And in this corner, the challenger, Battlefield 3

Shooting things will always be fun

First-person shooters (FPS) sure have come a long way since the days of Wolfenstein and Doom. Heck, they’ve come a long way since Goldeneye and Half-Life, but even with all the advances in technology and on-line play, one thing remains constant – you’re just shooting things. Gamers’ desire to shoot people is sometimes baffling but I admit my guilt to enjoying such fun as well. It doesn’t matter if I’m shooting space aliens, World War II Germans, or modern-day terrorists, I cannot not play these games.

The reigning champion of the FPS for the past several years has been the Call of Duty franchise. It has covered just about every theme there is to have in real world-based war, from WWII to Vietnam to the Middle East. Regardless what you’re interested in shooting, Call of Duty can deliver and they’ve gone somewhat unchallenged for nearly five years, but this year that changes with the release of Battlefield 3 from EA.

Battlefield 3 is looking good so far.

Too much of a good thing

Let me disclose that I am a Call of Duty fan, although I’m not one of the guys that sits on the couch for six hours chatting with a headset. That being said, since the first Modern Warfare game, the gaming experience in the franchise has been fast, fun, challenging and exciting. They are good games, period. Yet after five years of playing what is essentially the same game over and over, you can’t help but start to get a little bored and even wonder if it’s time to give it all up. After the latest Call of Duty game, Black Ops, was released I was decidedly done with the franchise. I go into greater detail about my reasons at Morning Toast, but to sum it all up, the time between new games was too short and it felt like little more than a cash grab. So I started hoping for an alternative.

Battlefield 3 might be that alternative and it is coming out at a good time…when many are getting tired of Call of Duty. However, just because you are a fresh face in the crowd doesn’t guarantee success. Rather, it just means a lot of hype. Can Battlefield 3 live up to its “Call of Duty killer” hype? On one hand I would like to think so, but on the other I’m not sure but only thanks to varying information. Everything you’ll see online talking about Battlefield 3 shows gorgeous visuals, great sound and lots of shooting action. Looking at Battlefield and Call of Duty side-by-side, Battlefield seemingly has the edge…but…if you play the Battlefield 3 beta that is currently out on Xbox 360 then you might be scratching your head. I know I am.

Not enough of a good thing

After watching that video you’re probably thinking this game is going to look awesome, but, you see, the Battlefield 3 beta demo just doesn’t look that good. You’ll find roughly rendered character models, weird clipping problems, and just an overall lack of awe. The game I’m playing certainly doesn’t match up to the trailers and videos seen online. I know it has the “beta” disclaimer but in my head (and my world) beta means this is the last iteration of development before the game gets to stores. So by all rights the beta of any game should be the closest thing to being final as it’s usually going to be, shy of weird bugs and technical glitches. Especially considering the full game is released on October 25, only a couple weeks away, I would like to think that a beta would be the carrot at the end of the stick that gets me to plop down $60 at the end of the month, but right now I’m not sure. Of course, visuals are only a part of the recipe.

The game play of Battlefield 3 is pretty solid and doesn’t stray too far from what you would expect with any FPS game. This button shoots, that one jumps and the other reloads your gun. The game also comes packed with the expected customization of your characters with various guns, grenades, and supplies…again, nothing too extraordinary and at this point in time, not even a lot of different than you’ve seen in other modern-themed games. The beta for Battlefield 3 is limited to a single map and game mode where you’re either on a defending team or an attacking team. The game mode and map are pretty decent but the nature of the mode means it won’t be uncommon to have half hour or longer sessions, and over a single map it gets kind of exhausting and tiresome. I’m sure a normal deathmatch mode would be more exciting in the long run. Once nice thing that is a trait of the Battlefield franchise is respawning where your teammates are located. Unlike Call of Duty that randomly drops you in a location after you die, in Battlefield 3 you can choose a person to respawn next to, saving you the time and trouble of getting into the action.

The Battlefield 3 beta...not quite what I expected.

I’m a loner, Dottie. A rebel.

So those are the normal things I expected to find in Battlefield 3 and they’re all done really well, but the one difference I noticed quickly compared to Call of Duty is the focus on teams to succeed. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it’s not really my bag. I was raised on Doom and Quake, and all of those titles were played solo, Rambo-style…just run and shoot. For better or worse, I take that attitude into modern FPS games and that doesn’t always bode well for me. Call of Duty can lend itself to lone wolf gamers like myself but Battlefield 3 doesn’t appear to follow that same formula. Sure, you can go out and do your own thing but don’t expect to last very long. I experienced many a quick death in Battlefield 3 and not just because I’m not very good but because I have no patience to work in a team. Call of Duty is just a little more forgiving and I like need that.

Flip a coin

The new Modern Warfare 3 coming in November promises to be a great game but more of the same. Battlefield 3 boasts something new yet all I saw in the beta was more of the same and nothing too spectacular to set itself apart from Call of Duty. Do you go to something new just for the sake of it being new? Or do you go with a tried-and-true franchise knowing all too well that you’re paying $60 for a game you’ve purchased three times before? I don’t believe the Battlefield 3 beta is truly representative of the final product and that’s a shame because I wanted it to be awesome.

I’m not one of those gamers that shows up at midnight to buy a game. I don’t even pre-order. I always take my time when choosing what new games I purchase. With most games, they don’t get any less fun in six months, but these FPS games are the exact opposite because their fun and success relies entirely with online multiplayer gaming. You have to go where the people are. If you don’t jump on these games sooner than later, you’ll never catch up and you’ll waste your money. Nonetheless, I’m going to have to sit back and watch the battle that begins October 25th and goes through the end of the year. Before too long I’ll have to choose a side, but right now, I don’t know what side that will be.

So much ugly. An indication of things to come?

Gearbox Studios are in a tough spot. Initially, they were applauded for stepping up and fulfilling just about every gamer’s wish to make sure Duke Nukem Forever became something real, tangible, and most importantly playable. For that, we were ready to support them wholeheartedly. Except now we see what they did when everyone was rooting for them. They didn’t make a good game, not even close, but they also didn’t manage to make a bad game that’s so bad it’s worth playing. Rather, they just made a bad game, period.

The single player campaign sees Duke come out of retirement to fight a group of ugly aliens because they’ve stolen all of Earth’s women. Why do the aliens need our women? To inseminate, of course. You will see female residents of the Uncanny Valley get raped for humor’s sake in Duke Nukem Forever. Let me remind you, we supported Gearbox Studios during their time as developers and cried out, “No, Duke Nukem’s not sexist or misogynistic! It’s parody! It’s meant to be a commentary!” Our faith was rewarded with rape jokes. Rape. Jokes. I haven’t facepalmed this hard since Resident Evil 5’s swamp levels.

Boy, we've sure come a long way since our immature past, haven't we?

For a game that’s all-too-comfortable ripping on the big popular FPS titles of our generation (Halo and Call of Duty), it seems to have no problem boggarting game mechanics wholesale, such as regenerating health and the two-guns-only style of modern games. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am with this, both as a gamer who longs for the “good ol’ days” of gaming (health meters and all the guns you can carry), but also as someone who can’t stand smugness. Taking shots at Call of Duty? Fine, I’m totally on board for that. Then proceeding to imitate what you’re mocking? No me gusta.

Other reviewers are going to tell you that the game looks dated. Other reviewers are right. Duke Nukem Forever isn’t the prettiest thing out there, nor is it exactly the worst. Rather, it just looks lazy. Graphics are inconsistent, indicating a lack of polish to the game, an aspect that’s frankly puzzling seeing as the game’s been in development for longer than every current system’s even been out. Who cares if it would have taken another year to get things spotless? We could have waited a while longer if it meant you were going to do your job correctly, Gearbox!

Hey look at that! It's "Not-Halo!"

The biggest feeling I have about Duke Nukem Forever is that of betrayal. Not necessarily by the game itself, or even Gearbox. No, I feel betrayed by the gaming industry itself. Since reappearing at PAX Prime, Duke Nukem Forever was heralded as a fantastic and amazing spectacle to behold. All major gaming sites began devoting any space available to talking about every little PR move Duke Nukem went through, all the while cheering it on and expecting it to be the greatest game that ever was and ever will be. It wasn’t until last week that every game site began doing an about-face and decided that Duke Nukem Forever suddenly wasn’t that good of a thing, game or otherwise. So now I’m sitting here in my living room reading my various favorite game sites and just thinking, “Who do I believe anymore? Do any game sites have any credibility anymore?”

That’s how bad Duke Nukem Forever actually is. It’s called into question all that I believe about video games. I was absolutely ready to go out and buy it Day One, scrounging together any money I had in savings just to get a chance to see what all the hype was about. I’m thankful I was able to abstain as all that’s left is morbid curiosity. I’d even been excited after playing the demo when it was reannounced, but now there’s nothing left to care about.

This is sort of how I feel right now.

If you’re looking for a piece of gaming history, then Duke Nukem Forever is a good place to start. It doesn’t function well as a game, or even an artistic statement, but it does serve to educate anyone why video games aren’t moving past their current maturity level for at least another decade. We asked for this, and now we have to live with it. Forever.

Want more game reviews? Check these out:

-Sweetly Familiar: A Review of Brink

-Rush N Attack and Yar’s Revenge, visiting some old friends

-Huge Success: A Review of Portal 2

Big guy with a chaingun? So far so good.

Brink comes to us from the minds of developer Splash Damage as an FPS that takes a lot of unique elements from a bunch of other games and combines them into something new here. I’m actually really receptive to a game that takes elements from other games as long as it does so in order to bring about a fusion that feels fairly new. Brink is pretty good at taking three distinct games, Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, and surprisingly Mirror’s Edge, and forming the mashed-up child of the three into one cohesive game. And it somewhat works.

The other half of this equation, the half that pushes me away, is the lack of any sort of real single-player option worth caring about. Why would I purchase a title that is going to require me to pay a subscription fee, at least on the Xbox 360? Stop, I know I’m not the only type of gamer here, but let me explain the faults with the single player game and then with the multiplayer mode.

In terms of a narrative, Brink is set in a future world where you must choose between two factions. One supports this government-run thing called the Ark, the other opposes it and is labeled as the rebels. There is a loose story mode to play through, but to attempt it just by yourself is virtually impossible as your team’s AI is so broken it makes Halo 3’s NPCs look brilliant by comparison (spoiler for those who haven’t played the Halo series: They have some of the worst teammate AI). There is the option to allow online co-op players to drop into the single player mode, thus alleviating the stress, but then it soon becomes exactly what the multiplayer mode is, begging me to ask, “What was the point?”

You'll be too busy capping online opponents to remember that there's a single-player option anyway.

Therefore, skip the single-player option entirely and just stick to multiplayer, which by itself is incredibly fun up to a certain point. That certain point happens to be the laughably low level cap of 20, a goal you can reach in just a few hours of serious play. Once you reach level 20, there’s nothing more for your character to learn and all XP just feels wasted.

You wouldn’t feel so bad wasting that XP if the game hadn’t already done a great job of encouraging you to do everything via the XP system in the first place. You get XP for doing just about anything, including shooting enemy forces, reviving teammates, or even just laying down some suppressing fire. So when this constant rewarding loses all effect, the need to do anything other than shoot everyone also loses some appeal. Would you rather run around healing people or would you rather be the guy dealing the damage?

Even with the low level cap, Brink lets you have such a great time playing around with customizable weapons and character outfits. I really like Brink’s art style as it’s very reminiscent of Borderlands. The characters have a lot of personality and the color scheme is allowed to show all colors instead of just the usual grays and browns. There’s life here amongst the death, and that’s the real draw of Brink. That and the four character classes, leading into that desire to try new things and help wherever possible.

Still, you’ll constantly be on the verge of rage-quitting as some multiplayer objectives show that they aren’t nearly polished enough. At times you’ll discover that the only way to succeed with a mission is to go through one specific path in a level, allowing for the perfect funnel that the enemy will naturally figure out and stand at the end, mowing you down without even trying. Future patches could very well fix a lot of the maps’ flaws, but right now it feels like more time needed to be spent testing the logistics of the objectives alongside the maps.

Then again, adding an element of platforming to an FPS is a step towards convincing me to reconsider the downsides.

As Brink currently stands, I’m disappointed. This isn’t the game that will get me to renew my Xbox Live Gold account, but it sure did try. I hear that the PC version is the best, as the PC version tends to be for team-based games (why do us console gamers hate working as teams?), but the PS3 version is essentially unplayable because of the PSN blackout, though that should be obvious what with the multiplayer game being incapable of going online.

There you have it, that’s my final verdict on Brink. I’d enjoy playing with a friend, but I’m not sold on the final product. Rent it if you’ve got the online account, but until a few patches come down the pipe, it’s a pass. That’s just me (as always). What do you guys think? Is Brink on the list of Must Have titles? Leave a comment and let me know. C’mon, we’ve got to make this online thing work, for the sake of games everywhere!

Want more reviews? Check these out:

-Rush N Attack and Yar’s Revenge, visiting some old friends

-Huge Success: A Review of Portal 2

-Get Over Here and Play: A Review of Mortal Kombat (2011)

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

Boy did it ever take me a while to figure this one out.

My experience with the First-Person Shooter (and to some extent the 3rd Person Shooter as well) dates back to GoldenEye 007 for the Nintendo 64. I played the single-player mode for hours and hours, loving the fun of running through levels with invincibility, every gun, and infinite ammo, mowing down enemies just for the heck of it. But I was never what you’d call “good” at the game. When playing against friends in multiplayer matches I’d typically show up in last place, but it was never about the multiplayer experience for me.

Flash forward to the recent years and I’ve played a handful of shooters including both Modern Warfare titles, Halo 1 & 2, Gears of War, Portal, and Bioshock, dwelling last week exclusively on Modern Warfare 2 in order to soak up as much of it as possible before my Xbox Live Gold Account expired (may it rest in peace). Having done so, a new understanding began to emerge. I was finally able to grasp much of the enjoyment, or at least addiction, that surrounds the title and like-titles.

A lot of this desire to get better at the FPS genre stems from two things. The first is my preference to platformers as a genre, of which the FPS may just be the total opposite. I’m good at platforming in games, but awful with a gun in my virtual hands, so I wanted to balance myself out.

I suppose it can't always be about shooting this guy in the bathroom stall.

The second and larger desire is a need to fit in with my extended family. Multiple members of my wife’s family and family friends play Call of Duty on a basis more regular than the tides swelling and receding. It’s painful to find myself the odd-man-out in a conversation about video games, blindly stumbling around the outsides of the group as they talk clear strategies and CoD jargon while I ask if anyone else has 242 stars in Super Mario Galaxy 2.

To begin, I needed to go through the single-player campaign, of which I was already fairly familiar with thanks to rampant spoilers and the fact that I’m playing it a year after it’s fashionable to do so. Playing through just the story left me a little confused, not just because the story itself was so all over the place and…well bad, but because the game itself wasn’t overly difficult. Then again, I was playing it on the default difficulty, so after one solid playthrough I ramped things up to Veteran despite the game advising me not to and spent a few days ripping through the game once more at high speeds.

What I’m still not sure of is whether Modern Warfare 2’s Veteran difficult stacks up accurately to other highest difficulty levels in different First-Person Shooters. For all I know, MW2 is considered easy, and while I won’t say it was a walk through the park, it wasn’t a walk through the minefield either. It had some moderate challenge, but nothing overly complicated. Rather, it felt that I was getting killed by seemingly nothing more than by actual enemies when playing on Veteran.

Also, I don't recall the point of the game where I walked through fire.

Regardless, the lesson I learned was that the story wasn’t important to a FPS game of this style (I’m aware that Bioshock and Portal both have awesome central stories). The war-type FPS seems to use the campaign mode more as a means of training you up to learn the basics before tossing you into the online multiplayer matches. That’s where the real game tends to be as the enjoyment you’ll skim from the experience is much richer in playing with other people, either via co-op modes or just head-to-head in ridiculous multiplayer matches.

Before deciding to get myself killed over and over again by players 70-levels my superior, I managed to hop online with just my good friend Kyle Martinak and try out the Special Ops missions, essentially sections of the campaign mode repurposed as challenge-based objectives such as survive five waves of enemies or run to the target market before time runs out. Trying to play these missions solo just wasn’t much fun, mostly because they were clearly designed to be played with more than one person. However, when co-oping the missions, the enjoyment grew quite a lot. I found that failure wasn’t as frustrating when there was another player attached and that every time we failed we’d do slightly better the next time, as if two players learning simultaneously will double the speed at which a challenge can be figured out.

After some time spent with Special Ops, it was finally time to man up and play against other players in the ultra-competitive format online via Xbox Live. This was where I would have to discover everything there is to like about the FPS genre, and initially it isn’t easy to find that enjoyment. The reason behind this is the way the ranking system works. Modern Warfare revolutionized the online FPS experience, giving players points for every action they perform, leveling them up at a steady progression that unlocks new weapons and perks and such. The big downside is that you start as the biggest scrub possible with the lamest weapons and perks, whereas the other players have leveled up to a point where they have access to pretty much every gun, plus they know the best places of a map to hide, attack from, or throw grenades at. It sucks to be the new guy.

Don't have the Hearbeat Senor and/or the Cold-blooded Perk? Sucks to be you.

The addiction sets in right around the time you unlock your first thing, and it happens quickly. You discover that you can unlock accessories for your guns, such as scopes or silencers, just by killing enough people with said gun. Completing challenges such as shooting 30 guys while crouched will reward you with a ton of experience points which will lead you to the next level which may just unlock newer guns and better perks, ultimately leading to you saying after every round, “Hmm, well I’m just about to unlock a new perk, so I need to play one more match.” This repeats indefinitely as the steady trickle of unlocking and rewarding never, ever ends.

The other half of the addiction kicks in as a result of the social aspect that partners with playing against other humans around the globe. As humans, we constantly want to impress others with our abilities, so when you play a match and get destroyed, you seek to never repeat that instance. You’ll play more and more matches in hopes of learning the layout, figuring out a better combination of guns and perks, or simply just waiting for the perfect streak of luck to provide you with a set of amazing kills.

Oorah? Yes, Oorah.

After all that, I hardly got my feet wet with the game, but I understood it at last. I could see why the genre is so popular at this very moment, especially after Modern Warfare reinvented the leveling progression. Is it my favorite genre now? No, but I don’t downright hate it anymore. Now I Get Your Genre. I Get First-Person Shooters.

But what about you? Do you get the FPS genre? Or are you still blissfully unaware? Leave a comment and discuss. And suggest what genre you’d like to have me try and get next. I’m always eager to learn and try new game-related challenges. C’mon, help me out man, I’m just one or two articles away from unlocking my next perk.

Want more articles on game discussion? Try these out:

-Let’s Think Deep: The Mind of a Fanboy

-Bad Games That Should Have Been Great: Fable II

-How To Game Correctly

Back to the good stuff again.

First, what works: Everything. Now, what doesn’t work: The PC version. There, that about sums things up. Oh, whoa, I’m not even two paragraphs into this and already I’m out of material. Okay, I’ll elaborate since I suppose that’s what I’m supposed to do.

Treyarch, the publisher better known as the “In Between” Call of Duty developer responsible for World At War, took on the project of outdoing Modern Warfare 2, a seemingly impossible task. Apparently, and this is just what I’m hearing from exactly everyone, they managed to make a game that’s not only better than Modern Warfare 2, but Halo: Reach and any other FPS multiplayer game available. Oh snaps dude, that’s heavy.

And then this guy gets rail-hucked. Sucks to be him.

The setting here is very thankfully not World War II and instead we get sent to Vietnam, more or less. Setting a game during the period of the Vietnam War hasn’t yet paid off really well, but Treyarch seemed to pay very close attention to what made the Modern Warfare games work so well: Unrealism. The fantastical moments where you get to ride all manner of whatever across random terrains is what differentiated Modern Warfare from a lot of other FPS based around the “modern” or “very near future” settings, but Black Ops decides, “Hey, why not? This is a game, it should be fun!” Therefore, variety becomes the spice of life and we get a game packed with an almost ADD-laced campaign mode. While it takes place during the Vietnam War, you’ll be hopping around the world playing various characters in various situations, all totaling a really cool experience that doesn’t exactly allow you to connect with any one character but sure does make for a cool story.

I hate zombies. I think they’re overdone and putting them in games anymore just feels tired. Therefore, when I heard the zombie-survival mode that made World At War so popular would come back, I said, and I quote, “Meh.” Then I saw the screenshots of who you play as during the zombie-survival mode: JFK, Richard Nixon, Fidel Castro, and Robert McNamera. WIN!

If this were the whole game, I'd probably buy it just off of that.

Then comes the most important aspect of a FPS these days: The multiplayer. “How is the multiplayer? Is it better than previous games? Why won’t you tell me?” Calm down random person asking me these questions, the answer is coming in the very next sentence. Treyarch took copious notes regarding what worked and what didn’t work about the previous Call of Duty games and implemented what they learned into Black Ops, placating fans and making a multiplayer experience that once again raises the bar for what you expect an FPS multiplayer experience to be and ensures that Medal of Honor will be remembered as “What game?”

The new addition in the multiplayer rankings is the updated point system. You’re able to earn points as usual for doing just about anything while within a match, but there are certain modes that allow you to wager these points on the outcome of the match. One game type in particular has you play against six other players, place a bet on who will win, and then the top three players have their bets taken seriously. It all makes for a great match-type.

There’s just too much to say about the multiplayer. The amount of content here justifies the $60 price tag. It’s kind of obvious that Black Ops is going to be topping a number of Game of the Year lists, though it does make sense.

It's just like a snow day from school: Awesome!

BUT! There is one snag: The PC port is broken. Don’t purchase the PC version of Black Ops unless you don’t care that the multiplayer aspect doesn’t work due to poor matchmaking and constant lag. I’ve seen instances of the PC version being the review copy and causing the entire review score to drop significantly (we’re talking Jim Sterling’s Destructoid review), so plan accordingly and prepare to accept a broken game if you buy the PC version. If you get the Xbox 360 or PS3 version though, you should be fine.

And that’s all you need to know about Black Ops. If you love First Person Shooters, this is a no-brainer. Call of Duty: Black Ops is a game you want to play right now, so go do that. There, review over. Did it make a difference? Nah, I didn’t think so. C’mon Nixon, let’s get all quagmire on these undead.

Want more game reviews? Check these out:

-Platforming Served Well Done: A Review Of Super Meat Boy

-More Like A Tall Tale: A Review Of Fable III

-Monkey’s Life-Changing Trip: A Review of Enslaved: Odyssey To The West

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.

You ready for another trip to Rapture?

If you’ve read my Bioshock review, you already know that I like Bioshock. If you read my preview for Bioshock 2, then you know I’m pretty psyched for the sequel. Well, the sequel’s out now, so did it live up to my expectations? There is some good, some bad, and some blah, but let’s save that for another day. Oh heck, why not, let’s do it now. On to Rapture!

Something Old, Something New

As you may remember, the world of Bioshock takes place in the doomed underwater city of Rapture. You got to see a great deal of it in the first game, so you’d think the second game is just gonna ramp up the amount of new areas, right? Uh, there are some new places, but to be honest, the first game sort of has this one beat in terms of atmosphere. Why? Because the first one completely set up a new world. This one just continues on, so there isn’t as much mystery to everything. It’s still great, but the effect of the city has somewhat diminished in a repeat visit.

You get to play as the very first Big Daddy here with all that goes along with that, such as a drill, the ability to walk underwater (which is completely under-utilized), and the choice to either harvest Little Sisters for Adam like in the first game or adopt them as your own Little Sister for a while, a new concept. It’s a good idea, but babysitting the Little Sisters for a while can get somewhat repetitive and, well, dull. Plus, the thought of a drill weapon is great, but it isn’t nearly as fun as it sounded.

Maybe if you were as cute as this doll, I'd have less to complain about.

Regardless of these faults, there is a lot of good to the game. It starts out slow but the later half hits hard and sweet, a good combo. This is an FPS, but the focus isn’t so much on reactionary speed and reflexes so much as just experiencing the world. Even if it doesn’t seem as vivid as the first outing, Bioshock 2 is still fantastic in the story department.

There are a lot of new Plasmids to play with and thankfully a completely new hacking system that happily replaces the monotonous hacking minigame from the first. There are also boss battles with the Big Sister, though it isn’t set up as the seemingly random encounters the pre-game hype lead on. These are scripted story events, but that doesn’t matter: Big Sisters are a welcome addition to Rapture.

The multiplayer, however, can just be done away with. No reason to play it after a single glance or two as it’s just like any other multiplayer shooter except with Bioshock as the backdrop. Forgettable, so just forget it and make this a purchase based on the single-player experience.

And it really is a purchase to make. I’m still big on the mythos behind Rapture, so any new storyline has high standing in my court. Go play this one after you play the first, at least as a rental title. Few other games are hitting this perfectly in the story department, so don’t miss out.

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.