A symphony of destruction. From the creators of Gears of War and Painkiller.

You are Grayson Hunt, the once proud cool-headed leader of Dead Echo; a once proud and proficient black ops team ran by the 26th Century Confederation of Planets. But not any more. Turns out Echo’s boss, General Serrano, (who could only be properly defined with words that are far too inappropriate for Toy-TMA) was using their talents to enforce his own totalitarian brand of peacekeeping on the real good guys; something our guys weren’t too happy to find out. Fast forward ten years later, where Captain Hunt is now a guilt ridden drunk of a space pirate and the most wanted man in the galaxy, and all his Dead Echo buddies are… well… dead mostly, save for one, Ishi Sato. After ramming their ship into the engine of Serrano’s precious flagship Ulysses (the Roman name of the Greek warrior Odysseus) our broken antiheroes (Grey mentally, Ishi physically) find themselves crash landing on the abandon resort planet Stygia. And hilarity ensues.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a Marvel/DC crossover staring Wolverine and Cyborg.

So no, this story isn’t doing anything groundbreaking for an FPS by any stretch of the imagination, but I do feel that it’s worth mentioning that Bulletstorm feels like it purposely sought to be very tongue and cheek. It is almost the opposite effect of the Killzone 3 story, a game that tries so hard to create this huge epic drama on war while keeping a straight face, even when its performance just isn’t up for the task. Bulletstorm however, had no intentions of taking itself seriously, instead letting the gameplay take the reigns, yet the slightest hints of development in these very familiar gaming troupes that define our protagonists felt surprisingly genuine. Remember how I said the flagship was called Ulysses? Well I myself am sensing just a little symbolism with the Odyssey, with Grey being the broken captain in a decade-long mission that leads all of his allies to death.

At the very least, its plot and writing is a heck of a lot more enjoyable than the Gears of War games.

"#%^&, this thing is pissed! What did you do, kill its babies?” “No… wait… maybe?”

You know what IS unique about this game? The setting. Planet Stygia is literally an entire resort planet. Think of it as a rundown Las Vegas: plenty of sunny skies, beautiful waterfalls, miles of countryside, hotels on every corner, exotic plant life, VERY exotic plant life, rampaging thousand-foot-tall monsters, oh yeah, and every single human resident on the planet has mutated into savage gangsters, or worse, cannibals. Have fun.

And fun is exactly what this game delivers. The shooting element of this game runs on a Skill Point system where you score points on all the unique and interesting ways you kill your enemies. Grayson is armed with an electron leash that reels enemies in, as well as both a kick and slide technique, that can all be used to line your target up in slow motion for certain skill shots. If you just try to play this game conservatively like other competitive shooters (or rushing in guns blazing for that matter), you’re going to have some problems. See, your progression relies on your will to experiment, as these skill points are needed for you to pay for new weapons, upgrades, and ammo. Sure there are the typical points for head shot, crotch shot, burn, electrocute, impale, but there’s also points for kicking people off cliffs, throwing them into cacti, feeding them to man-eating-plants, poisoning them with anger toxin so they attack themselves, and let;s not forget the X-Ray.

How many games let you de-fleshitize noobs and NPCs alike? That’s right, one.

For those of you into the online multiplayer crowd, this may seem like a refreshing change of pace. Now, you are not scored by your body count, but more on your style. Yeah, that’s a swell massage to teach gamers: “It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s how you kill them.”

Its already obvious, but I’ll say it anyway. This game is definitely not for kids. It is violent to the third power and the language is unabashedly profane. If you are someone who is even the slightest bit uncomfortable with harsh language, then might I consider spending your time and money elsewhere.

So the game showcases some excellent ideas and amazing action set pieces. A whole lot of them, like the chase from the Ferris wheel in the desert, and the boss fight with the giant plant, are spaced out pretty well in the beginning and middle of the campaign. Too bad the final act doesn’t have anything that really matches those moments. Instead, it jacks up the difficulty by increasing the enemy count, adds some Quick-Time-Events, and calls it a climax. The story’s conclusion, I was pretty much fine with, yet the post-credit scene kind of weirded me out.

Despite all that, I still had a blast with Bulletstorm, and that’s coming from someone who isn’t the biggest FPS fan. I liked the protagonists. I hated the antagonist (in the way you are suppose to). The dialogue, if you can handle it, is colorful and hilarious in its own way. Plus, how can you not have fun with a game that gives you a remote-controlled-robot-T-Rex with laser beams attached to its head?

Want more game reviews? Check these out:

-Doing The PS3 Proud: A Review of Killzone 3

-The Old Is Still New: A Review of Dragon Quest VI

-For The Win: A Review of Marvel vs Capcom 3

Is it just me or does this guy keep reminding you of Kane and Lynch?

There is nothing new or original from Medal of Honor. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with it, but everything it brings to the table has already been brought to the table by someone else, mainly Modern Warfare. The controls are even 1-to-1 between the two games. It does everything just as competently as previous entries in the quickly crowding “wars that are currently happening or could happen very soon” market, but there’s nothing new to speak of. I could just copy/paste paragraphs from reviews of Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and you’d have a review of Medal of Honor, though that’s not surprising since the two teams that make up the developers for Medal of Honor previously worked on Modern Warfare and Battlefield: Bad Company.

So if there isn’t anything worth talking about, what should I really say? The game looks good, sounds good, plays good, and is, for lack of a more original word, good. I just don’t care. The multiplayer mode, the aspect that anyone will really care about (and you’ll have to since the single player campaign is under six hours long and amazingly easy), is also exactly like a bunch of other multiplayer modes, meaning you might as well stick with the game you currently have and still play all the time.

I feel like I've seen this somewhere before...

I’m only half way through this review and I’m out of things to say, so let’s talk about the whole Taliban controversy nonsense thing, huh? While the Taliban are still in the game as obviously evil bad guys (stupid bad guys that will do everything short of painting a target on their heads to allow you the simplest kills possible), they are no longer playable in the multiplayer mode. They WERE initially in the multiplayer as one of the two playable sides, but because so many people spoke up about it, they’ve been removed. Or rather, they’ve been renamed “The Opposing Forces,” which is about as half-assed of a fix as you can get. They might as well have just replaced the Taliban with Spartans for how little they seemed to care on the basic level. EA should have stuck to its guns and just kept the Taliban named “The Taliban” in multiplayer. Who cares? We all know who they’re supposed to be at this point, so it doesn’t make a difference. It’s like if EA had programmed a character who runs around in overalls and a red hat shouting “Let’s a-go” but decided that calling him “Overalls Man” was enough of a change and anyone who called him Mario was wrong. That’s what this feels like.

Gee, I wonder who could live in that house? I bet it's Russians.

Anyway, Medal of Honor isn’t going to offend you any more than all the other games where the entire point can be boiled down to “Justifiable Genocide.” It’s not even going to be a title you’ll remember a few years down the road. It’s just there. It’s a really well-made sandwich that you’ll eat, enjoy, and then pass before moving on to another sandwich that tastes roughly the same and performs the same function of giving you a hunger fix. Even I love sandwiches, but I get tired of eating the same sandwich for every meal. That’s what Medal of Honor is. It is a delicious sandwich made by employees from Subway and Quiznos but not actually sold at either Subway or Quiznos. And now I want a sandwich, so please excuse me.

Want more reviews? Check these out:

-A Miserable Pile  Secrets: A Review of Castlevania: Lords of Shadow

-Just Stay Dead: A Review of Dead Rising 2

-How To Reach The Masses: A Review of Halo: Reach

Like Army of Two but a whole heck of a lot better and not at all like Army of Two.

Can anything come along and uproot Modern Warfare from its place as the dominant FPS? For a while it didn’t appear so, but just as Halo was ousted by Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare has been outshone by Battlefield: Bad Company 2. How is that possible? Read on and I’ll tell you.

A Paradigm Shift Once Again

What Modern Warfare managed to do a few years ago was decide how online play would shift for what gamers really wanted. It’s had a good run, but now the play-style is shifting once again and Bad Company 2 is better suited for current trends. Namely, you won’t constantly be spawning into instant death and kills aren’t exactly simple.

The main aspect that people are finding most appealing about Bad Company 2 regards the amount of skill and strategy actually needed when playing online. You simply can’t run around with two shotguns and a riot shield mowing down everyone because you shot first. I watched my close friend Other Chris play a few multiplayer matches and really did see the importance of playing your role correctly. A sniper is failing if they’re attempting to defend a base from the inside with a pistol but doing his job when he’s staked on a rock picking off any advancing enemies. Similarly, an assault soldier is supposed to be hunkered in the base with his rifle aimed at the door, not running around shooting everything.

You try that and you'll get a tank shell in your face.

One big draw for me is the amount of destruction you really can inflict upon the environments. Nowhere is safe. Any building you hole up in can be leveled with enough explosives. Walls can be taken out with a tank round, leaving you completely unprotected. I found it fascinating to witness Other Chris run to his favorite rock, aim, realize a tree is in his way, and shoot the tree in half to give himself a proper view. That just seems cool. You can run up to a fence and knife it to create a hole to shoot through. You’ve just got to play this one smart.

In terms of a single-player experience, there’s nothing to expect other than the usual FPS single-player campaign. There are a few hilarious jabs at Modern Warfare’s expense, but not much else to really make it stand out. The characters are relatively forgettable but the main aspect of the campaign is that it isn’t trying to take itself serious, something that’s very welcoming. However, it has an extremely generous aim-assist that the multiplayer doesn’t have, so playing the campaign isn’t going to prepare you to play online like you’d assume.

No building is safe. Ever.

It is sort of sad that no matter what, Bad Company 2 will be compared to Modern Warfare 2 and as a result some people won’t play one or the other and that shouldn’t be the case. Both games are perfectly good titles, each with their individual strengths and weaknesses. At the moment though, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has a fresher and much fairer take on the online front, such as really rewarding skill. You’ll get a lot more points for sniping someone across the map than just a few feet away, for example. Essentially, if you loved Modern Warfare you’ll really love Bad Company 2.

Everyone and your mother can play this game at the same time.

Here we go, we have another FPS to review. But this time there’s a catch. This time, we’ve also got an MMORPG, of sorts. Yup, talking about MAG this time, a First Person Shooter that’s big hook is the ability to play with 256 players at the same time. In fact, there isn’t even a single-player aspect to the game. Does this make it a deal breaker? Let’s find out.

Hope you Like Online Play

MAG starts you off with a choice between making a character in one of three factions. You need to choose well because you can’t change your faction and you can only have one character per PSN account at the same time. Personally, that sounds about as stupid as I’ve ever heard. You can finally change factions when your character reaches level 60, but that’s a big devotion there. If you’ve picked the wrong faction right off the bat without meaning to, you could find yourself really hating MAG.

Obviously, since online is the only way to play MAG, you better be ready to deal with everything that entails the online experience. If there is lag, the game is terrible. If there is downtime on the servers, you can’t play the game, period. Luckily there haven’t been any major instances of either of those quite yet. The controls work well, so you’ll never feel that they’re the cause of any of your failures.

If you suck, you'll have no friends. Just like the real world.

The actual cause of all your failures comes from the inability of your squad to work together as a team. You can’t be a one-man army here, no matter how much you’d like to be or how good you think you are. There are just that many players on the map at any time ready to pick you off. However, when your team’s working well together, there’s an amazing feeling of synergy that puts the game to the top of its potential.

Not Without Some Reservations

Still, the game isn’t perfectly balanced. There is one team (SVER) that will win far more times than they’ll lose. People will argue this back and forth, but the maps built for their defense are nearly impossible to attack unless the SVER team playing is beyond idiotic. What I’m trying to say is, you should choose SVER as your first faction.

I’m hesitant to get into MAG due to the limited time the game will exist. It’s an online only game, so when people stop playing the game, how will there be 256-player matches? If you want to play MAG at its high point, better play it now. The longer you wait, the higher the chance you won’t really be playing MAG as it was supposed to be played.

Just think how dull this would be without the max number of players.

It all comes down to how much you enjoy FPS’s and how happy you can be playing only with and against real players online. If so far everything sounds awesome you, then you’ll probably love MAG. If you hate either shooters or online games, pass. Just don’t rent it. If you want it, better buy it and be prepared to play it for a while.

Sometimes you've just gotta show your bro some love.

Who am I to decide what makes a good game and bad game? I’m about to tell you that Army of Two: The 40th Day is pretty unimpressive as a game.  But who’s to say I’m the correct person to say such a thing? It’s become pretty clear that I’m a Nintendo fanboy and that I’m very bad at First-Person and Third-Person Shooters (Army of Two is a Third-Person shooter), so why am I allowed to have a say on this particular game?

I’m Bitter and It’s Obvious

My opening paragraph may have given you some insight as to what I’m talking about and where I’m coming from for this game. I didn’t play the first Army of Two because it looked profoundly uninteresting and unnecessary. But I wasn’t the target demographic of “Yeah Bro!” I don’t like to play games with other people if I can help it, so when I get a game the first thing I consider is how much fun I can have playing it alone and how long said fun will last. The Modern Warfare games are good games for multiplayer, but the single player modes scream, “Rent Me” rather than “Day-One Purchase.”

Got a buddy? Hopefully they know what they're doing, otherwise they won't be your buddy for long.

Army of Two: The 40th Day returns with the same concept of the first; that of Salem and Rios (or whatever, it’s not like names mean anything to characters anymore for any game that has guns and grenades) are an army of two guys who must work together to be the biggest and baddest guys with guns in the entire world. Needless to say, they’re mercenaries, a profession that I also don’t see the fascination with since mercenaries are, by nature, hired guns with no emotion. If they display any emotion, they aren’t mercenaries anymore; they’re just chaotic one-dimensional characters with guns.

Obviously, I’m Still Bitter

Still, I’m digressing (perhaps something to talk about on a Let’s Think Deep article in the future). The point is, Stock Character 1 and Stock Character 2 must do…something that involves Shanghai. I don’t know, there isn’t a whole heck of a lot to keep my interest since, as I’ve said, I’m not big on these “Yeah Bro!” games. Anyway, the core gameplay mechanic revolves around the requirement of both characters being used while playing. The game is best suited for two-player co-op, but a single gamer can play along with a computer-controlled partner. A lot of the time it actually works better since the computer knows exactly what it’s doing this time around, so you can literally just sit back most of the time and let the game play itself. Naturally, I hate that, too.

Just shoot him and move on with the plot already.

Okay, so I’ll stop being grumpy for a bit and tell you what the game is doing well. Yes, it has made some major improvements over the first title in the series (good Lord it’s a series now). The multiplayer modes are still relatively forgettable, but the co-op campaign has some good stuff going for it. You will actually enjoy the story if this is your sort of game. I can step back and say that much with confidence: The campaign is enough to justify a rental rather than a pass. Just remember that you can rip through the game in one long sitting of six hours or so and there are few unlockables to keep you returning for more unless you want to get every mask possible for the duo or really like playing rock, paper, scissors during a tense fire-fight. Not kidding about that last part.

So yes, the game isn’t awful. You can find lots to like here, but can I stop for a moment and mention one of the big “features” Army of Two: The 40th Day is happy about? Okay, you ready? Morality Choices! Sigh. Sigh again, just for effect. I’m getting pretty sick of the morality choices in games since they seem about as stupid as “Punch this guy in the face or don’t, you have the choice!” These guys are mercenaries, since when do they have morals beyond “Highest Bidder Wins, Yo”? I’m still being unfair, and I realize this, but I don’t care about morality choices in a video game since that all breaks down to the level of what the developers feel is a morality choice and what I feel is a morality choice. Given the option, I would play the entire game without killing a single person, just because that’s what I would ATTEMPT to do in real life. I don’t have that option, so, morality choice denied. I can choose between shooting a tiger or not shooting a tiger, but not adopting the tiger or calling an agency that deals specifically with endangered species and having them deal with the choice. I’m a hired gun with a mission to do, why should I care about tigers?!

Okay, I’m a little all over the place here, aren’t I? You want a verdict? Parents, keep your kids away from this and all games like this as it will infect them with the worst case of Stupid that I can accurately identify. If you’re already past the age where you need to be protected from Stupid and Army of Two: The 40th Day looks fun, it probably is. A lot of people will find something to like here. The game plays well for as long as it decides to and if you enjoy it the first time around you’ll enjoy it again and again. If it sounded cool to you when you heard about it, then that’s all you need to know. It’ll be cool if you want it to be.

Sure it’s almost 2010.  But more importantly, there seems to be a great schism happening between gamers on the Xbox.  Halo held the top spot and redefined First Person Shooters.  Then along came Gears of War and the bar was set for Third Person Shooters from then on out.  Gears of War 2 is out now and already being enjoyed for all the right reasons, but does it put itself above Halo as the most popular franchise on the 360?

Who cares?

I’m not dealing with popularity here, nor am I dealing with fanboyism between Xbots and PS3 diehards.  Gears 2 is a good follow up to a good first game and I don’t mind seeing more Gears games.

For those of you who played the first Gears of War, the plot revolves around Marcus Fenix, a tough soldier fighting against The Locust, a species of…aliens or monsters or something, I don’t know, I wasn’t paying too close attention.  The important plot point to realize goes as thus: The world got annihilated by The Locust and now Marcus Fenix and a few other soldiers are one-man-armies, (well, maybe two-man-armies), about to bring the fight back to The Locust.  The second game picks up with Marcus on his wacky journey to the center of the earth.  Oh, and it’s straight-up awesome.

Gears is known for its cover system during firefights.  If you attempt to play this game like a FPS and rush into trouble, you’re probably gonna get scrubbed.  You need to stay down until the opportune moment to huck a grenade or score a headshot and the fluid cover system allows everything to play near perfectly.

Gears 2 keeps things fast-paced and interesting throughout the single player mode and makes for great co-op play with a friend.  Online multiplayer is done pretty spot on as well now that the initial release-day bugs have been repaired.

It should be obvious, but Gears of War 2 is rated M and definitely earns the rating.  The Lancer is a rifle with a chainsaw attached to it and curbstomps are mandatory moves for playing correct.  No kids allowed, please.  Especially online.