Brain Junkfood: Painkiller Blowout Part Three: Dreamkiller

It was once said that George Washington had holes drilled in his skull to relieve the pressure in his head. I never used to believe that. Then I played Dreamkiller. Let me put this in perspective: I just compared the stress of the first American President to playing a video game, and I'm completely serious. After playing this game, I feel like I need wooden teeth, and a shotgun while riding a cheeseburger eating robot wolverine. Only something that epic can redeem this mess of a shitty game.

I don't know where to begin talking about it. I could say that the developers tried, but I can't make that statement without cowering in a corner. The one seemingly redeeming factor is the mental asylum that shows that maybe, just maybe, Mindware can do their own game. You start on Scrabble tiles and end up fighting patients in bear traps. The walls have eyes that follow you, but don't, cats eating children, and little boys ready to stab puppies. You then end up in a castle, and the level goes to shit.

The big problem that Dreamkiller has is simple: It's Painkiller with a female character who can only carry two weapons, and makes "witty" remarks. By witty remarks, I mean obvious shit that would be found in only the dumbest horror movies. After killer hundreds of spiders, giant ones, no less, she starts fighting a giant-giant spider, and says, "Something's not right." Really? Tell me more! I mean, seriously, what the fuck was your first clue? It couldn't possibly be the giant spiders, could it? Or the fact that you're living in Someone Else's Dream? Hell, for that matter, someone else's game?

Even the weapons are the same. Freezing shotguns, miniguns with rocket launchers... all the same weapons from Painkiller. They even use the damned dogs. In speaking of enemies, why am I fighting the same giant spiders from the arachnophobia dream in the frigiophobia dream? are spider's Alice's biggest annoyance? I might as well address right now that spiders and "monkey-dogs" will follow you throughout the game.

As for the story, you play as a Suicide Girl turned psychologist named Alice Drake, who has the power to go into people's dreams, and rid them of their phobias. She finds that the Dream Killers are making the phobia's stronger, which means she has to face her past. She was a government experiment as a child.

She was... a government... experiment...

Are you FUCKING kidding me?!

That's the big twist? I went from rip-off to cliche in less than one game. Do you realize the talent it takes to do that? That amount of jackassery and kniveling fuckery is more impressive than the bullshit that most game developers who release the same title every year with different characters (if that) and manage keep their fanbase, if not increase it pull. The only way that's possible is if they actually put effort into the game, and that can't be true! That really can't!

What you don't understand is how bad this game is. I couldn't finish it because the game ramps up the nonsense physics to the point where you can't move. Enemies blast through walls like the fucking Kool-Aid man, and about as destructive. I got stuck under a filing cabinet. A doctor pushed it on top of me, and I couldn't push it off. Not even with a rocket launcher could move it, but a fat-ass doctor could by meandering into it.

If I talk about this anymore, I may explode. This is the one game that numbs my brain faster than eating a bucket of ice cream at breakneck speed. I need something that will make me feel a little more sane. I think I need to check out some Yard Sales.

Why am I in a circus tent...? Oh, God! Sodomizing clown!

Non-Linear Path: Sequelitis

I know that was going to talk about bad games from hell, but I decided to do something different, while still talking about Call of Juarez: The Cartel and Saw II: Flesh and Blood. I'm sure that I'm going to be stirring up a hornet's nest with this topic figuring that some of the games I'm going to mention are getting good reviews, and honestly, I don't know why. For simplicity, let's start with the worst offender.

Call of Juarez was never an overwhelmingly popular game like Halo, but it was well received, spawning a sequel that explored the past of Reverend Ray. The theme of the Wild West was surprisingly unexplored for the first person genre, with a few exceptions which I may touch upon in a later article. Ray was well written character, one who was an outlaw set on a path to redemption through faith in God, to eventually being drawn back into killing for justice. I love that clip. While all of the characters are criminals you couldn't help but like them, even a little bit.

Then, The Cartel came, and ruined all of our fun. For starters, they ditched the western theme, and made a modern times shooter. You played as one of three cops, all of them not only dirty, but without any redeeming qualities. They also made it co-op first, single player second. This is an issue when you consider this: games created for single player primarily generally suffer from lackluster campaigns once multiplayer is added. Take a look Bioshock 2, a game that made multiplayer-centric, and changed the feeling of the game series by taking away all that was intriguing from the first game making the sequel nothing but a standard shooter, complete with boss battles.

The Cartel had a separate issue. We'll call it the "Dark as Cow's Guts" issue. The subtitles for the game suggest that it was written to be a Western, but was changed to keep up with other shooters, i.e. Call of Duty. This cost The Cartel more than just the series identity, it cost it the series' fan base. People saw just another modern shooter, and, let's face it, a terrible one at that. The rush showed everywhere from writing to AI to graphics. I really wish I had a picture of the rock that only had three textured sides to it. The game was loaded with glitches, as well.

Another issue I've seen is games that are attempts to improve on the last by trying something new. This isn't a bad thing, normally, but in one case, it killed the series. Yes, I'm talking about Saw II: Flesh and Blood. Zombie Studios attempted to fix the laggy combat controls by making combat a minigame. The issue with this is that the minigame's controls were unresponsive as well, namely due to a separate issue involved in programming. Needless to say, the fix didn't work, and served to draw the player away from the game.

There were also several issues with planning, including a puzzle that was supposed to have its solution located in a different room, but it wasn't. Again, the game was rushed to meet a deadline, namely to hit around the same time as the last movie. While that doesn't help matters, sometimes, it just isn't an excuse. They could've actually examined the combat system from the first game, and fixed it while keeping a combat system. This would've been easier than programming a completely different segment all together.

Despite these games, I have one that disappoints more than either of them. Save the flames for when I'm done, because I'm giving this game credit for improving its combat. Unfortunately, the rest of it isn't that good.

The Darkness II does a few things very wrong in comparison to the first game. I had a difficult time pinning down what exactly rubbed me the wrong way the most. Was it the fact that the free roaming and side missions were taken out of the game? They weren't that important to the first game in the first place, but you were rewarded by collectables and funny phone calls. Not to mention that you felt both like a mafia hitman and a good guy, instead of just being a killer.

Was it the controls that moved slowly when you tried to aim quickly? Sure it hurts the game, but does it hurt it enough to make it worth selling back less than a week later? How about the short single player campaign (I beat it in five hours), meant to make room for the multiplayer, which is only a hair more enjoyable than the actual game? Or the enemies with cheap tactics blinding you, stealing your weapons, and then moving just as you hit the trigger?

It hit me in the last hour of the game what left that bad taste in my mouth. It wasn't just all of the above, it was the story. The first game set itself away from the comic by making a more down to earth story, without supernatural enemies. You were the monster, but you had a heart. You were what people were afraid of, but there was a reason. You wanted them to fear you, especially after what the bad guys did. By the end, you're in control of the mob, and no one knows how other than you killed your uncle.

Somehow, though, your powers are no longer a secret. The mob knows you have them, and even comments about them. To make matters worse, a cult with your powers is trying to kill you. You have to rebuild your powers from scratch, no less, meaning you're vastly weaker than your enemies. This is an absolute contrast to the purpose of the Darkness. You're overwhelmed until the last hour of the game, changing what the meaning was.

The Darkness was about power corrupting and how to overcome it. Jackie was able to overcome the corruption and control it, while still being powerful. Yes, he had the Angelus trying to kill him, but she suffered much of the same issues. Jackie had to use his abilities to keep from being overthrown, and defend himself. Very few people lived if he was attacked, and even fewer if his friends were. But, most of all, he kept his technique secret.

All of a sudden, in the game, you're weaker than your enemies, and the world know about the Darkness. What's more is that more people than you have it, which doesn't make sense. Even in the first game, they mention only one person can have the Darkness at one time. Why does this cult have the powers, if I'm the host? I understand the need for balance, but the lack of it makes the game nearly unapproachable, even to watch it, if you know the source or played the first game.

This is a big issue with sequels. Often times, no one is aware of what the story is supposed to lead up to, its themes, or even its characters. Even good sequels have this issue. Silent Hill is a good example. After the development went from Japan to America, the psychological themes were less focused on than the combat. This could be a cultural change, as well as a change between an individual's vision of the series. It doesn't mean one is better or worse than the other, normally. This changes when the game is based on something that is established, it may be a different story.

That's all the time I have right now. Stay tuned for next time when I talk about Guilty Pleasures in gaming.

Non-Linear Path: Good Games Gone Bad

I've attempted to write humorously about bad games, even its difficult. Allow me to talk seriously here in the edition of a new series of articles. Granted, these won't just be about bad games, but, this one will be. And they're not just any bad games, either, but games that either had a clever premise, or games that could have been good, only to fall flat. We're not talking about games like Painkiller Overdose, which are terrible, but sequels. These have to be the first in their series, even if they may be complete ripoffs of other games.

We'll start off there, as a matter of fact, with Mindware's Dreamkiller. Many of you have guessed that it'll be the special finale to the Brain Junkfood Painkiller Blow-Out. Many of you may have guessed that it's a rip-off of Painkiller. Same mechanics, same weapons (designed differently), even some of the same monsters. But it isn't that that makes it a bad game. No, Dreamkiller is a mess to begin with due to bad writing, bad level design, and, well, an overwhelming lackluster presentation. Instead of embracing the theme of being in dreams, they designed levels that loosely fit a phobia, designed a few enemies, and tossed them into the game. You'll fight the same spiders in the arachnophobe's dream as in the dream of the guy afraid of work. Yes, you fight guys in suits with robot arms, but they are in smaller numbers than the spiders.

At the same time, there are hints that Mindware can come up with clever ideas. In the mental asylum, you start the level on Scrabble pieces, then travel through the halls, with eyes hidden in the walls that seem to follow you. Children are drawn hugging dogs, threatening to stab them, or being eaten by anthropomorphic cats. It's creepy, even if it is bright and hygienic looking. In fact, that adds to the creepiness, as you'd expect it to look like every other horror game, being grimy and bloody. Then, it's ruined by your character's "witty" remarks. After fighting several hundred monsters, you should all ready know something is wrong. You shouldn't have just figured it out. The argument can be made that she didn't need any taunts, but the developers were going for a Serious Sam style game, and they did have taunts.

The case can be made that the unoriginality of Dreamkiller, literally stealing Painkiller's core, leads to its downfall. It had an original idea of the subconscious. Certain enemies can only be killed by taking yourself deeper into the dreamer's dream. If you stay in the deep subconscious too long, you'll get hurt. This is made into a broken mechanic when entire battles require you to stay in the subconscious for an extended period of time, often killing you in the process. This renders the big difference of the game nothing more than a deterrent from playing the game.

Then we come to Konami's newest published game, NeverDead. Where do I start with this? The stand-out mechanic is that you can't die, but you can be dismembered. You can do this to yourself to solve puzzles. Most of the time, though, you'll be knocked down, rolling as a head, to find your body, then your limbs, hopefully in time to save your AI partner who is able to die. The clunky controls don't aid you, nor does the fact that your head can be eaten, ending the game. The premise was interesting to say the most, and different to say the least. There was potential in the idea. So, what happened?

The developers seem (I may be wrong) to have had too many ideas at once. Your character gets hit by trains, digested in a boss, and tumbled around, among other things, all of which dismember you. They took advantage of the concept, but took it too far, especially by making your character too fragile. This handicaps your movement, often times, making you too slow to get back to your body before your partner dies. You can regenerate over time, but you can only regenerate on part at a time. You can also find vials that allow you to regenerate completely, but in the midst of fighting, your head may get eaten in the process.

Imagine playing this game without the immortality aspect. You wouldn't be able to beat it, at least not for a long time. Chances are, after the tenth time of having your head knocked off after just regenerating, you won't care enough about it to stay in the game. This is only made even worse by the bad writing. The characters are unlikable, and try too hard to be funny. Like finding out that souls taste like chicken, you'll hear Bryce complaining about rolling ruining his hair no more than every ten seconds.

Taste is subjective of course. Someone may like NeverDead and Dreamkiller. Just because a game is bad, doesn't mean that there aren't good ideas, or that the developers didn't have their intentions well placed. That's our subject for next time when we talk about Bad Games From Hell. Believe me, The Cartel, and Saw II Flesh and Blood are on that. See you next time!