Being one of the most exciting games with a brand spanking new engine to boast about has been causing quite the stir. But is it all that it's meant to be?
The new CryEngine has blown away it's competitors, but now with Unreal having announced their follow-up engine (perhaps the most used engine on the market), where does this leave Crytek? It's staple example of the engine being Crysis 2. Well, undoubtedly, this is a very pretty game. What you will notice the most is not necessarily the characters, but the fluidity of natural elements such as fire, light, water, smoke, explosions etc., it's these that are remarkably impressive. But does the game work?
As an engine, it works very well. However, as a game it's a different story. I came onto this right off the back of Homefront and it was a complete change of pace, but looking back on it now, Crysis 2 is only marginally better. Sure the graphics are superb, perhaps the best I've seen on a next-gen console, but it lacks something.
I feel the main reason is that it still feels like a PC FPS, and to a lesser extent, a poor man's Halo. The aliens are colourful, pretty, but to be honest they are quite similar and range from soldier ones, hard soldier ones, massive ones, and a big War of the World type one - which there are about 4 or 5 in the game. You are fighting humans as well who want your suit, but in theory it's the aliens that are the real threat. This also brings up the issue that I haven't played Crysis, so I've no idea where these aliens have come from, who The Prophet really is, why it's set in New York and if any of these 'flashbacks' are relevant. It's a simple story of reaching A to B with people trying to kill you and nab your suit or some such thing - really, it's all a lot of nonsense. You're a super soldier who has to save the world (basically Master Chief).
The controls are typical FPS except you have to double click your 'change weapon' button for a grenade (ridiculous), you hold LB for armour and RB for cloak. You can upgrade your alien-like powers (which I saved up for no reason really) and of which it's never fully explained why you should care that the suit is part alien or something now. You can also customise your weapon mid-game, it's a nice touch. However, what you find is that cloaking is a complete ball-ache and you're much better off going in guns-a-blazing, which almost defeats the point of it. I would usually try going in using the cloak first and if I didn't get far or got found out, then when I respawned, I'd just shoot everyone and complete it in a quarter of the time. The AI isn't too bad, but sometimes they do just stand there while you shoot them in the face. You don't have health really, but rather an energy meter where basically anything you do apart from walking uses up the energy meter so the nice bit is you've got your eye on it the whole time, always reaching out a bit further from when you can recharge your cloak to move to the next spot. All very nice touches and a storyline that isn't too crap. But why am I not feeling it?
It could be that for something so uniquely epic in a devastated New York, it actually feels rather small. You just continue moving, shooting, moving and really, it feels like it should be bigger than it is. The visuals were great, but I feel they were wasted with some perhaps quite poor game directing - it was rather short, easy and constantly anti-climatic. Your suit kept 're-booting' and there were some lame 'Press A For Defribulator' moments that felt pushed in and really the whole thing annoyed me slightly. The constant 'visor' to check out who was lurking about was like a chore that I soon ditched when I realised I didn't need it. The game just felt like it had such a powerful machine behind it, but was let down by some quite boring, unoriginal and uninspiring gameplay.
I'm not saying this was crap. Far from it. It's a smooth, sleek, well-furnished FPS that is worth it's money. It has a pretty good multiplayer section and is generally good fun, but it didn't have that epic story, that real emotional pull that other FPS games might have. Instead it was a cock-out action piece that had some stealth elements thrown in that slowed down the game, rather than adding a new dimension to it. The story was rather bland and about a quarter of the way through I just wanted to complete the thing - I didn't care anymore.
I had really high hopes for this game. The end 'crawling' bit reminded me of MGS4, which is a few years old now and that did it a whole lot better, remember all those amazing multiple screens? It heightened the drama whereas Crysis 2 makes you feel like a lame duck. Your suit keeps buggering up, but it doesn't matter because it reboots and works fine in a matter of moments anyway. Your looking around going 'that looks cool' when really it's taking away from the fact that it's a completely average shooter.
As far as FPS's go, it's a definite contender. It's a gorgeous game that will have you playing it for a good couple of days or perhaps weeks if you're more casual, but it's nothing that made me feel like it was the future of gaming. Instead, when I wanted to come away with a Wow, I came away with a small sigh and a little smile. It's worth shelling out for just to be pretty, and if you have a 3DTV and all that, but this is not an urgent game, you can definitely wait for it to come down in price, rent it, or just complete the game that you're doing now and save Crysis 2 for a later time because, unfortunately, it's not going anywhere. It does get an extra mark for being so bloody beautiful, the cheeky minx.
Rating: 7/10
Showing posts with label fps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fps. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Sunday, 3 April 2011
REVIEW: Homefront
I would hazard a guess and say that this has had a lot of money thrown into it's marketing because I swear I can't get away from a poster or advert somewhere for this recently. But is it time for it to go home?
The main focus of this game was that it's post-apocalyptic future is based on a history that's happening right now and isn't outside the realms of possibility, it's in fact a real threat. America's economy is collapsing and North Korea are starting to get more and more ballsy with their weapons. It's revolutionary storyline even mimics what is going on in Libya and the Ivory Coast but when it comes down to it, can it incite enough emotion to engage the audience? By bringing the war to people's front yard, writer John Milius who co-wrote Apocalypse Now and Red Dawn, clearly hopes to do something different with a bloated FPS genre. However, didn't we see war-torn America in Modern Warfare? So if you're going to copy something, why you would think you can do it better than the most popular franchise on Earth is beyond me. But it's worth a try I guess ...
The game opens out in familiar territory - you're pummelled into a bus and you watch the horrors of war going on outside the window. Much like that intro bit on Modern Warfare remember? Okay, I'll stop comparing - but it's hard to do. Soon you're part of the resistance trying to win back America from the hands of the Koreans one step at a time. Plot wise, I thoroughly enjoyed it, it was quite engaging but I felt like each plot point was stretched out to involve the gameplay and really, it felt like an entertaining short story rather than a fleshed out game. 'Short' being the key word here as I must have completed the game in about 4 hours, maybe even quicker. What I played was good, but it felt like old hat. The AI was actually quite impressive, no longer waiting for people to pop up, they seemed to move around and try and second guess you a bit. The gameplay was quite smooth, almost too smooth that it felt unrealistic, throwing grenades for example held no weight and if someone was far from the explosion they would be thrown off their feet the same as if it went off right by them. Controls are the same as any FPS and there's a bit of helicopter action, a bit of gunner action and all that thrown in for good measure. It ticks every box needed for an FPS - so what's the issue?
The main issue is that it feels dated. Had this game been released a couple of years ago, and made a bit longer, I would have enjoyed it but the graphics felt a little old, the gameplay was just going through the motions and it seemed heavy on plot but light on character. This would have been mainly because you're running from one mission to another and there's not much reflection being had - everyone seems so bloody caught up in everything they don't have time to just let out their feelings. It's a shame since a lot of emotional scenes occur within the film, parents being shot in front of their children, Americans fighting each other and torturing Koreans, mass graves, self-sacrifice and all sorts but yet it doesn't seem to have the gloss to keep up. Video games are unfortunately one of the few mediums where money, in theory, is very important to what makes a game good. You will literally see every dollar spent on the screen - it's not to say you can't make a simple, inexpensive game and it not be a success but these days the bar is so high that unless you've got a major studio behind you, you run the risk of being left behind.
Homefront is a game that has it all in the right places but can't deliver like Call of Duty can. It feels like it's little brother that has made a good effort but can't reach the heady heights. But then it's not that I have anything really bad to say about it, just there's nothing that stands out as being very good. Sure, fighting on normal American soil is cool, sure the action can be pretty good and the story quite engrossing but it's instantly forgettable. The multiplayer was surprisingly fun with large maps and large teams with standard necessary game modes but you couldn't help but think you'd rather be playing something else.
It was the moment I completed the game, opened my disk tray and inserted Crysis 2 when I realised how far behind the times Homefront is. Great effort guys and worth a weekend's playing, but nothing to write home about.
Rating: 6/10
The main focus of this game was that it's post-apocalyptic future is based on a history that's happening right now and isn't outside the realms of possibility, it's in fact a real threat. America's economy is collapsing and North Korea are starting to get more and more ballsy with their weapons. It's revolutionary storyline even mimics what is going on in Libya and the Ivory Coast but when it comes down to it, can it incite enough emotion to engage the audience? By bringing the war to people's front yard, writer John Milius who co-wrote Apocalypse Now and Red Dawn, clearly hopes to do something different with a bloated FPS genre. However, didn't we see war-torn America in Modern Warfare? So if you're going to copy something, why you would think you can do it better than the most popular franchise on Earth is beyond me. But it's worth a try I guess ...
The game opens out in familiar territory - you're pummelled into a bus and you watch the horrors of war going on outside the window. Much like that intro bit on Modern Warfare remember? Okay, I'll stop comparing - but it's hard to do. Soon you're part of the resistance trying to win back America from the hands of the Koreans one step at a time. Plot wise, I thoroughly enjoyed it, it was quite engaging but I felt like each plot point was stretched out to involve the gameplay and really, it felt like an entertaining short story rather than a fleshed out game. 'Short' being the key word here as I must have completed the game in about 4 hours, maybe even quicker. What I played was good, but it felt like old hat. The AI was actually quite impressive, no longer waiting for people to pop up, they seemed to move around and try and second guess you a bit. The gameplay was quite smooth, almost too smooth that it felt unrealistic, throwing grenades for example held no weight and if someone was far from the explosion they would be thrown off their feet the same as if it went off right by them. Controls are the same as any FPS and there's a bit of helicopter action, a bit of gunner action and all that thrown in for good measure. It ticks every box needed for an FPS - so what's the issue?
The main issue is that it feels dated. Had this game been released a couple of years ago, and made a bit longer, I would have enjoyed it but the graphics felt a little old, the gameplay was just going through the motions and it seemed heavy on plot but light on character. This would have been mainly because you're running from one mission to another and there's not much reflection being had - everyone seems so bloody caught up in everything they don't have time to just let out their feelings. It's a shame since a lot of emotional scenes occur within the film, parents being shot in front of their children, Americans fighting each other and torturing Koreans, mass graves, self-sacrifice and all sorts but yet it doesn't seem to have the gloss to keep up. Video games are unfortunately one of the few mediums where money, in theory, is very important to what makes a game good. You will literally see every dollar spent on the screen - it's not to say you can't make a simple, inexpensive game and it not be a success but these days the bar is so high that unless you've got a major studio behind you, you run the risk of being left behind.
Homefront is a game that has it all in the right places but can't deliver like Call of Duty can. It feels like it's little brother that has made a good effort but can't reach the heady heights. But then it's not that I have anything really bad to say about it, just there's nothing that stands out as being very good. Sure, fighting on normal American soil is cool, sure the action can be pretty good and the story quite engrossing but it's instantly forgettable. The multiplayer was surprisingly fun with large maps and large teams with standard necessary game modes but you couldn't help but think you'd rather be playing something else.
It was the moment I completed the game, opened my disk tray and inserted Crysis 2 when I realised how far behind the times Homefront is. Great effort guys and worth a weekend's playing, but nothing to write home about.
Rating: 6/10
Labels:
america,
apocalypse now,
call of duty,
crysis 2,
fps,
homefront review,
john milius,
korea,
xbox
Sunday, 6 March 2011
NEWS: Dead Island Gameplay Update!
More word on the Dead Island game that after it's successful trailer released a little while back, got a few tongues wagging...
According to testers, Dead Island is perhaps not going to be the dramatic survival horror the trailer promised, instead it will be "zombie zombie zombie all the time" so say the developers. Instead, it follows Dead Rising where you can basically pick up anything, combine and upgrade it, and make it become a bad-ass weapon. Except as you guys know from my review of Dead Rising, it was somewhat of a chore.
It's also completely ripped off Left 4 Dead by giving you a 4 player co-op option, but worse in that once you pick your character, you stay with it. This leaves out the 'pick-up-and-play' aspect that made Left 4 Dead so popular in the first place. If you're going to rip off a game, why leave the best aspects?
Apparently, part of the story is that you're immune to the zombification, meaning that if you're bit you don't have to worry about turning (or finding Zombrex), but instead can worry about the fact you've got a chunk missing from your arm. The game is a fast-paced, balls out shooter which is more cartoonish than dramatic. For those hoping for a more intelligent, Heavy Rain feel to the zombie genre, I'm afraid you might have to wait a little bit longer because it looks like Dead Island might as well be another Dead Rising in the form of an FPS.
According to testers, Dead Island is perhaps not going to be the dramatic survival horror the trailer promised, instead it will be "zombie zombie zombie all the time" so say the developers. Instead, it follows Dead Rising where you can basically pick up anything, combine and upgrade it, and make it become a bad-ass weapon. Except as you guys know from my review of Dead Rising, it was somewhat of a chore.
It's also completely ripped off Left 4 Dead by giving you a 4 player co-op option, but worse in that once you pick your character, you stay with it. This leaves out the 'pick-up-and-play' aspect that made Left 4 Dead so popular in the first place. If you're going to rip off a game, why leave the best aspects?
Apparently, part of the story is that you're immune to the zombification, meaning that if you're bit you don't have to worry about turning (or finding Zombrex), but instead can worry about the fact you've got a chunk missing from your arm. The game is a fast-paced, balls out shooter which is more cartoonish than dramatic. For those hoping for a more intelligent, Heavy Rain feel to the zombie genre, I'm afraid you might have to wait a little bit longer because it looks like Dead Island might as well be another Dead Rising in the form of an FPS.
Labels:
co-op,
dead island,
dead rising,
exclusive,
fps,
gameplay,
gaming news,
left 4 dead,
ps3,
xbox,
zombies
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Halo Reach
Bungie's last Halo game for Microsoft ends where it began by showing how the war with the Covenant started. But is it worth the wait?Before I begin, I must admit I'm a casual Halo gamer. I've completed the first 3 (so I haven't done ODST or Halo Wars etc.)but I rarely play it online. I enjoy pissing about with all the vehicles and stuff, but I'm more of a Call of Duty man. I have done my fair share of online play with Halo 3 and some multiplayer fun with the first two but really, I want it to concentrate more on the 'campaigns' aka the story.
The events take place before the plot of the first Halo - this means no Master Chief etc. but instead you are part of a small elite team of Spartans entrusted with some important tasks during the first few moments of the Covenant attack. I have a few issues with this already. I enjoyed the way when I first picked up Halo that you're in the middle of something big already, it's when makers start filling in the gaps in our imaginations (see Star Wars Episodes 1-3 for instance) that I start getting annoyed. I don't want full detailed explanations on everything. However, saying this, they don't dwell too much on what's going on - instead it's a sheer instinct of survival and trying to evacuate as many people off the planet as possible. Baring in mind the events of Halo, you already know you're planet is fucked so it doesn't matter too much what they do. There are no surprises. At all. Which is probably why I don't rate this game too highly.
The problem is, this is just another Halo, it's the same kind of enemies, the same kind of weapons, the same kind of vehicles. Okay, so there are slightly different variations this time round, but essentially it's the same thing. In fact, I'd argue it's got somewhat worse; the interchangeable abilities you can pick up along the way range from jet packs to a shield to sprinting, which means that you won't be able to run if you have a pretty useless shield option. It's a unique touch to the game that wasn't need and feels forced as you make your way through the game. Unless you think haven't a jetpack is completely amazing for an entire game, you're not going to be that bothered.
The only other variations of the gameplay is some outer space shooting and a bit of flying around some skyscrapers. All of which is very nice but again, it all just mixes into the same Halo routine for me. I don't think I could actually tell you what happened in the first three games and this time round, for obvious reasons, there's no swarm; which are really the bits I enjoy the most.
I imagine the team would like to think this is their 'war film' piece. A torturous, no holds barred, all out apocalyptic piece and although it does have this feel of almost complete hopelessness, it instead feels completely impersonal and instead invokes a feeling of indifference. The idea of being in a team is short lived as you soon just go and do your own thing anyway (unless playing online), the team don't really interact with each other all that much and as the story progresses, it gets even darker. There might not be any surprises in the plot but I did enjoy where it went. However, there's little fleshing out of the characters and rolling from one battlefield to another just becomes second nature, so you soon don't care what's happening, you just want to start shooting again. The main insult is that the game was way too short and also didn't have much of a climax at all - the after-credits sequence made up for it slightly but really I felt cheated.
So with the same old gameplay then perhaps you have something pretty to look at right? Well, yes. The cut scenes look spectacular but there's not much change from Halo 3's graphics I would say. The sterile cities that you find yourself in also look dated and plain, as if it was for a PC game from the turn of the century. The views of the cities burning in the sky is a lovely touch but really, you're seeing the same thing you always see. There were also a few glitches I found such as getting into a lift and then suddenly dying. For no reason. Lame.
I also had issues with the saving as instead of starting from the exact moment you left it, unless you Save and Exit, you'll end up only able to begin at one of four or so big checkpoints during the level which is annoying - the little checkpoints just don't cut it. The whole set-up for the game has been designed for Halo perfectionists - those who want to be able to change every single possible factor within the game. Which brings me on to the online aspect.
The way so much energy has been pushed into the multiplayer options annoys me a lot. Sure it's great with customisable characters, new types of games ('Invasion' etc.), a voting system to choose what kind of game you might want to play and all these lovely, lovely options to make sure you get whatever multiplayer experience you need. Except, I'm not that bothered about playing Halo online. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it and will play it, but really I'm getting this game for it's story - and it just felt a bit half-arsed, it's instead concentrated on it's longevity as a multiplayer online paradise and for me, it just leaves the game without any depth and might as well be some kind of add-on rather than a game in it's own right.
I can't complain too much. I did enjoy the dark aspects of the campaign, the cut-scenes were ok, and I can tell I've only just scratched the surface of what it holds in terms of online gameplay, but really it's lost that initial thing that I loved about Halo - unique FPS with a gratifying story. I can't help but think it's turned into something it shouldn't have done, which might be why Bungie are leaving. I doubt I'll go back and play the campaign again, but I will definitely hold it in high regard as catering for the gaming expert but, if you were a newcomer for instance, this would more likely be more overwhelming with it's level of detailed options when really, you just wanna play the fucking game. Geeks rejoice, but those who like to move from game to game might think nothing more from this than an average FPS. When I read 10/10 5 star reviews, I wonder if Microsoft are paying them off or if they are scared they might upset a few people by saying a Halo game might actually be a bit shit. This was a big one for them and I feel short-changed - it just didn't reach out enough.
Rating: 7/10
Labels:
bungie,
fps,
gameplay,
halo reach,
multiplayer,
review,
xbox 360,
xbox live
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Singularity
This FPS from Raven flew under the radar a couple of months ago but has been bubbling under the surface of anonymity and gaining an almost cult status. Should it be your next purchase?I hadn't heard much of Singularity and when games like this aren't marketed enough (or in this case it seemed not at all), it's a dangerous game. Mainly because the market is full of FPS (first person shooters) and it's hard for the average gamer to know if a game is any good without seeing either some footage, a demo, or a preview article. None of which was easily available or advertised for this game.
This is another aspect where films and games differ. With a film you know who is going to be in it, what it's about, who is making it and the budget with trailers and posters everywhere. It's enough material to make a judgement before you go in, but with a game there's only a few recognisable names in the industry and you're also forking out a lot more money than a cinema ticket. All you have sometimes is the artwork and the back of the box. That's unless it's a franchise or a big game with a massive company behind it like Rockstar with Red Dead Redemption.
So what of this latest offering from Raven/Activision? Well the story is that you are sent to check out some strange activity coming from a hidden island, but once you get there all hell breaks loose. It starts as a horror story where horrible creatures walk around these abandoned schools but as soon as you pick up your TMD device it goes full-pelt into action. The TMD is a hand device that allows you to control time where you can fizzle away enemies into dust, open up time portals, rejuvenate ammo crates and by the end you can pretty much do anything. Along the way you pick up items that allow you to upgrade your TMD and the various weapons so you can personalise the gameplay to your style to a degree. As you progress in the plot, you see messages scrawled on walls and then time starts to go a bit ... well ... funny.
The first thing people will notice once they start playing for a while is that this is very similar to Bioshock. Just like your plasmids, you acquire different 'powers' as you progress that work alongside your weapons, but just like Bioshock these powers are fucking cool. Whether it's using the TMD to pick up oil barrels and throw them at your enemies, turn them into monsters, create a time 'shield' around you or more, the TMD has been well thought out and structured. The weapons are somewhat okay, once I had found an 'Autogunner' it was basically game over - I upgraded the hell out of it and nothing could stop me. This was an issue because after a while the game does get easy.
At first, the monsters are difficult to kill and the horror element is amazing, but where Bioshock kept this atmosphere going, Singularity settles for more explosions and such. They know the TMD makes you powerful, so perhaps they realised it was worthless creating tension when you're so badass - and you really are badass. The gameplay has a decent variety to an FPS, whether it's swimming underwater, trying to solve puzzles while you're in a gas mask running out of air, moving quietly amongst the blind monsters or just trying to pull boxes through time so you can stand on them to reach places, it does enough.
Picking up E99 tech and upgrading worked, but often they're everywhere and I had almost completely tech'd myself out. The tape players (similar to the diaries in Bioshock) fill in gaps of narrative as well as notes left around the place but I quickly got bored of just standing there and hearing them rattle on and unfortunately, if you move away from them, you can't hear them. Yawn.
The monsters were okay, a boss on top of a train was a good laugh but by the end you're killing more soldiers than anything. It's as if the monsters just gave up and the soldiers are far easier. The graphics looked great and the dialogue was okay. The actual island (with some references to Lost) had a geography that I just didn't understand, I never knew where I was or what exactly I was doing. The common problem with most FPS's, they tend to have a fleshy story but have trouble communicating it to you efficiently and unfortunately the same applies.
The plot is a good one, lots of twists and turns with multiple endings (and an ending after the credits if you hold out), but essentially you're getting from A to B, doing something like flicking a switch or using your TMD then moving on - which I guess is the same as any FPS perhaps. Strangely it doesn't feel repetitive though and the set pieces are fun but there just feels like there is something missing...
Overall, this game was a pleasant surprise. The TMD element was new, fun, adventurous and a great idea but the weapon element was not utilised enough and the monsters became more and more scarce and less and less fierce.The story was good and had much more depth than a lot of other FPS' and was a unique, well-devised plan - you can never really go wrong with time travel stories. The graphics and gameplay were good so why isn't it perfect? Firstly, it was too easy, secondly you become frustrated that there isn't something more solid here in terms of stand-out moments and real drama or tension, it just lacks huge set pieces that can sometimes make or break a game, you also can't help but stand it up next to Bioshock where it pales only slightly in comparison. It feels like something that's a bit too little too late. It was a great time but it's something I'm not going to come back to but definitely glad I played it. If you loved Bioshock and are on the lookout for something similar, or to keep you quenched for Infinite, then this will do nicely. It's just a shame it couldn't be so much more.
Rating: 7/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


