I payed $65 for RE5 and I don’t regret it

This was a good game. I was wary of the co-op at first, as while I think co-op should be a feature in most games, it seemed as if it would be forced. It wasn’t, and while I only played a few chapters single player, it didn’t feel that the AI was a hindrance. The game will be familiar to anyone who played RE4, though with some of the more Metal Gear Solid inspired moments downplayed (not that the codec, I mean, radio conversations in RE4 really mattered).

One of the larger complaints people have is that you can’t move and shoot. Wahh wahhh cry me a river. The controls work, and while allowing people to run and gun won’t ruin anything, it only serves to further remove the series from any horror roots and make it into an action game.

The games biggest flaws are the completely asinine Resident Evil continuity. I should really need only point to the severe case of Revolver Ocelot Syndrome that Wesker has, (perhaps more severe than Patient Zero himself, seeing as Wesker clearly died on screen in first game, and quite obviously was just an unimportant traitor in the grand scheme of things), but there are a couple of other parts that are annoying.

It’s a two player co-op game, starring Chris Redfield and some chick named Sheva. Why did they feel the need to introduce a new character? There’s a shitload of characters from the other games they could have used. Just to name a few, Rebecca, Barry (Where’s Barry?!), even Claire, or, I don’t know, fucking Jill Valentine?

But of course they can’t use Jill, she’s dead. Dead, you ask? Well yeah, Jill was killed between games, which wouldn’t be so bad but they then introduce the subplot of Chris finding out she might be alive and looking for her. Boy did that one last a whole six minutes. They reveal pretty early that she’s ‘dead’, but it’s rushed over and and by the time you realize that you didn’t play the events they’ve started showing you sepia tone flashbacks of how it happened.

Anyway, Jill is dead so Chris is partnered with Sheva, a character I assume exists for the same reason Robin Quivers is on the Howard Stern Show. Sheva herself is a likable character but her connection to the story is rather loose (there are some brief attempts at characterization, with her expressing dismay at how her homeland is being destroyed, but you don’t really care because she mentions it less than I do), so whoever is playing her will wind up feeling like the sidekick rather than “partner” (a word you will hear about six hundred times while you play this game).

The game has become more abstract compared to RE4. There’s no omnipresent merchant selling you weapons in every random location, instead you can just upgrade and buy new gear between missions, or whenever you start (or restart from death) a game. This is a little too meta-game for my tastes, but it only becomes annoying because you can bring your upgraded equipment into someone elses game, and you can repeat early levels to gain more money.

For all its faults, though, RE5 is damn fun. And I mean damn fun. The game is short, but never dull. It moves from location to location, and each situation you get thrown into winds up unique. The developers don’t over use any enemy or game mechanic, so your adrenaline is pumping as nothing has a chance to feel routine.

The final boss fight in particular is probably one of the greatest moments in coop gameplay ever. Despite being in the most idiotic over the top locations, it is probably one of my favorite boss fights in recent memory, if not all time.

Let’s Talk Movies

Imagine, if you will, that there are three chains of movie theaters. Starlight Cinemas, Double Super Megaplex, and Bobs Movies (okay, I gave up on naming them but that’s not the important part).

These three chains of theaters, in order to save costs, standardized their equipment.

Starlight Cinemas uses black and white projectors with a 16:9 aspect ratio, and has a cheap, single channel sound system.

Double Super Megaplex uses color, but has a 4:3 aspect ratio. It has a basic, but un-advanced stereophonic sound system.

Bobs Movies is also in black and white, and uses a 4:3 aspect ration, but has a highly advanced surround sound audio system.

While occasionally they make changes to their setup, each of the three chains makes sure to differentiate their particulars to make them appear unique to the consumer. None of them have any particular strong presence in any single market, but most communities only have one or two theaters, and many moviegoers have developed strong attachments for their preferred movie theater, and would sooner not see a film than watch it in a rival theater.

The studios are left in a precarious position because of this. Color, a wide aspect ratio, and surround sound can give the director many new options for story telling. But none of the theaters has all three (or even two of the three) qualities. In order to make sure as many people as possible can enjoy their films, they wind up taking as little advantage of these options as they can. After all, if a scene involves using a wide field of vision to track two characters or other important details, there’s no way for someone watching it in a narrow field of view to be able to view the whole scene.

Occasionally a studio declares that they will release a film that will only be shown at one of the theaters. But they can’t do that very often, because very few people have access to all three, and some will, as we have established, refuse to go to certain theaters out of principle. So, to cater to these people, these films are exhibited at one or both of the other theaters. Thus, two thirds of the films audience are simply not watching the film, as so much of the detail, mood, and all around quality has been lost.

I think you got the picture. Ports, or rather, cross-platform games. They’ve got little advantage and very frequently encourage developers to give the consumer a sub-par product. The PS3, 360, and Wii all have strengths and weaknesses. The Wii in particular is extremely unique, and the disparity of quality of ports between games going to and from the Wii serves as a good example. While the 360 and PS3 are more similar to each other, they still aren’t identical. With the addition of PCs, things are made even worse. PC’s make a ‘fourth theater’, using the prior metaphor, and it is when porting to and from the PC that we get to see the worst that ports do to games.

With the ability to use an Xbox 360 controller on your PC, and with many of the game pads for the PC rather obviously based on the dual shock design, PC’s can certainly handle the control aspects of most console games. But at the same time, playing a PC game is a very different experience from playing a console game. The Metal Gear Solid series, for example, is very much a cinematic narrative. You are supposed to be comfortable, and several of the games even break the fourth wall referencing that you are playing a game. But the Metal Gear Solid series has consistently had PC ports. Imagine, sitting in your crappy office chair, sitting inches away from your monitor as you watch hours of Hideo Kojima’s self indulgent Hollywood fantasies. I’d describe the horror that was the PC release of Resident Evil 4, but I don’t have the stomach for it, and RE4 is more or less Metal Gear Solid: Umbrella Edition.

Worse, though, than games going to the PC (as it is eventually possible to accommodate the game, by purchasing enough hardware), are games leaving the PC. Let us examine two main examples, followed by a rant that you should probably skip. The Deus Ex series and the Elder Scroll series. These are both good because there the first generation of games that received a port, followed by sequels that were intentionally cross-platform,

Deus Ex. One of the most acclaimed titles of all time, and one of the greatest examples of what PC gaming is about. And yet it had a PS2 port. Seriously, Deus Ex had a PS2 port. I didn’t believe it either, until two of my friends told me they were surprised it was a PC game. Okay, that’s not so bad, I mean, ultimately all added was annoying memory card management and made it more annoying to aim or use your inventory. Oh and the computer terminals had to be changed since you don’t have a keyboard. But then let’s look at Deus Ex 2. If this isn’t a shining example of consoles ‘dumbing down’ PC games I don’t know what is. While I know this is baseless conjecture, I have to assume that the success of the original game on the PS2 led to the developer or publisher deciding to go for a cross platform release, on both the PC and Xbox. Sure, we can’t really blame the console, but I am going to have to assume the complete removal of the skill system, the use of only one ammo type, and the removal of the inventory system were all changes to accommodate the console. Really, I consider Deus Ex 2 to be a crappy Xbox game that had a PC release. Also, as I write this, I am told it was a buggy piece of shit, and the windows release was shipped optimized for Xbox hardware.

The Elder Scrolls. Morrowind was a landmark title on the PC. It had a massive open world, diverse gameplay options, a gorgeous and detailed setting, and a dedicated fan community making mods. It had an Xbox port. I couldn’t imagine it played very well, as you couldn’t use any user-made mods, and were limited to the controller, which while not horrible, had to have made navigating menus annoying as shit. It’s followed by Oblivion. Another landmark title, this one more just because it was expected to be. It was originally released on both the 360 and the PC, and later would see a PS3 release. Users of the console versions still couldn’t get any user made content, and I have to assume the gameplay changes from Morrowind were put in just to spite the PC gamers. Like Deus Ex, Oblivion had neutered skill and inventory systems, (many of the skills from Morrowind were consolidated, Enchanting was removed as a skill, and instead something anyone who has magic can do, the use of mastery levels and the lack of chance involved in skill use made all skills really only have as many levels as the skill has mastery perks), a crappy level scaling system that made it easiest to beat the game if you remained level 1, the reintroduction of fast travel despite having a world not appreciably larger than Morrowinds (no doubt so they can get rid of levitation spells, the mage guild teleporters, transportation analogous to the silt striders, and [i'm aware this one has nothing to do with consoles] get away with making a generally uninteresting landscape). Did I mention the horrible inventory?

Finally, we come to my rant. You do not play FPS on consoles. You do not play FPS on consoles. You do not play FPS on consoles. Halo wasn’t horrible. It was pretty alright. But consoles will always be limited by not having a keyboard and mouse, and, thus, we don’t play FPS on consoles.

Alas, I have stayed my hand, and you will be spared my angry, rage filled tirade on Call of Duty 4.

Game of the Year

Being January, a lot of magazines, blogs and reviewers are naming their favorites for the year. Suffice to say, they’re all stupid and probably like terrible games. I’m not going to give a huge list of the bests and worsts of the year (because I haven’t bought that many of ‘new’ games, what with them costing money). That said, if you haven’t played Sins of a Solar Empire you’re a communist subversive.

Achievements suck and you suck for liking them

First, I have to begin this article with a disclaimer. I couldn’t care less if achievements were around or not. But I couldn’t care less if the matrix sequels were around or not and I still think they’re steaming piles of shit.

Microsoft introduced achievements as a means of encouraging people to buy cross platform games on the 360. A good idea, considering how many titles are multi-platform, as its an easy enough little ‘thing’ to stuff in a game that’s already completed. These took off like fucking hotcakes, though, and now every platform, even PCs, have them in some form. (Except the Wii, but the Wii has River City Ransom, and so, along with the NES, already won this war).

But they’re so god damned stupid. The 360s achievements improve your Gamerscore. What the fuck does that mean? It’s not an indicator of your ability at games, since the way you gain the achievement is left to the whim of the individual developer. Even if it was a general indicator of ones skill it still is a poor metric since as time goes on more games are released and thus a value that was once impressive is now paltry.

Playstation home and the 360 achievements are also supposed to be sources of “bragging rights” by showing off things you’ve done in games. But they make a critical error: assuming anyone other than the person that actually has the trophy/nick-nack/e-penis actually gives a shit (they don’t).

Recently, World of Warcraft also started using achievements seriously (you could say achievements themselves have their origins in MMO quests that handed out titles or other ‘bragging rights’ rewards), which, as one of my WoW playing friends put it “need to be better implemented into the game than just a seperate tab of random shit”, and “[is] stupid, and immersion breaking”, as the metagame achievements give out in-character reward, acting as “essentially long lists of everything you will be rewarded for and then people go out and do them”.

Of course, the only reason I wrote this at all was because I have a pathetic gamerscore. (1515)

“Open World”

The term gets thrown around a lot in modern games. Grand Theft Auto is probably the culprit, and truth be told, even in the 2D era I didn’t much care for the GTA games. But I did enjoy the “sandbox” (to throw out another marketing word) gameplay of driving over and shooting at people. Uninterested in the setting and characters, I simply used cheat codes to gain access to the content I would have had to do missions to unlock. The 3D games didn’t wow me much either, and I have probably played, since the release of GTA 3, a total of ten hours between all of the games.

The other franchise that made “Open World” hot shit was The Elder Scrolls. Another series that I was never particularly “in to”. I purchased Morrwind when it came out, of course, but I didn’t play it that much until about a year later when I discovered the unopened CD. I would find myself enjoying it but never got fully immersed into the world before loaning the game to a friend. By the time I got it back, Oblivion was coming out. Morrowind, enjoyable, but it’s hotter, younger (and sluttier, oooohh console release burn) sister was strutting her stuff all around town.

Oh, Oblivion. It may seem like these last two paragraphs were a Simpsons-style segue into me ranting about Oblivion, but it isn’t. It is in fact a Simpsons-style segue on me comparing Oblivion with Fallout 3. Oblivion and Fallout 3 are pretty similar, being made by the same developer, with the same engine, within a fairly close period of time, but Fallout 3, at least so far in my playing it, is the better game. Oblivion, aside from blowing half its voice acting budget on two big names who do a laughably small portion of the dialogue, made the mistake of starting this massive, expansive world-exploring game with Jean-Luc Picard himself breaking you out of prison, handing you the most important artifact in the game world, and telling you to go find some monk named Jeff, conveniently dotting his location on your map (I think my character was jailed for stealing the map from Kings Quest 6).

The rest of the game the player will feel guilty for exploring, or helping someone with their gardening when existence itself is crumbling around them. Or maybe they’ll complete the story first, that sounds like a good idea. It is pretty important. Yeah, then you get to hear every NPC in the game suck your dick (or clit, or whatever sexual organs reptiles have) for saving the world. And yet, even if you do save the world, the Mages Guild still needs you to take the SATs first and the Fighters Guild still gives you all their bitch work. Morrowind, at the least, simply started with you having a vague suggestion of finding some guy in some city without a sense of world-dooming urgency. It gave you time to stop and say “wow, a whole open world to explore”, and it let you do so.

In Fallout 3, the games (novel) introduction culminates in your characters guiding quest. But this “main quest” so to speak is one that not only allows for, but encourages exploration of its world. You are essentially thrown out in the wild the the idea of what to do, but not how to do it. The original Fallout used a similar convention, and coming out of the vault in the beginning of the game pretty much defines “open world”, since you have no idea what you’re doing or where you’re going, only that you need to find this part for your vault. (Though, it was still an older game where the focus was still on the plot more so than the exploration, not necessarily a bad thing)

Like all games, Fallout 3 isn’t without it’s flaws, but I am not far enough in to the game to notice them. (Actually, I did notice some. Yeah the SPECIAL system is cool and all. But can I get some more starting stats and skills? Maybe a freakin’ perk to start with? Jeez. Stingy bastards. I have to wonder how it would have turned out if the original actually used GURPS)

PC Gaming Isn’t More Expensive

Whenever some idiot on a forum decides to say he prefers playing on his 360 or someone else mentions how much he prefers playing Call of Duty with his keyboard and mouse (as God intended), a flame war will erupt and one of the first charges made is that, simply put, a PC capable of playing modern games costs more than a console. This will purely be a price comparison. For a point of order I will compare the Xbox 360 with a hand-built Windows gaming rig.  I will assume the user will purchase three games with their new system, Mirrors Edge, Left4Dead, and Call of Duty World at War.

The Xbox 360
Console- XBox 360 Elite bundle, $398 (And how can you pass up Kung Fu Panda?)

Xbox Live subscription- $50/year

Display- $129 (up to $199 or more for an HDTV)

(Reader Crash Override insists that both use the same TV/Monitor. A fair concession and serious oversight on my part.)

HDMI Cable- $41

(Crash also points out this is redundant with the Elite)

Extra Controller- $38

Mirror’s Edge- $59

Left 4 Dead- $57

Call of Duty World at War- $56

Total cost of Xbox 360 gaming experience: $787

The PC
Mobo/CPU- AMD quad core with mobo, $199

Memory- 4 gigs, $39

harddrive- 500 gb, $69

video card- GeForce 9500GT -$59

case/powersupply- 500w powersupply and case, $64

dvd drive- $17

monitor- 19” LCD, $129

speakers- 2.1 logitechs, $22

keyboard/mouse- Combo keyboard and mouse, $20

Operating system- Windows Vista Premium, $99

Mirror’s Edge- $48

Left 4 Dead- $49

Call of Duty World at War- $48

Total cost of PC Gaming experience: $862

Cost difference: $75

Assessment: At first I had thought that PC Gaming was cheaper, but it was pointed out that I factored in the cost of an HDMI cable, which comes with the 360 Elite. This makes  PC gaming less than $100 more expensive in this comparison. More accurate to the results I expected to see.  PC Gaming is not vastly more expensive, and it’s not prohibitively so.  It costs more or less just as much, and with both options you can make things cheaper. (Buying the Arcade instead of the Elite, using your old monitor, etc)

The Xbox user pays about $8 more per game, and has to pay for his online multiplayer. At the same time, he gets two free games (Lego Indiana Jones at the least is nice to get for free). Over the lifetime of the set up, the combined cost of a live subscription and higher priced games will catch the 360 up to the cost of the PC, and eventually surpass it.

Now, most people will already have a TV (lowering the Xbox cost by $200). At the same time, most people will have speakers, keyboard/mouse, and a monitor (lowering the PC cost by $171), and will likely have a usable hard drive as well.

Obviously, this isn’t something that applies to every, or even the average user, as building a PC like this is something of a major time sink. Seeing as I spent about twenty minutes putting together that theoretical PC, it’s probably going to have hardware issues and will require buying new parts, shipping something back, etc. The console will probably work (until it red-rings. Or whatever the new Xbox code for system failure is, as I hear they’ve changed it).

This isn’t Console vs PC. To get into that you have to ask the personal questions of “which kinds of games do I like more?” and “which control scheme do I like better?”. There’s no right answer, as it’s all personal. That said, stop fucking lying.

I guess Left 4 Dead is okay. Kinda

Left4Dead should receive praise for having the audacity to make heavy use of a feature popularized by, but rarely seen since, the first Doom game.  (Coop ‘story’ play). You’d figure in this strange future age of knives that explode your insides and talking pictures, cooperative play through the game would be a feature in 80% of releases, but no. Almost no games feature it and the ones that do usually suck.

Left4Dead doesn’t really suck, but it a lot of the game mechanics do. Like, why do car alarms alert “the horde”, but bursting out of a building guns akimbo firing weapons at anything that moves doesn’t?

Where does “the horde” even come from? It feels like the game is cheating, the environment could be completely empty but if you hit the woopsies-button it just spawns artificial difficulty for you.

Infinite ammo pistols are pretty dumb too, as are the ubiquitous pipe bombs and molotov cocktails, which you’d figure whoever was making all of them would have been prepared enough to fight off the zombies. (considering four schmoes can take out about six thousand on their own)

The most annoying part of the game, to me, though, are the safe-houses. Again I am reminded of Doom. The game is cut into distinct levels, with stats screens at the end stopping the action to show you who killed the most enemies (or, all to frequently, allies), something that has been dropped by every developer still around except Capcom and Nintendo, and even their better games don’t bother with (or barely use) it. Aside from forcing the level design to be overly linear and boring, it gives us regular reminders that we’re playing a game, destroying any immersion (kind of important for a horror or suspense game, I’d think), and turns what seemed like a survival horror game that turned out to be a horror movie pastiche into an arcade game circa 1990.

Also, in playing with a friend, our team finally came to the end of No Mercy and the fuckers let a hunter kill me on the helipad as they boarded the chopper.