Batman: Arkham City -- Review (PC)

Rocksteady's original Batman-led title, Arkham Asylum, came as a surprise. Decades of dreadful superhero games (Superman 64, anyone?) is enough to make even the most ardent comic-book fan cynical towards videogame iterations. With Arkham Asylum, though, we were treated with a very well presented, highly polished, and utterly playable game that somehow featured a superhero. It actually worked. In fact, Arkham Asylum must surely go down as one of best action-adventure titles of this generation, especially when factoring-in its self-contained narrative and content that can stand on its own without the inclusion of DLC or sequels. Of course, minor nods to a sequel are given, and so Arkham Asylum's success has enabled Rocksteady the opportunity to better what was already been achieved.

Arkham City opens in a more direct manner than its predecessor. Ten minutes during the intro is enough to show the basics before you're freely controlling Batman. You're also already equipped with plenty of upgraded gadgets carried over from Arkham Asylum. Rocksteady does assume, to some extent, that you're familiar with how these games work (if not, there's enough text on the info menu). Though this approach is appreciated - especially as someone who bemoans how, say, Kratos is constantly reduced to puniness at the start every God of War title - it is in stark contrast to the linear and methodical path set-out in Arkham Asylum's opening. In Arkham City you are given a huge island's worth of thugs, side-quests, and Riddler trophies to preside over; it can be quite overwhelming. The main objective is always marked and can be followed without distraction, but the optional content is sometimes worth exploring. Rocksteady clearly want to express Arkham City as a sort-of Arkham Asylum on steroids. There is more of everything: baddies, puzzles, abilities, combat, flying, sneaking, and so on. This is admirable, but the results are not necessarily an improved formula.

Potentially to its own detriment, Arkham City is massive

Arkham Asylum benefited from a semi-linear and narrative-focused pace. Whenever you fought thugs, it felt rewarding. They tended not to respawn in mass droves (if at all), and so every encounter was a gameplay privilege. Arkham City is much more generous with thugs and goons; they litter the city, and will respawn endlessly. The sense of privilege begins to diminish as you fight the same baddies for the fifteenth-billion time, more so if Batman is maxed out in all of his abilities (leveled up with XP gained from defeating said goons). New enemy types help add flavour, but constant regurgitation soon dampens that effect. This applies for both the core-modes of which the Arkham games centre around: melee combat, and stealth. In general terms, hand-to-hand combat is identical to Arkham Asylum but adds new moves and enemy types; stealth gameplay (predator mode) follows the same pattern, except with environmental hazards (proximity mines) and enemy equipment (electrical scramblers that distort Batman's Detective Vision). This is literally the same game, but with more stuff. Indeed, the extra stuff is subsequently used to a huge extent, and so dilutes the aforementioned privileged experience of gameplay. That said, the combat and stealth is still solid. It suffers from diminishing returns, no doubt, but has enough thrill, flair, and nuance to make it recommendable over any rival games.

Visually the game is also identical to Arkham Asylum. Same graphics engine. Same character models. Same awesome combat and action animations, but the same awkward and laughable facial expressions and body movement during character interactions (think a plastic Batman toy talking to a plastic Joker toy). It's still a reliable engine, though. The game looks good. No instant reload after death is, however, disappointing. I enjoy seeing Two Face laugh at my dead corpse as much as the next person, but I'd rather be playing the game again quicker.

A few additions come to an otherwise identical stealth mode from Arkham Asylum (ditto with melee combat)

Two Face does appear in Arkham City. As do around a dozen or more villains from the Batman universe. Again, this is Rocksteady throwing as much as they can into one game; instead of looking to improve fundamental design elements, they just add more stuff. Arkham Asylum benefited from having one main villain with a few on the periphery. Arkham City attempts to incorporate as many characters as possible and, as such, the narrative becomes messy and unfocused. Hugo Strange is presented as the initial overlord villain during the intro - the one man you need to stop. But then Joker turns up and wants your attention. And then another evil villain does. And then this other villain is suddenly more important than Strange. And then Strange is important again. And so on for another 10+ hours. Any excuse is used to ensure Batman encounters as many characters as possible. It is, simply, too much. Fortunately, narrative was never a key selling point for either Arkham titles, but Arkham City completely fails where its predecessor triumphed in creating a daft but nevertheless entertaining story line.

Of course, this is sounding rather downbeat and depressing on the part of Arkham City, but that reason is merely due to the brilliance of Rocksteady's earlier achievement. Make no mistake: what Arkham City offers is still much better than most other action titles out there. This is still a stylish and enjoyable game. Combat has lost it's initial oomph, but still feels weighty and satisfying. Similarly, stalking prey and planning tactics keeps you on your toes as Batman tries to remove foes efficiently without sustaining a shotgun to the cranium. The return of extra challenge maps allows one to hone their skills for the campaign, and to appreciate the depth of skill achievable for the very best players. And yes - backtracking to use upgraded equipment to nab that Riddler trophy is still as satisfying as before. Fundamentally, it's still the same as before, but it's still fun.

Extra costumes come as paid-for DLC or with the GotY edition (reviewed here). Traditionally such things would be unlocked as a reward, but these days players are expected to pay for the privilege

'More of the same is better' is not a wholly inaccurate term when it comes to gaming. As long as you can stomach the same game in terms of visuals and gameplay, with a few added features here and there, then Arkham City is absolutely fine for fans of Arkham Asylum. The issue for Rocksteady, inevitably, is that, in Arkham Asylum, they have already created something that is easily one of the best of its genre. It is a benchmark for all over superhero, action-adventure developers out there. How can such a title be improved upon on the same generation of technology? Visuals have not progressed in Arkham City. Nor has gameplay. The latter can be fine-tuned, but the combat and stealth was already so good. Without risking ruining the formula, Rocksteady chose to blow Arkham Asylum up into massive super-edition that adds new moves, abilities, enemies, puzzles, and mega villains. Arkham City can best be described as Arkham Asylum 1.5. Not quite a 'proper' sequel in terms of overall improvement, then. Indeed, the switch from narrative and linear driven gameplay towards open-world freedom dilutes the formula, but it does not taint it. Nor does, ultimately, the shambolic attempt at a narrative that incorporates every Batman villain every imagined. Arkham City is still a solid game, but its surprises and party tricks have already been done before.

                                                                                  7/10

So, Metacritic...

Nope, this isn't the definitive break-down, mixing elements of mathematics, and particle physics, of the somewhat controversial score aggregator. That is for another day, and will require perhaps more web-space than this blog can offer. No, what I want to rant about here is something more irrelevant, but still prominent in its ability to annoy me.

So, maybe 2 or 3 months back, Metacritic began taking review scores for games played on iOS, Android and smart-phone/tablet devices and listed the highest scoring games on their site. This is, of course, Metacritic's function, so no complaints there. The problem is that the site doesn't list these games in a category intended for mobile games, but rather, thinks it's acceptable to integrate them onto the same list which 360/PS3/Wii/PC etc, appear on.

Now, to me, a game like Angry Birds isn't something I would ever consider a -- and I'm gonna say it chaps, so be ready -- "proper game". It's akin to something like, I dunno, minesweeper or something; you're playing it to kill a few minutes while you're on the train, or waiting at the doctor's. These aren't games that will engross you like a full PC or console title; they're just daft little games to play when you're bored.

This webpage makes me sad, as I'm sure it does for Team Bondi as well

I'm not saying the quality of games like Angry Birds are bad, or anything like that, and fully accept that reviews should be collected to listed. However, I don't think it's fair to put such games on a list which is populated by games made by large development teams using high-end technology and delivering large and complex gaming experiences. It's actually an insult to see something like Cut the Rope nestled above something like Shogun 2: Total War (not that this is the case, but is an example); if I were the developer of Shogun 2 I'd be mortified.

I've contacted Metacritic about resolving this annoying feature, but it's not likely they will take on-board any feedback from me alone. However, it seems so obviously flawed that I can only hope they have the sense to change it in future, and just make a separate list for iOS/Android games which is obviously best for everyone.

Another problem with this, and maybe a reason why Metacritic seems oblivious, is that many gaming journalists are becoming so casual with regards to gaming, that they themselves believe smart-phone games like Flick Kick Football are no different to playing games on consoles or PC (or even hand-helds like the 3DS or PSP, for that matter). This ties in with my feelings that gaming media is getting worse overall, since a lot of these professional writers are basing their gaming experiences from playing Cut the Rope and then being paid to review games like Frozen Synapse. There's too much wrong there for me to be happy with that, and I have to question the credibility of these journalists.

Nadal having a quick bash on Cut the Rope -- when he retires from being the best in the world at tennis, he can use this experience to land a job at Eurogamer

Of course, it's entirely possible to play and enjoy all types of games, be it on consoles or smart-phones, but when someone is actively getting paid to write about console games it's a little worrying to find out they spend most of their free-time not playing console games, but rather having the odd bash on Tiny Wings while on the train.

Maybe that's where I've been going wrong; I play too many actual games instead of Angry Birds. Maybe if I spent more time playing stuff like that on an i-Pad I might finally get a job at Gamespot. Worth a shot, you think?

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D -- Review (3DS)

There's no doubt about it, really -- Ocarina of Time on the N64 was as close to design perfection as you could get back in 1998. Like most others, I remember being completely astonished at almost all elements of the game, be it the combat, the dungeons, the music, or the fact that this was all in proper 3D for the first time in a Zelda title. The only other comparison for me is Mario 64, and for very similar reasons. It's not hard to see why, then, I consider Nintendo to be the very best at making games in the world.

With Ocarina of Time 3D my main concern was not purely made-up of "will it still hold-up well today?", but something more specific. I wanted to know if entering Hyrule Field -- as I did as a youngster all those years back -- would still bring a genuine smile to my face. Since the original Ocarina of Time I've seen vast expanses of game-world as far as the eye can see, and visuals so good to make me question reality. With that in mind, would the same 1998 music paired with updated textures still hold true?

The music is exactly the same, but the great thing about truly outstanding music is that it doesn't age

It was hard for me to form any big views on Ocarina of Time 3D for a good while, which was odd as I was expecting either an immediate positive or negative reaction as soon as Navi did her little fly-by to Link's tree-hut. It was only after clearing out Dodongo's Cavern and helping those lovable Gorons, however, that I eventually formed an opinion.

I guess the reason it took me so long is because, while Ocarina of Time was cutting-edge at the time, it has since been surpassed in almost every way - not by other games, mind, but by other Zeldas. This would typically be a hard pill to swallow, but it's worth pointing out that the only reason Ocarina of Time has been bettered is because of Nintendo's brilliance, and not necessarily because the technology or design-tools are more advanced today.

As an example, the combat in Ocarina of Time is very basic, but that's only when comparing it to the more sophisticated and complex nature of Twilight Princess. The game areas and dungeons are much smaller in scale, but only after playing Wind Waker. Essentially, without acknowledging later Zelda titles Ocarina of Time 3D is still a superb game. And its age, which hampers a fair amount of games from those days, doesn't hamper it much at all weirdly. In fact, the game seems perfectly suited for a hand-held console; an almost perfect evolution.

The cosmetic surgery obviously helps make it seem like a modern title, though - the updated textures and character models make the game look splendid on the 3DS, as does the 3D effect itself. Sadly, there's a couple of indications of N64 limitation such as ledges being too square, and frame-rate dips occurring when enemies and magical explosions are plentiful. I don't know if Grezzo could have covered these issues better, but considering they're the only two hiccups I can think of (and you soon get use to the blocky edges, trust me) it's not too bad.

The 3D effect is similar to the difference between SD and HD; with it turned on the game looks more crisp and sharp

Since I never replayed Ocarina of Time since 1998 (aside from a brief test-play of Master Quest on the Gamecube) I was lucky in that all these visual updates almost made the game feel fresh to me. Being able to properly relive everything I adored about the original is something you can't put a price on, and for that alone my apprehension of buying a 3DS has lessened.

What I appreciated most back then, and still today, is how well crafted the world and content is. When Link walks the streets of Hyrule Town, I know that all those colourful characters walking about, with the couple permanently dancing, the guy looking from the window, or the large woman obsessing with her dog, all exist exactly as Nintendo want them to. The content is extremely polished, and so the amount of enjoyment I gain is consistently high, since there's no area which hasn't had plenty of meticulous development.

I still managed to get 45 hours out of Ocarina of Time, which is astonishing when I think about it. But the main reason I've always loved Zelda titles is because while I can say I've played other games for longer, it's only a game like Ocarina of Time where I can truly say that those 45 hours -- every single one of them -- were spent having fun. That time spent included anything from listening out for spider legs scratching as I searched for Gold Skulltulas in dungeons, to making sure to deliver items in time from various NPCs to further my goal of obtaining a powerful sword, to even the way in which I way tried eight or nine times before finally taking the fishing guy's hat off and throwing it in the river for him to amusingly yell "50 rupees for that!!!".

The Water Temple benefits from a small update that makes tracking the levels of water easier (this isn't the Water Temple, by the way)

It's not all about running off and terrorising fishermen, though, because it's in the dungeons where things get more focused and the challenge notched up. Again, I was worried these wouldn't hold up too well, but was pleasantly surprised when I genuinely ended up getting stuck a couple of times. In fact, I hate to admit it was the infamous Water Temple that did it, but it was more due to me not using my awareness better, rather than being confused at how the water-levels worked. Of course, the dungeons are a lot smaller than the multi-tiered epics we see in the likes of Twilight Princess, but the shorter length and scope makes it a perfect fit for a hand-held, where perhaps constant playing isn't possible.

Unfortunately, although I managed to get 'stuck' in a good way during a couple of dungeons, outside of them I was welcomed with a flaw that wasn't as-obvious in 1998. Again it was due to having played modern Zeldas that this become apparent, as I did end up feeling that the game lacked focus in giving the player clear goals. This isn't in a "hold my hand all the time and point an arrow to my mission" complaint, as I don't believe in that type of design, but compared to Wind Waker where I know what my main task is, it was odd to be revisiting areas constantly to check if I missed anything relating to the main quest. Back in 1998 we were just happy to have a game on this scale, and so the obtuse nature felt intended, but now it doesn't work so well.

Grezzo clearly saw this as an issue, and so threw in Sheikah Stones to give guidance. They go some way to reducing the issue, and as Adult Link the goals become much more obvious, but for a few occasions I felt like the old design was getting the better of me.

The touch-screen makes inventory management much less intrusive

But it's hard to stay angry at Ocarina of Time for any long period of time, as the charm is too hard to resist. Genuinely laughing at a group of Gorons attempting to hug Link as he screams and runs off just highlights exactly why this game has remained in so many gamer's hearts for so long. The story might seem pretty basic now, but the writing and characters still managed to maintain my attention; the final confrontation with Ganondorf is still just as much of an epic climax as it ever was.

Summary

I think it speaks volumes that I still bothered, or rather, wanted to go through pages of guides to make sure I got every item, and completed every little task Ocarina of Time 3D offers. This game has no right to be so playable after all this time, but I can honestly say that the updated visuals and controls are merely a bonus to a game that is still excellent even today.

The only true reason why it isn't hitting the same highest peak for me as it did in 1998 is purely because Nintendo have taken the formula laid here and made it better with Wind Waker and Twilight Princess. As for other games, well, not much competes, be it in 1998, or now 13 years later.

13 years later, where I can still play a little dude in a green hat, walk into an open field with a ranch ahead of me, a river to the right, and a desert valley to the left, and listening to that iconic track, before realising that, yes indeed, I still have a smile on my face. And bigger than ever.
                                                                                                         9/10

The Fate of Kratos

This is a very irrelevant wall of text, but since I'm using this more as a diary/library of my gaming thoughts, I may as well throw this on there too. Although, on the extreme off-chance someone besides myself is reading this, I should make it clear that SPOILAZ BE AHEAD BRAH.

Ok so, at the beginning and end of the first God of War Kratos is seen throwing himself from Mount Olympus; he's intending to end his own life since the "Gods have abandoned" him. Of course, before he hits his bald head on some rocks Athena pulls his ass back up and gives him some gold-plated swords. Which is nice. In any case, he ain't dead, but instead goes on to become the God of War and features in two more games.

So what's the deal then? Well, when God of War III hit and people finished it, there was talk of Kratos still being alive. To refresh our memory, here's what happens at the end of the game after the credits roll. As you can see there's a trail of blood leading to the edge of the cliff. This has lead a lot of people to -- wrongly, in my opinion -- deem that Kratos is still alive after thrusting a sword through his own belly.

This was Kratos' response when asked why fans think he's still alive

Essentially, I think people have missed the point of this cut scene and its meaning. To my mind the trail of blood leading to the cliff is to show that Kratos has truly gone full-circle. We were literally introduced to Kratos as he threw himself off a mountain in the first God of War, and now we're seeing him achieve this goal properly at the end of God of War III. It means the story is done and that what we initially saw of Kratos has come to pass.

It's a shame, then, that this message appears to have gone straight over the heads of most people I see posting comments online. In fact, it seems the meaning has been missed so much that Sony Santa Monica may use the lack of insight as an excuse to keep Kratos alive anyway. I firmly believe they wanted to move onto other things, or at the very least a different protagonist if another GoW-like game is to be made, but now since people seem unaware its pretty easy for them to pull Kratos back for a cynical fourth game. Oh well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of these games and would likely pre-order a Kratos-fronted GoW IV without hesitation, but to see a clear message at the end of GoW III that's supposed to highlight the whole series and signal the end only for it to be completely missed is a big shame.

It's time "core" gamers looked in the mirror before passing judgement

So, for a good while now, I've noticed a trend amongst typical gamers. Ever since the Wii became so popular, there's been a good amount of hate targeted at, what most would deem, casual gamers. These are people who don't typically play games, but found the concept of the Wii, and the nature of games like Wii Sports and Just Dance to be something they can enjoy. Gamers tended to try and distance themselves from these casual players and eventually cited the Wii as something to be mocked.

In theory this is easy to understand; a console that is a huge success based on a "gimmick" with overly simplistic games could mean more developers simply not wanting to make deep and complex titles any more. If a game like Wii Sports can massively out-sell an RPG game that took 5+ years to make, then what's the incentive for developers to continue bothering with the latter game in future?

This is all well and good, and may be true to an extent, but there's a fundamental flaw with this whole way of thinking. You see, the Wii didn't start this trend at all. In actual fact this process of developers making more simplistic games for more financial gain has been happening for a long long time. A certain section of gamers know this all too well - PC gamers.

Before hating on these guys, take a look at yourself

It was perhaps with the mass popularity of the Xbox 360 whereby gamers became ignorant to events that were already occurring before the Wii even landed. In the Western world the 360 is undoubtedly the "core" gamer choice, and it helped introduce many of these people to games/concepts they maybe didn't experience much on SEGA, Nintendo and Sony consoles (namely First-Person Shooters, Western Role-Playing Games, or dedicated online-gaming), bar a few exceptions.

Typically, you would get FPSs and RPGs on the PC, but now Microsoft had a console that allowed PC developers to port their games over for people who weren't interested in using a PC for gaming. This was initially a good thing, since it allowed more people to play great games without needing a monster of a PC. However, at some point, it became apparent to PC developers that they could make a lot more money if they designed games specifically for consoles, rather than PC.

With Bethesda Softworks, for example, the coin dropped when they ported The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind to the original Xbox. This was a game that was specifically designed for PC gamers, with the Xbox port perhaps only being considered after the game already shipped. If anything, the game arriving on the Xbox struck me as a basic way for Bethesda to try and get more people to enjoy the game, rather than an indication of them going for the console market. What happened, however, was somewhat of a surprise, since Morrowind sold extremely well on the Xbox. It was at this point Bethesda realised they could make a heck of a lot more money if they made games for consoles, rather than PC, and subsequently TES IV: Oblivion became a console RPG.

Morrowind had a unique style that many appreciated; most was lost in Oblivion

With Bethesda now aiming for a console market, they made the decision to remove, scale-back and alter elements of previous Elder Scrolls titles in order to make Oblivion more approachable for new players. Certain weapon types were dropped, levelling abilities removed, the location of the game was set somewhere eerily similar to more popular fantasy settings such as Lord of the Rings (where-as Morrowind was set in an entirely unique world with an art-style to match), and the content laid out in such a way that no player could ever become lost or not know what to do next (a stark contrast in having fend for yourself in a much more realistic manner in previous games). Of course, we all know this new approach worked well for Bethesda, since Oblivion sold even better than Morrowind, but much like "core" gamers now, PC gamers looked at the 360 and Oblivion as a threat to their way of gaming; essentially, Oblivion selling well on the 360, to them, is akin to Just Dance selling bucket-loads on the Wii.

This is just one example, of course, but the contradiction of "core" gamers angrily staring at families enjoying their Wii is pretty clearly to me. But even though they themselves are contributing to more "streamlined" and "accessible" gaming (two of my most hated developer-spoken words, by the way) there's actually more irony visible if you delve even deeper into "core" gamers, and their attitudes.

To explain, the reason I keep putting "core" into quotations is because the definition of gamers, these days, is also pretty messed up. To ask a typical Modern Warfare-playing gamer, they would say a casual gamer is someone who plays the Wii, while a hardcore gamer is someone who plays Call of Duty online. In actual fact, they're only half-right; people who pull out the Wii at parties, or occasionally play Wii Sports or Zumba Fitness with friends/family are casual gamers, but that most certainly does not make a Call of Duty player a hardcore gamer at all.

Playing this online doesn't make you "hardcore"

In fact, a gamer who primarily plays games like Call of Duty, or Gears of War, or FIFA, is in the middle category - they're neither casual, nor are they hardcore. The reason they're not casual is self-evident, but the reason I say they're not hardcore is because they are exactly like typical cinema-goers who go to watch films like Transformers. Now, before we go any further, I have no issue with people enjoying games like Call of Duty, or films like Transformers, but to make my point it is essential that I make this comparison. You see, Transformers is what I call a 'Saturday-night pop-corn' film; it's not going to win any Oscars, or score 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, but to a cinema-goer it'll give them enough enjoyment to pass the 2 hours they sit there for. On the other hand, if they only go to watch films like Transformers, it's perhaps not right to assume they're big on films like American Beauty, or more obscure but equally well-made films. This tells me they're not exactly in a good position to call themselves hardcore film fans, and the same has to be said for gamers. If a gamer only plays and appreciates games similar in design and tone to Call of Duty, it is not right that they should consider themselves "hardcore".

I'm not going to rule every player of Call of Duty out, but I'm confident that the majority of players of said game, and similar games, would likely never play a game like, say, Demon's Souls. Yet Demon's Souls is exactly what I would deem a hardcore title. A person who dedicates themselves to getting good at Demon's Souls is a lot more hardcore than someone who plays Black Ops online. Ditto, someone who plays StarCraft II competitively is more hardcore than someone spending time with Halo: Reach online. Because of the nature of games like Call of Duty, with its availability and with its easy access on the most basic level, that makes it the perfect game for a non-hardcore gamer. Obviously it takes time to get good at CoD, but anyone can jump right in and enjoy it, and that's entirely the point.

Some games require an immense amount of skill to become any good at them.

Of course, mass market dominance doesn't necessarily guarantee the game's players aren't hardcore, but to even get to that level typically depends on designing the game so that non-hardcore people can play and enjoy it; it's rare that a proper hardcore game hits the top of the charts, let alone remain there for more than a week. There's a reason why so many play Black Ops compared to Arma II on PC, it's not that Black Ops is supremely better -- it isn't -- it's that it's much easier to get into and enjoy, and allows instant gratification. Those are things non-hardcore gamers thrive on, while actual hardcore gamers are more inclined to wait and play longer before experiencing anything they deem enjoyable. And that's one of the main and vital differences between the two categories of gamers.

Now, I'm not saying I have any feelings towards any type of gamer, rather, I just want a gamer to realise exactly what type of gamer they are before judging others. At the moment, people playing Call of Duty every night on their 360s are looking at Wii players like they're killing gaming, yet all the while they're oblivious the notion that they themselves are likely contributing to the killing even more. What they should realise is that they're part of the middle-section of gamers, what I now deem pseudo-hardcore, since they believe they're hardcore, but are actually not. The sooner this realisation comes to pass, the better.

The Witcher 2 -- Review (PC)

Those sell-outs at BioWare and Bethesda don't know how to make PC RPGs any more; there's only the likes of CD Projeckt left to fill the void left by games like Morrowind or Baldur's Gate. That's a common argument with many PC gamers, in any case, and while I can empathise entirely I'm afraid CD Projeckt still aren't quite at that level where they can carry the baton for PC RPGs. In fact, they're less likely to do so now anyway since The Witcher 2 is headed to consoles. Hardly surprising to me, since the game contained many clues that would lead to this conclusion before the announcement even came.

I played the original, of course, but even though I admired its ambition and intent, I didn't find it to be one of the better RPGs out there. I saw what CD Projeckt were potentially capable of, though, and a large part of me felt that they were perhaps restricted in their talents by a less-than-impressive game engine. As soon as The Witcher 2 properly starts this belief was almost completely confirmed.

Things start extremely well, to the point where I almost declared the game an instant success regardless of what was ahead (I assumed, even then, that it would only get better). This is something I rarely, if ever, do when playing a game, so for The Witcher 2 to have such a massive and positive initial reaction from me is something typically unheard of. From leaving the tent where Geralt of Rivia previously laid with his on/off love-interest, Triss Merigold, I was stunned by the detail my eyes witnessed; a mountain vista to the right, littered with tents fit for an army of thousands, and to the left, several trebuchets lay waste to castle walls.

Already dizzy from seeing just how far CD Projeckt have come with technology, I then wondered how well the game played, and how combat in-particular faired. The game made sure my anticipation for fighting was kept high; from meeting up with King Foltest you realise you'll get to take part in this castle-siege, and so from there the game constantly ramps up the music and environment to further lure you in.

This is one magnificent-looking game

Once the assault begins you don't really get much opportunity to test combat properly since enemies and allies are scattered everywhere, but shortly after Foltest asks that you remove a nest of archers above a gateway. It was here I got to see what The Witcher 2 was made of. Again, like the overall opening segment, I was immediately impressed with how I had to approach a fight, almost using guerilla-tactics to pick off enemies in a pack, before going toe-to-toe with left-overs. I opted to play the game on hard difficulty, so taking a lot of hits wasn't an option, but once I developed a gameplay style I really enjoyed the first encounters. I liked that there were different enemy types and so I had to adapt, like against a guy with a shield who can only be properly beaten if you let him attack so you can counter.

At this stage I remembered a developer diary of CD Projeckt, in which one of the team said they found the PS3 game Demon's Souls to be inspirational; to me The Witcher 2 had clear similarities, and as someone who appreciated the combat in that game this was another massive positive for me.

As I had hoped, the castle-siege managed to get better and more exciting the further in I got, with the visuals becoming more and more magnificent, and the combat becoming increasingly more tactical and fun. Once the prologue ended I practically declared The Witcher 2 game of the year; I didn't imagine the quality could drop from what I had already experienced. Yet, even with 16+ years of gaming experience, some games still manage to surprise me, and unfortunately this was the case with The Witcher 2.

After the fantastic opening, the tone and pace of the game slows considerably as Geralt arrives at the forests of Flotsam, with a small village nearby. It was here I got to dabble in the mundane RPG affairs, such as side-quests, trading, mini-games and crafting. Sadly, it was with these bread-and-butter elements where I began to see the quality dip significantly, and things reverted back to how they were in the original game.

Starting with the side-quests, while the story and layout of the majority of them is very good, the execution isn't always the best. For example, I grabbed a quest from the Inn noticeboard that requested reducing the local Nekker population by way of blowing up the holes they emanate from with bombs. This sounds straight-forward enough, except the part about finding where the heck these holes are, and relying on a quest-tracker that seems to decide whether to be useful or not depending on what quest you're on. The forest of Flotsam isn't massive, but it's large enough, and covered with enough trees and foliage to make finding little holes a big pain in the behind. There are some really good side-quests, such as sending your friend Dandelion to lure out a succubus, but it's the process of taking-part in them that isn't handled as well.

The mini-games don't suffer as much, but that's more because of their simplicity. That they're included at all is still appreciated, with other RPGs tending not to bother at all these days (and even if they do they're of such irrelevance that they may as well not exist). However, trading and crafting is, on the flip side, a nightmare.

There's arm-wrestling, dice poker, and fist-fighting to take part in

I was surprised to even see a crafting system considering most sequel-RPGs I play tend to strip out complex features, rather than add them. Even so, once I got the chance to use crafting I soon wish CD Projeckt hadn't have bothered. Like a lot of known problems in the original game, crafting in The Witcher 2 is overly cumbersome due to stupid item-management, and poor menus. For example, in order to craft something you need to have the plans for it, but there's no way of knowing if you already own the plans a vendor is selling without looking at your own list, which requires you to navigate the tabs and scroll down. This is minor, but so is the solution; merely make it so you can't already buy plans you have. Simple. Also, to get the crafter to craft items you need materials, and some of these can weigh stupid amounts, which then makes inventory management a game in itself to avoid becoming encumbered. This is a moderate problem, but, again, the solution is painfully simple; give the player a storage box (which they did in the original, so its absence now is bizarre). There's plenty of issues like this which served to bog me down and made the game a chore to play.

I could probably overlook these problems, and did try, but once I started to battle opponents other than humans I saw another problem occur. See, with humans the game offered me a challenge and made the combat feel well utilised, but once you begin to level-up, buy talents and start fighting monsters, it actually gets pretty boring. I actually specialised in Alchemy with my talents, which should have made it less noticeable to me since it's the Sword and Sign (magic) talent trees that seemingly make combat easy, but even for me the game turned into a mass hack 'n' slash. The initial Demon's Souls-esque feel of the game quickly disappeared when I realised I could spam mouse-clicks to quickly cut-down 90% of monsters, with the remaining 10% requiring the occasional roll to retreat, before reverting back to button bashing. Again, I have to stress that this was on hard mode too, but the only way the difficulty seemed to matter was with my health being weak, rather than the AI becoming more imposing.

Fighting humans managed to retain some enjoyment, but once my bombs, traps and potion-buffs got stronger it made even large packs of enemies a non-issue. It was only really the boss fights that posed proper challenge, and to be fair these are some highlights of the game, but they are too few to pull the game back to glory.

Ugh

With the game going out of its way to put me off playing, it was thanks to the story and setting that I actually kept going. I likely appreciated the story more than someone new to The Witcher, since I invested a lot of time into the original and so had a rough idea of the characters and lore, but even so there was a huge amount that went over my head. I guess I can say I followed the main story within The Witcher 2 without feeling liking I was missing anything vital, but even so I did feel left-out whenever a character would refer to an event or a place I had no idea about.

Staying with the story, one of The Witcher's and The Witcher 2's most appealing features is to let the player have freedom of choice to alter events of the game. Unlike a game like Dragon Age II, choices that you make here really do change things drastically. In fact, this is the first time I've played a game where the main content can be completely different -- and I really mean that -- depending on what decisions you make, and I appreciate that. Also, and again with Dragon Age as a comparison, decisions aren't black and white, or good and evil; what you choose really depends on your opinion of the situation. I picked my choices based on my beliefs, and not because I wanted easy "good guy points", or whatever.

Since content can alter drastically it essentially means a couple of completions are needed to see all the content available. Even so, the game isn't as long as the original, but considering a large chunk of development time went on the actual technology (which they already had last time with the first game) it's easier to see why they couldn't make it a 70 hour long epic. Considering how impressive the tech is -- and I'd argue this is the new benchmark over Crysis, by the way -- I'd say a shorter game isn't such a bad deal. Also, unlike other places I've read, I also found the The Witcher 2's ending to be satisfactory-enough, so it's not like there's clear signs of a rush-job towards the latter end of the game either.

Review Summary

Even though I enjoyed the story, characters and, particularly, the game engine, I don't ultimately believe it was enough to cancel-out my misgivings with everything else in The Witcher 2. To go from combat that draws comparisons with Demon's Souls, only to be reduced to a repetitive hack 'n' slash and essentially ending up underutilised is a dire shame. As is retaining cumbersome inventory management, and adding a crafting system that only adds further administration duties rather than overall depth.

That said, even with some clear ignorance, it's hard to deny the passion with which the game was made. I can't offer it unjustified praise, but when I see those awesome animated cutscenes whenever Geralt remembers a vision from his past, or hear any number of tracks from the excellent soundtrack, I feel the game deserves some applause. Like the original game, the developers are primarily making an RPG by gamers for gamers, and it's hard to knock that. They still can't seem to get the formula spot-on, and are no closer to making a superb RPG as they were in 2007, but you can't hate CD Projeckt for at least trying.
                                                                                                 
                                                                                  7/10

Deadly Premonition -- Review (Xbox 360)

You know, I paid this game hardly any attention at all when news of it spread. Sometimes I just filter out games I see on websites, since I've been gaming long enough to know what is and isn't appealing to me, or if it'll be worth my time at all. Eventually, though, I began to notice recurring articles on one of my favourite sites and initially thought the writer was going off on some one-man-crusade for a game that -- in all likelihood -- he alone thought was superb. Even so, the writer's intention maybe paid off, because my curiosity got the better of me and I began to delve deeper into what Deadly Premonition is.

At this stage, having spent the past fortnight playing Deadly Premonition, I now feel I owe the writer of those articles a personal thanks. I just feel saddened that it took me this long to get round to playing it.

Of course, I'm not someone who shuns obscure and bizarre titles at every opportunity. Rather the opposite in fact, it's just that Deadly Premonition doesn't really make the best job of showing you what it stands for. The perfect example being the opening section of the game itself - you get a couple of brief cut-scenes, then it's straight into that combat. I say that since, as most will be aware, the combat -- and controls in general -- in Deadly Premonition are, to put it kindly, below standard.

Fortunately I was aware of what I was getting into with regards to the controls, but actually said to myself when first playing "huh, it's kinda like a low-grade RE4 this... I can live with this no probs" and was surprised at how acceptable I found it. Of course, it didn't last.

Forget these enemies, it's the wall-crawling ones that cause most grief; the flame-thrower is a must

The main issue is that, at some point, you realise that opening section you played at the start of the game never really changes. It just gets longer... and longer. The enemies move around at a slow enough pace to accommodate the sluggish aiming, but when their health pools get buffed to a stupid degree, and they respawn at most opportunities, it becomes more efficient to just run past them. This is one of the few games I actively avoided combat at most opportunities, which says a lot since my threshold for repetition is pretty hard to break, it has to be said. Of course, there's no skipping a certain type of crawling enemy. Believe me I tried.

There's no doubt combat is a test of anyone's patience and forgiving, and I've heard suggestions that the developers should just have ditched it in favour of shorter QTE sections, but I wouldn't go that far; I can handle it in short-bursts easily enough, so just shortening the sections would have been enough. New enemy types might also help, but I got the impression this really wasn't something the budget could stretch to.

The budget couldn't stretch far for the graphics department either. Again, I can get over this just like the combat -- heck, I have a confession, I actually got out of the car at one point to admire the view, imagine that -- but in the interest of criticism I've got the be fair. Deadly Premonition looks and runs like, at best, a launch-day PS2 title, or, at worst, a HD Dreamcast title. Everything has a washed-out tint to it, while aliasing and shoddy animation are clearly noticeable. The saving grace is how the developers have managed to still make the location seem authentic and believable (check the research photos in the game's bonus menu if you want to see how spot-on they are).

So with both bad controls and outdated visuals, you can see how the game finds it hard to pull people in, especially on the opening chapter. But if you can get past it -- and you absolutely should -- then what you eventually get is something much, much more important and special.

York isn't just your atypical crazy detective; there's a lot more going on than you initially think

The opening song nearly already had me thinking "maybe there's more to this game", but once I got to the actual story and characters eventually I began to see a revelation. This isn't the pseudo-Twin Peaks you keep hearing about, although influences are clearly present, this is a superb narrative with its own appeal.

When I was first introduced to the game's protagonist, Francis York Morgan, I just assumed he was your typical crazy-dude in a Japanese-developed title. But like everything else about Deadly Premonition, there's a lot more to him; the game's more deceptively dark, mature and intelligent than you could ever know without playing it. I came into the game expecting a weird story that'd give me a few laughs, but at its end I was heavily invested in York, his story and the characters around him; during the credits I concluded he was one of the best written characters in a game ever.

But it's not just the story that won me over, it's what else you can do when you're not shooting shadows, or progressing the main story. Indeed, had I stuck purely to the main content I'd have probably finished the game around the 15 hour mark, but instead I chose to explore Greenvale when I had the chance, and was greatly rewarded for it.

It was when I was partaking in said optional content, that I discovered how much attention-to-detail Deadly Premonition has. A good example is when I was waiting for it to be 6pm on a rainy day so I could do a side-quest for local law-enforcer Emily. When I got to her house I noticed there was an exercise bike and actually thought to myself "nice, they're trying to show you she's athletic, but of course she won't be able to use it in this game" only to have Emily promptly walk past me and start her exercise routine on said bike. If that wasn't enough, she then jumped off the bike, walked in front of a mirror, and started practising martial arts. This is all the more impressive if you consider that most players will likely never even enter Emily's house, let alone notice this back-room with the bike and mirror.

Old Harry here, with the gas-mask, likes to order a special sandwich from the A & G Diner

In essence, all the major townsfolk you meet have their own routines and day-to-day doings, which happen regardless of what you're up to (excluding main story). They literally drive from home to buy groceries from the store, then stop off at a diner for something to eat. I found this incredibly impressive, and it added to my feelings as a detective with York, since I could follow these potential suspects to see what they get up to, but it also added the overall atmosphere of the game too.

It's ironic that when Deadly Premonition's ending hit it was in stark contrast to what I felt with the opening of the game; instead of thinking how dated the game looks, and how sub-par the controls are, I was genuinely sad to be leaving Greenvale. Instead of putting the game back in the box and cracking on with whatever was next, like I do with most titles, I went online to read about Deadly Premonition more. In fact, I went back to those very same articles I spoke about at the start of this review, but the difference this time was that I was in full agreement with the writer; this game really is special, and the more that gets heard about it, the better.

Review Summary

In the past month I've bought two big-named full retail-priced games for the PC and PS3 which came at £25 and £40 respectively. In the same month I got Deadly Premonition for £8 off Amazon.com -- a game that is, by all intentions, a low-budget game with dated visuals and gameplay. I think it speaks volumes, then, that I consider Deadly Premonition not only greater than those two RRP games combined, but a lot of others too.

This is a game that is literally crippled with flaws that would outright kill other titles, but with a setting, story and characters that go above and beyond what I've ever seen, there's no doubt in my mind that Deadly Premonition is one of the most unique games ever made. If it wasn't for the technical flaws, I'd have no hesitation awarding the highest honour a game like this deserves, but as it is I think this is the most generous I can be without compromising my own integrity (as tempting as that is).

                                                                                                                  8/10