Mass Effect: now with less boredom!

I finished my first play-through of Mass Effect 2 and, overall, I enjoyed it. To explain why I liked it, it's probably best to compare it to the first game.

The first Mass Effect had its moments, but it was a deeply flawed RPG. It's five biggest problems, in no particular order, were:

1. Tedious resource-gathering missions (minerals, Turian insignias, etc.) that added nothing to the game.

2. Side quests that all took place in the same damn mine or prefab house.

3. The Mako, a.k.a., the worst video game vehicle ever.

4. The cumbersome item system, which gave you both too much (lots of variations on the same gear with only minor differences) and too little (only allowed to carry 150 items).

5. The computer-controlled allies often did stupid things if you did't micro-manage their tactics.


How well did Mass Effect 2 address these problems? Well...

1. The resource-gathering (done by scanning a planet rather than driving around) is actually essential because the resources are used for upgrades. On the other hand, scanning planets is tedious as hell. At the very least, you don't have to scan every planet since there's more than enough resources in the galaxy, but it still slows the gameplay to a crawl.

2. Side quest locations are much, much, much more varied in both their design and mission objectives. There are fewer quests overall, but they offer far more rewarding gameplay.

3. The Mako has been replaced by the Kodiak, a shuttle that simply drops you right next to the target location. No trying to drive over mountains.

4. The item/weapons menu is effectively gone. Characters carry whatever weapons they have a talent for, and there are only 2-3 versions of each type of weapon. Much less fussing over what to turn into omni-gel.

5. The computer-controlled allies are still pretty damn stupid, but it rarely hurts the combat experience.

So it's a big improvement, especially with regards to side quests and item management. The resource-gathering, however, needs to be either completely revamped or chucked out entirely. I want to shoot aliens and save the galaxy, not mine for iridium.

Despite my complaints, I would recommend Mass Effect 2 for any RPG/sci-fi fan.

Guns, Guns, Guns!

Having spent most of my productive hours last week playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, I can confidently say that it's a great, if somewhat flawed, game.

The single-player campaign continues the storyline from Call of Duty 4, with our hero, "Soap" MacTavish, now an officer in the top secret Task Force 141. As with the previous Call of Duty games, the player controls multiple characters, including an Army Ranger and Soap's subordinate, "Roach." Without giving too much away, the fighting takes you from Afghanistan to Siberia and all the way back to Washington, D.C. Most of the levels consist of standard first-person shooting, but there are a decent number of new bells and whistles, including a snowmobile chase, breaching and clearing rooms, and calling in airstrikes from a Predator drone.

The campaign clocks in at a lean 6-7 hours, so some players may feel that they're not getting their money's worth of content. Another problem, which has been persistent throughout the Call of Duty franchise, is the rather obvious manner in which enemies are spawned whenever the player crosses an invisible barrier. Especially on higher difficulty settings, the game degenerates into a slow war of attrition as the player advances just far enough to trigger the next batch of enemies, kills them, then advances just far enough to trigger the next group, repeat ad nauseum. If Modern Warfare 2 was judged entirely on its single-player campaign, it would hardly be worth getting excited over.

But there are two more game modes besides the campaign. Special Ops is a collection of 23 short missions with varying objectives. There are more snowmobile chases, a re-imagining of the Pripyat mission from Call of Duty 4, and a mission where one player backs up another with the firepower of an AC-130. Most of the missions can be played solo, though many of the later missions will be quite hard even on lower difficulty settings. Spec Ops mode really comes into its own when played cooperatively, as two players can back each other up and revive their fallen ally.

Modern Warfare 2 also has a multiplayer mode that's essentially the same as the deservedly praised multiplayer from Call of Duty 4. Not much more needs to be said here: if you loved the Call of Duty 4 multiplayer then you'll love the multiplayer here. There are a few new features, such as new air support options, new weapons, and of course plenty of new maps.

Highly recommended.

In the old days, we called 'em expansion packs...

Halo 3: ODST

The fact that they called it Halo 3 colon blah rather than Halo 4 should tell you everything you need to know about the game. It's more Halo 3, with the same gameplay, weapons, vehicles, and story. The plot, drop troops in occupied New Mombasa, basically amounts to a footnote in the Halo mythology. And playing as a non-superpowered helljumper is no different than playing as a SPARTAN. Sure, you don't have shields, but your character is still pretty damn tough on normal difficulty.

It's also really, really short. To compensate, the developers included a second disk with Halo 3 multiplayer, but there are only a few new maps.

There's no way in hell this game is worth $60, but hardcore Halo fans will find more of what they enjoy.

Two Games Worth Getting

Shadow Complex

I've never had much interest in the content of Xbox Live Arcade, but Shadow Complex completely redefines what gamers can expect from downloadable content. At first glance, it's just a two-dimensional shooter (like Metroid) with some very nice graphics. But the game is superbly designed, with a variety of weapons and items, inventive use of three dimensions in an 2-D game, and a surprisingly well-written story. Not to give too much away, but you play as an average joe with an above average amount of training in combat, who finds himself trapped inside the massive headquarters of a shadowy group determined to overthrow the United States government. By the end of the game, you've become an unstoppable bad-ass in power armor.

There's a number of different ways that the player can beat the main story, and also a challenge mode where players can test their skills getting through various obstacle courses. And the entire thing costs only $15.

Batman: Arkham Asylum

A licensed game based upon a comic book that doesn't suck! That alone would probably make Arkham Asylum worth checking out, but it isn't just a great comic book game, it's an outstanding game period. The story is straightforward: Batman captures the Joker and brings him back to Arkham Asylum, but Joker's pals have already seized control of the prison and are in the process of using it as a base to launch an all-out attack on Gotham City.

The gameplay is quite varied. You can get into fistfights with dozens of Joker's goons, using a combo system that seems facile but actually allows for some remarkably complex combat. Or you can stalk your enemies as a silent predator, leaving them dangling from gargoyles or knocking them out with your batarangs. There's also an investigation mode that's simple but helps break up the monotony of the fights. And there are a ton of collectibles, as well as clues left by the Riddler.

And the game looks gorgeous. If you're a fan of Batman, this game is a must get. Even if you couldn't care less about Batman, it's worth checking out.

Red Faction: I like it and so should you!

Red Faction: Guerilla seems to be one of those games that came and went without much interest from the gamer community. This surprised me a bit, since it's actually a great game that's part of a fairly well known franchise.

Are people tired of open sandbox games? Or are games set on Mars just too cliched? I think one significant criticism is that the multiplayer was somewhat unambitious, especially in comparison to the vast, open world of the single player campaign. And a game without a good multiplayer just isn't going to have much staying power in today's market (except for big RPGs like Fallout or Oblivion).

It's been confirmed: Maryland is evil

I just finished playing Point Lookout, the new DLC for Fallout 3. Set in a post-apocalyptic version of the actual Point Lookout State Park in Maryland, the DLC sends your character on a main quest involving a missing girl and a crazy fruit-worshipping tribe. There are also about five side quests, including a hilarious one involving a failed Chinese spy mission. Story-wise, this has nowhere near the epic feel of the last DLC, Broken Steel, but it does compare favorably to Operation: Anchorage or The Pitt.

Point Lookout is fairly big, and there's a lot to do and explore besides the main quest. Along with some familiar adversaries, the primary new enemies in the map are the Swampfolk, who look like mutated hillbillies. They're quite scary-looking and reasonably tough. There are also, as usual, several new weapons, including the axe, lever-action rifle, double-barreled shotgun, bio-canister grenades, and the microwave gun.

If you have 800 Microsoft points burning a hole in your digital wallet, this is worth playing. At the very least, it'll provide a Fallout fix until Mothership Zeta comes out.

Rapture could be a reality!

Here's why I love Libertarians: they can make remarkably insightful observations and still reach conclusions that are charitably described as outlandish.

But the Seasteading plan of Patri Friedman (grandson of Milton Friedman) truly takes the cake, and gives me fond memories of Bioshock. The only question that remains is whether Libertarians will build their perfect city-states under the sea, so as to have a pleasant, aquatic ambience while they're being slaughtered by genetically enhanced splicers.

A brief post on zombies...

I'm a zombiephile. I love zombie movies, zombie games, zombie comics, zombie-themed t-shirts, etc. Something about the shuffling, flesh-eating undead just entertains me in a way that buddy cops, ninjas, or robots never will. But that doesn't mean I can't distinguish between good and bad zombie entertainment:

The good: Dead Space
I don't understand why nobody bought this game. Actually, I do understand - it's not part of an established franchise - but more more people should have played it. Yes, the story is fairly derivative from other space zombie games, going all the way back to Doom. But the game designers took the elements of the genre and did something that was amazing; they made a game that was legitmately scary. Outer space is effectively used as a backdrop, the zombie designs are unique, and the game mechanics are incredibly well thought-out. It's everything that Resident Evil 5 is not.

The bad: Diary of the Dead
George Romero is a legend among zombie afficionados, but that doesn't mean he can't occassionally produce a lemon. Like Dead Space, this movie is very derivative, primarily of Romero's earlier work in the genre. Romero also borrows the central conceit of the Blair Witch Project; it is filmed by an amateur who is actually living through the events depicted. As in his earlier movies, Romero attempts to work in some social commentary, this time about the dishonesty of corporate media and the power of the Internet (etc., etc.). The main problem with the movie is that Romero never figures out how to make the "amateur" film style work in a fairly standard zombie flick. Unlike [REC], which used the "amateur" film technique to dole out scares and control the audience's perception of events, Diary feels like a generic zombie holocaust movie with lousy camerawork and obnoxious narration. The artificiality of the project is always evident, which only makes Romero's preachy social commentary that much more tedious. It also doesn't help that the acting is sub-par and the make-up effects are shoddy, even by the standards of low budget horror.

Why Video Games Don't Make Good Movies

With Prince of Persia: Sands of Time already in production, it seems that Hollywood has decided to go forward with even more video game adaptations. Here's why they won't work:

1. The Hollow Avatar: the protagonist of your average game is deliberately devoid of personality (e.g., Master Chief of Halo). In some cases, the protagonist doesn't even speak their own lines of dialogue. This hollow avatar design draws the player into the game by encouraging the projection of their own personality and voice onto the the main character. But when shifted to the medium of film, the hollow avatar comes across as nothing more than what it is; an empty character devoid of motivation or personality. This goes to the heart of how film, a passive form of entertainment, differs from games, an interactive form of entertainment.

2. Repetitive Risk-Taking: all games are essentially built around some type of risk-taking, whether it's jumping from one moving platform to another or shooting Nazis. Generally, this risk-taking is quite repetitive. Sure, game designers can shake things up a little with customizable characters, boss battles, diverse level design, and any number of other tricks, but at the end of the day most games are built around a risk-taking scenario that is repeated many times over. If a game is designed correctly, the player doesn't get bored because an element of danger is always present, in other words the player accepts the repetitiveness because the risk always feels genuine. Film, however, has a much more difficult time pulling off repetitive risk-taking scenarios, because the viewer is removed from the danger. A passive moviegoer will get bored very quickly watching a character face the same danger again and again and again. Repetitiveness lies at the core of games, but it is the death of film.

2. The Dying Factor: in games, you generally die a lot until you figure out what to do. In film, it's pretty unusual for a character to die and then get back up because they had an extra life. The dying factor helps to explain why the adaptation of the survival horror game Silent Hill, which was a beautifully shot horror film, was not in any way scary. In the game, the main character is solitary for most of the story. This isolation, combined with the fact that the character could get killed at any moment, adds tension to the gameplay. The film attempted to replicate this feature, and kept the main character isolated for much of its runtime. However, if you kill the main character, then the movie's basically over. Most viewers understand this, even if only on a subconscious level, which is why none of the dangers the character faced felt remotely scary. There was no believable way for her to die and the movie to go on. That's why most horror films have big casts, which translates into a high body count and uncertainty as to who will live.

Perhaps Prince of Persia will find a way to break the trend of crappy video game adaptations. But I'm not holding out much hope. There's only so many times you can watch a guy run along a wall.

Upcoming Content!

New contributions on the way from Justin, who I assume will be posting about his double life as a tax attorney by day and a brutal vigilante by night.

There may also be some discussion of the criminally under-appreciated Dead Space, and the recent release, Resident Evil 5 (spoiler: it's just like Resident Evil 4, except you get to shoot black people!).

And I'll probably do a big post on the series finale of Battlestar Galactica, a.k.a., the only thing with artistic merit that SyFy (formerly SciFi) has ever produced. And maybe next week I'll do a review of the cult classic(?) Tales from the Hood, at the request of one Mr. Tron.

No new comic reviews this week: grad school (and the lack of any good comics) got in the way.

Game Review

Mirror's Edge (Electronic Arts/Dice)

Mirror's Edge is one of those games that you want to like more than you actually do. In some ways, it's one of the most innovative and attractive games of 2008. But in other ways, it's a frustrating experience due to some significant flaws in gameplay.

The story is set in the not-too-distant future, where The City has evolved from a vibrant, if dangerous, metropolis into a police state where all forms of electronic communication are monitored by the government. Enter the runners, a group of free-running couriers who deliver your greeting cards and love letters by jumping around rooftops. The playable character, Faith, is one such runner who returns to the job just in time to see her sister, a cop, framed for murder. What follows is a fairly simple murder mystery that's interspersed between levels where Faith is running and jumping for her life.

One of the great strengths of the game is its level design. At first glance, the levels seem rather bland, but closer inspection reveals an enormous amount of detail, especially during the rooftop segments. Moreover, unlike the linear nature of most jumping-puzzle games, Mirror's Edge usually provides multiple avenues of advance, which allows players to recover quickly if they get lost or mess up a jump. And some of the jumps are truly spectacular, giving the game a cinematic feel at points.

Character design is also excellent, and overall the game takes great advantage of the Unreal 3 engine. Cutscenes, however, are rendered in 2D artwork that is reminiscent of a graphic novel. These scenes, for the most part, move the story forward but they're not terribly memorable. The voice acting is uniformly good, and while the synth-pop soundtrack may not be to the liking of some players, it fits well with the game's aesthetic.

But frustration sets in early, usually around the time Faith fails to grab onto a ledge or pipe after 10 tries. The game demands an almost absurd level of precision for some jumps, but the first-person perspective narrows the player's field of vision and makes such precision all the more difficult. An obvious game of comparison is the recent Prince of Persia. Also a jumping-puzzle game, PoP's gameplay design made certain movements like wall-running mostly automatic, which in turn made it easy for even casual gamers to quickly become adept at controlling the Prince. Also, by shifting the camera out to a third-person perspective, PoP gave the player a greater sense of where they stood relative to their surroundings. Of course, shifting to a third-person point-of-view might take away some the cinematic feel of Mirror's Edge, but it would make the game much easier to play.

Another problematic aspect of the game is the hand-to-hand fighting. A critical move in the game's combat is the frontal disarm, which incapacitates the opponent and allows the player to steal their weapon. The timing for the disarm is tricky, especially against tougher opponents such as SWAT team members. This, in itself, is not a bad thing, and the game provides a bullet time option that should, in theory, make it easier to pull off the move. Unfortunately, the slow-mo feature does little to make combat easier, and I gave up on using it about halfway into the game. The guns in the game are fairly straightforward and work as you expect them to, but they don't really add much to the experience.

In the end, Mirror's Edge is a game that I'd recommend despite its failings. Hopefully, the game will be successful enough for Dice to make a sequel. And even more hopefully, that sequel will be the game that Mirror's Edge should have been.

Achievement Addiction

My functioning (for the time being) Xbox 360 turned me into an achievement junkie. I kept telling myself I didn't have a problem. But when I looked back and realized that I'd spent most of the weekend buying fake real estate in a fake universe solely to get another achievement in Fables 2, I felt dirty. I'm gonna quit now, before this thing takes over my life ... or at least until the additional content for Fallout 3 comes out. Then I can level up and get that achievement for killing all the super mutant behemoths. Just one last fix, then I'll stop. I swear.

Bill Gates Hates Me

"Or the Xbox 360 is a shitty product that breaks all the time"

When I first bought an Xbox 360 all the way back in 2006, my console had a bad hard drive, so I had to return it and get a new one. My second Xbox actually worked for about 6 months, until I got the red lights of death, and I had to mail it in to get it repaired. When I got it back, it managed to keep working for another year and a half (an impressive feat for a Microsoft product) until the disc drive broke. So I returned it and got a new unit, which had a firmware problem that caused every game I played to crash. So I shipped it back to be repaired/replaced for the third time. Xbox 360 is a shitty product.

Though to their credit, Microsoft gave me expedited shipping on this last repair. Third time's the charm I guess.

Video Games =/= Movies

Through a combination of boredom and peer pressure, I recently sat through two (relatively) recent video game adaptations, Max Payne and Hitman.

For those who do not waste their weekends with a controller in their hand, Max Payne is the story of a cop whose family was killed by junkies high on a new drug called Valkyr. Naturally, he precedes to murder the entire criminal underworld of New York, and discovers that Valkyr is connected with an evil (is there any other kind?) pharmaceutical company. The game was notable for its noir-ish influences, its graphic novel format during cutscenes, and the use of Matrix-style bullet-time to give you the edge over opponents.

Its film adaptation is, in a word, boring. While the movie borrows the goofy plot and overwrought dialogue of the game, there's no sense of fun or excitement to it. Instead, the filmmakers drag out the entire process with a number of pointless scenes that exist for no other reason than to pad the length of the film until the villains choose to reveal themselves. The game designers understood that they weren't recreating The Big Sleep, they were making a game where you got to shoot people in slow motion while diving through a window. The film version seems to think that its a true noir, but it's far too dumb to be a great crime drama, and far too slow to be interesting regardless of its pretensions. Marky Mark Wahlberg is also woefully inadequate as the lead. He simply doesn't have the charisma to carry an entire movie.

The video game Hitman was about a bald assassin produced by a secret Catholic order that has nothing better to do than raise assassins and tattoo their bald heads with bar codes. The game mechanics were simple; sneak or shoot. Every mission was about figuring out the appropriate way to sneak up on your target and then kill them stealthily. The paper thin plot of every Hitman game usually had some sort of double-cross, followed by righteous vengeance.

The Hitman movie sticks to the formula of the the game far more faithfully than the Max Payne adaptation. The lead character is betrayed, and subsequently must kill the guys who set him up. Fairly straightforward stuff, and it provides a framework for a number of big action set pieces. Strangely enough, Russian hottie Olga Kurylenko appeares in both movies, but her role is far more substantial (and naked) in Hitman. This flick could have been decent popcorn entertainment, but the action scenes just don't have any spark to them. We've seen all this stuff done better. On top of that, Timothy Olyphant, who has the potential to be a great leading man, is wasted as the drab, emotionless killing-machine.

Video games and movies seem to be incompatible mediums. The repetitive action and occasional puzzle-solving of video games simply don't translate well into film. Max Payne attempted to deviate from the formula by adding more plot points, but that resulted in making the film a tedious chore. Hitman came closer to capturing the spirit of its source material, but when you merely watch a video game, it's hard not to notice how dumb and derivative it is.

The first great game-to-film adaptation will require a game with a lot of ideas and filmmakers who know how to tell an action-driven story. Maybe Bioshock?