A long time ago in a pizza parlor not very far away

There was a time when you could be a local champion. Whether it was the Ms. Pac-Man machine at the Pizza Hut or the Street Fighter II cabinet at the local arcade, your reputation as a champion didn’t require you to go far but did require you be able to perform live in often high pressure situations. Your three initials were enough to make you feel proud about your accomplishment and give you some bragging rights. You could go beyond your immediate town if you wanted, but it was a long road and more often than not you were happy being the local champ. But that was then. Now the path to becoming a gaming rock star is even longer.

Being the best used to be a local challenge.

If you’re not first, you’re last

As games got connected to the internet, wonderful things like leaderboards became standard and to this day nothing beats a good old-fashioned high score table. You’d be surprised at how motivating a few numbers at the top of the screen can be, but now the leaderboards are quite a ladder to climb because there’s no such thing as local anymore. No, now the only way to be the best is to be the best in the world. Am I only one that finds that a little bit daunting and demotivating? It’s like getting a job as a cashier only to find the next level up is CEO…and to get there all you have to do is be better than every other cashier on the planet.

Yes, you can be the best gamer amongst your friends and that can be worth a lot, but if you’re like me, your friends may not be into the same types of games as you are. That alone makes it hard to have fun talking smack when they don’t really care otherwise. Now imagine if you could fight to be the best player in your city without having to friend them first. I’d bet that local competition would be more fierce than world record battles. I know I’d be playing harder and more often if there were smaller steps between myself and world domination. Everyone is about social connections these days, right? What’s more social than finding other local gamers…and then going head-to-head with them?

Before you fought the champ, you had to prove your worth.

Given all the personal data we share these days (both willingly and unwillingly), you’d think games could break down high scores to more approachable levels. If your console is connected online then you know that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo know exactly where you are in the world, so why not give us some localized leaderboards? Maybe by state or even zip code? Give us more options than just being best in the world.

You just can’t go from little league to major league in one step, it’s not natural and it’s not what people want. We want obtainable goals and we want to be challenged without being completely overwhelmed. There’s a reason books have chapters. Imagine reading any book without the hint and knowledge that there is a logical stopping point between start and finish. Gaming would be a lot more interesting and a lot more fun if we could get back to some of that arcade champion mentality.

Being good without being the best

Everybody wants to be good at something and there was a time when you could be good just by hanging out with your friends and throwing down a few quarters. Now you have to play a game for 48-hours straight only to find out you’re 1,314th in the world. Great. Awesome. That makes me feel good knowing I only have to beat 1,313 more people to be considered good. I’m sure you’re saying to yourself that leaderboards don’t matter and I should just have fun playing games. I do have fun playing games, but there’s no shame in wanting a challenge somewhere between your friends and the world. Even Little Mac didn’t have to face Mike Tyson in his first match.

The only thing these worldwide leaderboards are doing is ruining your prestige as a gamer. There’s very little to gauge your skill at any particular game. Most of today’s video games have already done enough to eliminate the need for skill, so keeping leaderboards at a global level is basically removing the last bastion of video game competition, the high score, from your living room. The solution to this problem is a simple one, and perhaps that is what makes the whole mess even more frustrating.

Brian is a freelance writer in charge of his own blog, The Morning Toast. Want more of his original work? Go check out his site!

Want more articles about the intricacies of gaming? Check these out:

-Five years later and I still have Wii Regret

-Let’s Think Deep: The Download Conundrum

-Let’s Think Deep: The Used Games Dilemma

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.

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.

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.