Geek Swagger.
Xbox 360
Holiday gaming rituals
Dec 16th
It's that time of year, and as we move towards the Christmas holiday my mind is always flooded with great games from Christmases past. It's a rather commercial outlook on things, but for any gamer it's hard not to remember some of the great games you've played in the years prior. For that reason I oftentimes find myself revisiting these games leading up to Christmas, and this year is no different. For the past couple weeks I've found myself playing the original Call of Duty, probably spurred on by the fact that I just finished the latest title in the franchise just before. From there I moved on to the cel-shaded shooter XIII, a game which wowed me back in 2003, and still holds up quite well 5 years later.
It's an odd habit, I suppose. For whatever reason I get in certain moods for certain games throughout the year...a sort of "jonesing" if you will. Sometimes the urge to play a game will pay dividends (with Call of Duty and XIII, for example) while other times I'll revisit a game and wonder what I was thinking. I just think it's fun to replay games that tend to get thrown by the wayside so quickly these days by checking out my back catalog. Last year for example, I played through Thief 3: Deadly Shadows for the first time since 2004. The game was great, and it's an excellent way to kill spare time while on break from school and work.
I suppose the only question is will my stint into the archives continue? Probably. So do you have any holiday rituals? Something that makes you perk up this time of year as you relive a tradition? The 1UP Yours podcast has done a segment where gamers send in their own past holiday stories, and I can definitely relate to a lot of them. As a child there was nothing like the anticipation leading up to the big day, and although some of that magic has faded over the years it's always fun to reminisce. Leave a comment and share a story! It doesn't have to do with video games, and can be about absolutely anything.
After all, despite my passion for gaming a lot of my favorite memories involve just having fun with the family. Although this is a little early, I just want to wish any and all readers happy holidays and a merry Christmas!
Now Playing:
Call of Duty : World at War Review
Dec 4th
The hits just keep on coming. This should be my last game review for a while since, for the most part, I'm caught up with my backlog. Call of Duty : World at War has a lot riding on it. It's the most anticipated and most promising of Treyarch's contributions to the Call of Duty franchise, and to be honest I have to say that it truly pays off. With that said I've been a big fan of all of the Treyarch-developed Call of Duty games that I've played (I missed 1 or 2 of their original Xbox-era games) and I think that they get an extremely negative rap from a lot of people who don't even take the time to play the games they negatively critique.
With World at War the Call of Duty franchise takes its first steps into the Pacific theater of World War 2. This is something I've been wanting to see for years because it has never been done right, until now. The game definitely delivers on the more grimy and ugly part of war, rather than the glory of victory associated with the war in Europe. This "scary side of war" allows for a lot of unique elements to be added to the gameplay beyond storytelling - things like Japanese banzai charges, new cover mechanics for enemies (soldiers hiding in deep brush, or snipers waiting to pick you off from the top of a tree). There's also new weapons to play with, including the flamethrower which is always a crowd-favorite whether you're playing multiplayer or through the singleplayer campaign. The best thing about fighting in battles from the Pacific theater though, is just the amazing change of pace visually. Going from demolished European cities to dense and lush jungle environments is a welcome breath of fresh air.
The game includes everything you'd want from a Call of Duty game. Epic battles that make your speakers thump and your heart race? Check. Realistic locales, weapons and vehicles? Check. Nerve-wracking defense missions forcing you to fight to the last man as you pray for backup? Check. It almost sounds derivative at this point but it's what I love about the series. If you have any interest in World War 2 and the battles that took place all those years ago you should look no further, this is your game. The story plays out on two fronts - first the Pacific theater, where you play Pvt. Miller of the Marine Raiders. You go from being rescued on Makin Island to the Battle of Okinawa until you and your squad are left without ammo, aid, or any form of reinforcement as you're pushed towards the breaking point. The second part of the game (not the second half, since you play through these two phases round-robin style) takes place in Russia and Germany. You play Pvt. Dimitri Petrenko of the Red Army as you and your comrades help to drive the German army back to Berlin.
There has been a lot of fuss about this second portion of the game. A lot of people were upset when they heard that there would, indeed, be some action from the European theater. I don't mind it a bit. Because the Pacific theater levels are so gritty and tense I think it's important to switch the levels up a bit, and that's exactly what the European levels do. They're both linked in that they tell a similar story (in both cases you're a soldier that has been rescued by your comrades) and it varies things just enough that you won't get burned out from one environment or the other. The European side of the story also approaches the campaign much differently than we've seen in previous Call of Duty games, so it's not as if old content has been rehashed.
The game runs great obviously. That's one of the most astonishing things about the Call of Duty franchise - the games always run at 60 frames per second and still have beautiful environments and textures. The explosions and gunfire interact with the environment very nicely, creating some of the best particle effects I've seen in a game. The Call of Duty control style is also the optimal way of playing a first person shooter with a controller. Basically, they've nailed all of the important stuff, and the game feels, looks and sounds great. All-in-all it took me about 8 hours to complete the single player campaign by myself, but I always like to go back through and play on Veteran (the hardest difficulty) so you can double that...not to mention the fact that you can play through with a friend, but I'll get to that next.
So, multiplayer. In my opinion the Treyarch CoD games have always had better multiplayer components. After Call of Duty 4 came out I was a little concerned though, because CoD4's multiplayer, with its leveling system similar to a roleplaying game, was extremely addicting. Treyarch was able to deliver this same experience with all new maps and perks, not to mention weapons and even vehicles. They didn't stop there though, they even added a couple bonuses into the mix. First, World at War finally brings co-op to Call of Duty. You can play through the entire singleplayer campaign (minus a couple brief levels which were meant to be played with one player only) with up to 3 other buddies. It works great and in my experience there's absolutely no problems with lag. They've also introduced a new multiplayer gametype altogether in the form of "Zombie Nazi" mode.
Zombie Nazi mode is unlocked when you beat the game, and once you unlock it you get to play not only by yourself but with friends as well. It's a pretty basic premise, and one that's completely contrary to the rest of the game. You're locked in a house, zombie nazis are trying to break in, you want to keep them out. There's only the one level but it's really fun to play, and the game is structured in successive rounds, with each round bringing more and more zombies for you to fight off. Much like Left 4 Dead, it's a blast. That's all I really wanted to say about World at War's multiplayer because I've already written a post about it:
http://davekemick.com/blog/call-of-duty-world-at-war-preview/
The game isn't perfect. The story is kind of...well, worthless as harsh as that sounds. It seems like the past few CoD games have tried to shoe-horn in a story. I find this kind of unnecessary when it comes to World War 2 because the whole conflict in and of itself was a story. I just like replaying and "reliving" the battles that went on, nevermind some attachment I'm supposed to have to the in-game characters above and beyond what I did already. The story is serviceable, but not necessary and certainly not perfect. My other gripe about the game is that the AI is dumb sometimes. Every now and then you'll see a Japanese or German soldier just standing and looking at you, not firing his weapon or anything, just watching. Sometimes you can sneak right by a soldier and they don't even really pay any attention to you - then all of the sudden you're getting bonzai'd with a bayonet from behind. Honestly though, a lot of the times the AI was acting dumb I was kind of happy about it. They call the difficulty "Hardened" for a reason. It's hard. I'm sure I'll be even more thankful on veteran.
Another problem is that good guys sometimes look like bad guys, and it's hard to differentiate between the two. This could be chalked up to the whole fog of war thing, but it can also be frustrating. One nice thing is that, unlike previous games in the series the penalty for killing teammates doesn't seem to be as harsh. A lot of the time in Call of Duty 4 I'd accidentally shoot one of my AI partners in the heat of battle and the level would end, prompting me to restart from a checkpoint because Infinity Ward despises traitors. That didn't happen to me a single time during my play-through of World at War, and I know for a fact that I took out a couple of my teammates...always by accident, I swear.
So all in all this is a great addition to the franchise. Is it better than Call of Duty 4? I'd say yes, but I'm a sucker for a good WW2 shooter. CoD4's singleplayer campaign might have been a bit better but considering the entire package there's no question in my mind. World at War basically takes everything CoD4 did, turns back the dial 60 years, adds some sprinkles on top and serves up a nice hot dish of FPS soul food. There's no question that the multiplayer portion of the game, both competitive and cooperative, is the best of any game this season. Gears of War 2 is fun and all but it just doesn't have the hook that keeps me coming back to it everynight like World at War has. The leveling system, the perks, the unlockables...not to mention 4 player co-op and nazi zombie slaying. It's the perfect package.
Plus the news only gets better! An article went up on Kotaku today reporting that Treyarch is already working on downloadable content for World at War. It seems that there's a possibility that they'll be "bucking the tradition" of just releasing new multiplayer maps. Perhaps we'll see some more zombie scenarios? Or something entirely different? Only time will tell.Â
So please do yourself a favor and at least try Call of Duty : World at War before you buy into the hype that Treyarch is "teh sux0rz." At least play the game for yourself (rentals are cheap these days) before you judge it...chances are good that you'll get some fun out of the deal. =)
Now Playing:
LittleBigPlanet and the holiday rush
Dec 2nd
There's been a lot made of LittleBigPlanet's sales numbers lately. LBP was supposed to be a huge release for the PS3, the trademark hit of the season that would not only sell a lot of PS3s but also further Sony's gaming brand. Leading up to the launch of LBP the marketing blitz (beginning at E3) hinted at the potential for Sackboy, LBP's main character, to take the helm as the PS3's system mascot. Now the November NPD sales numbers have been released and it seems that sales are rather dismal. LBP was outperformed by SOCOM: Confrontation on the PS3, slipping out of the top 10 completely with only around 200k units sold. So...what happened?
A few things. First the ones that aren't as noticeable. I think that LittleBigPlanet should have been released a month or two earlier. Obviously nothing can be done about a development cycle, and it's optimal for a developer to hold onto their product until it's absolutely ready to go out to the public, but around the game's release date it seemed a lot of the hype died down really fast. In August and September there was a ton of buzz because the media had their hands on the beta and the game was showing a ton of potential. In the weeks leading up to October 27th (LBP's North American release date) there seemed to be a decent amount of buzz from gamers. Then a week after the game came out, poof, the buzz died.
There has been some claims that this happened because the online service backing LittleBigPlanet didn't work straight out of the gate. As with most popular game launches there was a huge amount of stress on the game's servers, and with LBP the case was doubled as a lot of the online functionality has to do with uploading user-created content so other users can then download and try out what you make. Another possible reason for the slow sales could be that people got distracted. I know this happened to me despite having purchased the game. When I got LBP I played it for about a week, and then Fallout 3 came out. Because Fallout 3 was a mastodon of a game including hours and hours of story-based campaign gameplay, I put LBP on the back burner assuming I'd come back to it when I had time. I justified this move at the time because there really isn't a story holding LBP together, and it's the perfect game to pop in and play every now and then without having to dedicate large amounts of time to it in succession to get through. Perhaps people wanted to pass up on LBP so they could get through the more traditional campaign-based games first? If that's the case then we're facing a dilemma.
The question is, why are there still so many damn games released from October to December every year? Obviously the holiday rush is important, but I think the number of games coming out quickly reaches a saturation point, especially considering the crappy economic situation we're in. There have been around 10 purchase-worthy games released between October and December of this year:
- LittleBigPlanet
- Fallout 3
- Gears of War 2
- Call of Duty: World at War
- Mirror's Edge
- Resistance 2
- Far Cry 2
- Prince of Persia
- World at Warcraft : Wrath of the Liche King
- Left 4 Dead
That's over $600 worth of games alone, and I'm leaving out biggies like Guitar Hero World Tour, Wii Music, portable games (PSP or DS), and some others I'm sure. A lot of people don't have $600 to spend paying bills let alone buying games, so gamers have to pick and choose. If however, game studios and developers finally realized that gamers don't just play games during the last quarter of the year, but year-round, this problem could be easily remedied. For instance had LittleBigPlanet come out next March I'm positive it would have sold much better. In March chances are good that there won't be nearly as many games to play because that's typically the beginning of the Spring to Summer drought. Because of this people would be more willing to jump into a game that has a ton of content considering the ability to create, share and play content in LBP. When you're 1 of 3 big games coming out you're going to sell more than when you're 1 of 15.
There is hope, however. We have seen some big games slip to different times of the year - Bioshock comes to mind most memorably. There's hope for LBP too. What I think will happen is that a lot of late adopters will end up picking LBP up through the middle of next year when they don't have much to play and when they're ready and willing to spend time creating and downloading levels. By that time I'm sure a lot of the online issues will have been resolved as well. Anyways, sorry for the extremely long post. This is just something I kind of wanted to get off my chest. Let me also say before wrapping it up that LittleBigPlanet is an awesome game despite the disappointing sales so far. It's a game that I can't wait to jump back into when I make it through some of the more linear games I'm working on right now. If you own a PS3 you should definitely give it a shot.
Now Playing:
Young Dubliners - McAlpine's Fusiliers
Left 4 Dead Review
Nov 27th
One thing before I get started, if you're reading this and you live in the US - HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Alright, let's keep it rolling. I have yet another game to talk about today, this time it's Valve's Left 4 Dead. Now, I first have to issue a bit of fair warning. For the most part I tend to condemn the behavior associated with "fanboys" of any kind - that is people whose loyalty to a game, developer, console, or company stays devout despite any wavering in said institution's quality of product. That being said, if there was any one developer that I could be labeled as a "fanboy" for it would probably be Valve. Since Valve came about I've liked literally every game they've made. I maintain that this is just a fact that they work really hard on their games and never let anything hit the market until it's perfect, not to mention the fact that they tend to weave great stories into their games and, because they're an independent developer, they have no fear of trying something different (the immensely successful Portal comes to mind). The same could be said of Left 4 Dead.
As a testament to Valve's openness to great yet unproven ideas, Left 4 Dead actually started as a mod based on Valve's Source engine, but after seeing the great work the original team (Turtle Rock) was doing Valve picked the game up. If you don't know what Left 4 Dead is, it's basically every zombie movie fan's dream in video game form: four survivors are caught in the middle of the zombie apocalypse and are forced to rely on themselves and each other to make it through with their lives intact. As a result of this simple concept the game is heavily based on 4-player co-op which is a total blast. Honestly if you plan on getting this game but you're not an online player I would have to say you're missing out. The whole point of Left 4 Dead is to play with some buddies.
The game is broken up into 4 chapters, each of which takes place in an entirely different locale. The four chapters hold up on their own as individual "movies," which further shows Turtle Rock and Valve's commitment to tipping their caps to John Romero's work as well as more recent films like 28 Days / Weeks Later. They've gone so far to nail the movie vibe that upon completion, each act of the game presents you with credits which, rather than displaying actor information, gives you stats from that round of play. Each movie is split up into 5 smaller chunks, and gameplay in these mini-levels is all about getting from one safe room through a pack of zombies to another safe room, with the inevitable hope for escape. As I said the levels vary quite a bit, whether you're playing chapter one (titled No Mercy) wherein you're trying to escape by chopper from Mercy Hospital, or my personal favorite chapter 4 where-in you're attempting to be rescued by the army from a zombie-ridden Allegheny National Forest. I have to say when I started chapter 4 and saw a sign for Allegheny Nation Forest I had to give the game 10 bonus points, just because that's practically my back yard. 
 The point is the locales are varied enough that the environment never gets stale.
Graphically the game is pretty impressive. The Source engine continues to amaze me, particularly the fact that despite its age it can still produce excellent-looking games via Valve's revisions and improvements over time. Left 4 Dead almost has a cel-shaded look at times, and a brutally realistic look at others. You'll go from looking at one of the game's characters and think "jeez, this is one or two passes away from being a new class in Team Fortress 2" to being attacked by a gruesome and disgusting zombie and thinking you're watching a horror movie. All around the environment and look of the game have been executed with precision.
The enemies, surprise surprise, are zombies. This is a potential fault of the game because, despite the fact that killing zombies is fun, once you've killed 1,000 of them you might get a little fatigued. Thankfully this potential problem is remedied by a repertoire of super zombies, each having their own abilities making them much more intimidating than your standard infected. Whether you're running away from a massive tank zombie, quietly sneaking around a witch zombie, or getting lassoed by a smoker zombie's tongue you'll always have a reason to keep on your heels. Obviously this helps to create a great feeling of tension as you make your way through the game. The coolest part of the game is the "director AI" which changes each level everytime you play it. Basically the director AI chooses when to let loose a super zombie on you, when to unleash a zombie horde on you, and when and where you get extra weapons and ammo. Because a level is different everytime there's a load of replay value, which is good because all said the 4 chapters can be beaten pretty quickly.
That's where I get to some of the negatives of the game. The chapters are short. If you move slow through a chapter it might take you as long as an hour, but if you really step it up you can make it through a chapter in a little over 20 minutes on an easy difficulty setting. So what that means is that the entirety of the game's campaign can be as short as 2 - 4 hours. Obviously that's kind of disheartening. Still, the director AI gives plenty of incentive to play through the game multiple times (as I have) without getting tired. There's also a competitive multiplayer campaign where you can play as one of the zombies and try to thwart other human survivors. That being said, for a $60 release I would have liked to see another chapter or two. I'm assuming that the idea is to release new chapters as downloadable content down the road, and once that starts to happen I'll be a lot more satisfied about the game's length.
Another complaint I've heard is that you can't zoom, or use iron sights with the weapons. Personally I think this is a meaningless complaint for a few reasons. First, there hasn't been a single Valve game using the Source engine that I can think of that has used a zoom feature where it wasn't absolutely needed (i.e. for sniper rifles, or guns with scopes). Second, I'd say 90% of the combat in Left 4 Dead takes place from within 5 feet of the character. You generally find yourself surprised or in the middle of a horde of enemy at such a close range that there's really no reason to have iron sights. Lastly, the one gun that actually makes sense to have iron sights/zoom, the hunting rifle, does.
All-in-all I have to say Left 4 Dead is my "unique" game of the year. You haven't played a game like this yet. Sure some people might point to Dead Rising and say that they're basically the same type of games, but aside from the fact that they both have zombies in them, they aren't. L4D is a purely cooperative experience that must be played with friends, and will give you a ton of memorable moments to remember as you play. Don't believe me? Just watch this short video that's been circulating the internet, it's pretty funny and completely representative of a good round of Left 4 Dead (NSFW, there's a few well-deserved F-bombs thrown):
So if you're looking for something a little different this year, something that's pretty unique and extremely fun, give Left 4 Dead a shot. If you're still not sold and concerned about the length of the game you could always wait a few months and pick it up when the price drops a bit.
Now Playing:
Gears of War 2 Review
Nov 25th
Okay so we're making some progress on the deluge of games coming out lately! Last week I did my review of Fallout 3, and today I'm going to talk to you about Gears of War 2. It goes without saying that Gears 2 is one of the most popular titles that has come out this year, and it's certainly a goliath when it comes to Xbox 360 exclusive titles. The Gears of War franchise is fast approaching and overtaking the Halo franchise's position as Xbox system-seller, and for good reason in my opinion.
Gears 2 was one of those games that just is. What I mean by that is it's an immensely popular game that you know you're going to buy if you're a gamer with a 360. It's like how football fans regard the superbowl. Sure your team might not be playing but chances are you're going to watch regardless. In that way I wasn't really excited for Gears 2. I knew it was coming, I knew I was going to play it because I had it preordered, but I was more interested in titles like Left 4 Dead and Call of Duty : World at War - games that were shaping up to be great but didn't exactly have the "blockbuster" tagline that we've come to associate with Gears of War. It may be because of my hands-off approach, but I have to say I'm splendidly surprised by Gears.
The biggest critique you may have heard about the original Gears of War was that it was a bit repetitive, and not just from a gameplay aspect. Not only was a lot of the combat the same throughout the game, but the environments were near identical. That's right, the good old gray and brown palette that had become associated with so many Unreal Engine 3 games from the early bit of the engine's lifespan also plagued the first Gears of War. I'm happy to say that Gears of War 2 is completely different in this regard. Barring the first act of the game which plays out in areas that are similar to the first, the game's environments are of a much larger range representing many different colors from red fire to blue snow, and even a bit of green forest thrown in for good measure.
Epic didn't skimp on varied gameplay, either. You'll find yourself in a lot of different scenarios, most involving riding in huge vehicles or...well, on mythical beasts. The point is you won't get tired of the same old 'take cover, shoot locust' gameplay over and over. The game features some huge setpieces and as implausible as they are they're damn fun levels to play. I think what surprised me the most about the game was how long it was, and especially the fact that they kept the gameplay varied and interesting enough that it didn't get old. There are a couple boss battles that put those from Gears 1 to shame, a competent storyline, a few new characters and of course the old standbys. Epic has also added much more fun-to-play boss fights for the most part. All told it took me at least 8 hours to complete which is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you're playing through with a co-op partner who has already beaten the game rather than playing alone and having to figure things out as you go.
On to multiplayer. As I just mentioned 2-player co-op is back, and that's definitely the way to play through the game. There's nothing better than playing together with a buddy, and just like Gears 1 there are plenty of scenarios baked into the game with cooperative play in mind. After that you have the more traditional competitive deathmatch-style multiplayer, which I have to be honest I haven't exactly played much of. I find that if I'm looking for a competitive multiplayer experience I tend to put in Call of Duty : World at War rather than Gears 2. I have no doubt that the competitive multi is fun unless they've departed greatly from the first game which I played a ton of, but I find World at War to be exceptional. Last but not least (and this is all-new for Gears 2) you get a 4-player cooperative "horde" mode, in which you and 3 of your friends can fight off up to 50 waves of enemies that are progressively more and more difficult. It isn't cooperative play in the most traditional sense, that is to say it's not story-related and the horde mode has nothing to do with the Gears 2 campaign, but it's surprisingly fun nonetheless. I was able to make it through all 50 rounds and that alone took around 5 hours to do.
So what can I say really? Gears of War 2 is the cheesey action movie game of this holiday season. The story and dialog are laughable a lot of the time, but the gameplay is fun enough to keep you coming back for more. Also the game is damn pretty, and that never hurts. Is it game of the year? Not mine. Is it a game you should own if you have an Xbox 360? Of course.
Now Playing:
The New Xbox Experience
Nov 20th
This morning (yesterday morning, by the time you're reading this) I awoke and one of the first things I did was turn on my Xbox 360 to grab the latest software update from Microsoft. This update at last brings the New Xbox Experience (NXE) to Xbox 360 consoles the world over, giving the platform a refreshing and perhaps much-needed new look. Of course software plays into Microsoft's hand quite handily, so they've been able to essentially give us an entirely new console experience without giving us a new console at all. So, how does it work?
Well the first thing that happened after I installed the NXE update was I was prompted to create an avatar. This is a feature that's becoming more and more popular these days on gaming consoles, and I've blogged about it before. Basically your avatar is a cartoony representation of yourself. You get to pick your body type, skin color, facial features, what kind of hairstyle you'd like and so on so that your friends can see and interact with you online. The hope down the road is that more games will integrate NXE avatars into the gameplay by pulling in a gamer's avatar rather than relying on their gamertag or gamerpic for identification. There are two games right now that do just that - firstly is the new title called Kingdom of Keflings, a sort of RTS in-which a giant version of your avatar manages and builds infrastructure. I haven't played this game but one of my friends assures me it's fun. Secondly is the old standby Xbox Live Arcade classic Uno. Uno however just lets you project your avatar's likeness into the game for identification without adding any true gameplay value (after all, what can you add to Uno?).
The new guide system is really pretty, if a initially somewhat confusing. Everything is much more graphically designed, and artwork has been placed where once there were only lists of text. There are also many more "blades" on the new dashboard, including sections such as My Xbox for all of your personal info, the Friends section to see and interact with your friends' avatars, Video and Game Marketplaces, and the Events sections just to name a few. Basically it's a lot of content that was already on Xbox Live, but now it has been organized in a much prettier and easier-to-interact with way.
Another of NXE's cool features is the new party system. You've always been able to get in parties when you're playing a game, but this functionality has been applied to the dashboard experience as well. Basically parties let you get a group of your friends in one voice chat instance, and then the party leader can move everyone in the party from one activity to the next. I tried playing around with the party system a bit today and I have to say it works pretty well once you figure it out. From the dashboard I was able to get together with a couple of my friends on Xbox Live, and then from there we moved into a few games seemlessly without having to worry about sending or re-sending invites. The parties also finally add private voice chat for more than 2 players, which is a huge feature that I've been waiting for since voice chat was first revealed.
With NXE you can now control a lot of your Xbox 360 from the guide as well, not just the home screen dashboard. If you're playing a game or watching a movie and you don't want to exit, you can do pretty much anything you'd want to do aside from playing with system settings from the guide. The new guide lets you form parties, listen to music, play whatever is in the disc tray, send messages and view game information. Top it off with the same fit and finish as you'll find in the rest of the NXE and you have a winning piece of functional software.
The last feature I want to talk about is Netflix integration. Netflix has moved into the video streaming space, and more and more players are starting to take advantage of that. The most popular Netflix set-top box is the Roku which costs $99, but if you take into account the Apple TV these gadgets can cost as much as $300. In the Apple TV's case you even have to do some firmware updates just to get the thing to work with Netflix. Netflix on the Xbox 360 with NXE is extremely simple. So simple and convenient that I had to fire up my Netflix subscription again just to take advantage of it.
With the launch of NXE, Microsoft has also unveiled their Netflix "Watch Instantly" application which - you guessed it - lets you watch streaming Netflix content. The application is only about 3 megabytes and installs in seconds, and once you get everything setup you're presented with all of the Watch Instantly Netflix titles that are on your queue. That means you get to watch HD content on your TV instead of from behind your computer. The quality is typical streaming quality, that is to say it's not the best, but I never ran into any buffering hiccups and the interface is easy to use and very slick. My only gripe about the whole thing is that originally you were supposed to have the ability to bring parties in to watch Netflix movies. Unfortunately that feature didn't make it into the initial release of the NXE, but hopefully they'll hit us with a patch down the road which takes care of that.
Overall for a free update you can't really go wrong with the NXE. It brings the Xbox 360 out of the playskool bright-primary-colors era of 2005 and gives us something much easier on the eyes. It also adds a lot of functionality, some of which is shallow and aesthetic but there are also plenty of features that make you wonder how you ever lived without them. Bravo Microsoft. I also have to give them a tip of the cap for having a relatively painless upgrade process. For me I never experienced any network issues or errors, everything worked as it should. That's a huge contrast with Sony's recent Playstation updates which have been pretty hit-or-miss, and have needed patches a lot of the time.
Now Playing:
, ,
Fallout 3 Review
Nov 18th
Before I start into the actual post, let me first apologize for completely slacking last week. I didn't put up either of my usual 2-a-week text posts, or my video post on the weekend. Honestly I don't know what happened. Monday night (when I usually write Tuesday's post) I was busy, same thing on Wednesday night when I write Thursday's post, etc. etc. Like those excuses? Anyways, it seems like there's been a drought when it comes to tech news lately, unless you consider layoffs as news, so I might start focusing on the gaming scene a little more. After all, there's a ton of games to talk about. There's been a blockbuster title every week for the past month, so I figured I'd do some quick-fire reviews of some of them. As always, no spoilers.
I'm going to start with Fallout 3. Fallout 3 was a game that I was a little concerned about when going into it. I remember even remarking to a friend that it had the biggest potential to be the "letdown of the season" - it seemed like there was a hell of a lot of hype devoted to it and, for whatever reason, I couldn't justify it. The hype must have worked though because when I was in GameStop preordering my holiday games it slipped out of my mouth despite not really intending to play it. It definitely wasn't on my must-play list. Thta being said, and this may be because I had somewhat low expectations, Fallout 3 turned into my surprise game of the year. Keep in mind that when I say that I literally mean the game that has surprised the most, not necessarily the best game of the year.
My main concern about Fallout 3 was the combat system. To me, the V.A.T.S. system seemed really gimmicky, and although it was labeled as an additional feature I was concerned about it being required rather than optional to use. As it turns out, V.A.T.S. (Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System) is really cool. If you haven't played Fallout 3 yet, I'll run it down for you. Basically it's a targeting system which lets you freeze the game, pick the points on the enemy you wish to attack (each is labeled with a percentage, this is your chance of hitting whatever body part) and then you effectively play again and you watch your character shoot at the enemy in the places you chose. It's surprisingly hard to describe despite the system's simplicity, but needless to say it's pretty fun to use.
I started out very hesitant to use V.A.T.S., but eventually I solely relied upon it to take down the enemies. Still, even though it's cool, I can't help but think that it's a band-aid on a larger issue. Fallout 3's engine (the same as The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion) isn't really built for ranged combat. Even in Oblivion I had some issues using a bow instead of the standard sword and shield setup. The same thing carries over into Fallout 3, but because the game is almost implicitly centered around gunplay the problem is much more accentuated. For that reason I can't help but think that Bethesda put int V.A.T.S. not as a cool feature, but as a fix for the problematic in-engine combat.
As expected the game world is fantastic. It's the closest experience from an atmospheric standpoint to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. that I've ever had. It's not quite as good as S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but it's damn and given the game's size that's a huge accomplishment. Without going into too much detail the game takes place in Washington D.C. after it has been decimated by a nuclear war. Some time has past since the bombs fell, and the world is appropriately desolate and devastated. Along with that the story is very good, which is essential. A lot of people has criticized the game's ending but, given the wealth of side quests available, I appreciated the story being concise and somewhat short. I played all but one of the quests (including side-quests) and it took me over 80 hours to complete this game, so if you're concerned about the length of the game you shouldn't be.
So overall, without having played Gears of War 2 or Call of Duty: World at War to completion, I can say that Fallout 3 is one of my games of the year. It's almost a shame that it came out during the busiest time of the year because I would have loved to devoted more time to exploring the world of Fallout 3. I have to highly recommend this game. Go pick it up!
Now Playing:
,
Gears of War 2 Limited Edition Unboxing
Nov 8th
I switched it up a bit this week and decided to do an unboxing rather than a screencast for a couple reasons. First and foremost is the fact that I couldn't think of anything else to talk about, and second I figured it would be a good way to switch up the content. When I originally started doing videos I didn't plan for them all to be Mac-related screencasts, that just happened to be how it turned out. As always thanks for watching!
Call of Duty: World at War preview
Oct 28th
So I've been playing two betas a bit lately, and I figured since I don't have anything else to talk about I'd go ahead and devote my two posts this week to doing previews. Today's game is, as you may have guessed, Call of Duty: World at War. I got into the CoD5 beta by preordering the game at GameStop (so if you're interested I suggest you go do the same) and have had enough time to put a couple hours into the game so I figured I'd just share my thoughts. The beta is competitive multiplayer only.
First let me say that Call of Duty 4's multiplayer portion of the game was awesome. It introduced quasi-RPG elements which allowed you to earn levels, skills and guns as you played. If you liked CoD4's multi then you'll love CoD5's. It's basically the same system, with the main difference being that the game takes place in World War II. Obviously that means you'll be playing in different environments with different weapons and different skills. I was a little concerned about that since it's a devolution in technology, and so after having used modern weapons I was afraid that the older weapons would feel out of place. Fortunately that's not the case. The game feels great and the perks work really well.
As far as perks go (perks are skills you unlock as you play) there is a lot of old favorites and some new ones as well. From what I remember, some of the older perks include:
- Martyrdom (drop a grenade on death)
- Deep Impact (higher bullet damage)
- Juggernaut (take more damage without dying)
- Last Stand (before dying you get to pull your pistol to try and get a kill)
- Sonic Boom (higher explosives damage)
The newer ones I've been most anticipating are:
- Toss Back (resets grenade fuse so you can throw grenades back at the enemy that's thrown it)
- Second Chance (lets you revive downed comrades)
- Shades (decreases intensity of signal flares)
- Reconnaissance (reveals artillery and tank locations on the map)
There's also a whole new list of vehicle perks, which applies to another new feature of the Call of Duty 5 multiplayer - vehicles. In the beta there's only one map which features vehicles, but I was really interested/concerned to try them out. The problem with vehicles is game balance. If you have a ton of vehicles the whole game becomes a Twisted Metal spin-off with players driving around all over the place causing havoc and ultimately detracting from the infantry experience. From the one map that has maps in the beta I'm really happy with the limited amount of vehicles they've placed. The map is called RoundHouse and is basically an old destroyed train yard. On the map there are only two vehicles, one tank for each team (this is for the Team Deathmatch and War gametypes, it may vary otherwise). Have just one tank per team is great for a couple reasons.
First, it makes the tanks menacing. If there's 10 tanks and everyone has a tank you aren't really concerned about crossing paths with one. However when the other team is dominating with their tank but yours has been destroyed, you're much more cautious. Sure there's a perk to carry a bazooka, but you only get 2 shots and unless you hit the tank from behind you won't destroy it. Another cool thing about single tanks is that because it's so menacing it's a great distraction. I can see strategies being developed where one or two people hop into a tank and then the rest of your team flanks the enemy while they're distracted. I've tried a similar strategy on my own and it has worked quite well, so that adds value to having vehicles. Rather than just being another way to get around the map and kill opponents it can be worked in tactically. Great stuff.
The other two maps are Castle (a Japanese village) and Makin (a seaside village at night). All three are original maps which is good to see, since I remember playing Call of Duty 2 and 3 and being a little unhappy that they had maps from the original Call of Duty in them. That's not to say that I wouldn't like to see updated versions of those maps (Carentan was a favorite) but it's always good to have new ones. There is some bugginess still though, particularly on RoundHouse where I've run into some people who are able to glitch their way under the map and kill everyone without being vulnerable. Hopefully that will be patched but this is a beta so I can't critique it too harshly.
Another weird thing about the game is how weapons are earned. In Call of Duty 4 you started with an M16 and worked your way up from there. In Call of Duty 5 (this is the primary rifle/assault class) you start with an SVT-40 which is a Russian weapon. From there you get a Gewehr 43 which is a German weapon. Maybe the problem is that I know too much about World War II-era weaponry, but it just feels weird playing as an American soldier using a traditionally German weapon. By the same turn it's weird playing as a Japanese soldier and using an American Thompson sub-machine gun.  I guess the same argument sort of applied to CoD4 but since it was all modern weaponry I guess it was easier to justify that anyone could be using any weapon. Dunno. It's a weird and very nitpicky problem and doesn't really matter much, it's just something I noticed.
Despite having spent a decent amount of time with this beta there's still more multiplayer scenarios for Call of Duty 5 that I'm looking forward to. First, CoD5 will be the first time that co-op play is introduced to the Call of Duty universe. You'll be able to play through the entire campaign with your buddies. That's obviously very appealing. Second, and this is a much more recent development, Treyarch has revealed a cool new cooperative zombie mode which looks to be a lot of fun. It takes cues from Left 4 Dead, one of my most anticipated games this year, and applies them to World War II. Like I always say, the only thing worse than a nazi is a zombie nazi:
'Nuff said. CoD5 is shaping up to be a multiplayer powerhouse. Add to that the undoubtedly stellar singleplayer campaign and I think the game might end up being a "sleeper" best-seller this holiday season. Gears of War 2? Fallout 3? It's entirely possible that they won't hold a candle to CoD5.
Now Playing:
Valve’s Source engine
Oct 7th
I recently received the Orange Box from Gamefly because I was interested in playing through the Half-Life 2 games again, plus I hadn't ever played the console variants so I was curious as to how the game would feel when playing with a controller. Turns out the game controls fine and after an hour or so it feels pretty natural. What has really struck me after playing through first Half-Life 2 and Half-Life 2: Episode One (I'm working through Episode 2 right now) was how well the Source engine has held up 4 years after Half-Life 2 came out.
When Half-Life 2 came out in 2004 it was right on the heals of the much-anticipated Halo 2. I also played Halo 2 recently, the Games for Windows Live version, and one thing that was clear about that was how bad it looked. Half-Life 2 is a completely different story. The Source engine (and thus Half-Life 2) still looks great. Not only that but there's a marked improvement in the graphics when going from Half-Life 2 to Half-Life 2: Episode One, and then another improvement from Episode One to Episode Two.
The reason this struck me was that I've been realizing how short-lived a lot of game engines are these days. I remember when id's Doom 3 came out (also in 2004) the game was heralded for being amazing-looking. The game's engine (Tech 4) was supposed to be the new standard moving forward. As it turned out id only ever made 4 games with Tech 4 before moving on to Tech 5. Valve's Source on the other hand is still being used to this day. In fact, one of my most anticipated game releases this year uses it (Left 4 Dead) and it's looking better than ever. Including Left 4 Dead there are 11 major Source releases, not to mention hundreds of mods and third-party games which use the engine.
This isn't exactly news but I just marveled at the thought that Valve was able to create an engine in a field which is ever-changing, and make it last for 4+ years. Plus it's not just the way the Source engine looks, it also has beautiful sound design, HDR lighting, awesome character animation, advanced enemy AI...the list goes on and on. I'm starting to sound like a true Valve fanboy but to be honest, if I was ever labeled a fanboy of anything I'd gladly take the label for Valve. They make great games based on a great engine, and they keep coming up with fresh ideas. I can't wait to play Left 4 Dead next month and it should be interesting to see what they come up with in the coming years...aside from the eagerly-anticipated Half-Life 2: Episode 3.
Now Playing:
