Follow us on Twitter: @ggtl
Join our friendly community!
Latest news
7.2.12
While it's been out for a while now, it's pretty tough to get sick of seeing more of the Diablo III beta. To celebrate this ravenous hunger, we at GGTL are committing to a live stream of the beta (with commentary of course) for both the USA and UK this week. New to the series? Have questions? Just want to see the game in action? Well friends, stay a while and listen.
We will be broadcasting via Twitch TV and will begin the stream for the USA at 8pm EST on Thursday (2am GMT).
If after that you haven't had enough, we will then be broadcasting at 6pm GMT (12pm EST) on Friday for the UK. Please bring any questions you have and we will field them during the play session! Fortunately I have the dignified glory in hosting this event so get ready for extremely lame jokes along with relentless demon killing.
Thanks in advance for coming to this most prestigious event. Be back here on Thursday at 8pm EST for the start of the festivities and all the goodness you simply can't get anywhere else!
Labels: Andrew Whipple III, Beta, Diablo III, Feature, GGTL Live, livestream
I am unabashedly a fan of Resident Evil. Ever since I walked into that creepy mansion in the outskirts of Raccoon City I have been hooked, having played and owned every single main game in the series.
Like every long-running series, the Resident Evil franchise has had its highs and lows, but when all is said and done, you would be hard pressed to deny that Resi is an iconic series, birthing characters and game mechanics that will go down in the gaming history books.
As you can probably tell by now, the announcement of a new Resident Evil game, to me, is nothing short of a gaming event. Consequently, when Capcom officially announced Resident Evil 6 a few days ago I felt like a kid in a candy store, and my excitement only grew once I laid eyes on the fantastic trailer. But I don’t want to be the only geek on this hype train; I want you right there with me, so here are six awesome reasons that prove why you too should be marking Resident Evil 6's release date on your calendar.
Reason 1: Mr Badass Protagonist, I'd like you to meet M. Badass Protagonist the second
For a series with famously horrific dialogue, it is surprising that Resident Evil has somehow managed to create such endearing and iconic characters. The series' core protagonists have evolved over the years, developing individual character arcs which (although convoluted) have managed to overall make a weird sort of sense. These characters have somehow managed to overcome their many flaws, including their imposed dialogue impairments, and ingratiate themselves with gamers worldwide.
Such are the cases of Chris Redfield and Leon S. Kennedy. The first has been the stalwart male protagonist of the series since its inception, and has gone from being an overwhelmed, cardboard cut-out, clichéd cop character, to a man with a mission in life, deeply affected by the rollercoaster of trauma that has surrounded him for years. The second, the rookie Raccoon City cop with the Bieber haircut, was literally transformed into a badass before our very eyes, whilst still being perhaps the most relatable of all of the series characters.
Resident Evil 6 will make series history by putting these two characters in the same game together. That was the collective gasp of Resi fanboys around the world which you just heard.
Reason 2: a story Bond would be proud of.
I have a somewhat love-hate relationship with Resident Evil's story. Most of the time, the yarn crafted by the cooky guys at Capcom isn't much more than soap opera fare. However, over the years I've found myself engrossed in the mythos of Resident Evil. I read up on the characters on wiki sites, enjoy the multiple conspiracy theories bouncing around the internet, and try to keep up with the ever-expanding history of the evil Umbrella Corporation.
The point is that what started out as a simple 'night of the living dead' game has morphed into a whole world, featuring espionage, intrigue and worldwide bioterror. I love it, and I can't wait to see just what Capcom has up its sleeve, especially with a game reported to follow three protagonists in branching yet intertwining storylines, which will see our protagonists in locales around the world. Time to update those wikis fanboys.
Reason 3: Ada-freaking-Wong
We first heard of Ada Wong all the way back in Resident Evil 1. Apparently the girlfriend of one of the scientists working in the mansion lab, Ada's name was said scientist’s computer password. Poor dope. As the series progresses we encounter Ada in both Resident Evil 2 and 4, and learn that she is somewhat of a superspy, working for one shadowy organization or another, in an attempt to obtain information and samples of the bioweapons at large.
The quintessential femme fatale, Ada Wong is an incredibly memorable, scene-stealing character, who was an absolute joy to play as in Resident Evil 4. The Asian sensation is poised to make her comeback in Resident Evil 6, and will be playable. Huzzah!
Reason 4: Survival-horror? Action? Does it matter?
The feelings I first experienced when I first played Resident Evil 5 are hard to describe. It featured prominently on my screen; both Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine, the series’ original protagonists, were featured in the game; horrifying mutated dogs were lunging at my neck; all of the ingredients that make up the Resi recipe seemed to be present. But it just didn’t feel like a Resident Evil game. It very quickly dawned on me that the survival-horror which defined original Resi games had been replaced with non-stop monster-killing action. Solitary walks down confined corridors, with nothing but a single clip of ammo and your trusty knife were out; co-op and no-holds-barred kill fests were in. Although this transition had been initiated by Resident Evil 4, the definitive jump made by Resi 5 was somewhat jarring. In the end though, I didn't really care.
The fact of the matter is that Resident Evil 5 was a good action game. The game mechanics of the original Resident Evil games were starting to show their age, and a change was needed. The series was turned on its head, and no-one can say that's automatically a bad thing. Resident Evil 6 seems to be pushing that action envelope even further, and to Capcom I say go for it. They gave me Megaman; I trust those guys.
Reason 5: Co-op Madness?
Six player online co-op? Six players, controlling six Resi characters, facing a horde of the series' best monsters? Although this has not yet been confirmed by Capcom, the rumour mill is running at full force, encouraged by a post about the game featured on Xbox.com. The post has since been removed, but if there is any truth to the rumour you should be excited; very excited.
If you have played the mercenaries mode featured in Resi 5 with a friend, you know how addictively fun co-op Resident Evil madness can be. Adding four more of my pals into the mix is a stroke of genius if you ask me. I’m in.
Reason 6: Zombies!
Watch the trailer. Zombies are back. Rejoice!
Labels: Feature, Joey Núñez, Resident Evil, Resident Evil 6
The year came and went, just as it always does, and for those of us in the gaming press, that means the requisite 'best of' lists must make their appearance.
Trust me, it's for everyone's own good.
However, with a myriad of games lying about that I still haven't played to their fullest, I'm not one for rolling out a conventional list of the best games in each genre. That's something you can find on literally any webpage and I'll leave it to you and Google to solve those differences. Instead, I've put together groups of games that surprised me in various ways, both good and bad. So if you're coming here to see Skyrim at the top of the list, or perhaps to justify your purchase of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, you'll be disappointed.
Most controversial
2011 wasn't without controversial titles. We're not talking games that showed too much skin, or brought to light the subject of sex and marriage, such as Catherine. We're talking about games that had their own communities up in arms due to the very nature of how the game was created. You either liked it or you didn't.
Dragon Age II
The sequel to one of the great RPGs of this generation, Dragon Age II had quite a lot going for it. Unfortunately, instead of expanding upon the universe Origins set in motion, BioWare opted to confine the game into one large area and streamline the combat system—effectively 'consolising' the game. Some enjoyed the simplified combat, eliminating the need to pause the game multiple times during more-elaborate combat scenarios. However, Dragon Age is the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, practically making elaborate combat a necessity to maintain that relevance.
Regardless of where you stand, Dragon Age II was as divisive as it could've been. Whether it was the simplified combat, samey environments or uninteresting characters, everyone disliked something about the changes. Maybe BioWare was rushed to complete the title, maybe not, but many still hold Origins as the superior game today.
Dead Island
Techland's Diablo/Left 4 Dead/Borderlands approach to a zombie game was as ambitious as it was a technical mess. There's a lot to like about Dead Island on paper: loot, hordes of zombies to kill, levelling, cooperative play, etc. However, the game was, and still is, plagued by an equally horrifying number of bugs and game-stopping glitches. The PC version was actually released with a previous, unfinished version of the game, rather than final game code. Imagine picking the game up to realise you're actually playing a game that can't be finished because it's 'not quite done yet.'
Dead Island has made several fixes to itself, but that's no excuse. Releasing a game people want to like but can hardly play is a criminal offense to gaming as a whole. At least when it's working it's pretty damn good.
Most disappointing
You don't want this to happen to your favourite franchise, but alas, sometimes there's no avoiding it. These are the games of 2011 that failed to deliver a genuinely excellent experience, despite the hype surrounding them. It hurts even more when their predecessors set them up for success, and they still tank.
Brink
What a letdown. Brink was a showcase title on the bleeding edge of technology that everyone wanted to play. Not only did it implement a great-looking parkour system and tremendous aesthetic design, but the team combat and objectives looked satisfyingly unique as well. Touting a campaign that others could join with or against you at any time, Splash Damage looked like they were on their way to crafting a grade-A shooter we'd all still be playing come the new year. How wrong we were.
We covered Brink, twice actually, and its anemic campaign was a focal point for our anger. As it turns out, there was no story in Brink whatsoever, and the multiplayer was little more than a bare-bones version of better games, like Team Fortress 2. The game can be found in bargain bins everywhere, so if that doesn't tell you anything, help yourself.
Red Faction: Armageddon
Considering my love for Red Faction: Guerrilla, I absolutely couldn't wait for Armageddon to release. Showcasing new technology, weapons and a gritty environment to play with destructive tools, Armageddon appeared to have what was needed to succeed. Little did we all know that the genius of Guerrilla wouldn't come close to being matched in this mediocre follow-up.
Alright, Armageddon isn't THAT bad, but when you're in the shadow of such a free-spirited and plain-fun game like Guerrilla, you're expected to do something similarly great. The Magnet Gun was the single most amazing thing to come from it, but even that was overshadowed by the confining underground environments of Mars. That, coupled with the repetitive enemies and ridiculous story, made Armageddon a tough game to accept. Also, there's a unicorn that shoots rainbows out of its ass. We're done here.
F.E.A.R. 3 (I'm sorry, it's actually F.3.A.R.)
My channeled hate for games that throw a number in as an acronym will never cease, but in this case there's a lot more to hate about F.E.A.R. 3. The gameplay is completely different than previous installments of the franchise. How so? Let's try ditching conventional methods of combat we've been used to and instead implement trite Call of Duty features like regenerating health. Sound great? I didn't think so.
F.E.A.R. was always about atmosphere, a decent story and its pretty excellent AI. All of that has vaporized in the sequel and... oh yeah, Monolith didn't even make this. Moving on.
Rage
Id Software is a pioneer in PC gaming, but Rage is something they should be quite ashamed of. While the PS3 and Xbox 360 version ran alright, the PC version (you know, the stuff they're know for) was released in a very broken state. After several weeks id managed to get the game working again for the majority of users, but by then it had been beaten with the console stick. What do I mean? The PC was stuck with the low-res textures of the console versions and according to John Carmack (id Software), they had no intention of releasing a texture pack to clear up the mess. Awesome.
Look closer. That's some pretty amazing stuff, right there.
Being one of the PC owners of Rage, I orchestrated my own set of violence as I wasted several hours attempting to get the game to run in a functional way. Eventually, I received a patch that allowed me to play the game, but the rest of my experience wasn't without further issues. Simply put, the game was not optimized for the PC (which is heresy for id). You couldn't even change any of your internal settings like a normal PC game until the patch hit, and even after the choices were barren. Compound that with Nintendo 64 textures, pop-in loading, one of the most surprisingly uninteresting worlds in recent memory, and you'll get a generic shooter called Rage.
Was it because Bethesda published the game and forced id to go with the console over PC version? There's no way to know for sure, but the truth is within the product, and I advise you to steer far, far away from it.
Duke Nukem Forever
There was no way this game was going to live up to the expectations set for it and everyone knew it. So we'll just leave this one here as-is. Enjoy.
Most disappointing studio
Just because you release one of the best games of the year (Skyrim, for those keeping score at home) doesn't mean you get a free pass to publish a plethora of awful titles. Brink? Rage? Hunted: The Demon's Forge? Yeah, they were all trash, and no, it doesn't matter that you didn't develop them. As a publisher, you are still putting your name behind the material and are thus just as responsible for the outcome. One excellent game does not give you a free pass, my friends.
Best comeback
Dynasty Warriors 7
The Dynasty Warriors series doesn't have the best reputation among gamers, but I'm still a guilty follower of the franchise, despite the fact I haven't been fully pleased since, perhaps, Dynasty Warriors 5. When I first heard this game was coming out I dismissed it entirely, but as the release date crept up I found myself eying the features more and more. Brand new story mode that follows the actual characters of the kingdom? Interchangeable weapons? An RPG-esque upgrade system? A brand new conquest mode? Online co-operative play for the first time? I was sold.
I hated the redesign of the characters in Dynasty Warriors 6, and only a few titles in the series had a sense of weight behind each strike of a weapon. DW7 shocked me by offering an excellent feel to the combat while keeping it addictive with upgrades and new weapons. In my review, the new take on the story mode was the star of the show and my feelings still haven't changed. All in all, Koei has done a masterful job at reincarnating a stagnant franchise and I can't wait to see what the future brings.
Gears of War 3
As some may probably know, Gears of War 2 underwhelmed me wholly. The standard campaign was riddled with contrived writing and uninteresting moments. Boss fights were practically meaningless, and the introduction to new enemies and story elements didn't impress me. Considering the embarrassing multiplayer, Gears 2 was seemingly a catalyst for the series' demise. Hopeful as I was, I just didn't see Gears 3 bringing the franchise back on track. Thankfully I was wrong.
While it does have its problems, Gears 3 is definitely the best game in the series. The four-player drop-in cooperative play is an excellent addition to the gameplay, and the fully-fleshed out character development really helped make some of the protagonists feel more real than they ever have. Epic also took the time to hone the multiplayer experience, giving us dedicated servers as well as the new Beast Mode, Horde 2.0 and a working, fun, competitive multiplayer experience. Hats go off to Epic for keeping their promises.
Mortal Kombat
Wait, wait, wait. Mortal Kombat is relevant again? You better believe it!
Most underrated
Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine
Relic always brings out the best in development when it comes to the 40k universe. Space Marine was their very first attempt at creating a third-person action 40k game and they certainly didn't disappoint. Riddled with alarming detail, every single second you're playing this game you'll marvel at the attention Relic has paid to the system. The particle effects, combat noises, voice acting, everything sounds and looks superb. It also helps that it's pretty damn fun to play as well.
I reviewed Space Marine earlier in the year and gave the game a rather generous score. Not only does it provide a satisfying campaign, but it also throws in some decent multiplayer that will keep you busy for hours. It doesn't have the longest campaign, though, and if you know nothing about Warhammer 40k, you could be put off by the game appearing to be ostensibly similar to everything else out there (which it isn't). Space Marine isn't the greatest game, but it's definitely something worth playing.
Resurgence of excellence
Resident Evil 4 HD, Metal Gear Solid HD, Shadow of the Colossus/ICO HD
While Resident Evil 4 is the only downloadable title of the bunch, the rest are also available at a wonderfully-low retail price. If you haven't had the chance to play these classic titles you owe it to yourself to pick them up. Now.
Most unfortunate name
Ceaseless Discharge (Dark Souls)
Doesn't the name say it all?
Labels: Andrew Whipple III, Brink, Dead Island, Dragon Age II, Duke Nukem Forever, Dynasty Warriors 7, F.E.A.R 3, Portal 2, RAGE, Red Faction: Armageddon, Space Marine, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
The end of the year is always a hard time for a videogame journalist. Not only do we have to recall every experience we've had over the course of the year, but we then need to match each title up against one another, like some kind of digital Mortal Kombat tournament, in order to find that elusive 'game of the year'.
Keep in mind that this list is my personal favourite games of the year, not a list of the 'best' or most popular out there. That means some of the more abstract titles out there might take the place of the greater ones.
Let's start things off with a game that was neglected, but is great in its own way.
10: Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine
Space Marine is a third-person action shooter with combat mechanics similar to Rocksteady's recent Batman titles. It is Relic's first attempt at approaching the franchise using this genre and they did a fantastic job. The detail was extraordinary and, whilst the campaign was pretty short, the multiplayer served as a fun distraction with its competitive and co-operative elements.
It drops in at number ten for numerous reasons. Whilst it did the 40k universe justice, I felt that the campaign could have had more combat variety. The weapons, despite being brutally satisfying, were very limited, as were the combat moves. The multiplayer also lifted many of its features from games like Call of Duty and Gears of War's Horde mode (Exterminatus). Despite those shortcomings, Space Marine successfully tied together satisfying mêlée combat with solid shooting mechanics. Couple that with jaw-dropping executions and beautiful environments, and you have a sleeper hit on your hands. I can't wait to see what Relic does with this franchise.
9: Bulletstorm
Bullestorm is a unique first-person shooter that focusses on killing with skill. Generically shooting enemies to progress is out, and performing perpetually-interesting moves to decapitate, obliterate, incinerate or otherwise maim your opponents is in. Also, dick jokes.
Bulletstorm received massive criticism due to its humour and absurd format of first-person shooting. Sure, the funny bits were pretty dry, but think of it like the movie Snakes on a Plane; the whole thing is one big joke. The shooting is also rather great, but you can't play it like a conventional shooter where you shoot a target dude until the life bar depletes. Bulletstorm doesn't work like that, and if you play it as such, you'll despise it.
For me, Epic's extremely under-appreciated title pleased me with its style and surprisingly funny dialogue. Never did I think a FPS could change the formula into such a winning concoction. Using the environment to manipulate and slaughter your opponents? It might not be for everyone, but you'll never know whether you love it unless you give it a spin.
8: Orcs Must Die!
Robot Entertainment's Orcs Must Die! is a third-person tower-defense-esque game in which you control a Warmage. A really stupid Warmage. Your master slipped and fell on the steps, thus leaving you to fend off the relentless assault of Orcs who are seemingly allergic to fire.
Seriously. I heard one of them say it.
Whilst tower-defence games are literally a penny a dozen, Orcs Must Die! provides an excellent variation on the genre. By utilising traps instead of towers and allowing you to fully control a character who can use various talent trees and engage in either physical or magical combat, this game stays fresh for its duration. Throw in extra levels, traps and monsters via DLC, and you have a game that you'll be playing for hours upon hours, and for a ridiculously low-price too. Trust me when I say that Orcs Must Die! is one of the best in the genre.
7: Dark Souls
From Software returns with the brutal successor to the PlayStation exclusive, Demon's Souls, 2011's Dark Souls. Bordering on ridiculous as far as difficulty goes, Dark Souls takes you into a unique world where you must combat demons and all other forms of monstrosity with very little assistance. Survive long enough and you might just become stronger to journey into the next room. What's that you say; you died at the hand of a skeleton? You're screwed.
Next to Bioshock, the Souls titles are the most atmospheric games I've ever played. The art design, the ambiance; everything about these games screams style, and it works. Dark Souls is terrifying and that's mostly because it's a game that embraces a lost style: discovery. As you continue to discover more and more about a certain region, you begin to understand the game itself better, as well as your limits. Never have I felt so rewarded for defeating a tough monster, and so betrayed in dying to a standard enemy. Although the multiplayer was broken at release, Dark Souls is such a unique experience that you do yourself a disservice if you miss out.
6: Dynasty Warriors 7
Have you ever laughed out loud at a game on the brink of release? I certainly did with Dynasty Warriors 7. A notorious joke within the industry, countless Warriors titles have released, and hardly any have been in any way worth praising. Surprising as it may seem, Dynasty Warriors 7 is the exception, and has unbelievably steered a sinking ship in a respectful direction. Yes, it's still a hack-and-slash game and, yes, it still has some pretty bad voice acting, but I'll be damned if I don't say that Koei did an outstanding job with this one.
As detailed in my review, one of the biggest selling points for me was online play, a first for the series. Even better, Koei actually took the time to refine the gameplay and eliminate the fluff that the series was known for. The story mode for each kingdom was confusingly addictive and the cut-scenes were crafted in a delightful way. With hours upon hours of relatively simple gameplay, Dynasty Warriors 7 was probably the biggest surprise of the year.
It also contains the best capes in gaming. Seriously, take a look.
5: Gears of War 3
Having composed the final entry in the Marcus Fenix story-arc, Gears of War 3 is the end of the story that all Gears fans know. Until this point, Gears had its highs and lows, but this game truly delivers on all fronts. As emotional as it is fulfiling, this is the definitive example of how a series should wrap things up.
It's hard to think that the third entry is Epic's swansong for the series. Whilst it most definitely won't be the last game we see in the Gears universe, Epic has done a fantastic job of sending it off. Four player co-op? A refined multiplayer experience with dedicated servers? A skilled author composing the story? Everything Gears of War 3 brings is the best of the series, and the only way you'll know is to play it yourself.
4: Dead Space 2
Renowned engineer Isaac Clark and the very angry Necromorphs both return in the much anticipated Dead Space 2. Having lost seemingly everything in the Ishimura incident, Clark wakes to find his nightmare renewed and, of course, he's the only one with the knowledge to stop the growing threat. Scary, atmospheric, technologically superior and, most of all, fun, Dead Space 2 is a worthy instalment to one of the better third-person titles available to gamers.
To this day, Visceral's creation is yet to be matched by an equally-fun and jump-worthy third-person shooter. The first Dead Space took many of its cues from the superb Resident Evil 4, but while that series has somewhat lost its course, Dead Space has evolved with the rest of the gaming industry and put out an incredible sequel. Although its multiplayer is forgettable beyond measure, the single-player experience never wavered in quality, and that's what really matters.
3: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Every Elder Scrolls game is huge, and Skyrim is no exception. Taking cues from the ways that games have changed, Bethesda has streamlined their seminal franchise to cater to all types of play-style and gamer. Couple that with an intriguing story, beautiful technology, and discovery elements that have been lost since Morrowind, and you get Skyrim, one of the best games of the year.
I have yet to finish an Elder Scrolls game, but Skyrim might just be the first game to break that mould. It certainly has its faults and glitches, but even those are not enough to sway my recommendation. You can play this game however you want, and with the death of the awful, awful level-scaling system present in Oblivion, even I can enjoy this game.
2: Mortal Kombat
/mortal-kombat-9-screens-2_004.jpg)
You're reading the words of the most loyal Mortal Kombat fans out there. Yet, I never thought that Mortal Kombat could drag itself out of the abysmal hole that it dug itself into. But I was wrong. If you know nothing about Mortal Kombat - and if that's the situation, shame on you - understand that this game's accessibility is unparalleled and contains everything that made the old games memorable and great. Which largely means that Liu Kang isn't a zombie this time.
Foregoing the 3D style and retracing its steps back to the original days, Mortal Kombat is a masterclass in what a fighter should be. Not only does it give you the best story that any fighting game has ever seen (no, seriously, play it), but it is also loaded with unlockables, challenges and DLC that doesn't suck. The only thing holding this game back from perfection was its rather awful online component. Constant disconnection is enough to dissuade anyone from trying to compete online, but if they can get this right next time, then I can't wait.
1: Bastion
You might laugh, but my number one game this year is a downloadable title that will take you less than ten hours to play through. Regardless of its duration, you cannot measure the importance of quality in a game, and Bastion achieves that quality to the highest degree. Supergiant Games hasn't created a great title, they've created an incredible one.
Akin to some of my old favourites, such as The Secret of Mana, Bastion is an action-RPG that knows the ropes. Everything from the music to the combat feels right, and the story is mysterious enough to make you want to continue on your adventure to discover more about its surreal environment. Whilst it isn't the longest, deepest, most addictive or largest game out there, Bastion is composed so professionally that anyone can get into it. Saying that, if you've yet to skim the surface of this exceptional game then please, do so. Now.
Labels: Andrew Whipple III, Bastion, Bulletstorm, Dark Souls, Dead Space 2, Dynasty Warriors 7, Gears of War 3, Mortal Kombat, Opinion, Orcs Must Die, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Late to the party, you say? 2011 may be dead and buried old news, but forgive me; I've only just built up the courage to say what I'm going to say.
You see, I'm not a man with splitting opinions, a vicious tongue or a mind for devil's advocacy. I like what I like, and generally that tends to be what everyone else likes. You'll find no 'Homefront was the bestest game evar!' antics from me. But in a year that granted me the gift of Batman: Arkham Asylum, the cherished delight of Portal 2 and the unforgettable, unconquerable, unbelievable Skyrim, amongst a glittering sea of celebrated gems, it was a coma-fuelled carmageddon that gave me the greatest joy.
Driver: San Francisco is a throwback in pretty much every way possible. The story itself harks back to the vibrant, garish and funky, beat-heavy 1970s, where everyone was either pushing coke or doing dope or being a dirty cop or doing something illegal and slightly hilarious. There's also the gameplay, which doesn't burden the player with muddy motion control, sloppy shooting mechanics or faulty free-roam. You drive, and occasionally you'll press a button, move the camera over another car, and press a button. Then you drive again. It's pure, clean and fresh. Whilst most modern titles cram the back of their game boxes with trademarked UltraCrap™ features ("now with 50% more green-brown textures!"), Driver had you, a car and a beautiful city. To top it all off, this is Ubisoft Reflections' last attempt at reviving the lifeless and much spat-on corpse of the Driver series; from the golden age of the ultimate PS1 cop-chase emulator, Driver has fallen hard, shooting itself in the foot with the awkwardly-titled Driv3r and then proceeding to maul its own limbs off in desperation with Parallel Lines and 76. When it was announced that the latest Driver would be a retro throwback to San Fran's heyday, all coddled up in the mind of coma patient John Tanner, eyebrows raised. When the game released, jaws dropped.
Well, mine did at least. See, 2011 was a wonderful year. Not if you were a dictator, or a Middle Eastern rebel, or near an earthquake hotspot, or Amy Winehouse, or pretty much anyone else in this sickening world slowly trudging to your inevitable anti-climactic demise. But, for videogames at least, it was damn exciting. Needles plunged into eyes in Dead Space 2, robots plunged into fiery pits in Portal 2, elbow-daggers plunged into cyborg motherboards in Deus Ex, and Skyrim plunged the world into a fury of 'Fus Ro Dah'-ing and wishing their cats could dual-wield. There was fierce competition, no doubt about it. But Driver: San Fransisco stole my heart and drifted across the Golden Gate bridge with it. And I'll tell you why.
You knew what Dead Space 2 was all about. If you had hands, or even eyes, well before your clammy palms had caressed your controller of choice you knew Dead Space 2 was about kicking alien ass and taking alien names. Maybe you'd completed Dead Space (2008), or just played the demo, or even caught a fleeting glance of a trailer, but any semblance of surprise had been squandered long before you ever played it. You knew how it would feel to decapitate an otherworldly head, and fly about in zero-gravity, and what Issac would say, do, think, whisper, murmur, smell like; the corpse of Dead Space 2 was examined and pored over long before its release into the big wide world. All the grand games of 2011 had the same issue: hyped beyond excess, with endless trailers, walkthroughs and interviews to feast upon, your appetite was spoiled before the main meal. I'm a huge Skyrim fan, and the game itself is unconquerable colossus of scale, and yet killing my first dragon didn't feel all that special. Because only a few months ago, I'd watched Todd Howard do the very same.
Driver: San Fransisco didn't have that problem. I'll choose my words carefully so I don't offend any hardworking Ubisoft employees, but... how do I put this? The game was shoved into a grimy corner to die a lonely death. Advertising was basic; no grand statements spilled from Martin Edmondson's - creative director - mouth; there wasn't a new trailer every thirty seconds. I knew a bit about the game, but I certainly hadn't followed it with the same wide-eyed vigour as I had with the better-endowed releases that came before it. It was brilliant.
When I got the game, seamlessly swinging sideways around San Francisco's sunbathed streets was an absolute thrill. Leaping from car to car in comatic fury was a real joy, whilst the good-cop/bad-cop (or in this case, white-coma-cop/black-sassy-cop) relationship - filled with sharp one-liners and just enough homoerotic tension to emulate all those 70s buddy movies - was riotous fun. With no expectation or preconceived notions, Driver: San Fransisco had an empty stage on which to wow the player, and it did so with all the tricks it could stuff up its sleeve.
The crux of the game had to be the side-missions. The main plot was tongue-in-cheek, bizarre, over-the-top brilliance, with interweaving threads of stolen ammonia and hospital beds. But to keep you interested, there had to be stuff to do, and I'll happily hold my hands in the air and claim that Driver: San Fransisco had the best side missions of any game I've played for a long, long time. Whilst Skyrim had you traversing endless load screens as you fast travel, enter a building, talk for a bit, leave a building, fast travel, find some treasure, fast travel, speak to a guy, and so on and so forth, Driver makes every side mission an attention-grabbing, emotionally-involving rollercoster. Who could forget Jun and Ayumu, clumsy Korean kids who accidentally get themselves embroiled in vicious street-races? An ageing truck driver nearing retirement who is caught up in a Speed-style bomb threat? An unfortunate husband unwittingly driving an adulterous wife to a lesion with her lover?
They each had spirit. They each had flair. They each had soul. Every single one of them felt crafted, sculpted and born out of love, and you find yourself becoming more and more involved in these characters with every lightning-fast second. I shouldn't care about these people! Whole games devote themselves to creating sympathy with a block of pixels, yet fail with a fizzle; Driver: San Fransisco, with a sharp script and colourful characters, grabs you and doesn't let go.
That's without retracing the fleet-footed main plotline, that's so brilliantly tongue-in-cheek yet straight-faced that you can't help but admire Ubisoft's gumption. Going from the meandering countryside roads of automobile shifting fun, through narrow back-alleys of genuinely disturbing plot twists ("Christ - he's everywhere!"), hurtling down the open highway of one of the most thrilling climaxes of the year - Driver was an utter joy to behold.
There are hundreds of honestly superb games out there. Games with blockbuster budgets, Spartan-sized teams and the community's eyes focussed dead on their every move; these types of games are wonderful to play and technically proficient. But when was the last time a game rocketed out of the blue and knocked your socks off? When was the last time you were properly, genuinely excited by the game you were playing, full of wonder and possibility and brimming with the unknown? Nowadays, those games are harder to come by. And all the more incredible for it.
Labels: Chris Hawke, Driver, Driver: San Francisco, Feature, Opinion, Ubisoft
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Developer
Infinity WardPublisher
ActivisionPlatforms
Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PCReviewed on
Xbox 360Genre
First-person shooterCertificate
PEGI 18+, ESRB MThis formula hasn't changed with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, what would a holiday season be like without another Call of Duty game? I couldn't fathom it either.
Following the fallout between Infinity Ward's lead designers and Activision, many thought that the departure of most of the studio would bring about the demise of the Modern Warfare brand. Yet, the game you know and love remains intact. Immensely intact. In fact, that's my one issue with the series that touts itself as the "best-selling game of all time"; being afraid of change.
How so?
A word of warning: if you haven't played the previous Modern Warfare games, you'll more than likely have absolutely no idea of what's going on (then again, even if you have you might fall into the same category). Following the events that transpired in Modern Warfare 2, the Russians have invaded America and continue to rain destruction down on the eastern shore. Makarov, the man behind the whole 'destroying the world' thing, is still at large, and you need to kill him so that the US and Russia can make peace. There it is.
Yo, yo, yo! Check out this sentry turret man!
Being candid, the campaign for MW3 is as cinematic as it is disappointing in almost every category. Without giving away major plot points, this game follows exactly the same formula that was given to us with the original Modern Warfare four years ago. Controversial issue arises, a main character dies and then you eliminate the main threat (or a notable one). This makes the story extremely predictable and shallow, especially during the cut-scenes, where the whiteboards, post-it notes and other information is basically flung at you from seemingly nowhere. These moments remind me of a standard CSI episode where the team has come to a dead end and then, miraculously, someone finds something and the case is busted wide open. Of course, when it comes down to it, all you need to know is that you need to shoot people. A lot of people.
There are few things that don't blow up as you climbing your way to the objective in the campaign. Missiles flying overhead, buildings collapsing around you, ordnance being detonated nearby - I can't deny the adrenaline rush that MW3 offers. A quote I recently heard describes it best: "if Modern Warfare 3 were a movie, Michael Bay would have to retire." Sure, in some ways the game makes great use of action and definitely stirs excitement, but Activision and Infinity Ward have been pulling the same strings for a while now. I understand they're trying to recreate the same effect that the original Modern Warfare had on the masses, but by literally utilising the same story-arc again and again, the game just ends up seeming plagued by lazy design. It'd be one thing if the story were at the very least interesting, but sadly this just isn't the case.
You are the Juggernaut.
Multiplayer, on the other hand, offers a much better experience in MW3 than its predecessor. Whilst MW2 gave us the superior co-operative Spec Ops mode along with a slew of new perks, equipment and kill-streaks, MW3 refines it all, creating a nicer overall package. As far as I'm concerned, Spec Ops is once again the star of the show. If you've never played it, Spec Ops is a two-man set of challenges that earn you stars for the difficulty you complete them on. Some missions may be completed alone, but if you're dead set on getting all 48 stars you're going to need a partner in crime. There's also a new Surivival mode, which pits you against waves of enemies, à la Gears of War's Horde.
The original Modern Warfare was where I sunk my teeth deep into the competitive multiplayer. MW2 felt bigger, but it was ruined for me by exploiters, terrible spawns and overpowered weapon sets. MW3 feels better to me, purely due to the fact that you're rewarded for staying loyal to certain weapons. What I mean is that you can actually level up your individual weapons, unlocking additional attachments and bonuses. For instance, leveling up the Riot Shield will give you the option to make it melee quicker or give you a speed boost.
Only novices shoot rockets. I think.
However, my favourite new additions to the multiplayer remain with the playlists and new kill-streak mechanics. MW3 offers the biggest selection of playlists the series has seen yet, including an all new mode called Kill Confirmed. Kill Confirmed's basic premise is that killing people doesn't automatically net your team points; instead, upon death your enemy will drop a dog tag and, if claimed, collection of that tag will net your team points. The cool thing about this mode is that you can grab your own teammate's dog tag, denying them the point. As far as kill-streaks go, they can still be fully customised, but can now be set to either Assault or Support streaks. Assault is your typical streak system which will end if you're killed prematurely. Support, though, allows your streak to persist through death. They aren't quite as devastating as the Assault ones are but it's still a rather nifty change that makes constant death less frustrating.
After that though, MW3 devolves back into its typical 'shoot everything, everywhere' format. It wouldn't be such a bad thing if MW3 were to have better spawns, but, alas, it does not. Couple that with an unbalanced matchmaking system and you have a real issue. The first game I played online pitched me against four people who were all level 80; about midway through the game, I was killed six times in a row without taking more than four steps from my spawn location.
MW3 isn't a bad game, but its lack of imagination and derivative nature will drive away gamers who want just a little bit more. Its nonsensical story doesn't help matters, but at least Spec Ops and a familiar competitive multiplayer element provide enough to keep coming back to. Having said that, this title is nothing more than average, but if you're a Call of Duty fan and shooting dudes is the name of your game, go ahead and add two to the score.
5/10 [?]
Labels: 2012, Activision Blizzard, Andrew Whipple III, Call of Duty, Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3, PC, PS3, Sledgehammer Games, Xbox 360
For nearly the entire calendar year, the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises have been at war.
Similar to the Sega vs. Nintendo days of yore, it’s a pitch, knock-down battle for supremacy; the two companies have launched ad campaigns taking none-too-subtle jabs at each other, and gamers are digging in and choosing a side, ready to defend their favourite franchise and see the opposition go down in defeat.
This has to stop.
Seriously, folks, I’m all for good, healthy competition, but what’s going on between Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is just plain ridiculous. It goes beyond competitive rivalry and turns into something out of bloody Amadeus. The antagonism on behalf of either franchise is colossally wrong-headed, and it would be in everyone’s best interest if gamers put down their torches and pitchforks, and let both games be.
First of all, this battle doesn’t make our industry look good. Though gaming has slowly risen to a place of prominence in the last five or ten years, it isn't yet quite as ubiquitous as movie-watching or listening to music, and there’s still plenty of room for outsiders to get the wrong idea about gaming culture. I can’t imagine it speaks terribly highly about our industry if its fans are willing to act like jackasses in defence of a multinational corporation, who would just as soon suffocate under their large piles of money than give specific attention to those dedicated to besmirching their competitor’s name. We’re just starting to be seen by the rest of the world as more mature; let’s act like we deserve to be treated that way.
I also can’t think of any other industry that pits its competition head-to-head in such a petty manner. At no point in 2006 did Warner Bros. point at 20th Century Fox and say "Hey! Our movie about magicians in the early 1900s is way better than yours!" Neither do book publishers declare that their new novel is 'better' than an already-established series ("puts James Patterson’s Women’s Murder Club books to shame!"), and whilst it’s hardly unusual for recording artists to enter into disputes, they rarely involve direct album comparisons. These industries appear more confident about their products, and about their ability to coexist with consumers. Fans may argue about whether Star Trek or Star Wars is 'better', but these discussions are most often held between consumers, which is a far cry from having a quarrel perpetuated by the films' own studios.
Besides, if you were to sit down and play both Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, you would quickly find them both to be different and complementary experiences. Battlefield’s multiplayer-focussed shooter offers much more in the vein of wide-open spaces and free-form combat options, whilst Call of Duty places a greater emphasis on tight, twitchy action. True, both games are modern military shooters with straightforward, set piece-driven single player modes, but they both accommodate largely different play styles, resulting in two different gameplay experiences.
Which leads me to my main point: it’s okay to like both. How very basic it sounds, but how true it actually is. Getting caught up in EA and Activision’s trumped-up battle of the shooters can be great fun, but it can also result in players missing an important truth: that both games are fun, top-notch experiences, and each is worthy of your time. Personally, I alternate between the two, depending on what I feel like playing. Perhaps you can only afford one game, and need to pick between the two; choosing one over the other is fine, but liking one game doesn’t preclude you from enjoying the other.
Perhaps I’m being a curmudgeonly sod, but the whole 'one versus the other' thing just smells of stupidity. Too much time, energy, and Metacritic User Score credibility has been sacrificed to a conflict that does not matter in the grand spectrum of gaming. Both games are out now. Buy them, or don’t. Like them, or don’t. But dragging out this pissing contest of a sales matchup is unnecessary, not to mention stupid.
Labels: Andrew Testerman, Battlefield, Call of Duty, DICE, Infinity Ward, Opinion
I am a big believer in the positive aspects of gaming. I’ve defended my hobby both in person and on the net, and I truly feel that videogames can have a palpable, positive effect on people everywhere.
Recently, I was pleasantly reminded of this fact, thanks to the little downloadable game that could, Trine. Trine is a PSN game (developed originally for Windows PC) by Finnish developer, Frozenbyte. In the game you take control of three heroes, each of whom have been bound together by the mystical Trine. As a result of the magic spell of the Trine, a knight, a thief and a wizard are forced to share one body, and must work together in order to traverse platforms, solve puzzles and defeat enemies. The main concept behind the game is that you can - and must - freely switch between any of the three characters, but can only control one of them at a time, forcing you to use your head and think about which character’s ability you need to get past a specific challenge.
Trine was one of the first downloadable games I ever purchased. The game enamoured me with its beautiful graphics and its old-school, 2-D platforming; plus, since the game allowed up to three players to play locally, I figured it would be a great chance to convince my boyfriend to join in on the gaming fun.
It’s been a concerted mission of mine to turn my boyfriend into a pseudo-gamer of sorts. I have had varying degrees of success. Fighting games he can manage, as long as you don’t force him to choose more than one character. It still surprises me that, to this day, when I play Mortal Kombat with friends and they choose anyone other than Zub-Zero, I had forgotten that such a decision was even possible. Shooters have also been a success of sorts, and we’ve logged hours upon hours playing Resistance - it has become quite evident that shooting aliens in the face is something that makes us a better and happier couple.
Trine was one of our earliest co-op experiences, and I kid you not, gamers, but that game taught me more about us and our relationship than I care to recall.
Before we go further into this, there are a few things you should know. I am not what you might call a 'patient' gamer. If you see me flipping a switch, grappling off a wall and double-jumping over a fiery pit onto a platform, I expect you to do the same. Damn it, how hard could it be?! You just saw me do it, didn’t you? I sometimes forget that not everyone has been doing this since they were five.
Case-in-point: my boyfriend. The poor shmoe owned a Nintendo with a copy of Mario Brothers a few eons ago, and that’s basically where his gaming-jedi training ended. And, although talented in many areas – the man makes a mean apple pie - when it comes to games, a fast learner he is not. As you can imagine, in a game in which three heroes share one body, throwing two gamers into the mix only confuses things even further. Co-operation and communication are key. The players, like the characters of Trine, have to find a way to share the three heroes and their abilities, and act in unison towards achieving their goal.
I think it was maybe after the fifth consecutive time that I plunged to my death, after my significant other conjured a box directly over my head with the Wizard as I attempted to manoeuvre over some platforms, that I very seriously thought it was time to reconsider this whole 'relationship' thing. "It’s just a game!" he protested. "Why are you so lame at this!?" I yelled. It didn’t take much more than that, and a full blown fight was on. Over Trine. Over a game. But not really.
Turns out it wasn’t so much that we were having trouble communicating during our Trine gaming session, but rather we were having trouble communicating in general. I was not only an impatient gamer; the fact of the matter was that I wasn’t a patient boyfriend. As for him, it became pretty evident that he was hesitant to follow my lead during Trine, because, in a lot of ways, he wasn't too keen on following my lead at all. We had run into a problem here; a puzzle of considerable challenge.
Here’s the thing though. We both wanted to make it work. We both wanted to beat Trine, so to speak. Trine became a metaphor for our relationship and its creases. So we took a step back. We took an inventory of what our strengths and weaknesses were, and reassessed that puzzle. Long story short, we beat that puzzle and kicked Trine’s ass.
A few days ago, we started playing Trine 2. Every now and again, a random box will be conjured directly over my head. And yes, many a digital death has ensued as a result of his inherent noobness. But he’s getting better, and I’ve learnt to sit back and enjoy it all. I’ve stopped trying to turn him into a fully-fledged gamer (sort of), and instead I've begun to enjoy the simple joys of gaming with my significant other. As a result, the yelling to laughing ratio has been flipped on its head.
Trine, and gaming in general, has not only helped my relationship, but has provided me and my boyfriend with a hobby that not only allows us to spend time together, but that forces us to work together as a unit, to communicate or fail, that gives us ample opportunities to help each other succeed and to share triumphs. And that's certainly not bad for a pastime that has a reputation for turning us all into a bunch of antisocial loners.
Labels: Feature, Joey Núñez, Opinion, Trine
I want very much to say that this year’s Spike VGAs were the best they’ve ever been, but I’m not sure that I can.
Make no mistake; this year’s broadcast, which aired on the 10th November at 8:00pm EST, saw markededly clear improvements over previous years' instalments. The now bog-standard celebrity guests were, by-and-large, less awkward, with most sounding excited to be there, and several even giving off a genuine gamer vibe. Spike also finally found a competent host for the VGAs in Zachary Levi, whose ‘aw, shucks’ charisma helped sell even the most staid of material (oh look, a life bar joke in 2011). And the actual broadcast itself has become a well-oiled machine, shuttling between segments of the show and killer trailers with an ease that the Oscars could only dream of.
The problem was, though, that it was too well-oiled. In all of the fervour to promote new trailers, promote VGA-related competitions (“Check out how popular the VGAs are on Twitter!”), and Felicia Day’s noble-though-misguided backstage shenanigans, the producers failed to give attention to the actual reason everyone was there: the awards. During the course of the evening, all of three proper awards were given and accepted. Three. The first, Best Action Adventure, was given at the very beginning of the show, and nearly a solid hour and a half went by without so much as a peep about the other awards.
Actually, I take that back — they did mention sixteen other awards during an earlier portion of the broadcast, because they announced the winners in the form of a montage. To put this in perspective, more time was devoted to Kevin Jonas introducing the Rainbow 6: Patriots trailer than on the presentation of sixteen different awards. In fact, so much was lost in the shuffle that Spike didn’t even mention the winner for one of their categories (if you’ll check out the Wikipedia page, you’ll notice a blank spot for Best Team Sports game.
It’s kinda surreal, truthfully. I realise that the VGAs are starting to become a hot zone for announcing new games and showing off huge trailers, which, in all fairness, is pretty conducive to television, but Spike aren't even pretending that the awards matter anymore. I mean, fun as it was to watch Felicia Day play real-life Fruit Ninja with the cast of Comedy Central’s Workaholics, it felt disrespectful to all the major industry figures whose hard work was supposedly being honoured at the ceremony, a sentiment shared by more than a few actual nominees. Though, in terms of developer disrespect, nothing quite tops Michael Condrey of Sledgehammer Games getting teabagged for running over the time limit on his acceptance speech for Best Shooter.
Award neglect was certainly the largest problem this year, but it was far from the only one. As with any awards show, several presenters were absolutely dire during their onstage moments, particularly Jason Biggs of the American Pie franchise, who either did not care one iota about how obvious it was that he was reading from the autocue, or was simply stoned out of his gourd. Felicia Day’s Japanese game show-esque antics for Child’s Play were sound and admirable in concept (promoting a major game-related charity, and doing silly stuff for donations), but they killed the programme’s momentum whenever they popped up. And the aforementioned teabagging, which was funny as a concept-based joke, was simply terrible as an execution-based joke.
The most frustrating aspect of the VGAs, though, wasn’t the unfunny jokes or the awkward celebrities. No; it was the moments of actual, legitimate entertainment, the slight glimpses of what the VGAs should be. Case in point: The Legend of Zelda’s induction into the Videogame Hall of Fame.
Seth Green briefly talked about Zelda’s achievements, and then showed a video with clips from nearly every Zelda game, whilst a tasteful narration discussed some of the series’ finer points, including an acknowledgement of the game’s resonance despite the lack of spoken dialogue. After the video, the curtains opened, and who should walk out but Shigeru Miyamoto, who gave a charming acceptance speech in English to a standing ovation from the crowd. In another cool segment, Levi showed a video from Activision featuring Captain Price and Frost of Modern Warfare 3, saluting US troops and promoting a program to help veterans acquire jobs after they've returned from active duty. Moments like these tell me that, ultimately, the VGA producers 'get it', which makes the segues into rocky, stereotypical ‘gamer’ territory that much more painful.
Despite my negativity, I really do have hope for the VGAs. This year’s ceremony was ultimately stronger and less painful to watch than in previous years, and if the show continues to improve in the way it has, there is every potential that it might really be worth watching in a few years. Still, if the VGAs want to be taken seriously as an awards show, they need to focus more attention on the actual awards; to quote Justin McElroy of Joystiq, "if winning [a VGA] is ever to be a big deal, that has to start with you guys [the Spike producers] believing it is." [source] Even the MTV VMAs (the ‘award show as entertainment’ programme that the VGAs obviously wants to be, which is a perfectly fine goal) understand that winning is a big deal; if Spike wants to improve the VGAs for next year, I’d start there.
Labels: 2011, Andrew Testerman, Awards, Feature, Spike, VGAs, VGAs 2011
Batman: Arkham City
Developer
Rocksteady StudiosPublisher
Warner Bros. InteractiveSquare Enix (Japan)
Platforms
Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Windows PC, OnLive, WiiU (2012)Reviewed on
PlayStation 3Genre
Action-adventure, beat 'em up, stealthCertificate
PEGI 16+, ESRB TAs tends to happen, the extreme popularity of the comic character has led to movies, animated series, tonnes of merchandise and - of course - videogames. In 2009, Rocksteady broke the licensed game curse, and created a Batman videogame unlike anything anyone had ever seen before. The boys and girls at Rocksteady care for the character, and poured attention and love into every single detail of the project, crafting more than just a game, but rather an experience. Batman: Arkham Asylum was more than just the best Batman game ever, or the best comic book game ever; it was one of the best games of 2009, full stop. This left this year’s sequel, Batman: Arkham City, with a rather unprecedented predicament: it ended up a licensed game with a large quantity of valid expectation for greatness weighing it down. Comic geeks and gamers the world over were wondering if Rocksteady would be able to strike gold twice.
The answer? Yes. God, yes.
You know the way that every sequel promises to be bigger and better, and then hardly ever is? That, luckily, didn't happen this time. Rocksteady hit the bullseye, and somehow managed to make the already pefect Batman experience even better, delivering a massive follow up to Arkham Asylum that is truly bigger and better in every way, giving you more of what you loved from the original and doing away with anything you hated. Fan expectations were more than met; they were surpassed entirely. This was clearly Rocksteady’s objective.
So how does a developer go about beating itself at its own game? Well, Rocksteady’s first order of business was giving players a larger playground to play in. Enter Arkham City, the mega-prison after which the game is named. If you’ve somehow managed to avoid spoiling the story for yourself already, I won’t spoil it for you here. All you need to know is that Quincy Sharp, former warden of Arkham Asylum, is now mayor of Gotham City, and he has somehow convinced the bigwigs of Gotham to let him wall off a complete section of the city and turn it into a prison. The result: a literal city prison, populated by every low-life thug, criminal and super-criminal in Gotham City. With appearances from almost every major nemesis in Batman’s rogue gallery (and a few not so major ones), veteran comic book writer Paul Dini has written a meaty, intense and suspenseful story that evokes a true sense of urgency in the player as the plot develops. The pacing of the narrative is pitch-perfect, and the game is filled with unexpected twists and reveals that will have you nerdgasming well into the night.
The game’s narrative is made that much greater by the excellent gameplay through which you experience it. Gameplay is divided into three basic elements: exploration, combat and stealth. Playing as the Dark Knight himself, Arkham City is yours to explore. As a gamer, jumping, gliding and grappling from rooftop to rooftop in an environment as vibrant and layered as Arkham City is a treat. As a Batman fan, the experience is just indescribable, and must be experienced to be understood. When you’re not mindlessly gliding around the city skies and freaking out at just how awesome Batman’s cape looks billowing in the wind, you’ll probably be meticulously scouring the environments for secrets or clues related to your current mission. Rocksteady has not forgotten that Batman is first and foremost a detective, and has made sure to feature Batman’s crime solving deductive skills prominently in the game, both in the main story missions and side missions, which I’ll get on to later.
As you can probably imagine, based on the fact that the whole game takes place in a megaprison filled to the brim with people that want our hero dead, you will get into a fair amount of scuffles. You will deal with your opponents either via direct mêlée combat or stealth. For the mêlée combat, Rocksteady has refined the amazing combat system they created for Arkham Asylum, the Freeflow Combat System. Freeflow combat sounds simple on paper: attack enemies with one button, stun them with another, dodge with a third and press a fourth button at the right time to counter. The truth of the matter, though, is that although the system is simple enough that a beginner can pull off some nice moves, this by no makes the game a button masher. If you’re going to call the Freeflow combat button-mashing, you might as well call Guitar Hero a button masher, and no, that is not an exaggeration. The key to successful combat in Arkham City is timing; you have to time each move to perfectly follow your previous move, counter just at the right moment, dodge exactly when required, all in an effort to boost your combo count and, consequently, the experience you gain from a fight. Perfecting Freeflow combat requires real skill. Add in enemies which require specific attack approaches, special moves and quickfire gadget moves – which allow you to incorporate Batman’s nifty arsenal into his combos – and you’ve got yourself an extremely robust combat system which will probably provide you with some of the most rewarding combat in any action title, ever.
Once you perfect the freeflow combat I guarantee you will feel like a ninja. But, alas, Batman - like all heroes - has a lethal weakness. For Superman, it's kryptonite; for Batman, it's guns - guns will kill the guy. Charge into a room filled with gun-toting goons, and you'll find yourself walking into the light faster than you can say "holy fatal wound, Batman". Armed henchmen require a more tactical approach; namely, stealth. Stealth (or predator) sections will require you to patiently wait in the shadows and use your wits and your gadgets to take out your opponents. Fear not, though, because the game arms you to the teeth, with everything from the must-have batarangs to explosive gel, freeze bombs, smoke grenades and zip lines. These stealth situations are also where you’ll make use Batman’s 'Detective Vision', which allows you to see through walls, in order to identify enemies and the weapons they're carrying. Each predator room is basically a puzzle that needs solving, with the answer always ending up as you doing a triumphant Batoosie dance over a heap of unconscious bodies.
Once you’ve explored, fought and ninja’d your way through the main story there’s still loads - and I mean loads - of things to do in Arkham City. The side missions prepared are just awe-inspiring, with most side quests featuring deep plots and their own villains. These optional quests will have you scouring the city solving The Riddler’s riddles, as lives hang in the balance; investigating a series of grisly murders; chasing down ringing phones in an effort to track down a psychopathic murderer, and so much more. With no hint of a joke, the side missions in Arkham City could be their own stand-alone game, they are that good. You also have the challenge rooms to occupy your time; these are Riddler Challenges, that either see you taking out waves of enemies with Freeflow combat, or clearing rooms of armed thugs in stealth missions. All missions are ranked online, with leaderboards and such, so you always have incentive to come back to these challenges and increase your scores. Add to the mix the addition of the newly re-vogued 'New Game Plus', which lets you play through the main story with all your experience and gadgets whilst considerably ramping up the difficulty, and it's easy to see that replay value is the name of the game. Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Catwoman yet, have I?
Every new copy of Arkham City includes a download code, which will let you access the Catwoman missions. These missions are interwoven with the game's main narrative, so they seamlessly integrate with the main story. It’s true that you could play the entire game without experiencing the Catwoman missions and not feel like you’re missing out on anything, but trust me, you would be. Catwoman moves and fights completely differently to Batman, and playing as the famed femme fatale was probably one of my favourite experiences of Arkham City. Not only will these missions reveal more about what’s going on in Arkham City, but they will also reward you with some of the best gameplay the title has to offer. Long story short, download, and play now.
Rocksteady has also been generous with its offering of DLC. Already the company has released two DLC character packs, featuring Nightwing and Robin respectively. These packs allow you to play as these two members of the Batman family in all of the game's challenge rooms, as well as in additional challenge rooms included in the DLC. These characters can’t be used in the main game, which has disappointed more than a few fans; however, I can guarantee that each character is worth trying out. Both have a very distinct feel to them, in combat and in stealth missions, and they are more than just palette swaps, with distinct moves, gadgets and combat styles. At the end of the day, though, I’d say that you should only really get these packs if you have the cash to spare, or if you’re a huge fan of the characters, like me. Either way, you won’t be disappointed.
Lastly, I just have to mention how spectacular this game looks. The art style is spot on, and the game is brought to life with stunning graphics and vibrant music, every bit as epic as anything you’d expect to hear in Christopher Nolan’s Batman flicks. It’s the gaming equivalent of awesome sauce, and you know just how awesome awesome sauce is.
I read somewhere that Arkham City was more of a Batman simulator than a game, and I couldn’t agree more. Rocksteady has successfully, and fully, recreated the 'Batman experience' in gaming form, and if you know anything about Batman then you'll know just how much of an impressive feat this is. Batman: Arkham City is easily my favourite game of 2011, and a solid contender for Game of the Year. You owe it to yourself to play this game.
10/10 [?]
Labels: 2011, Batman, Batman: Arkham City, Joey Núñez, Review, Rocksteady Studios, Warner Bros.
Subscribe to our content
and never miss a single thing
subscribe to our monthly newsletter:
Our most recent writing
Our most recent reviews
Recent comments
All comments are subject to our commenting policy
Latest videos
Subscribe on YouTube
GGTL Classics
Some of the very best articles dug out from deep in the GGTL archives, written by some of our past and present wordsmiths alike.
Your continued use of this website and/or any others owned by Gamer's Guide to Life.com represents your acceptance and indicates your full understanding of all of our legal policies and terms. Our legal policies and terms are legally binding. If you in any way disagree with or refuse to be bound by any part of said legal policies and terms, you are advised to leave this website immediately.