Book 'Em, Dano!: The "L.A. Noire" review

As I said in the Heavy Rain review, it's rare that a game comes by that is both innovative and entertaining enough to keep itself original. While Heavy Rain's type of style has been done before, it was changed enough that the game felt fresh and played amazingly well. It was my favorite game of last year, not because it was gorgeous, but because it was a game that had something to say, and say it, it did in a manner that gamers weren't used to, but could enjoy. Even if you didn't like it, you can not deny that it was different, and maybe even innovative.

L.A. Noire is mostly the same case (no pun intended). It's an open world game, but with more to offer that you'd expect. You play as Detective Cole Phelps as he works in the streets of 1947 Los Angeles, going through different fields of work, from homicide to vice. Along with this story are two side stories, one involving Phelps past in WWII, and another involving a morphine smuggling ring. These three elements tie together towards the end of the game, as you would expect. The trick is that the story doesn't force the three branches into each other, they flow pretty damn well. L.A. Noire's story is one of the best stories of any game released this year, bar non.

This is only enhanced by the game play. While you do have shooting/fighting and chase scenes that at times become a little bit redundant, they do feel like they fit in to the whole game. Suspects may try to push things in your way, or even trap you, but the chases are done so they aren't impossibly hard. I usually am horrible at them, and I've caught my perp every time. The shooting is like fellow Rockstar alum Red Dead Redemption minus the dead eye meter. It works well, but there's no real innovation with it (then again, it didn't need it). Fighting feels more natural than it does in most Rockstar games, but at the same time, is still the weakest part of the game. It's mostly pressing one button until they bad guy is dazed, then finish him. There is no variation from it. Again, though, it really doesn't need it, because the game does make up for it, in a big way.

That way is the game's core mechanic: investigation. As Phelps, you'll do a lot of if, ranging from hunting for evidence to interviewing suspects. As you hunt for evidence, the control will vibrate, and a chime will sound, letting you know of any clues in the area. Not all clues are relevant to the investigation, but will boost your case rating anyway as you can rule them out. Most reviewers said that the game's investigation and clue hunts were redundant, and I have to disagree to a point. While you will do it a lot, keep in mind that police investigators do it a lot, too. My point is, what else did you really expect, reviewers?

The other aspect of investigation is interviewing. Seeing as it is impossible to talk about this without talking about the graphics, I'm going to have to delve into it. The motion scanning used in this game is absolutely amazing. As you're interviewing people, you can read their emotions to see if they're lying or not. If they are lying, you need to prove that they are. If you don't have proof, you can doubt what they're saying. The problem is that sometimes, you need to go somewhere to get proof before interviewing people. If you happen to not do things in the right order, you can still solve the case, but you're rating will be docked. Watching people's reactions change and shift is amazing, and at times humorous. At least one person you interview will say something and pose afterwards (with their hands on their hips like Isaiah Mustafa holding a towel). Not only is it funny, but it adds a sense of realism to the characters.

As a whole, the graphics are amazing. Rockstar managed to make a city that does feel like it's a live, as well as characters that are individualistic. Adding to the games appearances are voice actors who are some of the best at their jobs. Aaron Stanton does a stand-up job as Cole Phelps. The rest of the cast shines equally as well, and includes familiar faces such as Adam Harrington ("Dexter"), Greg Grunberg (Heroes, as well as Condemned: Criminal Origins) and John Noble ("Fringe"). This game is a Leonard Nimoy short of voice acting perfection... okay, I take that back after thinking about Sea-Man.

L.A. Noire is a treasure in a pile of rubbish games, the diamond in the silicon rough. Compared to games that are currently out (Brink, Naughty Bear: Gold Edition, Thor), this is the one game worthy of the hype most other games aspire to have. There were a few glitches (characters getting stuck in elevators and clipping) but nothing game breaking. For your money L.A. Noire is a case worth cracking.

Over all:

A

+Beautifully rendered
+ Amazing story
+ Best voice work in a long time
+ Innovative and interesting game play
- Minor glitches
- Fisticuffs is a little long in the tooth.

In Memoriam

Randall Mario"Macho Man Randy Savage" Poffo

November 15, 1952 - May 20, 2011

Ohio lost one of the greats today.

You will be missed, brother!

I...Am...Bored!: The "Thor: God of Thunder" Review

It's a known fact that licenced video games are generally terrible. Case in point: Saw II: Flesh and Blood, the only game I've played to date that flips you off for beating it, and you know that you deserve it. It can be attributed to being rushed, or just because the designers didn't care about the product enough. Thor: God of Thunder is one of the weird ones. The team is the same people who made the X-Men Origins: Wolverine game that was actually a lot of fun. Yet, Thor comes off as a chore for the Ages.

Let's start with the funniest thing wrong with it: the acting. If this is how Thor and Loki act in the movie, I'm all ready bored. Chris Helmsworth doesn't show any emotion at all. Casually mentioning, "I am Thor," instead of belting it out, he sounds like Ben Stein asking Ferris Bueller to answer a question. Loki isn't much better. This line is delivered as flat as it is written here: "I will do what's best for Asgard and for Loki." I'm pretty damn sure that there is an italic in there, somewhere.

Game play is just as boring. It's the God of War style game, but with only one attack button, a magic button, jump, and grapple. You can only grapple certain enemies at certain times, and half of those times, it doesn't work. You cycle magic with the left and right arrows, and use down for-- I'm sorry, I can't keep from laughing at this-- a hint button. Hints in a game where you beat the living crap out of people with a hammer. It's even more worthless when most of the hints are just what the level objective is. If you are stuck, reminding you what you need to do without any other direction is going to help.

You'll be stuck a lot, too, mainly because the game is glitchy as hell. Several times in the game, progress had been blocked by walls that I needed to destroy. The problem was that I couldn't destroy said walls until it realized that I was stuck. I'd be trying to progress for five minutes until the game figured out that it should let me go on. Other times, enemies will not take damage from attacks, even if they show that they are. I've had instances of floating enemies, and, my personal favorite, enemies that ignore you entirely, and attack midair. Even more infuriating is Thor's attacks randomly going spastic, causing his hammer to fly away from him in a random direction, usually toward the player, and miss everything attacking him.

Graphically, the game is equally horrendous. At one point, I was on a bridge, and water was flowing across it. As the camera turned, the water was still flowing the same way, across the screen, like an old Doom sprite. Even better, the snow in the background was blurry and unpolished, resembling Playstation One graphics. Characters are very plastic looking, as well, showing even less emotion than the voice actors... which is still dumbfounding. I've also fought five different versions of the same three enemies, including bosses. This isn't acceptable in downloaded games, why is it here?

Thor: God of Thunder is not worthy of existence. The only redeeming quality it has is that it isn't Saw 2, and even then Saw 2 had the unintentional humor to it that this game doesn't have. It reeks of being made by people who just didn't care about the material enough to make a quality game, nor a product. If you look up cash-in, Thor: God of Thunder would be the picture next to it.

Overall: D-

+ Not Saw II: Flesh and Blood
- Glitchy as Saw II
- Boring voice acting
- Anemic variety
- One button combat, really?
- A fucking hint system?
- Graphics and sound will make your eyes and ears bleed.

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.

A Devil's Playground: A Look at Sandbox Games (Part One)

When people think of Sandbox Style games, they usually immediately think of Grand Theft Auto IV and Red Dead Redemption, or any other Rockstar Game. Then, the passing glimpses of the Spider-Man games come to mind. But what about the games that could have had that moment in the sun? Mercenaries 2 and The Saboteur, while not exactly stand out games, were open world games. The one that comes closest to GTA 4 is Mafia 2, but it still doesn't hit off among most Sandbox fans.

This is kind of sad, to me, really, because the over all mechanics of the whole open world system is done better in Mafia 2 than in Grand Theft Auto. Hand to hand combat feels like a game instead of a chore, each vehicle does drive differently, but all do respond to your commands. The world feels alive with actual people other than pallet swaps of the same three people. There are more variations in missions. Even the collectables, wanted posters and (while anachronistic) Playboy centerfolds feels right.

GTA 4 has one leg up: mini games. Yes, Red Dead Redemption had mini games too, but it also had a story everyone could relate to. GTA 4's story, to me, feels unpolished due to the fact that the mini games are essential to the over all game itself where RDR's are optional. The story in GTA 4 feels less relatable to me due to the fact that I was born in America, but I can still feel sympathetic for Niko Bellic because he feels lied to by his cousin, and, moreso, by his own over zealousness for the American Dream and revenge. Revenge is perfectly a human relatable emotion, and one that's a little over used for this type of game, in my opinion.

Part of what makes The Saboteur and Mercenaries 2 fall in the sandbox game is the lack of mission variation. Blow stuff up, run away, hide, repeat (hide in Saboteur, stand there like Chuck Norris in Mercenaries 2). For a $9.99 downloadable game, that's not bad. For a $60 game... that's not a whole hell of a lot. The Spider-Man games did it a little bit better by adding more mission variation, such as stopping robberies and saving falling civilians. But the over and under load of missions only serve to distract from what the sandbox game is supposed to be, often pulling you away from the exploration. GTA 4 does the same thing with the main missions being cell phone calls that will put a marker on your map, making it so the only path way you can have at the time on your GPS is to the mission.

This is unacceptable when you start off in a game. You have no way of setting a point to save your game without ending the mission. The map the game comes with doesn't even have the save points marked on it, but has everything else. Combined with the sheer scope of the city, it makes the game over complicated for new gamers, giving them too much to do, introduced in too little time, hoping that they'll catch on by the end of the game. Some will stay dedicated to it, but most new comers will flee from it like a lobster from boiling water.

Next time, I'll be talking about how other genres can be made into open world games, and how genres beyond action/adventure integrate into the system so well that you may not realize it at first.

Umm... Wolverines?: The "Homefront" Review

In the year 2013, gas will be $20 a gallon. By 2019, we'll be fleeing to Mexico because it's better there, than in the US. By 2026, Korea will unleash an EMP that blacks out all of America, and take over. On top of all this, the Army will be so badly managed that they'll be scattered into two teams of, I'm not kidding, a platoon each.

This is the plot of Homefront, and while the premise of Korea taking over the US could be interesting and scary, the improbability of some of the events happening this fast is one of many things that makes the game's story less intense than it should be. The game seriously seems to forget that the world is suffering from a bad economy, not just the US. It wouldn't be so bad if the game didn't look at the recession with a myopic view. What makes the story all the less impacting is the fact that the team of people you're working with range from bland to undeveloped to being as bad as the enemy.

You're character is saved by Conner, a Resistance member who takes pleasure from torturing the enemy. He leads you to a helicopter that you have to fly in order to steal fuel from the Koreans. This is all your character is good for, because you will die from everything. It's not uncommon to die in one hit in this game. This wouldn't be as bad if it weren't for the fact that you can die because enemies can shoot through and around your cover. I died more times from a bullet turning around a wall I was behind than from getting shot outside of cover.

At its core, there's a almost decent shooter somewhere. That is, when you can get the game to work. The auto-snap aim never works properly, either not snapping onto an enemy within sight range, or missing completely despite having the sight right on them, or by the enemy knowing exactly where you'll hit, and moving an inch to the side. I want to know how exactly every FPS has these enemies, and why our military can never seem to be able to do that in games. What technology is this? Or is it witchery?

The set piece battles are thrown in, but at points pretty good... especially considering that most of them have been done before. The lone one I can think of that wasn't done to death was hijacking trucks from a helicopter. The rest of them feel like they've been done before and better. The same goes for the graphics and acting. The graphics look like the were done in the beginning of the seventh generation of consoles, when we didn't know the extent of what the tech could do. Characters don't seem to animate properly, mouths never close, and the textures are blurry. Voice acting feels like a "C" movie. If Bruce Campbell, Chuck Norris, and Sylvester Stallone can all out act you, you're doing something wrong (note to them... please don't murder me).

This is disappointing too, because the game has the spark that it could've been good. To top it off, it took me about four hours to finish it, and it just ends abruptly. I understand setting up for a sequel, but can we at least end this chapter properly? Even Halo knew that!

Homefront isn't worth $60-- hell, it isn't worth $40. It's a budget title with an advertising team big enough to make it seem more important than it is. Give this one a pass, because even if you buy it for $20 in a few months or a year, you're more than likely going to give it a passing play anyway, and then forget about it.

Overall:

D

+ Almost a good shooter

+ Interesting story...

- ... Made improbable by a rushed timeline

- ... and Characters that are unlikable

- Guerrilla tactics? That's head-on assault right?

- What's cover?

- Acting?!

- Good graphics?! What are these words?!