Not RPG month, I swear: Fallout 3 GOTY

The humor of buying this game is I never really intended to. I can't remember why, but FO:NV was on my wishlist, so a friend bought it for me. Or maybe it wasn't and he just bought me it, I don't know. I'd never played through FO:3 and I was told FO:NV totally replaces three.

I'm a little weird in this - If there's a sequel that totally outpaces the original, I always want to make sure I give the original a fair shake, because there's no going back. So I bought FO:3 because someone else bought me FO:NV when I didn't really want either. Then I started playing FO:3 when there are other games I felt like playing, but I just finished a controller game and I was trying to avoid RPGs since I wanted to play Witcher 2 a year after the first one. So I started playing ... A controller game that is also a RPG.

Ahem. I'm playing it KB+M though!

Fallout is a little weird for me as well because I never played the originals. One of my close childhood friends had three 'favorite' games: X-Com, Master of Orion and Fallout. Oh, and probably Simcity, but I'd played that before I knew him. So he loaned me two of them and I don't think I ever loaned anything else. X-Com and MoO are amazing classics, so I never played Fallout. That's sort of dumb, but for some reason I just never did even though he raved about it tons when we were kids. That's probably pretty shameful as my PC gaming cred goes, but I honestly don't have any cred. I just played lots of X-Com.

And it wasn't hard.

I do not necessarily like the post-apocalypse dystopia setting in any broad sense of the term. Though I don't think that post-apoc is necessarily as bad as say, time travel, it has a certain way of ruining any thematic sense. Stuff just gets thrown in without any real sense of logic, creating game worlds that lack any sort of coherence. I do love Dark Sun mind you, but fantasy post-apocalypse is a pretty rare treat comparatively. I like to classify Morrowind, likely my favorite true fantasy rpg, as sort of in that vein as well. Granted, I know basically nothing about Fallout's setting, but I'm leaning against it almost on an innate level.

So Fallout probably always had its work cut out for it. But hey Rage managed it, right?

A year in the making: Darksiders!

The time played on this, which I provide to give a vague idea how much play I got out of a game, is all sorts of screwy. I picked up Darksiders like, last year? The summer sale I want to say? I was pretty excited to play it or at least vaguely interested. Mostly on the basis of really liking the art style. Also, I waited a while, because I wanted a controller to play it with but was looking for a deal.

Problem being is my previous PC had little interest in running Darksiders, or at least enough disinterest that I eventually gave up about half-way through. I'd blame the game, but tons of stuff was crashing on that PC for a variety of reasons. Mass Effect 2, which I noted back in its review, would crash in the exact same way and had the same engine. I fixed that by going to windowed maximized mode, but Darksiders being more of a port wouldn't let me. So it got shelved and now it's back.

Darksiders is a weird experience for me in that I've never really played 3D Zelda games. I've been told repeatedly Darksiders is a huge rip-off primarily of Zelda, but I largely don't see it for lack of experience. Zelda is a weird one for me, in that I picked up the first 3D version and it sort of became the figurehead for how much I hated the transition to 3D from 2D. I played through the proverbial golden age of PC gaming and was never too impressed with where 3D took most games. So I never played past the first dungeon, and more for baseline reasons like 'I hate how this game looks' and 'I hate 3D controls'. LTTP was like Super Metroid, I wish they'd made another like ten of that game. So much so that I played the gameboy Zeldas. No, the original Gameboy. Have you looked at that thing? Horrifying. My old eyes can't even tell what's on a Gameboy screen nowadays. Is that Link? Or a turtle? what

So I really have no idea how innovative Darksiders probably isn't. To be honest, when people say games are innovative or whatever, I just think they're showing their ignorance. Games and books feel creative because we have pretty limited perceptions of the vastness of the medium. I probably say it too and I'm probably showing my ignorance when I do it. The only real spot you can have truly exciting creativity in games is in controls and UI, which I doubt Darksiders, Zelda or whatever the fuck else have really broken new ground in

And seriously if you count a game as unique because of storytelling: BOOKS.

Year in Review: 2012

This isn't a top ten list or even a top anything list, or even of games that came out this year. Rather, since there's steam sales going on, it's a round up of everything I can remember playing through this year, divided into categories that will probably piss off what few readers I will ever have. It also links to Steam, which may not be the best way to buy the game. Unfortunately I can't figure out what is ever on sale on Amazon, and GMG scares me. Oh and GamersGate cancelled the one thing I bought off them this season, but I don't blame them for deciding they shouldn't lose thousands of dollars on pricing errors.

So you know, do your research! Or don't, time is your own.

Play Relevant Month: Fatalism of the Orcs, Again?

Sequels, man, sequels. There's still orcs. And they still must die.

OMD2 catches up with its spiritual "competitors" Sanctum and Dungeon Defenders by adding two player coop, adding the oh so sexy sorceress from the first game as a coop partner. I put those two in quotes because OMD1 was fun, those other two, not really. I think coop is largely the biggest and most evident element added to the game, the engine looks slightly better, the music and sounds remain excellent. The art style is cartoonish and the whole game maintains the same irreverence the first one had. You'd notice immediately if you say down to play OMD2 that it wasn't OMD1, but maybe it would take a bit to discern between the two if you were watching a stream or so.

The other big changes to the game are more behind the scenes sort of stuff. There are new map types and new maps, but those sort of blur past you. The game has a much deeper pool of traps to choose from, with more weapons and the addition of a "trinket" item type that has various miscellaneous effects. The biggest change to those is a grindy system where you acquire "skulls" as you did in the first game to upgrade and modify your gear. The first game has one upgrade per trap, whereas this game has a chain of basic upgrades, then a binary selection.

Play Relevant Month: Raging off the Rocks

When Doom was put out all those ages ago, it didn't really have much of a story. Like a good horror film, it presented itself through powerful visuals. It had lighting, it was spooky, you strapped in and off you went against the demon hordes. Game storytelling has moved up a fair amount since I was a little kid all those years ago, but there is something to be said for the Mario, the Sonic, the Doom style of gameplay introduction. You pick it up and go.

Rage on the other hand wants to have a story, so it opens with a cutscene, then what amounts to tutorial. The first time through, I got bored through the tutorial before I could save. I assumed it did the checkpoint autosave thing! So I had to do the start again. I stands out when you think about Doom, where I'd have been knee deep in the dead (hehe) in the same span of time.

The open is so jarring and weird to me besides. Like I said, you have your classic pick up and go games, and then you have storied games. In this, you're a guy in a pod, you wake up suddenly. And then pod opens to like, outdoors? So you think you're in the middle of some wasteland, which I guess you are, except some guy jumps you and bullets start flying seconds later. The pod was right there! If they wanted my delicious meaty bits, why didn't they just open the pod?

And then you're talking to John Goodman. He wants you to help out. For lack of anything else to do, you do. Spoiler: That describes the entire story.

Not So Scary games month: Torchlight 2

Torchlight 2 is a little unique to me in that it marks two events I haven't hit on in ages: First, I actually bothered to join the beta. I'm still a bit sour on the beta, as it feels like beta tests have turned into a way to advertise games. There were more than a few bits of feedback I would have liked to submit and never really found a means to do so besides posting in their forum. Most forums suck real bad, so fuck that. I'm not beta testing your game and coming up with gripes so I can log onto a forum to be told by fanboys my considerations aren't real because they have brain problems.

Second, it's the first game in actual years I bought before release - I think Diablo 2's expansion might be the last one. This isn't really to do with overwhelming excitement - four pack for $15 a head enticed one of my friends. He bought it, and according to his steam profile, played it all of five hours.

Torchlight 2 is an ARPG built by the same guys who built the original Diablo 2, and maybe the original Diablo though I don't want to get quoted on that one. Diablo 2 sets the standard for ARPGs; there is no better game, to this day, in the category assuming you can handle the dated but thankfully sprite graphics. Early 3D graphics would have made the game agony to look at. I've played a fair bit of older games recently, and Diablo 2 is one of those truly classic games that somehow manages to "get it". It's possibly a product of its times - D2 came out before many of the razzle dazzle elements of the computer gaming had really come to the forefront.

Shootember: Fall of Cuberbots

I don't usually like to play sequels shortly after finishing a previous chapter in a series. It towards doing two main things: Graphics are always better, gameplay is always worse. Gameplay might not actually truly be worse, but it feels worse as you struggle to nail down changes in motion and control scheme.

just walk right into the gun

First impressions out of the gate: The game is definitely prettier, in fact, it might be one of the best looking games I've ever seen. WFC was attractive and polished, but Fall of Cyberton is actually legitimately gorgeous even beyond the environments which were already stellar. Gameplay is a bit weaker, but even more varied. I feel like it has encroached a bit too close to 'modern shooter' for my tastes, although it still doesn't have a full cover button scuttling walls "thing" that I've seen in some other games. Compared to the first it feels a bit sluggish and transforming comes off as slower. There's less a feeling of agility in much of the game.

literal of tower of power

The game's plot picks up what I imagine is some additional amount of time after the first one, though it's hard to pin down how much. As far as I can tell they have stopped talking about DARK ENERGON which is a massive, unreal huge improvement. I have no idea who settled on that plot device for the first game but I hope he sobered up and is living a healthy life now. It's hard to think he was in a good place when he imagined up that particular macguffin. There are more characters and more variety in enemies, though enemies still suffer from difficulty in being differentiated at a glance. It's a bit saddening since this is an issue in just about all FPSes, but in this game you can design totally different bodies for them! This is jarring when you run into "name" characters, who all look extremely different from the mainstay buffoons. Except the Combaticon fivesome, who look quite similar to the primary decepticon models. I found that interesting to see in action, as though the art team changed gears near the end of develop to put them into the game using other models as the basis. They look great, so it's not a complaint, but it's odd how Megatron or Starscream look so different from all of their soldiers.

haven't seen any others of those, huh

The plot remains, on the most part, pretty weak. Most characters and most dialogue is good; Megatron remains an awful eyesore with horrible dialogue and just ridiculous nonsense spewing from his mouth at all times. It's very strange how in the moment the game feels good, but you stop to consider what is going on and it is just silly. I have no idea what Megatron's overarching goal was supposed to be, other than just being angry about ... Something? I don't want to sperg out about the plot, but even more than the first game it really feels like Megatron just yells reality into warping itself to his desires. Stuff around him just doesn't make sense.

While character driven dialogue - the exchange between guys, the plans, the cut scenes and various speeches - are all really good, one thing that really stood out about the game is the very weird taunts the enemy units I think are directing at you. It's very strange because the audio direction is set up in such a way that I wasn't sure for most of the game who they were at all talking to. Were they talking to each other? The wall? It wasn't really clear.

Transitions through chapters and the general pacing of the game is much better than the first one, with lots of variety in those chapters as well. Transforming is unfortunately somewhat marginalized here, with enemies basically never transforming in a meaningful way and much of the vehicle stuff basically forced into the moment. When you do need to transform though, the vehicle sections are much better. The game is surprisingly when you consider just how poorly most vehicle sections are in most games. I mean the tank part of Crysis was so terrible - out of nowhere - that I actually cheated past it. I guess that's more of a FPS thing, maybe, thinking back on the vehicle sections in Just Cause 2 which were good. My favorite vehicle stuff involved the mid-game helicopter level with Vortex, who felt like you were rewarded for using each of his weapons and both of his forms. Also watching the thruster animation as the helicopter started jetting around never ceased to amuse.

The game is especially interesting for its capacity to actually continually improve over the course of the chapters, as many action games tend to get worse after blowing the opening set pieces. I wasn't at all impressed with the Metroplex stuff, but the middle levels are just a rush of really interesting set pieces as characters react to the climax of Metroplex's ascension and defense of Iacon. Then the plot falls back away as it attempts to slide back to the starting, as the entire game is a flashback. It kinda sticks gears with Megatorn returning to give boring speeches about how he's so angry about something. Given his giant phallic gun and his transformation into a huge dong, maybe it's pent up ... robo ... Something? Still, the levels continually improve other than his first couple scenes, which sucked. The last level reaches a fever pitch that actually got pretty exciting. As climaxes go, other game companies could learn from their lessons here - It briefly uses many of the assets introduced in the game

In the final conclusion I think the game is, in many ways, a slightly worse game and definitely a worse shooter than the first one. Many of the elements, especially the lack of transforming enemies and somewhat reduced variety of basic encounters, really takes away from the pound the ground combat the first game excelled at. On the other hand, the graphics engine has been pushed so far its glorious to just watch in motion, and the various chapters all have a ton of variety. This is a game where you spend some time as a hover jeep, a helicopter, a phallic tank, an eight foot tall titan, an angry brain addled robot who transforms into a dinosaur and even fits in a sweet little stealth action level. That's a ton of variety and presented in such a way where you legitimately wish the game was just longer! The ending alone has four completely different styles of play, with a gladiatorial battle, a dave and goliath fight and so on.

gimme five

That's pretty swell and I give them high praises for putting out so an interesting set of experiences. I wish I was better at multiplayer, but I'm so atrocious I'm not even going to bother. I'm a terrible shot, sigh. And yet I still quite enjoy shooters, and odd paradox.