Gamer Crimes: Musical Mics

Its been a while since I did one of these... heck I only did one of these. So a recap: Gamer crimes was supposed to be a sub-series of things that I see/hear/know gamers do that really annoy me for some reason or another. Last time it was about how bad it was to trade in every single game you play, but now lets talk about something more well known to annoy people... the Microphone spam. This wont take long.

Your playing, having a good or bad match, and working with your team... until some idiot start fuzzing up the mircophone with his lame music. Now you have to find a safe spot, pull up the menu, and sort out who is causing the disturbance so you can mute them. Now in part this can be partially blamed on microphones to begin with. As a guy that started online gaming on PC with TF2, I remember pushing V to talk through my mic. When I heard a lot of the mics people used on consoles had no switch, no buttons set aside for talking, and upon hearing all the background mic buzzing, I knew this would be a problem. However with all that being said though, the person on the end can still make things much worse...

For starters... if you have an open microphone, SHUT YOU STUPID MUSIC off. I don't care how cool you think your rapping beats sound in a competitive FPS, truth is it doesn't belong. Even if you had some metal, or some kind of military marching tunes,  or something else that remotely went better with the game the quality coming through the microphone would still make it crap. Even more ridiculous is the obvious implication that in order to have an open mic, you should be a chatter. Do that, not flood us with music. I'd be fine with a team mate giving some orders, having a casual conversation, and heck I even like humorous mic spam if its in good taste. Yet just wasting it to blare bad rap and disrupt everyone's game... seriously, quit being a jerk and lets get back to the gaming.

Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes review

This snake venom isn't quite as potent as it should be...

So Metal Gear Solid has had a controversial return to the market after a long absence from its main line-up. Ground Zeroes is put on the shelves at half price of full retail and more of a premium teaser or in the director's own words a "tutorial" rather than the full experience that is coming sometime next year, and not everyone is happy with this. People from critics to die hard fans seem split on determining whether or not this is a cash grab, or just a short and sweat budget game. I got some time with it on the PS3 version, and now I'm prepared to give my view on this title from how good and bad the game is.

The game throws you (playing as "Big Boss" Snake) into an American military base within Cuba with the goal to rescue some hostages. Despite past entries, this time around the cut-scenes aren't that big of a deal. They're still probably long-ish by some game standards, but they don't build up to anything serious and the real ones happen before and after the level while past games could pop up at any minute during gameplay. I'd still say the two big cut-scenes do deliver enough for the usual presentation you would expect though, especially when we're talking about the intro. It opens in a way leaving you very curious, the scene was backed by an interesting song and the usual interesting yet cheesy dialogue of the series, and gives the playable character and the villain a silly but welcomed introduction. This feeling with the cut-scenes can honestly be applied to the rest of the game. It constantly reminds you that something is different, but not the sort of thing you would panic over. The main formula has been reworked and toyed with, yet the heart and power that was always behind the series is still present and gripping you in a way that only comes from the MGS series.

Speaking on those changes, there's a lot of good and bad. To get the sour side out of the way first, many things feel comparable to the typical stealth market. You have a limited inventory now with a single pistol or tranquilizer slot, a rifle slot, a special weapon slot, 4 throwable slots, and a goggle gadget spot that only had Night Vision for this game. This also includes special equipment, and as you can imagine there's a reason I didn't say a slot for food or health packs.... there isn't any in this game and the health is purely regenerative like many action games. Likewise you just wont have many tools at all like you're used to having, the new inventory just isn't made to hold much beyond basic weapons. I do have to say though that its nice to have the tranquilizer show some limits, that's always been sort of an overpowered toy for those that knew what they were doing... and now you wont always have that as a plan because you might need to make room for something else. The next big change in format is codec calls are replaced by a radio which works on the go and with a single button. This is viewed by some to be nice as you wont be interrupted and get to run around while your commander talks and relays important messages. However it also means you wont be selecting your own call frequencies, chatting with multiple characters, or even saving the game at your own will. Plus to be honest I kind of liked having my gameplay and chats disconnected to provide better focus and more quiet gaming or more developed conversations. The commander will sometimes throw in his dialogue right over top of me trying to listen in on enemies, or even cutting himself off to say another scripted piece if I'm moving over another trigger point for his lines. Finally, there's a giant change in the alarm process, which I originally wrote an entire paragraph of ranting on how backwards its gone before realizing I was drawing it out a bit. To try and shorten the point though... When spotted you go into an overpowered reflex mode where everything slows down for a pretty good chunk of time so that you can pull off a headshot. Its not that bad of an idea, but just lasts way too long and really breaks any tension whatsoever. It also has no cool-down, and you can actually run out into the open and activate it again and again with multiple guys around the same area. As long as they didn't both catch you at the exact same time, there will be multiple reflex modes. Now the game has a way to turn this off and even rewards bonus points for it, however the fact is the game is balanced more in favor of it. The other extreme is where the guy spots you and that flash second of spotting results in the entire base chasing you down. This binary choice of too easy or instant detection is a massive step backwards from the more advanced protocol-like multi-step alert phase from the older games. Its less fun, and the skill level is whacked out towards perfectionism rather than a fluid reaction. Oh and while I'm mentioning the alert problem, I'll point out that guys who die in fights during the alert phase wont go noticed until AFTER the alert phase is down, making it so that the idiot AI gets surprised and thinks there is a new invader threat from spotting a corpse they should have detected long ago. Its ok to face palm there, this type of flaw should not be acceptable for a "next gen" step in the series.

However I'm glad I wasn't scared away by the new changes when I first heard about them, because once you actually play it the Metal Gear Solid charm and heart is still very much alive. Despite my compressed rant on the alert system, and the fact I dislike many of the staple changes, there's a lot new and entertaining changes that are welcome and the fun that is had in this game far outweighs the criticism you just read. Not to mention even the bad changes often have their fun twists to them. A lack of infinite inventory gives me motivation to track down what I need if I decide to change up the style, making better use of the big world. The radio feels less personal and interactive, but you will be in the gameplay more often because of its change. However the best change to the series is the level layout, and it is fantastic! No more frequent loading screens, tiny guard count following tight scripted spots, and its a real and good break away from the nostalgic isometric camera we remember the classics in. It takes full use of a large scale environment to sneak through, and buildings that are part of the same world rather than a stage. Oh yeah and then there are vehicles. There's a better feeling of fluid and natural stealth within a huge layout where you're up against spotlights, jeep patrols, guards that often have a big radius, and that when the alarm comes on reinforcements can come in large quantities. The spotting also carries over from longer distances, leaving the line of sight and staying hidden to be a bit more realistic and immersive. You also have a higher sense of exploration that most of the missions use to an advantage. The first mission has you going after two hostages which is easy until you realize the 2nd one was moved into a special location for interrogation and may or may not have been killed. You have to listen to a tape recording of the path the hostage traveled, and find the spot based on the sounds. However you also overhear guards talking about an optional hostage location that you can go to, and they will give you more details if you promise to save them. Then there's two side missions later in the game that involve you scanning through the base's guards with your binoculars to look for a specific face. These kind of missions simply couldn't be done in the old stage layout, and are a very welcome addition to the new MGS.

http://i.imgur.com/mJtJIDr.jpg?1

...and now to burn it all down!

There are still plenty of staples to the series in place as well. You still hold up guards, hurt them in knock out, sleep, or death states, and there are still fun gadgets to play with. You also have that feeling spread into the new layout. Listening to guards can reveal details that change the dynamic of the mission, you can shove enemies or hostages into vehicles or stow yourself away on the back of a truck in motion, and there's a new end level set-up where you signal a helicopter to escape in. The game holds a lot of the depth and even trivial effects its been known for, proving that its generic bits aren't exactly turning it into the splinter cell clone it sounded like it was going to be. Throughout my time sneaking, taking information from held up guards, finding new weapons, and escaping from an angry base full of guns aimed at me I was having the sort of fun that just doesn't come from just any stealth or 3rd person action game. The game also retains a strong sense of humor that shows up in between serious parts. You'll hear it in from silly dialogue to 4th wall breaking gags. It earns the name it wears and it reminded me why it was so much better than what I've been playing it the series absence. Its only a shame that it all comes up a bit short as we've all heard.

Now I hear lots of people dismissing the game as a demo, or just a tech showoff. I'm not sure how much I'd agree with that, but it certainly is that sort of a prologue experience we're occasionally seeing around the market every once in a while. Its a budget release set with a limited show. There isn't much of a story despite the big presentation the cut-scenes set up. Character development is practically gone as well as you could imagine, except for the villain which is odd because you practically never see his face. So... when the most developed character is nearly faceless in a MGS game you know something is a bit weird. The weapon selection is limited, the missions are pretty disconnected and yet all set on the same chunk of land, and the game can start to feel predictable within 3 hours. That's also saying IF you're even playing for that long, as the game's credits are often hit within the hour mark and everything beyond that is just optional stuff. Yeah... that game is really short. However I'm actually not going to really complain about the length itself so much, and I'm especially not going to beat the dead horse on price for length ratio as that's been taken way out of context to stupid proportions for this game. The replay value is still really high thanks to the natural replayability out of a MGS game, and even the new editions that add more of an arcadey sense of replay. You get graded on your playstyle after every mission, end level comments on special ways you may have completed them, and have collectibles to fetch as well as a pile of audio tapes that could write themselves a freakin' novel worth. It has a ton for major fans and completionists. However like I was saying, that's not my concern....

Instead I'm complaining about this because there's a weird feeling of underdevelopment tracing through the whole game. Once your first few hours are done, you've practically seen everything and things begin to feel predictable. You have about 10 firearms in the game, even less gadgets (only one thing, nightvision, goes into your left slot the entire game) there's only but so many buildings, and the missions are easily identifiable and once accomplished they don't really play out with many surprises.  Its not about length per value in this case (it probably takes hours upon hours to probably hit 100%), its about the fact that it feels like there's still an underwhelming use of the world. The gameplay itself is very fleshed out, but nearly nothing else is. The same base, the same enemies, the same weapons, the same vehicles, the same voices, and a story and general experience that doesn't go far at all. Its not exactly what I would call a serious flaw, but it is the short end of the bargin with this budget release. I suppose that's the problem with an open world premium demo of this sort. Meanwhile an epilogue to an adventure game such as Ratchet and Clank: Into the Nexus feels fully fleshed out, and has a clear beginning, middle, and end with replayability tagged on as well. Same with something like those "experience" artsy games such as Journey. It comes to a solid and fulfilling closure. This game just slaps you in the face with a feeling that it was only a beginning without any feeling of climax, progress, or the usual amount of surprises a new game or complete experience would often pack.



http://i.imgur.com/BB6i6GX.jpg?1

Sneaky snake is sneaking

Now the game does present itself as the first game using the new Fox engine. It is fantastic! Going through a rental I was kind of forced to take the last generation PS3 version, yet its not bad at all. The lighting, amount of texture detail, and the fact that bodies have full physics presents a fantastic level of graphics that few games have bothered to match. Rather than wishing I had it on the PS4, it actually reminded me more of the question about why some were in such a hurry for better hardware, as this is damn impressive and doesn't leave me wanting much at all. The only two downsides are how flat the patches of grass and bushes look, and how dead bodies will inconsistently disappear (some stay for the whole level, others fade as soon as you look away). The new engine in the end is very impressive, and if this really was a "premium tech demo" it is a really good one.

Verdict & closing notes:
Click for the score card...

It was a tough game to grade due to the fact that it may not even be a game by some standards... its more of a premium teaser. However despite all the controversy, hate, and negative attention this move was given I feel like the consumer end got more carried away than the publisher here. The game is still absolutely fantastic in terms of fun value, and anyone that really was right for this series will know how to get their value out of it. The new interface and gameplay changes took some getting used to, but in the end this was a clear blast to play that reminded me why I love the series as much as I do... even if I had to play it a bit differently than the exact ones I sort of grew up with. The over the top humor, interactive player choice, and intense stealth is not lost on this small package, even if its not as fleshed out as it should be. However because it sells itself short and feels like its in need to be fleshed out more, there is no way I can give this game the legendary status I feel like the upcoming Phantom Pain MGS will be. Its just a really awesome and fun game, but a teaser of a much grander experience. While I think the price moaning has gotten out of hand, I'll admit I can't exactly find myself agreeing with it 100% either. My advice is to be a smart consumer and take advantage of this short and sweat game with a rental like I did. Heck I spent triple the time it would have taken me on the first mission just to make this review. So unless you feel like you're MGS's #1 fan, I can't recommend an immediate purchase. Still... I'd say its pretty much more fun than any stealth game save for maybe Dishonored, so if your desperate for just sneaking this is the best recent release you'll get for such a short price.

Top 5 things to make me happy in a shooter

With Wolfenstien coming up in less than about 3 month's time, its nice to dream and hope it'll be fantastic. Being a massive FPS fan who's been repulsed by modern trends and desperate for a real and solid triple A corridor shooter, I have every reason to hope this game delivers. Yet does it really contain what I love in shooters? Well... actually I think so. I sat down and really thought about what makes me really adore the shooters that I do. It turns out there's more to a good shooter than just good mechanics, though that helps a lot. I have a funny tendency to adore certain ones over others for odd reasons, and also I'm able to adapt and forgive things I commonly preach against if the shooter does something special to go beyond my expectations. For example why is it that I adore Killzone 2 far above Resistance 3 when R3 has far better mechanics and depth to it? I eventually came up with 5 things that either catch my attention, or make me keep a tight hold on a shooter if it hits these marks, and it also reveals the priorities of each piece. Now that isn't to say that a shooter has to have these to be objectively good. Its just about what I personally prefer and what I like to see in the genre. Maybe some people have a different take, and that's just fine. However this is my list of the things I usually adore in a shooter...

5) Enemy Novelty

It sounds a bit silly I know, but I do care about the types of enemies I'll be facing. It effects the gameplay more than you'd think to. A b-movie them putting you up against demons, fantasy creatures, robots, or all of the above will certainly be a different experience than a shooter full of army guys, or zombies. When you have a game full of zombies, you know you can expect a feeling of being swarmed full of dumb AI and you will probably be able to find the atmosphere predictable. Meanwhile a plot full of army guys... best case scenario is the Helghasts or Half-life 1 (HL2's AI can't compare) marines with intelligent maneuvers and some interesting suit designs. However for the most part you'll get pot shot dull lifeless enemies likely taking place in a game that either takes itself too seriously or is trying too hard to be a casual blockbuster experience rather than a good shooter. I obviously lean more towards the side that wants to decapitate lizard aliens, or watch an army of disfigured mutations spawn out of fire walls butchering my allies and throwing interesting circle strafe worthy attacks at me. On top of that, I just love the raw creativity of some of the bad guys that go on behind some of the games that get more wild with enemies. I mean look at the doom 3 picture above... Freakin' armored skeleton man looks pretty awesome! Then there's the lizard dudes from Turok, those zerg things from Metro, that epic widow maker boss fight in Resistance, and when you hear that poison zombie in Half-life 2.... just wow, its so awesome to see and hear for the first time. I just love creature designs, and gaming and specifically shooters and RPGs are a breeding ground of great ideas towards aliens, monsters, and fantasy variations. However where as RPGs usually turn it into a giant calculator, FPS actually puts these creative monsters into live and intense combat with unique pros and cons to test both skill and reflex. If your a shooter with great and creative enemy types, you have my attention slightly more than those without them. However with that being said... you can still go so very wrong with it, and honestly I'll take pot shot enemies that work over a broken game that failed to use any enemies up to potential, or even worse... annoyed me with them.

4) An engaging slice of fiction

I say this a bit weirdly because I'm essentially dodging around "good plot", but I don't want to mislead you by saying that directly.... because saying I like a good plot really is a bit off. I like one that grips me, and I like the universe and fictional elements more than I do characters or morals that build up what people expect to be the good plot. So saying "engaging slice of fiction" feels much more honest, even if it sounds weirder. Now you could be taking this a bit weirdly... Either your picturing I'm a massive fan of Half-life style games and that I play them because I somehow see a big awesome epic within it. Well I suppose that's not totally off, but not quite right either. I'm not that picky about games to desire only that, and I don't totally agree with the way those player controlled cut-scenes are done either. The other thing your probably thinking is that shooters can't have a good or gripping story piece at all, and your probably laughing at this. Well... to be honest I'm kind of sick of that attitude, along with a couple other smug mockeries people assume the whole genre goes under. I suppose I'll get around to that another time though because getting to the point: shooters are a lot more creative than they get credited for.

I like a lot of FPS stories actually, and I think that's a big part of the reason I love the genre more than most... until more recently where it just seems to be about army men and terrorists with some nuke threat thrown in. However it doesn't take me much to be invested in your story. I don't need an objectively grand plot with some stupid "relatable character", romance, or other hollywood formula BS. I play games to get away from those stupid story formulas. Yeah you read the last part right, I actually favor the old method of game premises over the common formulas out of movies, and industry that is supposed to capitalize on story. Honestly games sort of felt like a more mature version of what Saturday morning cartoons put out. They had some silly super villains, failed experiments, over the top action that looked too ridiculous to take seriously, and sometimes there were rockin' tunes to back it all up. You know what makes that even better though? You were into it, looking into that world and concept through your own eyes and actions. You got to read documents on those experiments and abominations, look into military intelligence on the threat, hear audio logs from other people going over past events, you got to fight important villains through climatic boss fights at times, and you did it along with taking on piles of faceless enemies. Gaming also fixed problems I found with those cartoons. It was allowed to be violent, it encouraged more creative monsters and enemy types for the sake of gameplay, and it didn't end in 20 minutes. Even your bigger story driven games were in this boat. You can try to justify Half-Life 2 as a legendary plot made to bring shooters closer to high art, but at the end of the day I got into that story because I wanted more details on that awesome strider machine, I wanted to feel what it was like to be in this slice of fiction where the world has become our prison by aliens, and I wanted to be a part of that rebellion when it all got uprooted, and I'm still excited to see the alien face behind the threat so that I can blast them with a trash can powered by a gravity warping beam gun. If this were all done in a movie or any other medium, it would be as cheesy as hell, but its actually considered a new high for gaming for its better detailed scripts. I love this sort of story telling in shooters, screw the naysayers.

However it can go beyond the typically cliche sci-fi stuff. I even find character development done better in some of these games. The Last of Us made me care about what might as well be otherwise another The Walking Dead inspired zombie drama. Why did it make me care? It was longer than a movie and more fleshed out while having a solid beginning middle and end pattern, it let you see parts of the world for yourself with its subtle clues and big shocks left for me to see rather than a fixed camera, and it was all digital meaning they could build all sorts of awesome creatures rather than dressing up people for lazier monsters (this is also why there are more and better uses of aliens in gaming). However to top it all off your with Joel and Ellie their entire adventure, with a lot fewer cuts than there would be in cinema, and a lot more control over them during their more stressful times. By the end of the game the plot all ties together because you worked with them, you saw what they saw, they were a part of your life rather than some director's, and you struggled to get to that ending... even if its hardly a true struggle in games today. Heck you can also take a quick look at Killzone for yet more reasons to love a weird take on video game story. Its more about the war itself and the worlds in danger rather than characters, and in doing so you have a nice sort of gothic medieval vibe in space with propaganda blaring, civilians being pushed around and troubled by the war, a questionable background of the conflict spinning around questions on who's the bad guy, and a presentation that ends up being more amusing than pretentious or serious like you would see with most "grim dark" stuff in other mediums. You don't need aliens and lasers to appreciate how awesome this cheesy world of Killzone is. At the end of the day I want these type of stories delivered by great shooters and great games more than anything else, and I feel like this is a strong point a good shooter game can handle. I look forward to Wolfenstein doing this as well, as its already got the stage set for a good cheesy grim dark setting with a nice world to escape to and shoot up in my free time.

3) Solid input, depth, and player options

Pssst.... Hey, want to know a secret about gaming? Its interactive, so take a clue from common sense and make use of that to let the player have a ton of control. While your at it, use intelligent design choices to really make use of the game's potential. When I talk about gameplay depth I'm thinking of all the mechanics that the player has to take in, and use to shape the world around them... or what the world may use against them. FPS has always had some of the best balance within depth, often not being so open that is all down to raw numbers and precision, yet its open enough for a lot of strategy and player expression to overlap perfectly with a well refined linear experience. Good player input in an FPS is as simple as letting them feel in control over the situation to some extent. Like giving them a wide selection of weapons, a variety of enemy sorts to face, multiple ways to hurt them, and a feeling that when they mess up it was a true moment of brain fart on the player's end rather than some bad or limited game design.

A good example in Serious Sam 3 was a moment where you had a mounted automatic Minigun turret that fired at waves of enemies by itself. You could choose to help the gun take them out, pick it up yourself and take all the glory but risk ammo depletion (as it was tied to a limit once detached), or sit back and relax only picking off what few enemies made it around. Then once all was said and done you picked it up and moved on to a massive hoard of enemies. There were massive brutes that fired rockets, but only a handful while what was literally over a hundred fast steer skeleton foes were the main body of this stampede. This part took me forever to get past because it required a massive balance between ammo, resources, pacing, and gunning, but it was all down to my end and I had so many guns to use to fight back and had the challenge but freedom to prioritize the destruction of my enemies. I mostly killed two big guys with rockets before saving up the rest of that and pulling out my minigun for the steer. Once I was running out, I retreated and shot at them with a variety of shotgun and assault rifle rounds before falling back to a stash of minigun ammo I was saving for later because I choose to manage that for emergencies, and that strategy worked.... after a couple of tries of course, it was still a tough fight. This is ideal depth in a game. By contrast many games now have turned towards linear scripts, uninspiring lack of choice, and mechanics too shallow to get a real feel for. This doesn't instantly make a game bad, but it is a very lacking and uninspired way to go for a linear shooter and is not going to grab my attention easily.

However what if you're not making a game that is linear? Well.... options! Options for everything. Take notes from Timesplitters and Unreal Tournament as well as the modding community on Teamfortress2 if we're talking multiplayer. Seriously, those games could be played over and over again way out of their potential life cycle all because of player freedom and full interactive rule changes. Let me pick my character model, let me choose what guns I do and don't want in a match, and let me feel free to enjoy tweaking some rules so that I may enjoy any mode if I put down a massive chunk of money on a game. Also of course, add bots whenever you can. This is why I put so much time into Unreal Tournament 2004, why many of my multiplayer comparisons revolve around TF2, and why Timesplitters was one of the greatest FPS games to grace the PlayStation 2. Screw your matchmaking and stock rules, give me depth, user friendly interface, and above all the power to tweak the gameplay so that its fun for me and my friends. With options players can give new life into the game every now and then. Actually... even without MP and offline MP in mind or even shooters, this still applies to a strong game of any kind. Give me remappable controls, give me HUD options, give me FOV sliders, etc. The list can go on and on. Freedom and good user interface is a fantastic and beautiful thing. Please... stop leaving it out. I think Wolfenstien is on the right track by not only seeming deep in mechanics, but also I've been told by a friendly fan that the next generation consoles have FOV sliders.... something nobody except Mag runner has done. That on its own deserves a ton of respect, but I hope they also continue that trend with button mapping so I can have my R3 toggle aim.

2) Awesome gunplay

Do not ever underestimate the awesome feeling of weapons with some serious effort put into their aesthetics. Especially if your a multiplayer driven military shooter. I put up with and played one of the most objectively worst modern military shooters, and stood up for its multiplayer, just because the gunplay was so damn fun and so much less interrupted than most games of its kind. Talking about Medal of Honor Warfighter of course. Then again... honestly this is the giant 1-UP military shooters have over most old school shooters, and I adore it. While older focused on crazy and silly weapons with awesome functions, the military shooter job has to make iron sights look as interesting as possible... that means recoil, multiple sights, deep thick sounds, the feeling of unloading heavy metal piece by piece into a foe before you. It makes for better immersion than circle strafing some point and click plasma railgun or triple barrel rocket launcher ever was. Now that's not to say gunplay in old school sucks... quite contrary, its just in a weird league of its own and captures a different feeling to it than military shooter gunplay. Secondary fire, and crazy functions can lead to some awesome gunplay experiences, and then there's games like bulletstorm that turn gunplay into a meta game of how creative you string it to the level environments and you foot. However more than just how the gun feels goes into gunplay. You have environmental impact, body impact, and of course even mechanics can lead to how this feels. Despite how much I adore this idea that a gun needs to sound and feel powerful, I actually want the health to be higher than the bullet pain making for an ironic bullet spongy experience. I come from this Killzone 2 sort of mentality for a good reason though... its just more fun this way. As much as that sounds subjective in general, I can't help but carry it in my head as fact because of just the countless outweighing bits that benefit the game in larger health. You don't have corner campers because its not a worthy advantage if people can turn around and shoot back. Bigger health gives players a feeling of real battle, and a reason to know that two shooting on one guy (kill assists) is a very strong helping hand encouraging team work. Bigger health lets the player feel like they can take more risks even though its still just as easy to fail but this sense of carelessness leads to a sense of fun chaos in addition to other mechanics that game may offer. Then to state that obvious... it avoids making the whole game into a big reflex contest, and gives players a chance for skill and aim to overcome a poor player getting a fast shot in. By contrast the only good things I can name out of small health is that its great for intentionally fast reflex based games (likely aimed to a more casual focus), and it can be good for tense and heavy consequence tactical shooters. For the most part though big health is just great, and feels so right when its done well. Finally, there is the fact that gunplay just needs to be a big core focus considering it is a shooter, and little to get in the way... that even means keeping guns simple but heavy on the delivery of each one. No 30+ weapons that have no substance, and while Vehicles and Killstreaks may sound fun, they detract from a straight up match and can get in the way of the good side of simplicity. I have nothing against a small thing to shake stuff up, and honestly StarHawk's execution of vehicular combat was just perfect to still keep gunplay strong, so extra stuff can still work... just be careful and don't overdo it. So to recap, one of the biggest factors for a game to grip me is great gunplay. To have this, you need great aesthetics, the proper amount of simplicity, and the right balance of health leaning on a higher end. Few games do this 100% perfectly, and honestly that's one of the main reasons I put Killzone 2 as my personal top PS3 game (though its since beaten by Dark Souls, but 2nd ain't bad).

However its also worth mentioning to add on to what I was saying about military vs old school gunplay: Military shooters can and have been older-school before, just look at Killzone 1 and Resistance (though it wasn't the best in gunplay) that have strong ties to both pieces. Heck both actually got converted from old to new and worked pretty damn seamlessly because they can hope the fences so easily. That's kind of where I see the new Wolfenstien and part of what gets me excited, its taking military style weapons with beefy and strong metallic depth and throwing it into a world full of health packs, enemy types, weapon wheels, crazy power, and making it compatible with both iron sights and circle strafing alike. Sounds amazing, and I'm hoping it delivers well. Also just.... look at the gore!. Its not exactly common to talk about how great virtual gore feels, but honestly if your buying a shooter you shouldn't expect puffy smoke and flat ragdolls as your impact effect. There should be gore honestly, and it should be over the top. Its a silly, cheesy, and action packed shooter... don't be afraid of the M rating. It delivers home that idea that your guns make a solid impact, and it works well with grim dark themes some of these games set up. Wolfy here choose right to go all out in this department, and I'm very excited to see the gunplay deliver in every form possible.

1) Level Design and the general execution

I don't actually think much of this... but in all honesty it is the biggest, most important, and downright crucial part to getting me to truly adore your shooter. I don't think of it much, you can't see it in previews, but its there... always effecting the mood and opinion on a game, especially after your initial completion. I've seen quite a handful of shooters get practically everything on this list except this one detail down right, and it suffered in some way for it. Resistance 3 got held back pretty far on my top PS3 list for this reason, because the levels just weren't all that memorable or gripping. They were there, worked the first time, and occasionally I come back for the gameplay, but nothing in the events and level itself were all that great and this put a bit of a damper on it when I wanted to replay. Some parts I even despise. This could be said or even amplified for Bioshock infinite, and its the reason why I couldn't give it a GOTY run as it just lacked a feeling of value and replay after that original run. Meanwhile this is also why I enjoy some generic shooters as well or even play them more than a game that gets its mechanics right. I'm not exactly a COD fan, but I'll play and enjoy some designs of their games but what mostly keeps me around are the maps or certain campaign levels. Modern Warfare 2 had did everything on this list wrong and yet I kept coming back again and again and again even more so than some awesome mechanically sound games. Why? Because it had better and more entertaining levels, maps, and a feeling of more satisfying execution with what it had. Well... that and the modern military shooter routine was new back then and worn out now, but that's besides the point. Sneaking through cliffhanger just feels right. That level with the EMP and wolverines were a great "shooting galleries" as people would like to say. That one whee you're leading a tank's aim through a neighborhood with a wide view of exploration was just incredible! Oh, and then there's the forest level that is just perfect without any major scripts and the set pieces aim at just shoot outs. I kept coming back looking at small details, and challenging myself to find new ways to run through the level even knowing it had shallow mechanics to hinder that sort of attitude. I can still hate on the design for incorporating a ton of scripted junk and for being a generally linear and shallow game, yet I just can't stay mad at it if it keeps me coming back and remembering the levels I went through.

However what happens when you take this sort of amazing level design and throw it into a game with better traits? Well, its a ton better, that's what. Killzone 2 checks off most of these aspects given here and on top of that absolutely amazing level design and an interface that allows you to jump into any piece of it easier. I put over 30 hours of play time into a generically short campaign. It might have a couple shallow elements like regenerating health that put it on the Military shooter fence, Yet this is why it prevails over so many old school shooters.... it executes levels so perfectly in addition to hands down the best gunplay, multiplayer input, and an interesting setting with iconic enemies and thought provoking undertones. Resistance 3 might sound like a game that better appeals to me with full old school mechanics, aliens instead of humans, and crazier weapons and a more absurd plot, but because its level design feels a bit... flatter, I just never make a bigger deal of it than to say its a blast to play for the gameplay... and only in terms of mechanical depth and interest in rule sets. Meanwhile Killzone 2 and Modern Warfare 2 have me coming back with solid gameplay, and because I remember how cool X or Y level was set up, or had the perfect alignment of cover and enemies, or even though this is rare it may have had just the right set piece to make me want to go back. Resistance 3 did one thing right about its level layout.... minimal scripting. About everything else is just dull, which is sad as that seems to send the opposite message a scriptless shooter should be. Yet Alpha Prime, a $5 mediocre copy cat indie shooter, does both so much better and ends up hitting home on all 5 of these major marks now that I think about it. It might sound like I'm being hard on R3, but I do really love it. Its just that missing this one key mark... leaves me with a feeling of disappointment, especially if the gameplay itself was so good.

Of course there's also more than just if the level feels good. Was the game built for it right? Did it do everything well enough, feel well grounded, and present the ability to enjoy it all over again? Singularity was an awesome game, but didn't give me anything but continue or new game when it was all over. So I haven't touched it since I completed it. Bioshock Infinite was fun, but has a sloppy way to load up levels and on top of that is no actually broken in its control scheme so I can't replay that. Oh and a quick glance at its gunplay... enemies shrug off headshots, terrible execution there.  Yet Killzone 2, one of my favorite corridor shooters ever, lets me load levels by bits and pieces while executing some of the best gunplay, and level design I've seen and just enough enemy AI and options to give me some depth to it all. See why its one of my favorites? Yeah that's really nice. The sad thing is this last and most major key point is almost impossible to tell before you pick up the game. As much as I'm looking forward to Wolfenstien, this is one thing I'll have to go on out of a risk. Will it be successful in level design? Will it be fun to replay? I sure hope so.

Insomniac's 20th anniversary

Well Insomniac has had their 20th anniversary mark achieved recently and celebrated with a humorous music video about how it all started in the glorious 90's. I just have to do an article on them, they have a sort of special meaning to me compared to just any other old company in gaming, but weirdly enough they aren't quite a company I can always get behind either. As I was thinking of how to head off this article... I began thinking of just how appropriate that moon logo might be along with their age. 20 years isn't exactly old age wise to us, however to a corporation it probably marks a good time and that they're here to stay for a while longer. Its a good reason to celebrate, and shows that they really have a good history, catalog, and some good experience. So its a bit old-ish in those terms. Then there's that moon.... the moon is kind of an old thing that happens daily, and while many may not enjoy the dark night as much as a bright or visible day, we all can kind of enjoy the moon's brilliant light and beauty when it shows up. Getting back to how this is relevant to Insomniac... well it just feels like those two separate things fit. Old and a colorful moon. Like the moon I don't really find myself anticipating it much anymore, and my enthusiasm is dry about their games despite the truth that I'll enjoy it when it gets here. I just sort of accepted Into the Nexus as a thing, until I played it like 3 weeks past launch and adored it. Fuse is still sitting in my backlog, and the entire resistance series was a fun batch of shooters I just got around to late but enjoyed thoroughly as they got here. Meanwhile.... the company feels kind of old in both a good and bad kind of way. They have some great history, a reason to celebrate, and have a nostalgic sort of presence and that feeling of taking care of their fans. Yet they also have that feeling of being clumsy, and crazy. Sometimes its because they say or do something that feels like they're trying too hard to be cool when they clearly aren't doing it right. Like when they try to talk about how games have to be a social thing now, despite their larger successes being in the single player route. Then we get messes like Resistance 2, All 4 One, and with what happened to Fuse. Oh and has anyone heard about overnaughts? Yeah didn't think so.

Now let me make it clear that those fumbled games aren't "bad". I had fun playing the Fuse demo, and I replayed Resistance 2 a lot and liked a lot of things despite its obvious COD clone direction. All 4 One also probably wasn't bad as a co-op game, its just that the fact is it was one of those gimmicky co-op games that furthered a franchise I like to enjoy solo. Insomniac even when bad is still good. Again... its just like an old guy kind of fumbling, you don't hate him or compare them to garbage, you just sort of feel some sort of sad sympathy for them knowing they're capable of better sometime or another. This was the Ratchet and Clank fanbase for a while, this was how people looked on at over-strike before it became fuse, and why Resistance 2 was by far overshadowed by 3 and even lasting fame from the 1st release. They weren't a bad company by any stretch, nor were their games bad, it just was there and the less said the better while people waited for the company to recover. Recovery is exactly what they did in Ratchet and Clank: Into the Nexus, and that brought tears of joy to fans and critics alike as they played it and were pulled into Insomniac's brilliant light yet again. That's just what they do... I've heard it from other fans and myself as well as the joy that IGN seemed to put into writing their history. When they show up with the right games they sort of bring out this strange sense of fun and smiles that feels a bit unique to them. Its especially easy to see this when quite a good number of their fans are fans because Insomniac served as a strong part of their childhood gaming.

Nostalgic start screen sequence, activate!

They made a huge impact on me personally because I wouldn't even be the same person without Spyro. Before Spyro gaming felt so... limited and restricted. I sort of mentioned this before when talking on difficulty, but a lot of the games I played were 2D sidescrollers on NES and SNES, or point and click games on PC. They were strictly linear down to the point where motion was nearly a binary function, and it just felt like something to toy with until you died. I never took it too seriously, and my little mind could barely grip on any of the complex rules of other games. There was nothing fun to me about puzzles, FPS games at the time felt like something to get lost in, and sidescrollers just felt like a toy. Point and click entertained me, but mostly as a movie you could toy with rather than a video game sort of thing... and looking back on it I can't see how I ever enjoyed them. With Spyro, everything was solved. Suddenly I was given full control, I was given a big open world to be immersed in, and when I wanted to proceed everything was very simple and intuitive for me to learn and understand. Plus I was able to play as a dragon, so it was a wonderful novelty as well despite the obvious differences between Spyro and.... well, this. I felt like I was able to take my mind and head and put it into a separate fictional world and interact with all sorts of silly actions. Everything was a new sense of wonder and mystery all over again, kind of igniting that ultimate spark of why we enjoy escapism. I could simply stay on top of that hill in the first hub world and roll down it all day, or I could go through the portal and start a cool adventure. I could spare the lives of those cowardly hub enemies, or I could chase after them. I ended up chasing thieves only to go easy on them so I could prolong the chasing. It was a blast to be given this feeling of control over a fictional world and have your child-like sense of wonder run with it without any consequences.

Spyro followed by another Spyro followed by another Spyro lead me from one world to the next enjoying the building cast, enchantment, and 3D platforming I loved so much in this series. I loved collecting treasure, I loved those weird abstract looking enemies that added something new to each level out of the many available, and I enjoyed seeing new abilities and mini-games taking place before me in each new installment. Each new game brought along more ways to goof around, become immersed, or gave me a brand new

adventure to go on, and it all felt fantastic. Spyro taught me what gaming was about in many ways, and after Spyro the light bulb that came on didn't ever leave. I played Gex 3, I played Banjo and Kazooie, I played Mario 64, and others that gave me a similar impression of a wonderful and adventure provoking world and a decent feeling of player interaction. I eventually moved on to other genres, more wiser on how to read and fit to rules and skill requirements, and I was able to try out new stuff enticed by the promise of a new adventure and a new fictional world to explore. I still have trouble seeing the total appeal of 2D platformers and other retro 2D games, but I can still respect and enjoy them. Simply put, before Spyro I just didn't have any reason to be excited towards video games other than the fact that it was something else to do besides watching Disney movies and Nickelodeon 24/7.

However Spyro wasn't just a starting point in the hobby, its still to this day what I would refer to as one of the better games I've ever played.They all had good length, decent story motives and fun characters, impressive visuals that still feel good to look at today (especially those sky boxes), fun level design and good collectibles that kept you looking without making it stressing, and the difficulty felt tuned just right with maybe a couple too easy or too hard (screw the Agent 9 rail shooter missions!). Oh and lets not forget the soundtrack, being one of the better soundtracks I've heard and its even good outside of the game's context. Very unique work as well, odd mixture of organ, strings, drums, and strange ambiance keeps it under some weird rock/jazz/funk influenced fusion of music. The games have withstood the greatest test of time as well, keeping me returning every year towards some game often beating it all over again in that run and enjoying every minute of it. Each new file wipes a clean slate and re-decorates one of three amazing games in tons of loot making it feel new and fun all over again even though I've ran it dry doing absolutely everything multiple times. The games are probably among one of the most replayable adventures out there full of all around high quality sound, visuals, and gameplay back by a good does of nostalgia, joy, and some fairyland fantasy novelty giving it an all around unquestionable rating of being my go to pick for any platformer ever. The only game I think I've ever come to rivaling it in pure emotion, fun, and wonder has been Dark Souls and I am working on a topic for that note similarly... but even then I'm finding myself comparing such a game to the fun I had in Spyro because Spyro was good enough to take an everlasting toll on me that makes me really remember it, even in such foreign soil as an action heavy tensely difficult RPG.

Spyro-ish skybox ahoy!

I later loved their future titles a lot as well, with Ratchet and Clank probably making a pretty solid spot on my favorite games of all time list (I'll make one eventually). That makes two of the best games ever from one company... a record I can't think anyone else has in my book, which is again why it was worth doing a special article on these guys during a recently big anniversary mark. Anyways what was so special about R&C? Well arguably its even better than spyro, because while spyro was an awesome 3D platformer with mini-games it wasn't honestly too unique considering the 90's became full of that sort of awesome genre. Plus many people found it too easy with occasional rock hard walls. Meanwhile Ratchet and Clank is something that still to this day is pretty much one of those games that exists as a genre in itself. You have Metroidvania influenced adventure patterns and a metroid health system in addition to a game that is otherwise riding heavy on a combat platformer where weapons ran on raw insanity and light RPG elements rules over emphasis on serious gunplay (heck your not even really aiming the guns), and platforming is done by more of intense strafing and precision jumps rather than traditional timing and on screen obstacles. It surprisingly all flows together, and tosses in a new game + and superb colorful cast and world to go along with it just to score in all that awesome stuff that was already at the heart of the game. Oh, and another reason its technically above spyro would certainly be the story and extras within it. You'll find in the end over 20 cut-scenes, skins, and modifiers to play with in the end way above Spyro's standard extras and simple premise.

To be honest though it didn't look all that great in the first R&C game, which actually feels more like a clumsy 3D platformer that shoe horned guns into it and left it at that. No strafing, leveling, and far more generic and uninspired level designs mixed with a weird feeling that the voice actors were kind of bored. However what the series is known for today is more along the lines of the games that fixed it all up and added to it so much better and you can debate all day which is truly the best. In the end the series has become an amazing underdog staple to the PlayStation brand name, and the majority that are into it are REALLY into it. Personally I can't really explain why I love it so much myself, its just so good and so refreshing each time you pick it up and play. I get sucked into the adventure, the story is surprisingly deep as much as it is funny and charming, and the gameplay is just so satisfying in its fast paced constantly upgrading insane nature. Its so fun that I end up going through several new game +'s on all games starting from Up Your Arsenal, with deadlocked being my most replayed linear game ever at over 20 new game + modes not counting other files I had made before starting a clean slate. I really love these games, and Insomniac clearly does to by being more happy to make sequel after sequel while they got sick of Spyro in the middle of the 3rd one. Their latest release was even a Ratchet and Clank game, although a short one. However it was not the last IP done...

Their next series was supposed to be more darker for the more mature consoles. Entering is the new series Resistance which aimed to be a first person corridor shooter with aliens. Yeah... you've seen its kind before. It was pretty generic at the time with just a psudo-WW2 spin on things to help it look different. Though honestly right now this sort of FPS is exactly what we needed, but back then it was just applauded as the most solid PS3 game because it had nothing else back then. It also had possibly the most horribly inaccurate hipfire I've ever seen, even beating out Modern Warfare's style. The cone of fire was actually outside of the gun barrel, and you could see bullets spread outside of where the barrel or even the gun lined up with. This is why Killzone and wolfenstein fans like their hipfire, it looks like this sort of crap when you go for the useless approach. It was followed up by a sequel that oddly and awkwardly remained generic but with the COD times and was a total copy cat in every direction except its stories and enemies. It even had sub-par graphics, which was incredibly weird to see out of a PS3 exclusive, especially considering the other PS shooters released at that time (Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2) were the height of the matter. I've got to admit it still was a lot of fun, and having creative and fun enemy types was a major advantage over its competition even if it was one of the only ones. Still it was a bad move in retrospect, and thankfully Insomniac admitted that they listened to the wrong people in making it... even if some gamers today still try to defend it over something as trivial as the story. As for the next one.... they did more than just redeem themselves, they made what I would arguably call the best 7th gen old school corridor shooter out there with Resistance 3. It returned to its roots, this time with actual character development, absolutely no health regeneration, and the guns could be upgraded just like an R&C game. The enemy AI, what little of the friendly AI, and the story and gunplay aspects were all amped up to be far more than what the original or the copy cat 2nd offered. For the first time in the series the graphics also matched up to decent standards, being really good without any real flaws or gripes (unless your still whining about "gritty" colors). It also gave in some nice set of extras to work based on your trophy completion. While 3 is probably the best for its slight tweaks and extra refinement, I think It might actually be a bit to do with the 2nd's mediocrity. The original hit when it was just there.... people go back and just see it as normal for its time, and it feels cemented in a generic presence. 2 released and appalled fans of the first while being dull and uninspired to anyone else. After people pointed at 2 as an example among countless of shooters that just feel cut and paste, or how tiring the same formula is, I think we were all waiting for a game above that COD formula. With Resistance 1 and 2 being both uninspired by the book shooters mocking each trend, and then R3 suddenly strays from everything in a masterful manner of an uncommon shooter formula I think it sends a message on how diversity is needed. Maybe I'm just looking too far into that

though.... either way,  Resistance 3 was in many people's eyes the best of the series, and its kind of a shame it ended there for Insomniac.

After Resistance their new IPs have been just fumbling, and even some with existing considering the weird R&C spin-offs. People are also already preparing for Sunset Overdrive to flop. Like I said at the beginning though, I can't really see it as bad as some make it though, and to some form I see it as hypocritical. They want new IPs, but then they mock it before real gameplay is even shown. Anyways Fuse was from the looks of it a solid 3rd person shooter with some decent ideas but overall execution that left it looking more like a middle tier shooter just padding out the genre. That's not exactly a pad thing, heck I wish that were happening with FPS corridor shooters so we could get some more R3-like games, but its not exactly something people were looking for and its not Insomniac's place either. For such a hyped event as their first 3rd party deal, it really was a terrible start. I'm really hoping they do better with Sunset overdrive, but honestly its questionable. It was stylish and silly in some ways, but in a way that somehow also feels uninspired and more by the book if that makes any sense. Some clues say it might be fun and arcadey taking cues from Resistance or R&C in good ways, but it might end up like Fuse.... which also looked more colorful at one time. If I remember right though it was going to be an MMO or heavily online dependent.... good luck with that. In the end though I want Insomniac to prove what they did recently with R&C fans with Into the Nexus... they still have golden potential.

Insomniac is a company that has proven time and time again to remember fun. Simple, pure, and raw FUN, and they can mix it well with violence and dark bits that the rest of the industry takes too seriously or movie-like now. They brought me into gaming through enchanted worlds and the promise of endless inspiration and adventure in a safe fun environment. Then they took me to levels of high fast paced action followed through with charm and endless originality. Finally they brought me to a territory that seemed a little too familiar at first, only to then compare and contrast to why familiar isn't bad and was in fact what I was looking for when I needed it. I suppose sometime maybe I should see what awaits me with Fused, but I guess when they give out "meh" I give it back. However for the most part, I can't think of them much in that light. They've messed up, sometimes horribly by my standards (screw you co-op gimmicks!) and sometimes other standards (Overstrike's makeover into fuse). However for the most part I feel like I owe them a lot of thanks, and that they seriously stand out to be a unique bunch of geniuses that stumble up frequently after some great starts. They're still geniuses though, and ones that effected me above the usual type of team I'm fond of. I can't exactly say I respect them the same way I usually respect a studio... like Bethesda for the many type of amazing games it publishers contrary to usual publisher standards, or Arkane for just.... being so..... them! Then there's Guerrilla that reliably makes a shooter franchise I can always depend on to be fun. With Insomniac... its just different. Its hard to agree with what few vocal principles they come out with, even when you were getting the grip on the idea that all they wanted was fun they go out and lash at nintendo in a totally nonsensical and uncalled for way. Then their games are of inconsistent quality and genres or structures (even within a single IP) to know they'll put out golden material that always suits you, yet they always seem to come through somehow to make me smile. At the end of the day though I know I do have genuine respect of some form for them... they can and do somehow get the meaning of fun through, and that backed by nostalgia of even better days is good enough to me.

Keeping gliding on

Thanks for all the good times Insomniac, and may you keep them coming to gamers of all kinds :)

Why my views on review scores have changed

I've been thinking to explain my new scoring format a little bit better, and as time went on and I heard a couple more side remarks out there for and against scoring... I've been thinking I really wanted to write about my change of position on the whole deal. I used to really love scoring systems, and used them to what I thought was the best extent, but now... I've felt the need to not only overthrow them but the entire formal and technical input of a review style. Why is that? Well its pretty simple really.

Imagine if a friend just walked up to you and said they played a good game. You ask them... how good? They give it a 7. What's that supposed to mean? How is that supposed to really tell you the whole experience they had, and their recommendation? A 7 out of nearly infinite numbers or other ratings they could have choosen? Well it makes no difference... whether its 70%, 7%, 7 out of 10, 3 stars out of 5, or C-, you can't really get anything out of that. Or...maybe you can? Most will put the score next to a "good" "average" or "poor" maybe even a deeper description that would go as far as "flawed fun". However that all loops back to that original question before the number... how good is that "good" beside the score? They are curious and pushing the information to begin with because they want to be truly informed, not given vague cryptic codes to puzzle over. Yet its strange because so many people have accepted that as their way of viewing games through someone else's opinion, myself included. People seem to be addicted to looking through and holding onto scores and grades of some sort to justify a game's value or venom. An entire $60 seems to be in part balanced not by entertainment, length, or cleverness, but instead by a scale ranging from 1 to 100 or 1 to 5.

You can't summarize a whole essay, speech, or professional judgement on anything with just a number. Neither can you summarize all the content, fun, or problems of a game with it, and I might even say developers should feel insulted that their work and effort is put on such abstract scales. I probably can't make the answer any simpler or plainer than that, and I can't go but so deeper apart from what I mentioned above with how abstract the system is. It has no meaning or value except what the popular assumption seems to be, and even then it doesn't really stand a chance. That's why you hear people being thrilled over an 8 out of 10 game, while die hard fans and haters poke at it saying that it wasn't high enough. I've heard a handful of people glance in disappointment at 7 out of 10's acknowledging that it is a good game but saying that isn't a high enough rating for their next gaming investment. Now I respect their right to spend their money as they please and use whatever methods of quality control they do, but I also have to question how ignorant they must be think a game wont be worth it to them due to a number. Truth is many 7 out of 10s have a niche or interesting value of some sort worth looking up, and they are the ones often cited as game of the year among a community of people won over by its fun values or a great novelty within the details. That is something a "7" in itself wont tell you. Likewise I've seen 7's given out because of generic elements, or ones with incredible achievements failing under a tragic flaw, but you wouldn't know that if you only knew the game by a freakin' number.

This is also an increasingly bad time for numbers as games do some weird stuff. How do you put a number on such a massively amazing but short experience like what you would get out of Into the Nexus or Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes and how does that compare to a short experience based game like Gone Home?  How can you just give a number to an online aspect that uniquely intersects within a campaign, like Journey, a special MMO tweak, or what Dark Souls does? You can't give that a number, and you certainly can't put it well under a separate mode function like I used to do with my reviews (which barely knew what to do with bot support grading). Games have advanced to do some weird and freaky stuff that surprises us, and our formal systems and regulations aren't equipped for it.

Speaking of Dark Souls... quick, think about the grade its story deserves! Can't so easily can you? That's because its cryptic and vague with clever subtly, hints, and traces that tie together to an incredible back ground that existed in the past of the game's events within a unique fantasy world full of contrasting themes and tragedy. However to appreciate it all or even understand it, you need to be actively observing and making your own steps to build the true plot, and then you'll probably need help from the guys that likely do it better than you within the community, or at the very least share some theories with other people. Countless hours of Youtube videos went into describing these world, explaining the characters, the setting, and great tragedies that took place. In addition to that the youtube story tellers often leave their own questions or feel that they can only strike up more theories that force the consumer to use their own head again. Its a 3 part cycle of the game, the player interpretation, and the community, and that doesn't even cover the actual relevance of your character within the main plot that makes up the very beginning and ending of your Journey. So how the hell would you rate that? It may look like a barebones bad plot about almost nothing to the unobserving player passing through, but others have proven it to be a complex thread of tales that form a deeper mythology than some real life cultures ever accomplished. You can't give it a straight 10, and you can't accuse the game of being lazy just because you have to use your head to make sense of it, and nothing else compares to it enough to give it a score in the middle and call it "average" or leave it at "decent". Nothing like that describes it. However.... you can give the value of it by telling people how immersive the world was, or how much you enjoyed putting it together like a puzzle. You could also talk about some of the amazing theories you worked up, or how your friend came to a conclusion that blew your mind and made you see the game in a whole new light (I just had this happen to me with DS2 and I still don't even know the ending). Or... you could just point out an amazing youtuber that has done all the work and referencing they can to pull together an epic tale. This is how you would be able to depict and give the impression of the game's story telling, and this is what a curious person would want to go by as they can tell if they would love this, hate it, or would just ignore this aspect. The story is something you can't do by yourself, and it isn't something the game is going to do for you, but it isn't something that is absent either. Instead you experience it, share the experience, and listen to the experience, and honestly... that entire cycle is how I feel games are better summarized and something a regulated system can never, ever, help you with.

Too complex for your scoring system to handle!

Now before I sound like I'm igniting some crusade against review scores, I'm actually have to surprise you and say the opposite. I actually still like them a bit, and even though I pretty much just proved how stupid the whole thing is I can still see why we fell into using it. Simply put... it can be fun. No seriously, back when I was doing reviews in my old style it was kind of fun to challenge myself to throw a level on a scale towards gaming. It was like a puzzle to figure out what to level my complaints and fun at, and then to try and measure it appropriately towards something else, and it felt good to break it down into its elements so that I could really explain a game in great detail as I'm clearly passionate about. I imagine plenty of reviewers felt a bit like this enjoying their first few reviews trying to measure their passion in a professional way while knowing they were educating other gamers. Plus its just fun to challenge your perspective of something you love, which is where we get all the technical and objective aspects from. Even though the game's true value is mostly down to opinion, the majority of reviews actually have turned to a more calculated way of seeing things, and its interesting to look at it from both sides. You take your favorite games and try to put them under some sort of number based trial... its quite fun really. Actually I'd honestly even say scores got me into game reviews, I wanted to feel what it was like to be on that site of judging games and I liked to talk and go in depth with my favorite hobby.

As people and consumers we also tend to have a habit of loving both convenience and easy labels, both covered well by a scoring system for our gaming hobby. Lets be honest here, we've all had those days where we just want to observe a game curiously and then when reviews are everywhere we want a fast and simple way to see its status in the gaming world. We can't do that with honest walls of text explaining the many good or bad experiences that may await after hours within the game, so we want some made up scaling system to give us some vague idea of its judgement. We do this with far more than games as well, just about anything with a culture big enough worth giving reviews and opinions on probably has grading thrown into it of some form. Its kind of fun to read them and take them into account as much as it is to grade it.

However as I was rating stuff and doing this myself, I just began to notice things were stumbling a little too often. I would review a game with a good story, like R&C into the nexus and then one that did it a lot more stripped down and less to tell like a Killzone or Modern Warfare game. However while those were simple it got more tricky to judge a game like Fat Princess where the story was never meant to be its strong point, and it felt so bad to review that aspect that I would often give a game like that a pass or void it towards counting, however that felt terrible when I hold most games up to the same standard of the format. So my format was pretty much breaking from the beginning, but I pushed on. It then became more challenging as a game like Uncharted 3 came out, where the production values, effort, and heart were all truly there to make an incredible story but it flopped pretty hard on the end leaving it hurting more than a usual poor story. How would I really rate something like that when it wasn't really poor, or outstanding, but not exactly a middle of the line work either? I had to make it clear that it was a terrible story by the series standards rather than game standards, and that just felt awkward in itself. Then I began to also feel bad for a game like Section 8 where all of its technical aspects were but it relied heavily on online and offline gameplay with mechanical depth to prevail, and it was an addictive and fun FPS for me at the time. I hated tearing it apart for doing exactly what I wanted to see, a middle tier fun shooter. But it really was mediocre in Graphics, sound, ok for core value, and terrible as a campaign or story driven experience. I loved challenging my gaming world from another perspective, but not when it meant removing my smile and doing some predetermined checklist full of things that never mattered to me, it began really feeling more out of character and honestly a bit deceitful to my audiences since I felt like an invisible contract was making me say everything sucked when I was having a blast with it. Likewise I've always hated the thought that my favorite games have people out there who rather than playing them are stopping to stare at NPCs and the grass to rate the textures.... kind of silly. The games are meant to be played and enjoyed, yet when you're stopping to question virtual plants and go on to blog about how it detracted from the experience, you've lost your way in the hobby you were supposed to be a part of.

I'm deducting points off this amazingly fun strategically chaotic MP shooter for this ugly chalk board

As done with Soldier of Fortune (link here) I've adopted a new format that I feel fixes all of this, and still even has a nice little convenient summary piece. It also frees my space up a bit so that I spend less time talking about average sound effects, and fancy particles, and more time about the experience that truly gripped me or what stumbled on the main game. All of that meat and depth that goes into the game gets revealed, and if anything extra is worth mentioning it'll still be there, and it will be talked about just as any normal player would notice. For example in the case of SoF it wasn't so much about the graphics themselves as much as it was about what they depicted in raw gore and bloody over the top violence. I didn't care that the characters were blocky, textures were muddy, or fog effects littered the screen. I went in knowing those would be there because it was old, and like any modern gamer it wouldn't stand out and surprise you. What would become a part of the experience is the detail of how much pain you delivered to the villains in one of the most gruesome shooters I've ever played. Likewise the story didn't matter because it was an over the top crazy shooter with just enough of a story to show its silly action movie and spy influences. There was nothing to talk about, so I barely did, and it wouldn't be a game that should be judged or played for that aspect so scroing it would have been completely missing the point. However if I kept my same old format I would feel forced to give you the run down on how dated it looked, compare to some title of its time, and I would have to give the story below average quality or go too easy on it and say it was cheesy enough to keep up with the gameplay. Either way those two aspects would have hurt the score though, or altered it in some strange warped way, yet neither of them was my concern in the gaming experience nor is it how I would really describe the game if you got my honest opinion as a gamer to another gamer. My new format makes me drop the scripted and calculated boring crap that nobody cares about, and to let out my honest experience while writing it in a deep and pseudo-professional manner. The funny thing to is that it was actually more convenient this was as well, even without a score. Its all because I spent less time writing about crap that didn't matter and you could read my review in shorter time while pulling away with the good and the bad sides of it more efficiently. I talk about the boring crap long enough to tell you its not a game about that, and then I go into what really matters like the inexcusable performance problems or the careless run and gun fun it highlights in gameplay. You can tell more out of the game based on that rather than some number or about how poor 10 year older graphics look.

Oh but what about the summary? Its still proper to leave a solid conclusion, right? Well its not a must but I agree that something should be done for a conclusion piece, but there's better solutions than grading scales. When it comes to summarizing, I made a model that stamps a general recommendation on it rather than some abstract scoring puzzle you have to solve, and I box it along with the shortest and most obvious joys and drawbacks leading to a challenge for myself to really grab the biggest traits of the game, and paste them into a form that I hope to warn away or welcome the right people to the game in question. Meanwhile I can still glamorize the summary like some do with the score screen, which was kind of fun for me to dabble into paint.net a bit and I managed to make it more personal with little decorated pictures or a colored theme that suits the status. I choose a dull faded color for ok because its a dull thing because games that get that score wont last long or warrant any special needs to go after. I think it also had a parrot because sometimes those games are only ok because they mock what they know, and I found the animal of a parrot suiting for that. I went with blue for awesome because its blue is a pleasant to look at color, and followed it up with a fox because... well as you can probably tell I think they match the term of Awesome. legendary was given its form because its bright and stands out, along side dragon motifs that symbolize something strange that wont fade from our culture or memories, even though its not quite real either.... much like an extraordinary game. Meanwhile the worst has a dark black on red color scheme that is supposed to let your know this is a bad kind of game to take up, and it goes in decorated with W40K heresy icon and skulls because... well its fucking heresy, simply put. I'm thinking of also adding in an additional rating that sort of hits in between awesome and ok because sometimes there is a game that doesn't deserve either, and instead hits a weird sort of "good but could have easily been better" that may make or break the deal for some people. For this I might add in a flawed fun category. Overall these do the service of providing information better, and I plan to follow each score card up with a commentary and summary of why it was chosen apart from the pros and cons marked within them.

Speaking of conclusions, that about wraps it up. I don't hate review scores, but I can't really stand behind them like I used to. I can see where they came from, and why people are a bit obsessed with reading into them, and I sometimes still enjoy reading some scores in addition to the page of text strung to them. If you're walking out of this article unconvinced that they're bad, then I can't blame you and I hope you continue to enjoy your score seeking. I am also sorry I probably wont be providing them anymore myself. However I think the long term benefits of a well written review truly giving a good insight into the game outweigh the short benefits of dismissing the game under some abstract label or grading scale. No you can't have both either as you might be thinking, as the thought of leading it up to a number taints the whole value of what you're going to be writing towards. I believe the effort and true focus of the written work that goes into a review stands on its own without the need of some strange score system. I've started to feel a strange respect towards Youtube reviewers that do this sort of thing without a score but instead just explain it, because they never feel like they had to summarize it with a floaty score that misses the point of everything they just worked towards. It is good to hear more out of the experience rather than some judge pannel, and I'm trying to turn my future reviews to reflect this more. In doing so it also deregulates things to a point where more open and loose or experimental games have just as much of an easy analysis as traditional gaming formats do, and there's no clutter or break in my system to accommodate it anymore. With all that being said I also hope to prove this with my future plans of a Ground Zeroes and Dark Souls 2 review, two perfect examples of games that would hurt to grade the standard old way... and I'm looking forward to telling you all about where they succeed and fail through better writing instead of pondering about what number to throw at it.

Ground zero tolerance

So I played Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes recently. Ok... wont be typing all that out for a name again. Anyways I should be ashamed shouldn't I? It was terrible. It was a crime to see such a principle take place. It was stupidly short, a cash grab, and a waste of my time and questions my intelligence as a fan as they managed to make me pay a fee for their high production demo. I was essentially getting a tutorial, even Kojima compared the experience to one. Kojima betrayed us. At least.... that's what half the internet wants me to tell myself, but truth is I loved it and I'm going back to play a little bit more of it and see if I can get all XOF patches.

Ok actually truth be told, I don't agree with this practice and I didn't fork out $30 for it. It was a rental in my eyes, and a blessing that I was able to do just so. However with that aside I can't help but ponder this hot topic, and question all sides to some extent. Why did it happen, was it worth releasing, are the fans really getting their value, and is it really deserving of this hate?

I don't know whether or not to call myself a real fan of Metal Gear Solid. I love the series, and I've sunk a ridiculous amount of hours into the 2nd and 3rd game that were a part of my early teenage years of gaming. How could I not? As I've said in the past I'm mostly a gamer that came to gaming under the love of interacting with a lot of the world, preferably through quite a good bit of complex options. MGS provides that and a fantastic cheesy psudo-military fantasy story full of stealth, tools, action, and just so many countless moments to goof around in and little trivial bits to play with. MGS3 probably deserves a small spot on a list of my favorite games of all time. Yet... I haven't came off with quite the same enthusiasm for all their games, and honestly I just seem to be huddled around the sandbox enjoyment of 2 and 3 while 4 was a nice one way type of experience, and 1 is..... nice to catch up on, but nothing more. I still have yet to go for Peacewalker beyond the PSP demo. I also just shrug off any wait to another game, so I don't feel that intense fan build up and hype, or really any enthusiasm at all surrounding the idea of the next game. So I'm not sure whether or not I'd call myself a fan.... either way though I was smiling and enjoying my time returning to the series, and although some changes are a bit bitter I'll take whatever the open world throws out over MGS4's condition.

In ground zeroes, I found myself goofing around a bit, enjoying the stealth, and finding a shocking amount of content for such a tiny spot to have it all in. It was a legit fun and Metal Gear sort of experience, despite changes and the weird condition of the game. I may have beat the main mission in just barely under 2 hours (3 according to my own time tracking. maybe progress was lost dying and restarting check points?), but I went to side tasks, went back again, re-did side tasks, went back again, and in between each mission I would sit around playing with the casset options in the menu which in itself has some content to keep you busy beyond the gaming itself. I was enjoying those missions quite a few times with all there was to do, play with, crazy stunts to check out, enemies to hold up, optional areas to break into, and then the length was extended by how time consuming being stealthy can be. Oh and speaking of action and stealth, I heard so many comparisons to other games like Far Cry, Crysis, Splinter Cell, basically everything except Dishonored. The game feels nothing like that, and save for Dishonored which is in its own league I'd say this gave me a unique sense of fulfillment in the genre that I remember growing up with from playing past MGS games. I really was enjoying this a lot more. Splinter cell by contrast felt less open and more about precision based shooting in between sneaking, while Thief is slow, strict, and light based, and Far Cry/Crysis is just about bare bones sneaking for a bonus treat dangling in front of you that altogether comes out as quite shallow (which is why they're known more as FPS and almost ignored as stealth based). Meanwhile Ground Zeroes felt like a crazy but cool uncle sort of archetype out of all these, where it was unpredictable and crazy as it was immersive and sneaky fun. Did I mention my progress tracker is still at 20% after all this enjoyment? Does it still sound like a demo to anyone?

They added vehicles to? WAHOOO!

I'd be fine if someone still wanted to try and pass it off that way (as a demo), because it is technically a demonstration of what is to come, and it really is more of a teaser than a serious entry in the series to be remembered. Its also a nice tech demo because of how awesome the FOX engine is (also an awesome name... just saying). Even on the PS3 I was stunned by how great the did with textures that really popped. I imagine Killzone Shadow Fall has a good competitor in graphics if this ends up being way greater on the PS4's hardware. However while demo accusations are a bit forgivable I'm kind of sick of people trying to sum up the value with their very first score screen's time track, because they fail to see the point. I wouldn't be surprised if they're the type of person to trade every game in the same week they buy it. Its just a sad argument that you couldn't intuitively enjoy this virtual world. Sit back, enjoy the game, fool around, see what it has to offer. Nobody is rushing you... well ok, if you bought it nobody is, I suppose I'm a bit rushed to get it back tomorrow myself though. Yet I still took my time! They didn't put all this stuff into the game just so you could skip to the credit screen blind folded, and then yell on the forums about where your stop watch landed it.

However it still is a good question about value in general. I still can't fault the game much, even though I can't agree with the practice either. Let me explain that a bit more... I don't like a full game to just slice off a piece and make it some exclusive episode for half the price of the "200 times bigger" full game. Its a lame move I don't want to see more of ever again. Imagine your favorite games ripping off the first hour and then trying to make up for it with tiny arcade bits for completionists that all add up to half the price of the rest of the game. Doesn't sound good, does it? That's what happened here. A series like MGS can get away with it a tiny bit because of the playful nature of the experience, but that's just scrapping up some kind of excuse... it really isn't all of a sudden "Ok" by any means. I feel kind of bad for the major fans that were ready to patiently await the true 5th game, only to see it get halted for a bit so they could make you a premium teaser that would have been better built into the game.

Yet when it comes to value, you can't always look at it just as a series, its also about how much it stands as just a good game for the value. That means is it fun and solid enough to invest a budget price game worth of value and time into? However the problem is much of this value gets tied to the length, which for as long as we've known this game it was screaming about how darn short it all was. To answer this a bit better, I have to refer back to what I said when it comes to prices and over entitlement, though more about the time we live in rather than the main message of that article. We have games like Torchlight 2 (100+ hour worthy masterful ARPG) in the same price range as a 4-5 maps within DLC. You can buy a legendary multiplayer FPS like Counter-strike for a bit less than Gone Home. Meanwhile we also have an amazing experiences like Metro: Last Light and Bioshock Infinite giving us less length and content for the same price as Call of Duty, yet it still stands by as an incredible game that outclassed Ghosts big time in reputation. Were they out of the range of value? Oh but wait, it gets worse! Zelda Windwaker HD and Monster Hunter Tri HD are $50 while just about every other HD piece released as a huge trilogy for much less than those cost, but we all love and praise and let Zelda get away with it. Then we have people paying for flash games and giving them high scores, while valve is giving us one of the best multiplayer shooters of all time for free. My point is this... if we keep looking at the world and market based solely on price to length ratio, our heads are going to spin until it all flies off with so much ill comparisons and inconsistencies running through our brains. I love a long lengthy game for my money's worth like anyone else does, but its time to drop the argument a bit and rely on another great factor of value instead: the question of how fun is it? Suddenly it all makes sense, and most of those above comparisons can be ignored as a "to each their own" state of mind. I think Ground Zeroes fits within that slot, because I've had loads of fun with my time in it. I consider myself very close to getting the will to buy it, and it beats out thief in my book as best stealth game in recent time. Meanwhile what would a more die hard fan think? I'm sure they already bought it, and are still grinning wide as they perfect their stealth runs, or test how long they can endure a shooting fest through the base. Honestly if people can find it valid to sell flash quality arcade games like Aqua Kitty or Jets n' Guns on steam with a well received audience, I don't see any crime in selling this short but sweat saboteur's heaven of a game that makes up the heart of Ground Zeroes.

Ground Zeroes is short... criminally so in terms of linear length. However it offers us a fun small slice of sandbox that was made to hold over die hard fans during their long wait for the new big installment. I don't agree with that and think Phantom Pain would have been better with this all in it for a better total experience, however that doesn't make it all that terrible... not in the slightest. It certainly suffered a bit from an underdeveloped story and arsenal, but the core gameplay and spirit of enjoying a good MGS game is clearly there and it all rocks. On the up side this premium teaser was also a good way to see how the new mechanics feel, and even though I'm not happy with all the changes I was able to have a blast and felt it was a step up from the supposedly perfect MGS4. I truly enjoyed this game and felt like it had more to it than I expected, and contrary to my mocking at the start I've heard some other positive voices on the internet saying the same. This is one of those cases where I actually find myself siding more with the publisher than the outcry, because the outcry has gotten quite embarrassing to look at lately and feels like they forgot the fun more so than the corporate. I stepped off of the campaign with a smile on my face only to turn to youtube and watched what was a nearly 30 minute "review" of someone just yelling about the clocked time they got, and calling it all out as a cash grab despite all the clear fun it gave. Sorry gamers, but a "cash grab" has no position to be as fun as this was. It was crafted with fun in mind, and just looking at the side missions is an obvious indicator that it had more heart than most $60 triple A titles will dare risk (seriously, look up those extras... or even the rescue side mission, its quite hilarious what kind of 4th wall breaking cheesy fun they threw in). Anger got the better of fun in a well crafted game, and all people could do was point to the freakin' clock... its just a pretty distasteful argument there, no matter how you try to spin that. It doesn't pass for a review either. Chill out, grab the controller, and enjoy the game while its here. Its not something I would have asked for, but its here and better than I imagined, all while keeping a smile on my face and reassuring fans that greatness is on the way.

Though I also want to repeat a quote... 200 times bigger, its coming eventually and will be here for a much better value in the name of MGS5: Phantom Pain. Be a smart consumer and don't just blindly dash towards this game because your too impatient. Rent it a bit, enjoy it, and then wait patiently for the real package. Even to a die hard fan I challenge you to wait... its going to be ok, you were waiting this whole time just fine, you can wait some more for "200 times" the value. Unless your just aboslutely starved for good gaming, that's my only recommendation. Yet we're surrounded by releases like the open world super power game of infamous second son, and just had Dark Souls 2 released and the work there wont be finished for quite some time. Of course there's TitanFall to if that's your kind of thing, though I think the value there might be more questionable... but as said above, if its fun enough... go for it. To choose MGS:GZ over them seems a bit insane, but I suppose if you're really certain on the fun you'll have then I've done all I can to persuade you otherwise. It was a very well made experience for something so short. It faintly reminds me of Into the Nexus,... except a little less developed, but I guess that's two totally different stories and styles we're talking about here. Into the Nexus was made more as its own thing to rather than a matter of teasing. Still bear in mind my vote for that short but sweat R&C game came near GOTY status, and I've already heard some people saying Ground Zeroes has been their favorite all year so far... so its possible. I think it holds a good chance of standing its ground as a $30 game, or even better considering its $20 digital. Just please... help yourself to a rental first just to be sure its worth it.