since every object can be moved and flung around quite easily there’s a lot of opportunity to break the intended solution by bringing objects along with you that the game doesn’t expect you to. There are also times when it goes horribly wrong like the travelator towards the end that you can change the direction of, try destroying both power supplies. The animation stops but you’ll still move if you stand on it. Still problems with the physics based game play are thankfully few, although Warp is far from free of issues.
Scattered throughout the game are challenges like the one above that push your use of certain skills to the limit in order to get extra “grubs” that are used to upgrade your abilities. These are usually timed affairs and in the words of someone I can’t remember “You know how to make something not fun in a game? Slap a timer on it.” and that’s exactly how all these challenges feel: not fun. I probably spent about a fifth of my in game time trying to get better than bronze on these challenges and I managed to get a few of them but at no time did I have fun doing it. It was kind of like Super Meat Boy all over again where the replay value is derived from it’s rather frustratingly hard difficulty. Not all of them were like this but the initial ones definitely were and it’s likely that it’s me being retarded, but there is another reason why I think its not.
The game is a very obvious port from Xbox360 to PC and that brings with it all the issues that are usually associated with them. For starters whilst the mouse is available in the initial start up screens it doesn’t work in the actual game for anything, not even the upgrade menus. Instead of redesigning the control paradigm around the mouse and the keyboard all the interface controls are simply remapped to the keyboard. This means that sometimes the game engine expects input in a certain way and doesn’t get it which can lead to all sorts of unintentional behavior. It’s not game breaking once you get used to it but it does smack of lazy porting just to grab another market.
The upgrade system is interesting at first glance, being able to augment your abilities in ways that change the game play significantly. As you can see above I chose to invest my grubs in certain keys skills, namely the ones that form the basis of the core game play (teleporting and moving faster). These definitely made the game somewhat easier as there were many times I could fudge my way through or get out of a situation that I wouldn’t have been able to do otherwise but looking over the other skills I couldn’t be sure why anyone would get them or how’d they make the game easier.
In fact I played the majority of the game sans these two skill upgrades mostly because I didn’t bother with the challenges nor religiously tracking down grubs in order to get said upgrades. This isn’t a problem with Warp per se, more the with the idea of combining a puzzle game with an upgrade system. For all the main challenges you’re going to have to give the player the required skills anyway and all the upgrades then can really only be making the player’s life easier. Deus Ex: Human Revolution did the upgrades that unlock other potential pathways/secrets bit quite well but they still had to accommodate for the possibility that the player didn’t choose a specific upgrade, at least for story critical sections. All of Warps sections appear to be story critical though, rendering the upgrade system kind of moot.
All that being said however I still found Warp extremely fun to play. I’m not sure how I’d describe it but the combination of puzzle solving, the over the top reactions from NPCs when they spotted you and the decidedly dark enjoyment you get from making people explode from the inside out made my time with Warp very enjoyable. This is in spite of the story that’s so thin on the ground that it might as well not even exist in the first place, something which indie games like this don’t usually forgo. Considering this game can be had for $20 as part of a 5 pack of games I think it’s incredibly great value for the time I spent with it and would recommend giving it a shot.
Warp is available on PC, PS3 and Xbox360 right now for $9.99 or equivalent on all platforms. Game was played entirely on the PC with around 5 hours of total play time and about 2/3rds of the grubs found.
Ah Mass Effect, a game that inspired so much fanboyism and geek lust within me that I’ve gladly parted with embarrassingly large sums of money in order to play it. My relationship with it started with an excited friend of mine breathlessly singing its praises before sending me a short video clip of it. The second the clip finished I knew this game had to be mine, no matter what the cost. This was the only reason why a Xbox360 graced my home in the first place and was so again when I upgraded to one of the new slim models to play through the final instalment. Today I will review the last chapter in Mass Effect trilogy; a review that’s been 5 years in the making.
Mass Effect 3 puts you right back into control of Commander Shepard of the Normandy. Returning back to the Alliance Navy after the events of Mass Effect 2 Shepard is placed under house arrest due to his work with Cerberus. His warnings of an impending Reaper attack have gone unnoticed and it’s not until a full Reaper invasion starts that they look back to him for help. Earth succumbs to the Reaper invasion rapidly but Shepard reluctantly escapes, only leaving so he can gather support to retake Earth back from the Reapers and hopefully drive them back for good.
First impressions of Mass Effect 3 were quite good. For Xbox360 players you’ll be pleasantly surprised at the graphics updates as there’s a noticeable improvement over Mass Effect 2. Whilst it’s not up to the same level as say Deus Ex: Humand Revolution or Skyrim they’re still quite impressive, especially if you’re playing the game on a massive TV like I was. PS3 owners won’t notice much of a difference however as Mass Effect 3 on the PS3 uses the same engine as 2 on that plaform. PC players will also be somewhat disappointed as the code for the Xbox360 version is basically the same and is unable to take advantage of any additional grunt your PC might have. It’s clear that Bioware’s target platform for this game was definitely the Xbox360 first above all others which is great for people like me, but I can understand the frustration levelled at Mass Effect 3 by gamers on other platforms.
The combat of Mass Effect 3 is just as exciting, fluid and challenging as it was back in Mass Effect 2. I was very tempted to try out yet another class as my switch from Soldier to Vanguard in Mass Effect 2 made the game that much more interesting but discussing it with my friends showed that the Vanguard was probably the most fun class out of the lot of them. With the new weapon/upgrade system the Vanguard could easily be made into an incredible weapon of destruction, one that didn’t actually need to carry any guns with him if you played your cards right.
So unlike its predecessors Mass Effect 3 gives you the choice of what weapons to equip, allowing you to carry around up to 5 different weapons. The downside is that the more weapons you carry the slower your powers will regenerate. So for weapons based classes like the Soldier you’ll probably still walk around armed with every single weapon you can carry but my Vanguard spent most of his time with only 2 weapons (later I carried 3 once I had the right upgrades), favouring the 200% buff to power recharges instead. This meant that past a certain point I was basically invulnerable as no enemy could wear down my shields before I could charge again, recharging them back to full.
Still though there were several fights that I found challenging to the point of frustration. Now I’m willing to blame this on the fact that I’m not a console gamer, the PC is my usual platform, and the many deaths I experienced early on where a combination of me not being able to aim properly and a bad talent build. However for most of the really difficult fights there was usually a heavy weapon hidden somewhere which I wouldn’t find until my 4th or 5th time attempting that particular combat scene which made the fight trivial. There are also some particular enemies that will 1 shot you from full health and shields with no way to get out of it (even with upgraded health that left me with 1 bar afterwards, I’d still die). It’s a real shame as apart from these 2 faux pas the combat is really quite enjoyable (the latter making the last couple hours annoyingly torturous).
The talent tree system received a massive revamp since Mass Effect 2 and the improvements are quite nice. Whilst it still retains the base idea of adding points into a certain ability to make it better once you get past the first 3 stages you’re then presented with choices as to how to improve the ability. In doing so you’re able to craft your character along very specific lines, much more so than you were in the previous 2 games. With a little bit of looking around its very possible to create a character that is nigh on unstoppable, but it’s the improvements that Bioware made around the talent system that are most welcome.
The inclusion of a respec system in Mass Effect 3 is probably the most welcome addition. When you start off many of your talent points are allocated for you. Whilst this is a great way to introduce you to the character class it does mean that your character might not play the way you want it to. Thankfully the first respec is free and that will allow you to craft your character in the way you want. Additionally you’re able to choose 1 ability from your companions to include in your talent tree for a small sum. Yet again this allows you to augment away any of your character’s weaknesses or push them further into unstoppable territory.
The Galaxy Map remains basically unchanged from Mass Effect 2, keeping the same navigation elements whilst changing up the mini-game aspect of it significantly. Instead of going to every planet and scanning them for 5 minutes just to find the resources contained within there you instead scan around the current solar system, looking for little pockets of treasure. If one of the assets happens to be on a planet you then do the familiar scanning mini-game again but at least now it has a pointer to where it is, saving you countless pointless minutes scanning around. There’s also an indicator as to how many assets you’ve recovered so you don’t waste time looking for that one last thing.
You can’t scan around indefinitely though as scanning alerts the Reapers to your presence there. It’s supposed to make you scan smartly around, using the minimum number in order to recover all the assets. If you do alert the Reapers they’ll invade the system and try to hunt you down but they can’t really catch you unless you stay still for more than a couple seconds. Realistically you can just scan to your hearts content then exit/enter the system repeatedly to get the assets, which is what I ended up doing after alerting the Reapers for the 20th time.
WARNING: Mild plot spoilers follow. (There’s a second warning about the MASSIVE ones if you want to keep reading).
Of course where Mass Effect 3 really shines is the grand story that they’ve crafted over the past 5 years. Ever since the first Mass Effect there’s been a terrible sense of foreboding about the coming Reaper invasion and whilst there are some major plot holes (why did the Council ignore Shepards warnings after a GODDAMN REAPER ATTACKED THEM is beyond me) they’ve managed to keep the story moving through 3 games, even with the wild amount of control that the player has over the plot elements.
As always I decided to play Shepard as a Paragorn and whilst I’d agree with the way he acted about 90% of the time there were some definite moments when he’d go off the rails completely. This is mostly due to the paraphrasing that’s done in order to make the dialog wheel work, making it hard to accurately judge what he’s going say, but when the tough-as-nails by-the-book Shepard I spent the last 5 years crafting started acting out of character it really dumped me out of the game. Thankfully those moments were few and far between, but happened often enough to cause me frustration.
Now I don’t know if this was due to the choices that I had made in the previous games or not but the romantic relationships in Mass Effect 3 felt kind of…weird. In Mass Effect 1 I romanced Ashley who makes no appearance in 2 at all. In 2 I romanced Miranda and when I came face to face with both of them again I set my eyes on Ashley, her being Shepard’s first love. What got me however was the fact that Ashley seemed wholly unresponsive to my advances even though, as far as I was aware, there was no way of her knowing what I got up to during Mass Effect 2. Indeed she never confronted me on the fact, instead just giving me the cold shoulder. Miranda on the other hand was extremely responsive to the point where I basically fell into the romance scene which was a total cop out (when did Mass Effect become PG?). I mean I did feel something for Miranda but it felt kind of odd that Ashley would shut Shepard out like that, especially after the first few deep conversations.
It gets even more interesting as the token gay NPC, Steve Cortez (who’s done brilliantly by the way), ended up in a rather deep relationship with Shepard without me really trying. It could just be because it wasn’t possible to have that kind of relationship before Mass Effect 3, thus having to accelerate the emotional attachment, but it still made me think that Ashley’s behaviour was odd in comparison to everyone else. Not odd as in “Why doesn’t she like me”, more like there was something either unfinished or broken in the story line that I was playing through. I could’ve just stuffed up a critical dialogue option and not realised it, but I’m usually pretty good at noticing those kinds of things.
The rest of my relationships with the crew were just as good as the one with Cortez. Whilst towards the end there are many scenes that are pretty much “This is the last time you’ll get to see them here, better make the most of it” kinds of deals they do feel genuine. I personally found the scenes with Liara, Garrus and Legion to be especially touching, giving me the feeling of a true bond between comrades who had been through heaven and hell together.
WARNING: I’m going to spoil the ending here like crazy. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
I’m not going to pretend that this review exists in a vacuum but I did my absolute best to avoid all the articles about Mass Effect 3’s ending prior to finishing the game for myself. All I knew before going into this is that there were people who weren’t happy with it and thanks to my information black out I figured it was just a minority. However after playing through to the ending myself, being able to get the good (read: Green) ending and choosing the Synthesis option I can unequivocally say that Bioware completely and utterly bollocks the ending up, and not just for the reasons that many others have cited already.
For starters whilst the story introduced the deus ex machina ending early on that doesn’t detract from the fact that it is a deus ex machina. Granted there are few ways that such an epic story could come to an ending without resorting to this kind of plot device but it’s obvious that the entire plot wasn’t created back when Mass Effect was originally created. Indeed accounts from Bioware employees corroborate this meaning the true ending wasn’t created until just recently. This then feeds into the larger problem, the actual ending itself.
The whole idea of the Star Child, the devices to control/destroy the Reapers and the requirement of Shepard to sacrifice himself are things that don’t line up with the Mass Effect world or the characters within them. Shepard is not a tragic hero and indeed should you have been a tragic hero in Mass Effect 2 (where not enough of your team members survive) you in fact can not import that game into Mass Effect 3 as Bioware has deemed that ending non-canon. The idea then of Shepard making the ultimate sacrifice for the rest of the universe is completely out of character, as well as being completely non-sensical in terms of the Star Child’s solution. Indeed, whilst the Star Child is ostensibly of synthetic origins and thus can be assumed to be completely rational it acts in ridiculously irrational ways. I would go on but many people have dissected it better than I ever could and my sentiments echo theirs closely.
Now I wrestled with the ending for a couple days before talking to my friends about it but the conclusion I came to was always the same. I really do hate the ending of Mass Effect 3, not because it’s the ending or because its tragic (indeed I hated the ending of Red Dead Redemption, but it was good because I was grieving for the loss) but because it just doesn’t fit with the rest of the Mass Effect universe. Instead of the ending being driven heavily by your choices made throughout the game you’re instead treated to different coloured explosions with 1 of 3 endings based on your choice right at the end. For a universe that managed to incorporate so many of your choices into every aspect of the game this ending feels like it was done absent any thought for the rest of the universe and it really shows.
As a game Mass Effect 3 was almost everything I had come to expect from the series. The combat was fun and engaging with just enough challenge to make sure that I wasn’t powering through the game. The characters were (apart from one) believable and relatable and I felt a real connection with them. Right up until the final couple hours the plot and pacing of Mass Effect 3 was magnificent and it makes me very ashamed to say that the ending just simply didn’t stack up with the rest of the game, and the rest of the series for that matter. Still I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Mass Effect 3, even if the ending left a sour taste in my mouth.
Mass Effect 3 is available on Xbox360, PlayStation 3 and PC right now for $78. $78 and $99 respectively. Game was played entirely on the Xbox360 on the Hard difficulty with around 24 hours of total play time and 80% of the achievements unlocked.
The last 2 and a half years have seen the lack of a R18+ rating for games issue ramp up from just a few vocal supporters to an issue that now captures the attention of a good chunk of the nation. The movement has been heavily catalyzed by many notable releases being either outright banned in Australia or receiving significant changes, leaving many Australians to either acquire these through nefarious means or simply doing without. In both instances this robs the developers and publishers of a potential sale making Australia a somewhat hostile environment for games developers, especially those ones who like to flirt with the boundaries of what may or may not be acceptable. Thankfully it seems we’re on the right path now, but until the new rating system is implemented we’re unfortunately still in the same backwards state as we were when this movement started.
The latest casualty in the R18+ war is the reboot of the Syndicate franchise. Citing excessive and highly visceral violence the Australian Classification Board decided to slap the deadly NC rating on it, thereby making its sale illegal in Australia. “Bugger” I hear you saying, “But we’ll still get some nanny-state version to play right?”. I wish it were so, EA has decided to not pursue reclassification and is instead not going to release Syndicate to Australia:
“The game will not be available in Australia despite its enthusiastic response from fans. We were encouraged by the government’s recent agreement to adopt an 18+ age rating for games. However, delays continue to force an arcane censorship on games – cuts that would never be imposed on books or movies,” EA Corporate Communications’ Tiffany Steckler wrote Joystiq in a statement. “We urge policy makers to take swift action to implement an updated policy that reflects today’s market and gives its millions of adult consumers the right to make their own content choices.”
Indeed ever since the tragedy that was the censored version of Left 4 Dead 2 (it’s predecessor had me captivated for months whereas it could barely hold me for a couple hours) the standard reaction to a NC rating has been to simply not bother with the Australian market. EA’s statement above shows that companies view Australia as a hostile environment and can’t be bothered to rework their product should it not meet our backwards standards. Until we have a really real R18+ standard things like this will continue to occur, and that isn’t going to help anyone.
This news coincides with some saber rattling from NSW Attorney General Greg Smith, the last of the AGs to hold out on the R18+ rating. He’s apparently all for a R18+ rating in Australia but wants particular games, he singled out Grand Theft Auto, to be outright banned. Forgetting for the moment that all of the GTA titles sailed through in the MA15+ category (minus a couple changes for GTAIV, but the content he was complaining about was still in there) Smith is basically attempting to force his own view of what’s appropriate on everyone else. The final guidelines for the R18+ rating are more than adequate at keeping out content that’s already banned in other mediums and provide enough freedom for developers to not have to worry about running afoul of the dreaded NC rating. Whilst Smith probably won’t do anymore damage than he already has it’s irritating to see someone in his position doing such a disservice to Australia with his narrow views of what is and isn’t appropriate.
The R18+ rating really can’t come soon enough as until it does we’re still a nation that’s stuck in a world from 20 years ago, one where gamers were a minority and games were seen as a childish distraction. Today this is far from the case with the vast majority of gamers being over 18 and looking for titles that are appropriate for their demographic. It’s a real shame that some developers will then decide to leave us by the wayside but at least the loss of those games will highlight the need for change and hopefully accelerate its coming.
Today’s post comes to you courtesy of one of my long time friends and former blogger, David Wright. I’ve always been a fan of his writing for it’s impassioned, no holds barred style that reflects his real world self to a tee. Below he tackles a game I myself reviewed just a week ago, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. That’s all the introduction I’ll give as the article stands on its own and makes for some damn good reading.
Enter Dave W…
I got into an argument when MW3 came out with my friend, most notable Dave K who is generously posting this. I made the claim that knowing the trajectory of the series and the background for the companies who were designing and building the game precluded it of ever having a chance of it being any good. Dave countered with the simple fact I had not played the game. Fair call.
I decided to play through the whole single player and draw judgement then as from what I could tell the single player clocked in around the 4 hour mark if you had a pulse. I… ahem… acquired a copy and sat down on a Friday night resolute that I was going in with a clear mind, determined to just experience the game for what it was.
Brief backstory on the development behind the game because as much as I would try, I had made my original argument based on the history of the game franchise so I will try to quickly sum up. Call of Duty was a massive game franchise which is owned by Activision. It has been traded around their stable of devs teams for a while until the original Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was made by the company Infinity Ward. It was huge, suddenly Activision had another massive hit on their hands and in traditional Activision style they had to have a Call of Duty release each year. So Treyarch becomes the B team for Modern Warfare. They trade back and forth then at the end of MW2 some shenanigans go down over at Activision. The heads of Infinity Ward get called into a meeting with Activision while some heavies go and lock down their offices. They are fired. Before most people heard about this I assumed John Riccitiello, the head of EA, had a blank check and stupid grin on his face ready to go.
So the heads of IW leave to form a company with EA and start poaching everyone they want from IW. Now I am not saying what was left was the dregs but:
They stripped that company bare.
Every design lead? Almost half of the design team, primary art lead, both animation leads and pretty much the entire writing staff. Things did not look good for Infinity Ward. Add in the fact they have Activisions “You WILL ship a game on this deadline even though company morale does not exist.” Not enough staff? Fine, they bring in Sledgehammer games to help out which is a company that had not shipped a game yet. Through all this you have the rivalry of Treyarch always having to play second fiddle and now almost drooling, hoping IW slips up so Treyarch can take the MW crown.
With all this in the back of my mind I went in to Modern Warfare almost grimly determined to give the game a fair shake.
Keep in mind I have not finished either MW1 nor 2. So as to the story I had a shaky grasp of what was going on but did not know the finer points. Well neither did MW3 apparently. Thrown in to the start of the game and we are chasing after an Evil (with a capital E) Russian man who seems to completely elude us. There is a massive war raging through the United States and you get to flit between multiple characters to globe trot.
As the game starts out I am amazed at how good the engine looks. Everything looks busy and real, the battlefields feel alive and frantic. You cannot go more than a few check points before a building is hit by rockets and smashes to the road or tanks come out of nowhere and start messing with your day. There is always something going on.
Add in the fact the gun play and control is seriously second to none. Every shooter I have ever played gets held up to the gold standard of Counter Strike. I honestly put MW3’s control right up there easily level with CS. Everything feels responsive, there is the unconscious snap, the perfect recoil that you learn to counter act and it all feels right.
Okay, but what about the game itself? Well it seems to be full of tough men doing tough jobs. I know this because I get to see them work all the time. My character? They barely trust me to not kill myself. It was a few levels in and something had been niggling at the back of my mind since the beginning. I couldn’t put my finger on it until we fought our way to the top of a building to blow up a jamming radar tower. Fair enough. We get to the top and sure enough there is the tower. I run up to it and, nothing. I have no known way of destroying it. I shoot at it, nothing. Another enemy jumps out at me and I nail him in the head.
“Quick lay the charges!” shouts my mentally challenged leader.
Charges? I don’t have… I do now. My weapon has disappeared and I am holding a package of explosives. The glowing silhouette of the explosives is helpfully put on the tower. I run up and press my use key and I place them, now I have a detonator in my hand.
“Blow it!” Delivers the same deranged man.
Really? What happens if I don’t? Do I get a say in this? Do I get to actually participate in this game? I wander around the roof top for a while with the detonator in my hand while my squad leader repeats his two lines about blowing it up over and over. Finally putting the poor man out of his misery, thinking he should really lie down for a nap somewhere, I blow it up. The next scene triggers. Men come running out on the roof top next to us. A never ending stream of guys and I now magically have access to a guided missile system.
Does it matter if I kill them? Does the game care? Like a petulant child I go sit in the corner and ignore the strained cries from the men. An enemy helicopter shows up and I am told to blow it up. This advances to the next section and off we go.
I started to notice it then. That feeling I had since the beginning. I had nothing to do with this game. Everyone else was amazing; I was there to clean up after them. Everywhere you go you have Price or Soap or any of the other interchangeable burly men with, literally, the word “Follow” hovering above their heads in case you forget how to walk. It just got worse as the game went on.
A short section later I was following, Price I believe, sneaking along with silenced guns. A guard crosses our path so I nail him in the head “BHWWWAAMMMMmmmm Game over!” Shit, okay maybe I have to let him walk past without noticing us? I reload the game, same guard walks out I don’t shoot him, then Price steps up and runs through a takedown animation killing the guy. Ohh I was not supposed to kill him because only the NPC’s get to do any of the real work.
Another section as Price and I were sneaking into a castle for reasons mostly unknown to me and I was literally told when to walk, crawl, stop, sneak, stop again, take that guy out. This was around half way through the game and it was not so much holding my hand as keeping me on a choker leash, watching me like I was about to make a mess on the carpet.
The game has some amazing sections, running along and the world is falling apart around you. Speeding along in an inflatable boat escaping from a Russian submarine where you just launched all its missiles on their own fleet. But it never lets you actually DO anything. The game is just a point to point exercise where you are constantly being funnelled, herded and yelled at down the path being dictated to you as you get to watch everyone else do all the fun stuff.
With all this you have the, well it’s not bad story telling so much as mindless and incoherent. Why did we end up in this mine? Why is the Russians president’s daughter here? Wait, who am I playing as this time? There is a pathetic attempt at the old double cross where one of the main characters dies (I think he dies, maybe I just wished him dead) he informs the other grizzly hero, Price, that Yuri (the useless git you happen to be controlling at that point) knew the big Evil guy. Gasp! Price punches you out, which again as soon as it starts you lose all character control. Yuri then goes on to tell a one minute story.
“Ohh the Evil guy that everyone hates and wants to kill? Yeah I totally used to work for him! I didn’t tell you because I have a strange and debilitating disease that you also share because you are going to believe everything I am now saying.”
I am not sure if I should feel insulted that someone somewhere got paid to write this or that I am supposed to find this interesting.
As for people dying, as if sensing that it was as bad as it really was, MW3 tries for some poignant moments or at least moments where you are supposed to feel something. However each of these interactions seem to be written by an alien who was sent to study human culture and learnt about emotions from reading scripts of rejected 70’s cop drama’s.
How do they try to make you feel shock and fear at a terrorist gas attack? By putting you in control of a white human male filming his adorably white small girl child and his equally adorably white wife on their apparently fun trip to the city. While filming, the wife and child run up to a truck and turn and wave, calling for you to come closer. The game will just keep calling at you, it will not let you do anything else, there is nothing else for you to do but walk forward triggering the explosion and the lingering glimpse of your family being killed. It is so ham fisted and terrible, the game has not earned the gravitas, it has not earned the tone. It just feels pathetic.
So as the story line lurches to its conclusion and you are put into body after body with the word “Follow” forever floating in your sights, I pushed on. I got to see Price stealth kill people left and right, I got to see Soap take out entire battalions and dictate my every move. Near the end, during one of the briefings I learnt that, yes, YES! I was going to play as one of the big guys. Me! They were letting the beast off the chain; I could do what I wanted. I spawned, eager to lead my squad to glorious victory or hellish defeat, either way it was finally my call.
Instead, there stood Yuri, the ball less wonder who I always had to play as, always forced to follow along like a chastised puppy. I swear the git was grinning, what was that I could see?
A glowing sign floating above his head?