What Just Happened? The "F.E.A.R. 3" Review

I just played through the single player campaign of F.E.A.R. 3, or Eff-Three-Ar, and I have to tell you people something. It won't be along the lines of "Don't play it, it sucks." It's more along the lines of, "I've had all night to mull over what I just witnessed, and I still have no idea what the hell just happened." I can't even tell you if it was fun or not, because, I'm firmly split in the middle of whether the gameplay made it good or just plain mediocre. What I can tell you is this: It isn't F.E.A.R.

The first F.E.A.R. was about Point Man's journey to stopping the psychic terror called Alma from being unleashed upon a world by her son, Paxton Fettle. The second was about Alma luring Michael Becket to a trap so she could rape him and get pregnant. Logically, this one's about Alma getting ready to give birth... and that's the part that makes sense. Where it falls apart is the central narrative of Point Man teaming up with Paxton Fettle's ghost to find fellow F.E.A.R. operative Jin Sun-Kwon, so that they can kill Alma before she gives birth. Only Fettle doesn't actually want to kill Alma, despite saying so multiple times, and wants the family to be together, despite being killed by his brother and betrayed by his parents multiple times. Following you is Harlan Wade's memory, which manifests into a Silent Hill monster's lovechild with a Predator Alien, for some reason.

All of this comes to a head when you somehow end up in Harlan's house/lab, and destroy his memories, which causes you to fight... a giant Killer7 monster? The levels only have a little sense of cohesion, about two of them actually feeling connected, where the rest of the levels require a long distance transport, and lack any semblance of "why am I here?" up until the the level before the last. The last level just comes out of nowhere, and feels out of place in an action game, and more like a survival horror game. I seriously don't know how I ended up in the house other than magic, which makes even less sense.

That is, at least, until you realize that you may have seen this all before the series was even thought of. A child starts a nuclear blast, destroying a city, and sometime later, another person starts a mental connection with that person, only to end up dying at the hands of his "brother" who is getting advice from a woman who knows exactly what's going on. No joke, if you've watched or read Akira then you've played F.E.A.R. 3. The only difference is that Fettle wants to eat Alma... for some reason, and the story makes less sense. To think the George Takei was worried that Akira was going to be white washed.

At least the gameplay is pretty good. The most stand out thing in Point Man's campaign is a damn good cover system which lets you control how far out of cover you want to be to shoot, as well as rounding cover naturally. Then you get to Fettle's half of the game, and things start seeming like you're cheating. Fettle can possess people, levitate, and shoot out blasts. The problem is that if you possess someone, and start running low on health (or die), Fettle gets out, at full health, and can possess someone else at full health. You go from a challenge to God Mode. Fettle can also stay in a body indefinitely by killing people and absorbing their life force, while Point Man has to sit in cover and wait to recharge energy for his reflexes. It makes the game seem incredibly unbalanced to Fettle, especially in co-op mode.

In speaking of Co-Op mode, it's not exactly co-op. Yes, you work together, but who ever has the highest score, i.e. in game achievements (which ruin the feel of the game), ends up winning the game. This is troublesome when you consider that Fettle is so far out of balanced that unless a player holds back, Fettle will almost always win, which means you get the crappy ending. By crappy, I mean ending that comes so far out of left field that Dr. House would have more luck finding ten people with lupus before seeing how badly the game ends. Seriously, when the big, shocking reveal of what Fettle wants to do with Alma happened, I laughed at how ridiculous it was, not to mention out of character for Fettle.

Then again, I also had to laugh at the last boss, and the fact that the game disregards the first one's story, yet not the graphics engine. The graphics are dated, but not terrible. Guns have detail, but everything else looks pretty much the same as the first two games. Not every game can be L.A. Noire, but they could have updated the engine. With as bad as the story is, though, that's the least of its concerns.

F.E.A.R. 3 is a sad case of a good game with bad ideas and a ripoff story. The core game is good, but tired, made worse by the fact that the story makes little to no sense. Add to it the fact that the added bonus of playing co-op or as Fettle is unbalanced, and you have a game that needs more time in the oven. If you absolutely must play it, rent it or wait for it to drop. Just make sure you ignore the story.

Overall

C-

+Good gameplay
+ Cover system
- Story is incoherent...
- ...and is pretty much Akira
- Last boss is a push over...
- ... and has no place in the over arching story
- Fettle is really unbalanced.

Editorial: How Much Does Integrity Cost?

I have a habit that helps me with my work on reviews, not to plagiarize, but to see if I can find good/bad things in games that other reviewers may have noticed. I've found redeeming factors in awful games, and terrible issues in games that I liked. It helps me see things in perspective, and if I disagree with those reviews, no harm done. I'm a gamer, and I know that games do not need to be picture perfect to be amazing, such as Splatterhouse, Mass Effect, or even the most polarizing game I've seen to date. Oddly enough, it's this one game that got me to seriously think about what is wrong with "game journalism." Of course, it's fitting that it would be Duke Nukem Forever, again that caused a controversy about whether it even existed for 14 years.

As the reviews trickled in, I saw nothing but overwhelmingly negative reviews. At first, I thought it was due to a culture barrier, due to the reviews being mostly European. As the American reviews popped up, they weren't much better. The game was lambasted because of level design, graphics, and, most of all, the character of Duke Nukem not maturing with the times. These reviewers expected Duke "Womanizing, One Liner Spouting, Ass-Kicking King" Nukem to be a mature character instead of what he's been for the past 14 years. These are the same reviewers who praised the game's demo last year, cheering that Duke was returning. I started asking myself, "What the hell gives?"

Then I saw, let's call them... HappyStaff and their review. The first two paragraphs bashed the character, and then the boring gameplay, despite saying that the shooting parts are fun. The rest of the review was talking about how Bulletstorm was a better game, ending it with praising the latter game. The review wasn't a review, it was an ad for Bulletstorm, a game, that while great, has nothing to do with Duke other than being published by 2K's competitor, EA Games. This is where I started smelling a rat. The same day, the game came in the mail. I popped it in, played it it for a bit, and had a hard time putting it down.

The level design is good, the graphics suffer the Unreal Engine Pop-In Textures Glitch, but are still good, and the game is a load of fun. Duke's jokes, also, make references to new movies and games more than '90's movies, which is something reviewers apparently missed. Oh, and the humor has gotten more subtle and adult, while still being an "immature game." I went from throwing poop to getting a joke about Duke being an objectifying ass in twenty minutes.

Comparing games is one thing, but when you're reviewing a game, and end up digressing to talking about how great the game you're not reviewing is, either you don't know how to review, or you're being paid off. I've seen exactly one review that gave DNF a respectable grade (not counting my own) by a professional reviewer. I've seen two negative reviews for it from non-professional reviewers and regular, everyday gamers, and one of those was complaining about people reviewing the game. The gamers are loving the game, while most reviewers aren't. Who are you, as a gamer, going to believe?

I have a few theories about this. Either reviewers are bitter about the 14 year wait for the game, they haven't played it (an Escapist reviewer admitted to not even finishing the game because he didn't want to), or they're being paid off. I can believe that some reviewers honestly did not like it. That's fine, everyone has their own opinions. When every reviewer sites the same flaws, and outright go against the general consensus of what the audience is saying is when it get's truly bizarre. A lot of the time, gamers and some of the more reputable reviewers agree pretty closely on games. DNF has to be the largest schism I've seen between the two parties. At the time of writing this, DNF is holding an average of 8.9 out of 10 by gamers, and a 5.466667 out of 10 by professionals.

You might ask, "Aren't you a game journalist?" I don't think I am. I have always considered myself a gamer first, and a reviewer second. I've been playing games since the Intellivision, and I love seeing how far they've come. In light of recent reviews, I'm proud of that fact, and the one that I will never garner enough popularity to be corruptible. Should I actually get a job offer from a big name magazine, I will decline it on principal of wanting my opinion published, not what the editor or game company want me to say. That's also why I enjoy my job at OSDB; they want my opinion, not for me to broadcast theirs.

Gamers, do yourself a big favor. Find an independent reviewer, it doesn't even have to be me. By all means, shop around, and find one you can trust. Don't give these big names the time of day, because, frankly, they don't deserve it. Their integrity is flawed if they can't help but mimic each other, showing no sign of free thought. Listen to your fellow gamers. They're the ones who should get paid for reviews. Because the professional reviewers care about a paycheck, not the game.

Where's My Bubblegum?: The "Duke Nukem Forever" Review

Here's a set piece for you: You're protecting two busty twins from an alien invasion. After you kill so many of them, one of the twins says, "I will never do anything naughty ever again! I swear it!" To this, the other replies. "Don't say that! He won't save you if he hears that!" It's a joke that, in the '90's, would have caused a crap load of controversy, to the point where it wouldn't get placed in a game, due to it joking about the objectifying of women. Yes, it's offensive. But, what else would you expect from a game with Duke Nukem?

Here's the trick, though. That was the point of the joke. The twins really thought that Duke Nukem wouldn't save them if they refused to be naughty, which makes it an underhanded jab at the character that raises some questions about our character, such as, "Is Duke really a hero if his motivation for fighting is sex?"

That's just one of the things that Duke Nukem Forever did that was interesting. The story is what you would imagine, Aliens invade Las Vegas while the President thinks he can make peace with the aliens. He even goes so far as to ban Duke from attacking the aliens, only for them to attack Duke first. Hidden in the narrative are subtle jabs like the one stated before, as well as the President blaming Duke for LA's destruction in Duke Nukem 3D. The game tries its best to make Duke look like a dubious character, without changing the character at all, showing that while the times have changed, Duke hasn't.

And, it works, too. Duke still keeps spouting one-liners from movies ("Tonight, you dine in hell!"), as well as finding items from both other games and movies, such as Portal, Halo, Dead Space, Inception, and more. Yes, Duke's lines have changed, but the character has not. You know what, though? I wouldn't have it any other way.

The game (you just lost it) plays like every other shooter. It's not that that makes the game, though, despite the fact that the firefights are a lot of fun. What makes the game is the level design. In quite a few levels, there are multiple solutions to the platforming sections, i.e. when miniaturized in Duke Burger, I knocked over a cup I was supposed to use to get to a ledge, then found a way to climb up to it. Not all the platforming puzzles have several answers, but they do have interesting twists. Walking through gears in the dam level, for example... just watch a video of it, it's very intense.

Instead of a life bar, Duke's ego drains when he gets hit, and regenerates over time. This also gives players a chance to interact with objects that will boost your ego. Most of these are early in the game, such as a pinball machine, pool, and a mirror, with new ones appearing in the middle of the game that boost your health more. Boss battles also give permanent boosts, as well. Trust, me, too... you'll need them. Enemies hit hard and fast, and often move faster than you can aim. This game is no walk in the park.

The one thing I can fault this game on (other than the pop-in textures that are in many Unreal Engine games), is that the puzzles feel old, and there isn't a lot of combat. Most of the game is exploration, spacing out intense battles while allowing you to see more of the game. This isn't all bad, especially when the puzzles are solved by exploration. Mainly, it's the physics puzzles that feel dated, and done before. At the same time, the environment is amazingly interactive, ranging from writing on a white board, to picking up paper airplanes and throwing them. I just wish there was more, you know, actual battles. It is Duke Nukem, after all.

I don't care what every other reviewer has said this far (but that's another article). Duke Nukem Forever, while not a game that should have taken 14 years to make, is a damn good game. It's funny, fun to play, and a good nostalgic reminder of when games were about fun, not plot. I just wish there was more of what made Duke the King. I'll say one thing, though. Duke is right: "Power armor is for pussies."

Over all:

B

+ Duke is back.
+ Good, fun shooting.
+ Great level design.
- Dated physics puzzles
- Not enough shooting
+ After 12 f***ing years, it is good.

If I Were a Superhero: The "Infamous 2" Review

As some of you might know, Infamous was one of my favorite, if not favorite, Open World Game. You played as reluctant hero Cole McGrath as he discovered that he had electric based powers, and decided whether to do good or evil. It featured not only a gripping story and fun gameplay, but moral choices that were tricky to decided, especially when they get to emotional reasons. Infamous made me excited about its sequel, nonetheless, but maybe a bit too much.

Infamous 2 places you in New Marais, a city modeled off of New Orleans, complete with flooded areas and a Voodoo woman. Cole must train to destroy the Beast, which is on a path of destruction to Cole, assisted by his friend, Zeke, and two new heroes, the fiery Nix and icy Kuo. Instead of moral hang-ups, the moral choices are made by which character you help out, Nix being bad and Kuo being good. The problem is that Nix is so over the top obnoxious with her infatuation for Cole that it makes it hard to feel anything for her character, even after seeing her motivations unfold. Kuo's backstory is just as painful, though, so it kind of counter acts. But, that's only my opinion of the characters.

I emphasize that because the writing is top notch. You relate to all of the characters to a degree, even if you don't like them. Added is the sense of doom due to the ends of most missions telling you how close the Beast is, and you have some intense emotions flowing. While you think you have a time constraint and can't take side missions without wasting time, the side missions do not take time away from you. They are worth going for, too, because every mission, story and not, is mostly varied, and fun to play through, and, like the first game, taking more side missions will make the late game vastly easier.

This is where the bad comes in, though. The endgame will need to be easier, not because the enemies are hard, but because of how their weak points are designed. One monster you fight throughout the game has a weak point so small, that it's nearly impossible to hit unless you're right in front of it. This is considered an "easy" monster, nonetheless, despite the fact that it only takes damage when a pin-sized area is hit. It makes the game challenging, but not in the right way. It's a frustrating way to make the game seem longer than it is, which they didn't need to do.

The presentation is top notch, though. Monsters look frightening, and enemies put forth a redneck sense of foreboding, both in form and voice work. The main characters are mostly acted well, but I personally do not like Cole's new voice. He does a good job, though, so, it's really just personal preference. The graphics, while not a technical marvel, look great, even showing emotions and expressions better than the previous game. The comic style scenes are still in the game, but take a backseat to the in game cinematics, thus slightly taking away the charm of the series.

If Infamous was the bar for the series before, Infamous 2 doesn't really change that, but it comes damn close. The game is fun and worth the money just to see how both stories, good and bad, unfold. The only thing holding it back is the often battled enemy that seems to hard not to be a boss battle that pops up way too often, sometimes multiples at a time. But that isn't enough to hold it back. Grind on a rail to get to it, or drive. It doesn't matter, just play it.

Overall

B+

+ Great story

+ Good graphics and acting

+ Great design

- Some enemies are bullet sponges or have too small of a weak point

My Continuity Alarm is Dying from Buzzing So Damn Much: "X-Men: First Class"

What's the first thing you think of when one says "X-Men?" Sir Patrick Stewart in a wheelchair fighting Sir Ian McKellan? Comic books? A story that's been going on for over 40 years, with fans just as old, and characters as classic in the pop art culture as that Soup Can painting?

How about Bryan Singer somehow getting away with making a straight to DVD movie a box office hit, despite the terrible special effects and acting? That's what we have with X-Men First Class. That isn't to say that the movie was all terrible. James McAvoy was easily the best actor in this movie, playing a young Charles Xavier, followed by Caleb Landry Jones as Banshee, and Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy. Michael Fassbender does a competent role as Magento, but Magneto isn't himself, he's a parody of Daniel Craig's James Bond. Then you get to the female actresses. I can give Jennifer Lawerence some credit for her role as Mystique, seeing as she fits the look of the vulnerable young woman who is frightened of what society will think of her. Yes, she's attractive, but she's mousy and cute, and portrays this new version of Mystique well. Too bad Mystique is supposed to be seductive and cruel, but this is an origin story. January Jones plays Emma Frost, and this is where things go bad.

Emma Frost is in this movie for her looks. That actually is within the bounds of her character. The thing is, Emma Frost is a manipulative woman, seducing and using men as if they were toys. She's antisocial, and extremely intelligent, using her assets, both physically and genetically (mutant ability) for her means, having no one controlling her. January Jones says every line as if she's reading the script for the first time. This fits in with our villain, Sebastian Shaw, played by Kevin Bacon. Bacon puts forth a performance that is offensively bad and over the top, reminding me of Cesar Romaro's Joker from the '60's "Batman" series combined with Jim Carrey's Riddler.

The story consists of Xavier and Magneto making the X-Men while Shaw tricks the US and Russia into Nuclear war (being in the '60's). Shaw is known by Magneto by a convoluted means, no less. Apparently, Shaw has the ability to not age (same with Mystique), by using other mutant's abilities to heal himself. That actually is his power, ironically. In the movie, though, he can also absorb bullets, and put forth energy with twice the force as when he absorbed it. For you non geeks out there, these aren't his powers: they're Bishop's. It gets worse, too. Emma Frost's invincible diamond form allows her to move and throw off Xavier's telepathic powers, but Magneto can crack it. She broke adamantium in the comics, but is foiled by a bed frame. Not to mention the fact that she's supposed to be immobile in her diamond form.

Of course, you may be thinking that this review will be about continuity, right? That is a big part of it, yes, but there's more to it than that. The story is incomprehensible, at best, and boring at it's worst. It's written like a '60's spy movie, down to having a montage in the same style, and Beast's God Awful make-up, reminiscent of the original Planet of the Apes. The direction is incredibly bad, possibly part of the reason for the terrible acting. No attention or care was given to the characters' respective integrities, in the script or the overall production, most of them not even having the right abilities, strengths, or weaknesses. Even worse is the fact that the main plot is a cliche that doesn't really fit with the situation we currently face in our world.

It's so bad that even the pet peeves irk me more. What is Singer's reasoning for wanting the bad-ass character to show their bad-assery by being mute, and ending up being inconsequential to the overall story? And if Bryan Singer hates Edi Gathegi that much, why hire him only to fire him from a show ("House") and kill him in a way that makes no sense at all? Why is Xavier a drunkard? What was the purpose of Angel? Why did half the fights in the end of the movie go completely unresolved?

I can sum up the best part of the movie in one scene. Magneto and Xavier walk into a bar and see Wolverine. The following happens:

Xavier: Logan, my name is Charles Xavier, this is Erik Lensherr--
Logan: Go fuck yourselves.

They leave the bar. I saved you $10.


I give this movie 1.5 out of 6 comic pages.

The Reigning King? First Imperssions of "Duke Nukem Forever."

14 years or so after Duke's third game, the smash hit Duke Nukem 3D came out on PC, his newest game is finally coming out in two weeks. Long belonging to the vaporware category of games, and going through several developers, especially after 3D Realms were fired by 2K, Gearbox takes over, attempting to make Duke Nukem Forever the epic shooter fans are expecting, nay, demanding. Hype after hype has been added, saying that Duke can and will do anything. People who reserved it or bought the Game of the Year edition of Borderlands got a first hand look this week as the demo was released. Thankfully, Sony decided to finally put PSN back up around the same time, too.

What can I say? That it's Duke 3D over again? Then, I'd be lying. The first part of the demo is the last boss of DN3D, but told differently. Duke starts the level by taking a piss. Upon roaming, he makes a plan to kill the Cycloid, then fights it. The next part (other than him getting head from two twins), he's driving a monster truck. And that's only scraping the surface of what can be done. Duke can write on boards, grab and throw poop ("What kind of a sick motherf***er grabs wet feces?!"), pull out the tusks of pigcops, and a lot more.

The aesthetic quality has changed to keep up with the times, but there are still hints of it being the same universe. The RPG launcher looks nearly the same, only more details, obviously, as he Duke 3D one. The Ripper returns, as well as the shrink ray, the only gun that looks drastically different. New weapons are added, though, such as the Rail Gun. What I find interesting is that you really do need to swap weapons for the game's full effect. It isn't like most shooters now where you can keep the same load-out level after level, due to the stats being pretty much the same.

The game is beautiful to look at. Duke gets covered in rain, and it looks pretty damn decent. The one complaint graphically I had is that the faces look a little too cartoonish and the women look the same. Granted... they were twins. Despite this, the detail on the monsters and weapons (as well as Duke) is phenomenal, and the backgrounds are a sight.

Finally, the game itself. I'm tossed up on this. I enjoyed playing, but other than what you can manipulate, it's nothing new. Bulletstorm could have had this problem, but they took care of it by rounding out the skill kill system. Duke's big draw is his name, the wait for this game, and being able to do things that don't really affect the game at all just to do them. Ultimately, it's a cherry on a shooter, much like gold trim would be on a Ferrari. It does nothing but look good, and make it look like it isn't a plain old Ferrari. At the same time, a lot of care was given to the game to make it a top notch shooter with bells and whistles. Duke is still Duke, and that's what we wanted. And the a fun game, which it is. If the system isn't broken, why fix it? Of course, this was only a demo, so who knows what the game will hold.

What it really comes down to is this: It's Duke Nukem. If you like that, then you'll love Duke Nukem Forever. Just don't expect it to revitalize the shooter genre with something like skill kills. At the same time, is the game expands on what the demo has shown (which it should, from what I've heard), it will be worth the money just to see Duke be the king again.