Flawless Victory? The "Mortal Kombat" review.

When I was a kid, there was a huge controversy over an arcade game: Is "Mortal Kombat" too violent? What are kids playing a game where you rip out someone's spine for? Is this going to affect them in some evil way? How could game makers be so cruel? Won't somebody please think of the children?! This was back in the day when we didn't have games where a mask tells the person wearing it that his girlfriend is having sex with an evil scientist, while you fight a room full of blood thirsty monsters, ripping their lungs out of their gaping neck wounds.

Yet, today, I haven't heard, "What are kids playing a game where you beat someone so hard, you see an X-Ray of their bones shattering?" cry at all. Perhaps we should, but that doesn't detract from the ray of sinister light from "Mortal Kombat: "Yeah, but it's fun." The fact that "Mortal Kombat" is intensely gory is only a sidetrack to the game play. While story mode is put in to explain why the reboot was even going on, most people will want to jump in and murder each other with Kung Fu.

The newest thing to show up are "X-Ray Moves," hits that drain your three-tiered power bar completely, but pack a powerful punch, enough to break bones (or, in Johnny Cage's case, balls). Each character only gets one move, though, which diminishes the variety, especially considering that each character has anywhere from two to four fatalities. It takes time to charge up, as well, unless you vary your style. Usually, the computer will beat you to it, and use it in cheap ways to give itself an edge. That would be bad, except, trust me, you'll do the same damn thing.

That's where the main problem lies in "Mortal Kombat;" the fights really aren't fair. If you use your X-Ray move, you pretty much guaranteed a win. If you have a slightly faster character, you'll win. If you're fighting a faster character with more moves than yours, they've won. The worst offender is Shao Kahn, with the strategy of "don't touch me." The final fight of a game should not be one where you hide and throw fireballs from the opposite side of the screen, as the boss points and laughs at you. It's like playing tennis with Venus Williams, except she's using a golf club; if you know the match isn't fair, you can bend the rules and win by essentially cheating.

The game itself is "pretty" to look at. The graphics are top notch, save for the cinematics that look too patch worked. Animation flows seamlessly, and the music is all around fitting for the levels. The krypt returns, now allowing you to torture people, and explode corpses when buying collectables. Thankfully, NetherRealms didn't put in stupid extras such as photos of developers, replacing them with images of concepts for characters, levels, damage, and even finishing moves, as well as various unlockables.

"Mortal Kombat" is the faithful reboot it should be. But, sometimes the game play just seems unpolished. Unfair fights aren't fun, even if you're on the winning side. But, if you're willing to look past it, "Mortal Kombat" is a must not miss title.

Overall: B

+ Fun to play

+ Great looking

- Except for cinematics

+ Good music

+ Concept art and meaningful extras

- Unfair matches

- Cheap tactics

A Devil's Playground Part Two: A Look at Sandbox Games in Other Genres

Most, if not all, sandbox games are action/adventure games. Grand Theft Auto, Mafia II, Mercenaries, The Saboteur, almost every recent Spider-Man game, even First Person games like The Darkness have elements of sandbox play, though very limited. But, where else could sandbox games work? To think of the potential future, let's go back to the past.

Ever think of an RPG as a sandbox game? Certain places are closed off until you get to a certain level, and by the time you're at the end, you can go anywhere. What about Metroid, where at anytime, you can go back to the start of the game, and complete missions in a different order each time? The Mega Man series, fighting bosses in any order? Sandbox games date back to before I was born (back in the '80's), and a lot of gamers may not realize it today, or take it for granted. Think of the evolution behind it; we went from very basic choices of which level to start playing, or which side quests to take to games that simulate "real" choices of how and when to take missions if you take it at all. We see it in RPG's still, action games, and even in fighting games to an extent with the Konquest mode in the Mortal Kombat series. But what other genres could you do a sandbox game in?

What about horror? Think it wouldn't work? What about the first Silent Hill game? Did you go to the hotel to save Dr. Kaufman? On the second play through, did you use the jewel to get the UFO ending? All the Silent Hill games have some form of Sandbox style to them, but aren't quite the full free roaming style that most people would attribute sandbox games to. A lot of the people I've talked to said that this would be impossible because then you'd lose that claustrophobic feel that horror gives you, or the feeling of isolation. I argue that this isn't purely true.

Silent Hill takes place in an entire city, but closes a lot of it off by way of crumbling roads and blocks. It gives you a series of objectives that are seemingly streamlined by the roads being blocked. It relies on the claustrophobia to add to the atmosphere of the game. What would happen if you opened up those roads, and made the city bigger? What would happen if the city had people in it? What would happen if you could explore both versions, "real" and "other," of the city of your own volition? How could you possibly play off of this?

Have you ever been lost in an unfamiliar place? Scary, isn't it? How hard would it be to play off of that? Even with a map, being lost in an unknown place is terrifying. Imagine if that place suddenly shifted if you made a wrong turn, or if you completed an objective, but the city surrounding you goes dark for know reason? Or if you bump into the wrong person? You don't know where you are, and it can only get worse with every step you take in this city, that for some reason will not let you escape until you over come your fear, illness, lie, or secret. You're isolated, but not alone.

This was my concept for I Am Nothing, a game idea I had that was free roaming survival horror. Not just the feeling of being lost, but the feeling of being an outcast. The feeling of anxiety. The feeling of being alone in a world that seems like its out to get you, even if it isn't completely. Horror doesn't have to just be about isolation, it can be about the exact opposite, too. It can be about the overwhelming odds against you, or the pressure that's building up by being the odd person out.

Next time, I'll be talking about how Free roaming games can improve and what all of them have done wrong.