PC News and Game Reviews

I have always been a big fan of Valve, since the early train rides into Black Mesa…..to the recent Zombie Killing madness of L4D.

When L4D was released, I was blown away. The games only major complaint, was the lack of content…..I guess I shuld have got worried when Valve dragged their heels about releasing the SDK. If that was not warning sign enough the “Survival Pack” was basically 2 vs levels we had hacked 6 months before, and one one impossible Survival lighthouse map.

I guess this was the biggest warning sign, very poor effort at a DLC release. That said I was sure Valve would make good at E3, and wow us with 4 new maps for the excellent L4D, but no…they release L4D 2….with the plastic wrap still on the ground from the first release!

WTF guys? Do you really expect us to shell out for a new game, after getting a game that was 70% finished to begin with. I buy all my PC games, as I know my custom helps make games better and keep prices down. This is nothing short of betrayal by what I used to consider a PC institution. Shame on you. Thumbs up to the developers who I know went: “Are you sure this is a good idea?” - Well the Boycot L4D group has 10k members….and that will only rise….

Left 4 Dead 2 Boycott, join up here.

Left 4 Dead launched in November 2008. Since then I have been playing it religiously. I can honestly say its the first game that has held my attention this long, without growing tired of the content or game play.

Like most players I did not invest much time in the single player game. Although the L4D bots are excellent, they are still bots and can never come close to human companions. For this reason most player were drawn online to the fantastic campaign mode.

If I can make one major criticism of L4D, it would be the lack of content from the outset. I thought that 4 “movies” was not enough content to launch with, and that delaying the game to add more movies would have been a better idea, and lead to a better product hitting the shelves. That said I was surprised how the AI Director really did make each play through a completely different experience, however it is not strong enough on its own to make up for a lack of content and the fact that after 6 months

Online campaign mode is excellent. With a good team you will quickly overcome the game on expert, and earn your achievements without too much difficulty. Valve (Turtle Rock) have managed to meld excellent multi-player FPS action, with scripted crescendo events that would usually be seen in Half Life 2. The union of of classic multi-player with scripted events allows the developers to get the best of both worlds. They can deliver a strong narrative, while still making a game with excellent co-op play.

Where Left 4 Dead has come into its own is the versus mode of play. While I battled my way through the campaign mode I spared little thought for versus, but having played it for a few months…I can never see myself going back to campaign mode again!!! Vs puts two teams of 4 players against each other. Both teams get to play as Survivors and Infected, which each round being scored based on how well you did (or how poorly you did!!!)

The jewel of the versus mode for me has to be playing as the infected. The level of co-ordination involved to bring down a team of good survivors is astonishing. Smokers can be used to pull a well disciplined team apart, right after a boomer has blinded the entire team with some well place vomit!!! To add to that the excellent Hunter class allows spectacular acrobatic leaps from rooftops right down on top of your unsuspecting victims!! What I really love about this mode of play is that the sometimes predictable AI director takes a back stage, as human infected players can set ambushes that the infected AI could never hope to match (The top of the ladder in Mercy Hospital Finale being one that springs to mind).

The only disturbing trend I have seen in VS mode is the “race” to the safe room you sometimes see. Basically the survivors charge as fast as they can, seriously limiting the amount of time the infected players have to spawn. The end result is the level is over with a handful of rounds fired!!! ITs an exploit I thing the developers need to address, because 12 year old spotty teenagers are getting a great kick out of doing it over and over…..

I would have to give this game a 9.5 out of 10, its a gem. More content please.

Far Cry was a great game, right up to the point when them stupid indestructible mutants showed up. With Ubisoft taking the rights to the name “Far Cry”, and Crytek taking the technology, I was sure that Crytek would make the better game. I am biased of course, but I always put faith in the original developers. Well it would seem I was wrong, and Ubisoft found an excellent development team, who made a great game…..read on!

Story
Fairly standard stuff here. Set in default generic African war torn country. Two factions are fighting for power. Supplying both sides with guns and ammo is the ominous “Jackel”. you goal from the outset is simple, kill the “the Jackel”, the bastard supplying both sides with weapons. As the story plays out it becomes clear your mission will not be ending quite as planned.

Gameplay
First the bad…always the bad. There are too many checkpoints in this game. When starting a mission from point A to point B, you may encounter as many as 3-4 checkpoints en-route. These checkpoints are manned by up to 4-5 men, including fixed machine guns and “the jeep of death”. Now I would not mind if you could drive around them, or simply plow straight through…but the developers kindly gave the AI the ability to race after you in jeeps. Dont get me wrong, the idea/action is great…..but when it happens 4 times in 10 minutes, it becomes very repetitive and a major hastle as you expend precious ammo en-route to your target. I hear the checkpoints were added because play-testers complainind the game could be too boring due to its size, wrong solution. The ability to attack and destroy a checkpoint (permanently) would have been a good feature, as endless firefights on your way to a mission becomes annoying.

Weapons Shops: Everyman needs an AK. To acquire new weapons in FC2 you can simply pick them up. Doing this however has one major problem. The enemy weapons break and jam all the time, only when you use them….I never noticed an enemy having weapon malfunctions when gunning me down so the answer is the weapon shop, where you pay for new weapons in raw diamonds. The problem is the the unlocking system. In order to get new more powerful weapons you need to do a mission for the arms dealer. The missions are all the SAME! You travel to an area and attack the same convoy of 1 truck and 2 jeeps. It plays out the same, all the time. I really can’t see why the devs would not have introduced a variation to the missions. Maybe the truck convoy as one, kill a competitor as another, blow up a shipment coming in by air/boat etc…..variation.

The end….this is the end….my only friend The Jackel. The end is very linear. More of a gripe than a problem, would have liked to have a bit more choice.

Another compliant from a fellow gamer (playing on an archaic PS3 with a really rudimentary joy pad for control) noted that the payoff for exploring alone is not enough. The odd diamond case scattered about is a joke. Who puts one diamond in a case and goes to the trouble of putting it at the top of a mountain!!! Missions to recover cases of diamonds could have featured. The barkeep in Mikes could have told you a story about a plan that went down or a convoy that got hit, you go off find the convoy and a clue to the guys who took it. Finding random diamonds did not reward exploring, like in S.T.A.L.K.E.R the quests should encourage exploration of all areas, not token diamond treats!

The Good - Excellent gunplay. Firefights are dynamic and sprawling. You can approach an enemy village and tacky it by simply setting it on fire, or by peppering it with grenades from a hillside. You can snipe….or run and gun. There were complaints about the AI, I did not see many issues with the AI, certainly worked better than Crysis.

The Fire: Great touch. Tactical use of fire introduced a new dynamic into the FPS genre. Fire burns and spreads. People run away from fire…..people run into sniper scope……people die.

The Story: While being very simple, it does create a sense of a desperate country on the verge of breakdown. A country awash with guns in Africa is a bit of cliche, but there is enough meat in the story to keep you engaged (no need for aliens…thank god)

GFX
What can be said, great. The game looks great. Shadows and textures are excellent. Day night cycle is great. 10 out of 10 on the eye candy front.

Sound
The sound is really good. The noise of the open savanna is like watching a national geographic. Zebra can be heard “Zebraing” out of them. White enemies speak in a “diplomatic immunity” S.African accent. All good on the sond front, with the score changing when danger is afoot. 9/10

Longevity/Replay Value
Well I have only played it once, but will definitely play through it again. I did find it quite easy once I got better weapons, however the dynamic narrative does make every playthrough different. Although the missions wil remain the same, its the order in which they are done, and the characters invloved that make it appear different. I would give it a 7/10 for replay value, it’s certainly not one to sit on the shelf for years untouched.

Conclusion
Very enjoyable game to play that has annoying niggly bits. This is not a truly open world, and if your after dynamic faction conflict this is not the game for you. The factions do not fight outside of scripted battles. In fact they do not move, at all. The world is truly beatiful and an amazing achievement in itself. All in all it has to be an 8/10. Its gun play saves it from the design decisions that really annoyed me.

How long was World War 2! Seriously, if you were to play every WW2 FPS out there it would probably take you twice as long as the bloody war. In saying that though the Brothers in Arms series has been alittle different in its approach to the WW2 FPS. This is mainly due to its hint of RTS.

Unlike convensional FPS games in BIA you also control squads of troops. With each squad rocking their own specific weapons and abilities. This simple game mechanic has always made the series stand out from the wave of games in the genre. And once again its what keeps the series fresh and fun.

Gameplay = 9

As i’ve explained, BIA is alittle different from your standard FPS. You play as Sgt.Matt Baker, Baker’s been the lead character since BIA:Hill 30 or in timeline terms since Normandy.The 101st has reached Holland and you rejoin Bakers squad just at the cusp of Market Garden. While playing as Baker you will have control over between 1 and 3 squads. They range from Assault teams (Used to flank and attack suppressed enemies), MG Teams (Used to suppress enemies), Bazooka Teams (Used for taking out tanks and MG emplacements) and Standard Fire Teams (which double as both suppression and assault teams).

Of course Baker can also bag a few Nazi’s himself but you will quickly find that in BIA numbers make a major difference. Trying to rush an MG emplacement single handed is a sure fire way to get ripped in two. You really have to take advantage of your men to progress. Suppressing, flanking or finding higher ground is just a few of the examples of tricks you’ll need to use to get the drop on your enemy.

There is some change ups in the gameplay though. During some missions you may be seperated from your troops. These instances probably pose some of the biggest challenges in the game. You also get to man a tank for several missions. While fun the tank missions just seem like filler in an already short game.

The gameplay has held up quiet well since the first title. Also the minor tweaks, such as improved aiming and additional teams really add some spice to BIA:HH.

GFX = 8

The only way to describe the graphics in BIA:HH is ‘adequate’. At times the game can look outstanding and at others dated and alittle ugly. This may be down to the long delay with the release. But when your working with probably the best engine on the market at the moment, Unreal 3, there’s really no excuse for having average GFX.

The overall design is gritty and rustic which is fine but unlike something like Gears of War the style wasn’t captured with the same level of graphic quality. The game looks more basic or dull then realistic. In saying that though dispite this cinematics look great, aswell as character animations and explosions. So although the GFX are alittle dated they still do the job well enough.

Sound = 9

No complaints here. Weapons and enviromental sounds come across as authentic. Also the voice work is exceptional, with stellar performances from both Baker and Hartsock.

Longevity/Replay Value = 6

Unfortunitly this is where BIA:HH really suffers. With a measly campaign lasting only 6-7hrs, there really isn’t awhole lot of gameplay here. Although the story is well written there is alot of intrusive cinematics that cut into that 6hrs, so gameplay wise it might boil down to 5hrs. Also on the downside is the story, it progress’s the previous games well but new players coming in late will probably be completely lost.

On the multiplayer front the game will hold your attention for awhile but given both previous multiplayer games died a quick death don’t expect to have many players to play with in the near future.

Conclusion

Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway is a good game. It has its problems sure, but as a fan of the series i’m happy enough with this iteration. If your new to BIA i’d definitly advise you to play the first two games before playing HH. Their now available on several systems including a double pack on the Wii.

Verdict = 8

S.T.A.L.K.E.R Shadow of Chernobyl was an excellent idea for a game. The setting was perfect gaming material, however the implementation was flawed. The game had far far too many bugs out of the box, but became an absolute GEM with the application of a few well chosen patches!

I was delighted when GSC announced a prequel. My initial thought were: Just redo S.T.A.L.K.E.R Shadow of Chernobyl, with new content and the bugs fixed (PERFECT). It was with this preconception that I awaited the release of Clearsky (big mistake!!!).

When it hit the shelves Clearsky was a game with HUGE problems. From what I have seen so far, it has far more bugs than SOC had out of the box. My first encounter with some bandits resulted in one of them walking off a tower (along an invisible floor) in midair, and throwing grenades down at me. When I finally gunned his ass down, the body disappeared and re-appeared back in the tower. What’s that I hear? It’s the sense of immersion in the game world flying out the window!

BUGS!!!! Has anyone seen the “Walk into the floor bug”. In the Duty base, and also in the STALKER base I have seen friendly and neutral stalkers walk into the ground, as if there is an invisible staircase. Have not managed to catch it on FRAPS but I never really have it on with CLEARSKY as im afriad I will cause it to crash even more than it already does!

CONFUSION!!! Confusion is how I would sum up the missions in Clearsky. You are frequently told to recapture a point. You charge to the point and kill all the enemy, only for NOTHING to happen. The point is not captured, and you are told to “Hold the point until help arrives”. Well this never happens. After a certain amount of time the mission either gets canceled or completes? Would it not be simple enough to start a timer at a control point once all enemies are dead. If no new enemies enter the area the point is then captured?

BLOWOUT!!! Stupid game design choice. Force the player to drop everything and run like a hare towards a shed, that protects them for a radioactive emission? Led walls methinks….

ARTIFACTS, I would have to disagree with Jim Rossignol’s review over on PCG. I actually think artifacts in SOC where far too plentiful…with no real work involved in finding or acquiring them. The detector at least makes you work for what are the most powerful and expensive items in the game! I therefore agree with this design decision, Jim did GSC not fill you with enough Vodka?

So all in all, what do I think? This is not an improvement on the first game. It has the same complaints as the first, and the developers must be questioned for not learning from the previous game. I don’t think we are asking too much too see a game that has been play tested to the point where it is possible to finish the game without a patch! SHAME ON YOU! I must commend the developers again for their ambition, I just think a game like Far Cry 2 will nail the open world shooter/rpg genre….when it should have been GSC’s crown with Clearsky.