Out of Eight PC Game Reviews

Gratuitous Space Battles Review

2009-11-19T05:56:00.001-05:00

Gratuitous Space Battles, developed and published by Positech Games.
The Good: Completely customized ship designs offer a plethora of strategic options, slider-based orders for tweaking your grand plan, innovative handling of multiplayer
The Not So Good: Non-interactive combat not for tactical players, filtering through designed ships is arduous, default ship configurations would be nice, limited to fourteen maps
What say you? A pure strategy game ripe with design depth, ship variety, and explosions: 7/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Most real time strategy games involve an inordinate amount of waiting for something to happen: waiting for resources, waiting for units to move, waiting, waiting, waiting. What if we did away with all ancillary material and got straight to the killing? It’s like if all NASCAR races were just crashes! Well, I guess they have that already, but still, point taken! Developer Positech Games has heard your cries for violence and released the appropriately-titled Gratuitous Space Battles. In this strategy game, you design the ship fleets and set orders, and watch as the AI pilots carry out your commands and the carnage ensues. Does this more streamlined approach work?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Gratuitous Space Battles displays all of the bloodshed in 2-D, but the game actually looks pretty decent. One of the advantages of ignoring that third dimension is that all of the ships can have detailed textures and look much better than what a 3-D model would produce. The models are also quite varied between races, resulting in some different-looking engagements. The backgrounds are more repetitive, however, as most battles seem to take place on “anonymous nebula 12.” The weapon effects look as good as any movie, with bright, deadly lasers and fast-moving missiles. The explosions are not as dramatic as I would like (the shockwaves and fire are a bit too subtle), but you can gauge enemy damage accurately by visual clues. The game is on the demanding side for a 2-D game, as my crappy laptop with one of those on-board Intel video cards couldn’t handle the truth. The sound design is what you would expect in an independent title: satisfying, if not terribly varied, effects. Although there is no voice work in the game, Gratuitous Space Battles does have appropriate background music to accompany your glorious destruction.

ET AL.
Gratuitous Space Battles removes all of that boring resource collection and repetitive base building and replaces it with ship design and strategic planning, which is more along the lines of what a real commander would deal with. The game is presented in a series of battles across the galaxy; missions are unlocked in order and may incorporate alternative rules through “spatial anomalies,” preventing the use of shields or slowing down ships, for example; it’s a nice touch that prevents using the same dominant fleet for all of the missions. There are only fourteen maps to choose from, though; I would like to have the option to customize the spatial anomalies, or even have them randomized. Most of the maps involve battling an enemy fleet in skirmish mode, although the last two are survival modes that keep the enemies incoming until you die; high scores for this mode are uploaded to a central server so that you can see how horrible at the game you are. The less ships you use to defeat the enemy, the more honor is accumulated, which is used to unlock additional parts and races (which grant more hulls with varied starting attribute bonuses). Playing at higher difficulty levels does not grant more honor, which seems counterintuitive to me. I did like the fact that Gratuitous Space Battles does not offer an “easy” difficulty setting, because if you need to play on “easy,” then you are not be fit to command large spaceships in the first place, loser. One of the more intriguing aspects of Gratuitous Space Battles is how the game handles multiplayer. Instead of relying on some real-time component, which, to be honest, would be difficult to pull off for an independent game where player counts are low, you can issue a challenge to any (or a specific) player that pits your fleet from any map against theirs. You’ll never know quite what to expect, since the only information you are given is what types of ships they are using, rather than their specific components. The online server records how many attempts it took to defeat the opposing armada to serve as a sort of scorekeeper of dominance. It’s an elegant way of handling the added dimension of human opponents.

The main crux of Gratuitous Space Battles is the ship design, and thankfully we have plenty of options to choose from. You’ll be spending an inordinate amount of time in this part of the game, so if intricate ship design doesn’t interest you, look elsewhere. There are three types of ships to outfit: small fighters, medium-sized frigates, and massive cruisers. Each of the game’s four races has the same three types, although they look different and have varied starting bonuses (it would be nice if the bonuses were more varied and plentiful). You are given a great amount of freedom, as there is a wide selection of parts (numbering in the hundreds, using my best estimate) to stick on each ship: weapons (lasers, beams, cannons, torpedoes, rockets, EMPs, missiles, plasma), defenses (shields, armor), engines, crew quarters, and power plants. There are only vague hints on what each weapon and system are specifically useful for, so Gratuitous Space Battles involves a lot of experimenting with combinations to find effective designs. It seems like beams are for armor, lasers and blasters are useful against shields, and missiles and torpedoes are for long-range attacks against slow vessels. During your design process, it is imperative to balance crew and power requirements efficiently so that you do not waste resources. In addition, using the same particular component makes each individual part less effective, which prevents spamming a particularly effective armament. Designing your ships can take quite a while, and there is great depth in coming up with effective combinations. This is one of those games that you think about while you aren’t playing (what if I did this). Having this amount of freedom does make for a significant learning curve, as all of your options can be overwhelming. It doesn’t help matters that Gratuitous Space Battles only gives you three (poor) designs to start out with. I realize that the major focus of the game is on ship design, but it would still be nice to see some examples to get you started.

After you have designed the ultimate fleet of destruction, it’s time to take to the battlefield. Before each mission, you can choose the arrangement of your ships and give general orders to them. You are limited in terms of available pilots (which prevents spamming fighters) and cash (which prevents spamming large ships), but you can choose any of the ships you have designed. Adding vessels is a drag-and-drop affair, and you can place a number of ships consecutively by right-clicking. The interface for this aspect of the game leaves a lot to be desired, as all of your designs are simply in alphabetical order and cannot be sorted or filtered. Considering that later in the game you might have a ton (2000 pounds…they weigh a lot) of designs, it would be super helpful to be able to filter out, say, all cruisers with missile launchers. Although you do not get direct control over your fleet during combat (that task is for your generals and such), you can give orders to help coordinate the attack. These include sliders for setting the priority of attacking frigates, fighters, and cruisers, as well as the range at which your ships should do so. You can also set special behaviors, like escorting another ship, moving in formation, attacking only damaged ships, or repairing during combat. The orders options don’t give you the amount of precision I would like to see: in a lot of battles, ships just group together in an unorganized mass of confusion. It’s difficult to keep ships together while still using the speed advantages of the smaller vessels.

All that work is put to the test during the automated battles. As I have mentioned several times already (remember?), battles are automated (that’s why I called them “automated battles”) and require no interaction from the user: it’s just up to your designs and orders at this point. The gratuitous space battles of Gratuitous Space Battles are drawn out (mainly because the enormous cruisers crawl sooooo sloooowly), so thankfully there is time acceleration to speed things up. You are given detailed information on friendly ships by clicking on them: shield strength, shield stability, armor strength, and damage and usage of all modules. Damage simulation is pretty sophisticated. During combat, armor does not repair (unless you have fancy robots that do it for you) while shields do, and weapons may “bounce” off if they do not have enough armor or shield penetration; this can make ships invulnerable to low-penetration weapons, something to consider during the ship design process. Alternatives to penetrating shields include using destabilizing weapons or using fighters to attack from the inside. It is easier to use beams, missiles, and torpedoes against slow moving targets, and incoming weapons can be countered with point defense, and those can be countered with EMPs and target painters. Finally, being next to a large ship that explodes can cause damage and causes your forces to say something funny in text at the top of the screen. As you can see, the robust ship design is used to good effect, as there are plenty of options at your disposal for eliminating the enemy threat. The same basic AI is used for ships on sides, and it does OK finding and attack ships and following orders you have given. Again, it would be better if the ships would organize themselves better automatically instead of needing really specific and detailed instructions: these are supposed to be highly trained naval officers, right? The key seems to be using a balance fleet that can counter any incoming threat, or playing once and seeing what the enemy has and then making adjustments for your subsequent attempts. Gratuitous Space Battles gives a lot of detailed stats at the end of a game, win or lose, so you can see the effectiveness of individual weapons and shields to make your designs better next time.

IN CLOSING
Gratuitous Space Battles replaces the typical tactical game with enough strategic depth to make an interesting game. The sheer number of parts available for your custom ship designs makes for an impressive amount of strategic freedom. It’s like the ship design of Galactic Civilizations, but much more varied and with none of that annoying “diplomacy” getting in the way. Coupled with the ship customization is the pre-battle planning, done through orders given to individual or groups of ships; they also give you decent, but not complete, control over your armada. The battles are completely automated, which will deter the more tactically-minded among us, but I actually prefer the approach of Gratuitous Space Battles: you didn’t lose because you can’t click fast enough, you lost because you can’t design your way out of a paper bag. And you’re dumb. There are only fourteen maps to choose from as you unlock them in order, but, honestly, they don’t play any role other than the restrictions imposed by the spatial anomalies. A very smart approach to multiplayer is done here: people can post their fleets that you can fight against, but you don’t have to be online at the same time in order to do so. The interface could use some cleaning up to filter parts by attributes or access your custom designs more easily, but these are minor issues that don’t negatively impact the game too much. Gratuitous Space Battles can be very time consuming and also quite difficult if you have designed inefficient or poorly balanced ships. Though most people will unlock most of the content quickly, the human-designed challenges should keep players busy long after, and they always offer something unexpected to deal with. In short (too late!), strategy gamers will find a lot to like in the depth Gratuitous Space Battles has to offer.

Shattered Horizon Review

2009-11-15T11:34:00.001-05:00

Shattered Horizon, developed and published by Futuremark Games Studio.
The Good: Excellent use of a zero gravity environment, some tactically interesting elements, multiple game modes, persistent stats, cheap
The Not So Good: Limited content with only one weapon and four maps, no single player content including AI bots, three-axis movement learning curve, high-end system requirements
What say you? A unique setting makes this budget online shooter distinctive: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
It's only a matter of time before we blow up the Moon. I mean, have you seen the way it looks at us at night, thinking it's better than us? It needs a serious dose of reality, along the lines of a gigantic rocket. Take that, giant rock that used to be part of the Earth! In Shattered Horizon, humans have taken this next logical step and accidentally blown up a large swath of the Moon; residents of the Moon and the International Space Station have taken it upon themselves to subsequently shoot each other. Sounds plausible enough to me! Shattered Horizon takes advantage of its unique setting to allow for full 3-D movement: a unique perspective to be sure. The budget-level shooter keeps its feet on the ground while reaching for the stars: does it make it, or end up near Uranus?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
As you might expect from a game published by a company famous for their graphics benchmarking software, Shattered Horizon looks pretty good. The game has crafted a plausible space environment, complete with near-futuristic mining stations and lots of rocks (I do like the rocks). The textures are quite detailed across the board, and the models for the combatants are animated well and move plausibly through the weightless environment. The game does suffer from a lot of repetition thanks to its setting: all of the levels feature the same metallic stations and same rocky rocks, but at least you have a very nice Earth to look at in the background. The HUD also has some nice sci-fi realism touches, acting like a real computer system with boot-ups after being on the receiving end of an EMP grenade. Shattered Horizon requires DirectX 10, so you must have either Windows 7 or the Operating System That Shall Not Be Named. The game does have some steep-ish system requirements, and the game lacks support for my native screen resolution of 1280x1024. The sound design fits the game well, with an appropriate soundtrack and an in-suit sound simulation to substitute for the lack of air molecules to propagate sound waves in space. Overall, I was quite pleased with the graphics and the sound in Shattered Horizon, but make sure you have the operating system and hardware required to run it at an acceptable frame rate.

ET AL.
So mining workers accidentally blew up the Moon. Oopsy! The resulting fight for control between the workers themselves and the astronauts charged with apprehending those responsible is the crux of Shattered Horizon, a first person shooter that takes place in amongst the debris and wreckage. This is an exclusively online title, as there are no AI bots for single player action of filling up a less-than-capacity server. Shattered Horizon has three game modes borrowed (stolen) from other shooters: skirmish (team deathmatch), battle for control points, and assault (a one-way battle with attackers and defenders). One would hope that the unique setting for Shattered Horizon would result in at least one innovative game mode, but this is not the case. The game takes place across four maps, all of which are chaotic messes of rocks, metallic mining station parts, and more rocks. Persistent stat tracking records your performance in the game and new ranks can be earned, although they do not unlock any new abilities. For only $20, you get decent value, and the developers mention that future, free downloadable content will have more stuff.

Shattered Horizon takes great use of the weightless environment and allows you to tackle any situation using all three axes. This requires some learning of the control scheme: in addition to using WASD for the usual movement directions, you will also use space for moving up and left shift for down. You can also attach to a surface (for more accurate firing and less movement confusion) and jump to a nearby platform. The right mouse button is also used to roll, much like in a flight simulator. The game is initially very disorienting, but I suppose that’s some of the appeal: there’s nothing quite like it, where you are free to roam in any direction and ambush enemies from unexpected angles. Assisting your subterfuge is the ability to disable your rockets in order to make it more difficult to be spotted by the enemy; like in Section 8, spotted enemy units are shared by everyone.

Disappointingly, Shattered Horizon only has one gun. Shoot, Wolfenstein 3D had three, for goodness sakes. This makes everyone balanced, but it sure decreases the tactical interest of the game. Your weapon has unlimited ammunition, and using it while scoped will send out ten bullets in one pull of the trigger (as a substitute for a snipe rifle, I suppose). The damage of Shattered Horizon is like Counter-Strike-like, where a couple of hits means death. You can hit someone’s tank for an instant kill, which makes surprising someone from behind is a great tactic. You can also rip someone’s suit open in the melee attack for another instant kill. Accuracy is improved if you attach to a surface first, and the additional advantages of cover make this an important part of the game. You are given some options with the grenades: ice is used for cover, EMPs are used to disable enemy radar and movement, and MPRs are explosive (though non-lethal). None of these are innovative, as they are just futuristic stand-ins for smoke, stun, and incendiary grenades. Ho-hum. Still, the fully 3-D movement makes combat quick, deadly, and intriguing. Shattered Horizon is certainly a distinctive shooter, and despite its limitations, does deliver some unique thrills.

IN CLOSING
The gimmick of Shattered Horizon works pretty well. Allowing for full three dimensional movement produces some unique strategies for approaching enemy units from all directions, elevating the suspense and surprise. While the game does give you three different grenade types to enhance your tactical options, they aren’t terribly innovative, basically just being futuristic versions of contemporary explosives. You only get one weapon: while this does make the game fairly balanced, it also makes it much less interesting overall. You are also allowed to run silent to sneak up on opponents; the relatively small amount of damage your character can sustain really places an emphasis on sneaky sneakiness. There is an initial learning curve as you become accustomed to the control scheme and expecting enemy units to come at you from all sides. Shattered Horizon features three game modes (none original) and stat tracking, but limited other features: there are no AI bots to fight against and only four maps on which to do battle. The graphics are quite nice, but do require a hefty system and DirectX 10. For the features you get, Shattered Horizon is priced correctly. For those looking for a shooter that offers a different perspective, Shattered Horizon certainly delivers an interesting setting.

Creeper World Review

2009-11-11T13:18:00.000-05:00

Creeper World, developed and published by Knuckle Cracker.
The Good: Distinctive enemy, varied map designs with a unique use of elevation, online score list, multiplatform
The Not So Good: Limited building options promote repetition, poor tutorial, can be frustratingly difficult
What say you? A different approach in the tower defense strategy genre delivers some memorable gameplay: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
As the U.S. launches a rocket to crash into the moon to search for water, it makes you wonder: what will happen if the human race comes into contact with an alien race? My guess is that it will somehow involve Jodie Foster. According to the developer behind Creeper World, the alien force will be an ever-expanding liquid bent on consumption of all life. Sounds neat! And messy! In Creeper World, you must advance the last floating human city from planet to planet through a series of warp gates, fending off the evil ooze along the way. How will this twist on the tower defense deliver the strategy?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Creeper World is presented entirely on a two dimensional map, and it's not exactly on the cutting-edge of graphics. All of the units are simple static shapes and there are very few effects in the game: just a handful of weapons and some minor explosions. The fluid-like enemy is a blue shading that slowly darkens as it fills in the crevices of the map: not exactly an imposing force. The very simple graphics, however, do not really hinder the gameplay, and as long as you approach the game as a independent title, then you won't be outstandingly disappointed. The sound design is better thanks to the spooky music that I quite enjoyed, though the sound effects are, like the graphics, minimal at best. Even independent titles can look a lot better than what Creeper World brings to the table (example).

ET AL.
In Creeper World, you are fighting off a magic blue liquid, which isn’t as much magical as it is deadly and will kill you dead. The last human city is warping between cities, hoping each time that the next leap will be the leap home. This takes place over a twenty-level story mode where you encounter increasingly more difficult odds. In addition, you are given five sets of five conquest levels (which makes for approximately twenty five more) and ten special ops missions. This is a good amount of content, and the length of some of the missions will keep you busy for a while. In addition, a map editor is currently in beta (it’s probably out by the time you read this) that will extend the life of Creeper World even further. Sadly, learning Creeper World can be a bit of a chore, as the game lacks a manual and the in-game tutorials do a very poor job explaining how some of the mechanics work, especially those dealing with energy (like how it is specifically produced, used, and what the “cost” for each building is). It’s obvious most people are “getting it,” as the online scoreboard are populated with quick times (score seems to be indirectly proportional to the amount of time spent to clear a level) from across the globe. This motivation technique certainly makes up for the lack of any in-game multiplayer features, which, frankly, are out of place in a traditionally single-player genre. Finally, Creeper World works on both Windows and Macintosh systems, so score one for unity!

Each game of Creeper World follows the same general path to survival and victory. First, you must build collectors to (surprise!) collect energy that is requires to produce new buildings and weapons. It is important to manage energy use: if you have a negative balance of production and consumption, your residents begin to starve and will essentially succumb to sweet, sweet death. Secondly, you will need to construct weapons to fight back the incoming blue liquid of doom. There are five weapons to choose from that are effective against different enemy types, from simple lasers to missiles. You also have access to relays for reaching tough areas, storage for excess energy, speeding up transmissions along your defensive network, and reactors for collecting energy in exotic locations. In the story mode, you must also collect technology to unlock new structures; it’s nice that the developers have incorporated the gameplay mechanic into acquiring new weapons, instead of using some simple research model. Disappointing is the limited suite of structures at your disposal: only ten components means that a lot of your designs will share a similar strategy, increasing the sense of repetition as you progress through the game.

Creeper World is similar to the original Perimeter (not the crap sequels) where all buildings have to be connected in order to function. This is the fundamental crux of the game: your designs must radiate out from your home city, and success in the game is predicated on the efficiency of your designs. Energy and ammunition for structures is transmitted from the home city outwards, so if your newest turrets and collectors are far from your base, it’ll take a while to become constructed. This is where the free-form levels really work for the benefit of Creeper World: you are never shepherded down a single path towards victory, as is common in so many tower defense games with fixed turret placements. The map design makes or breaks a game like this, and, for the most part, they make. The levels use elevation to great effect: since the liquid enemy will flow like, well, a liquid, you can predict their path based on the terrain and plan accordingly. I like how Creeper World uses the enemy behavior in concert with the map designs: you can subtly nudge the direction of flow with your defensive weapons, providing a safer passage for your tower layouts. Despite your limited weapon options, you can deactivate or disarm weapons to conserve energy for when you need to beat back the blue liquid of doom; it’s a small amount of annoying micromanagement, but nothing that’s too terribly tedious. Creeper World certainly becomes more interesting when all weapons are available, but since individual weapons do not upgrade, you are stuck with only five turrets to play with. Creeper World is all about making efficient designs, reducing the amount of time required to move resources to the front where you are building new stuff. You have to move blasters as you are building and time things correctly in order to push the creeper back enough to make more room, which is quite difficult to do correctly. It’s easier to build blasters back near the base, fill them with ammo, and then move them up front to dispose of the enemy properly.

IN CLOSING
Creeper World starts with a classic tower defense game and takes the boring, linear gameplay out, replacing it with freedom to design any number of strategic layouts to repel the incoming blue liquid of doom. This is the clear strength of the game: the level designs allow for non-linear solutions, taking advantage of the enemy’s unique characteristics by featuring varied terrain that requires different approaches. Creeper World features about fifty different layouts, and the impending level editor means regular folk like you and me can soon make their own nefarious creations. While there isn’t competitive play on the same level, Creeper World does feature an extensive online leaderboard so that you can see just how incompetent you really are. Unfortunately, Creeper World falls short in a couple of areas. First, despite the grand amount of freedom the game allows, you do not have a great assortment of tools in which to build with: only five weapons and only five nodes means that most of your layouts will have the same overall flavor. The only real variety is in the maps, which are admittedly diverse, but a larger number of tools would serve to further expand the strategy of Creeper World. Also, the game can be quite difficult to the point of annoyance: figuring out how to make a solution is not hard, but efficiently moving your turrets to part a new path can require some advanced dexterity. Still, Creeper World does deliver some strategy goodness thanks to the level design and overall unique approach to the tower defense game.

Metal Drift Review

2009-11-07T19:05:00.000-05:00

Metal Drift, developed and published by Black Jacket Studios.
The Good: Custom tank configurations using persistent upgrades, tactically interesting weapons and abilities, strategic use of energy for speed or weapons
The Not So Good: Persistent upgrades restrict content from new players, only one mode of play, methodical pace an acquired taste, some dubious strategies, inconsistent AI
What say you? A tank-based action game that relies on varied weapons and upgrades but is tedious and unfairly restrictive: 5/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
All of those futuristic infantry-based shooters always make me wonder: wouldn’t it be safer in a tank? It might not be as cost-effective, but being surrounded by inches of solid steel would certainly make me feel more at ease. The developers of Metal Drift clearly agree, as the only combatants in their capture-the-flag-like action game are big, metal tanks (that probably drift). In addition to maximum tank-age, this title features persistent upgrades, custom tank designs, and strategic energy usage. Will that be enough to set Metal Drift apart?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Not surprising of an independent title, Metal Drift features passable graphics that suffer from extreme repetition. All of the levels and vehicles look the same and use the same set of textures; to be fair, the game is called “Metal” Drift, so the overemphasis on metal hues is not unexpected. Each level looks like the last, and the clean environments do not look like they are the setting of intense tank battles with massive explosions. The best aspect of the graphics is the in-tank display, which actually looks realistic in its presentation rather than just simply being superimposed on your view. It’s reminiscent of a flight simulation, in a good way. The weapon effects are convincing enough, with enough glow effects to satisfy most. However, the explosions aren’t terribly impressive as the tanks catch on fire slightly and simply turn black. The game’s sound design features nothing of note: just some basic announcer calls to keep you informed and appropriate weapon and explosions effects. The graphics and sound certainly do not negatively impact the gameplay of Metal Drift, which is all we really ask for in an indie title.

ET AL.
Metal Drift is intended as a multiplayer tank combat game, although you can create (and join) a server populated with bots. The server browser provides easy access to online matches, though the player counts seem to be off. There are only five arenas to play in, but they are designed well with multiple paths to the goal. The default game length of eight minutes is just right for the game’s pace: not too long, but not too short. There is only one game mode to enjoy: capture the ball, where you must carry the ball to the goal in the enemy base. Metal Drift features all of the online score keeping trappings, like leaderboards, achivements, and persistent player data. Statistics are used to unlock additional weapons and features, a feature I dislike to the extreme. It’s fine to have upgrades that unlock over time, but only through a single game: new players should never be artificially handicapped. As it stands, new players will have a “selection” of one weapon and one ability: a strategic disadvantage right from the beginning. I prefer having all of the content available to all players, which is what Section 8 does. You have to finish a match in order to earn experience points, a questionable limitation if you have to leave in the middle of a game. You do level up quickly, especially if you capture the ball, but you do not get to choose which weapons to unlock as they are presented in a linear fashion. Boo! What if I want the super powerful weapon the really experienced guy has been killing me with? The weapons also increase in effectiveness the more you use them, which is cool. Preventing new users from all the game offers, however, is not cool.

Once you have logged enough hours in Metal Drift, you’ll have access to some pretty neat weapons and abilities, which makes restricting the content even more disappointing. While most of the weapons are pretty conventional in first person shooters terms (pulse cannon = assault rifle, ion cannon = sniper rifle, plasma launcher = grenade launcher), there are some highlights: the temporal cannon can travel through walls (making it a great pairing with the sensor upgrade that allows you to see all tanks), the artemis cannon travels through shields (like a shotgun), and the shock cannon is a short-range bomb. The upgrades offer more tactical variety: in addition to simple stat increases (armor, power, speed), you can automatically repair of your tank over time, see the positions of every tank, invisibility, or look like an enemy tank. The most popular is hyperspace, which spawns you near the ball. See why I’d like to have access to all of these neat features from the very beginning?

It takes a while to get your bearings straight in Metal Drift due to the control method: aiming is done with the mouse, but movement is done with the trusty old WASD keys, so you can be facing in a different direction then you are moving. While this makes combat easier, it can be disorienting; the game does allow you to re-center your view using the middle mouse button, however. Tanks have a poor turning radius and generally travel slowly, as you would expect gigantic metallic objects to do. Most of the weapons have low damage and excessively long reload times; since it takes a while to get to cover, combat typically has long pauses while either side reloads their weapons. This really emphasizes working together in groups, which the AI certainly does not do. Personally, I dislike the balance between damage and how often you need to reload, but I believe that the game was balanced for teammates who actually work together. The HUD is quite informative, displaying ammunition levels, speed, energy, upgrades, and armor, in addition to displaying the ball location and repair pads clearly. The mini-map is also useful for locating enemy and friendly units beyond your field of view.

Energy earned by hitting (but not necessarily killing) enemy tanks serves a dual purpose: slightly more powerful weapons or increased speed. This intriguing tactical decision is strongly slanted towards increased speed, as the tanks move quite slowly and a small speed boost can quickly move you away from enemy tanks. In addition, the weapon damage increase seems quite small and not really worth it unless you are finishing off an tank about to score a goal. Slow movement in general makes it difficult to intercept when you are out of position, and the maze-like levels make this task even more tricky. This places a lot of emphasis on using energy for speed boosts. Weapons don't do much damage and require long reload times, making the game very slow paced. Metal Drift is also subject to some suspect strategies: you can camp at ball spawn location since positions do not reset after a score. So that point you just fought hard over? Useless since the other team can just park a tank at the spawn location and speed it into goal before you can react. That’s why so many high level players use the hyperspace upgrade, which, of course, isn’t available to beginners. Also, it's actually almost better to not kill enemies in your base, since they will respawn close to your goal when you counter-attack. Games can commonly be ruined by these cheap strategies. The AI is competent but not great: they ignore you a lot of the time, especially if they do not have the ball and they are facing in the opposite direction (they could theoretically spot you on radar, as a human player would). Sometimes they simply do not shoot unless shot at even though they are facing you. The AI does not make a proper substitute for human opponents and teammates that would provide thoughtful competition and support planned attacks.

IN CLOSING
Metal Drift is an average tank combat game with some interesting features that are not available to beginning players. The game is intended for multiplayer, as the bots are too inconsistent to be enjoyable: they will carry the ball to the goal, but they only respond to you some of the time, making them an easy target. The game’s only mode, capture the ~~flag~~ ball, does offer some interesting gameplay thanks to the level design; although there are only five maps, each level contains multiple paths to victory. The game’s persistent stats are a nice feature, but it restricts new players too much as they cannot access all of the game’s neat weaponry until they have logged sufficient game time. You should want to play a game because it’s fun, not because you need to unlock additional weapons to become competitive. Section 8 had it right: hide nothing from new players, because doing so immediately puts them at a greater disadvantage, in addition to simply being novices at the game. While individual weapons do upgrade according to usage, you cannot choose your future unlocks, sticking to the distressingly linear path chosen by the developers. And there are some interesting weapons: weapons that travel through walls, shields, and short range bombs make for some great tactical decisions. You also need to decide how to use your bonus energy: for speed or for increased weapon output. It’s too bad you can’t make those great tactical decisions the first time you play the game. The HUD is quite informative and controls are standard fare; it does take a couple of games to learn how to move your turret with the mouse independent on your movement using the keyboard. The game’s slow movement, long reload times, and low damage emphasize team-based play, for better or for worse (the latter if playing with the AI). Metal Drift allows for some questionable strategies, like camping at the ball spawn location or purposely not destroying an enemy so they can't respawn near your goal, which reduce the fun quotient. All of the hard work in making that goal is wasted by the lone wolf on the other team speeding towards their goal. Unfortunately, Metal Drift’s strong points are overshadowed by locked content and other assorted shortcomings.

Eufloria Review

2009-11-03T15:11:00.000-05:00

Eufloria, developed by Rudolf Kremers and Alex May and published by Omni Systems.
The Good: Unique take on resource management, decent amount of content, procedurally generated levels makes each game slightly different, competent aggressive AI opponent, occasionally varied objectives, mod-friendly
The Not So Good: Simplicity introduces repetition, needs rally points for newly created units, no multiplayer
What say you? A distinctive strategy game thanks to its mechanics and presentation: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Thanks to digital distribution, independent games (more commonly known as “ROFLCOPTER”) have garnered a nice niche in the online gaming environment. A couple of guys (or gals…yeah, right) can get together and hammer out a neat little title, put it up for download, and watch the enormous stacks of cash roll in (or so I am told). The Game Formerly Known As Dyson (renamed in a contest to something less obscure) is one of those titles; garnering some recognition through the Independent Games Festival, it is now released in retail form over the Internets. This slow-paced ambient game has you send seeds across the universe to populate distant lands, and eliminate rival seeds, of course. How does the minimalist strategy-type game stack up?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Eufloria takes a minimalist approach to graphics and makes a quite effective visual package. The game has a very nice ambient glow exhibited in every map, which is more impressive on levels that feature a black background. The glow makes it easy to identify which units belong to which side, at least if you are zoomed out far enough. The planets you colonize are boring, simple spheres, though the trees planted on them have a nice, varied fractal-like appearance (or whatever you want to call it). The seedling units are nicely animated while in flight, although the combat lasers are disappointingly generic. The game also plays nice while windowed. The soundtrack of the game is quite appealing and fits the casual mood of the game well. Eufloria delivers a unique look that makes it quite distinct.

ET AL.
Eufloria is a strategy game that takes places across a twenty-five level campaign, where you are liberating enemy asteroids and joining up with friendly forces. There is a minor, forgettable storyline as you progress through the game. The game also features eight quite-difficult skirmish maps and a dark matter mode with tougher AI. The objectives usually involve defeating all the enemy units and colonizing each asteroid; rarely the game introduces defend (for a period of time) or counter-attack (decrease the enemy population) goals, so your overall strategy does not waver much. Eufloria uses procedural content, which produces semi-random maps for all of the campaign and skirmish levels: it’s a nice touch that increases replay value and also slightly alters your strategy in each game. In addition, you can create your own map layouts using LUA scripting, and there are already custom levels for Eufloria available for download. Things aren’t all peachy in the universe of Eufloria, however. You cannot save your progress in the middle of game and there is no scoring whatsoever, either offline or online. In addition, Eufloria lacks multiplayer, a terrible omission for a game style that would have been great for it. You can argue that most people play single player anyway, but having the option is what counts, and multiplayer is a glaring exclusion.

Eufloria uses a mouse-based interface that, because of its unconventional nature, has a bit of a learning curve. Once an asteroid is selected with a left click, you can left click and drag to another asteroid to send all units, or right click and drag to send one unit. Alternatively, you can left click and hold near the asteroid to select a proportion of the total units, let go, and then left click on a target destination. This mechanic is unusual, but useful once you are accustomed to it. You can also select only certain types of seedlings for specialized missions, like sending only speedy units on scouting assignments. I would like to have a box select like Galcon to make sending lots of units to a single destination easier. Further complicating things is the lack of a rally point option; this means you have to periodically select each and every one of your asteroids and send their units to the frontlines. Rally points would reduce tedium in the end-game, where you have five to fifteen (or more) asteroids but have to spend your time in the "back" sending troops up to the "front" instead of concentrating on where the action is. I just dislike having to do something manually that should be done automatically. The game speed is slow enough where sending up reinforcements doesn't negatively impact the gameplay, but it does add some extra clicks that are simply unnecessary. Do you know how annoying it is to individually click-and-hold on fifteen or twenty places every minute? You will once you play Eufloria! The interface does feature some great visual cues for attacks and tree types that are informative whether you are zoomed in or out. Team colors can be very similar, but there is an option to change it to more distinct selections.

Each asteroid has a specific rating in energy, strength, and speed, and it will produce seedlings with those attributes. New seedlings are grown by planting dyson trees, which cost ten seedlings to plant. You can also plant defensive trees for the same cost that launch mines automatically against incoming enemy units, useful for frontline or important asteroids. Eventually, mature trees will grow flowers that can be planted on asteroids for more powerful seedlings or laser mines that can be sent around the galaxy. All asteroids have a small (usually four) limit on how many trees can be planted, so expansion is a necessity. In addition, there is a limit on your expansion range dependent on the size of the asteroid, which makes for some nice choke points of intense conflict. In order to capture an enemy asteroid, you must destroy one tree so that seedlings can burrow to the core and sacrifice themselves to deplete the core energy to zero. The surviving trees are yours to keep, but you can’t destroy them and plant replacements if you don’t need so many defensive trees.

All combat is done automatically once you send your units in, so Eufloria is purely a strategic game. The AI does a decent, if disorganized, job attacking enemy planets. The rule of thumb seems to be to have double the number of units as the enemy, more if there are defensive trees. There is minor fog of war in the game: once you scout an asteroid once, you have a permanent view of it. I really like how Eufloria treats resource management, since seedlings are used both to attack and indirectly grow more seedlings. The AI, at least on later levels, is pretty good about attacking right after you invest in a non-refundable tree and don’t have enough seedlings to defend against an attack. The pace of the game is quite “relaxed” (some would say “boring”), more so in the beginning of a match as you are waiting for trees to grow more units. I would really like the ability to adjust the speed of the game at will. Once you have six or seven fully developed asteroids under your control, populations snowball quickly, but the beginning of a match involves too much waiting. Things get a lot more interesting with larger levels and multiple opponents. Of course, you're usually greatly outnumbered, so the increased difficulty isn't necessarily fair. It’s fairly easy to succeed in the game if you don’t expand too quickly (using up too many seedlings) or too slowly (not producing enough). Eufloria can get repetitive, as the objectives almost always involve exterminating all of the other players and there are few actual decisions to make along the way. That’s the trade-off for simplicity, I suppose.

IN CLOSING
Eufloria is a unique strategy game that's also fun to play. The game is easily approachable thanks to its simple mechanics and straightforward mouse-driven control scheme. The game has a good amount of content, with twenty-five procedurally generated levels that are slightly different each time you play, in addition to some skirmish offerings and a more difficult dark mode. The most significant blemish is the lack of multiplayer, especially because the design of the game really lends itself towards human competition. The objectives tend to get repetitive after a while, as the occasional defend mission or alternate goal is rarely used. Because of this, your strategy will remain the same, with slight tweaks based on what the AI is doing. Eufloria is interesting as a game because of its method of resource management: seedlings are used to attack, defend, and grow new seedlings, so you must carefully balance your units. The AI does a great job watching your moves and invading your empire right after you use seedlings for a new tree; the computer provides a good opponent, which almost makes up for the lack of multiplayer…almost. The minimal interface is good except for one glaring omission: rally points for new seedlings, as they would solve tedium in the end-game. Different asteroids produce different kinds of seedlings (energy, speed, and health) that can be used for varied purposes, which, along with the laser mines, enhanced trees, and randomized maps, can support different strategies each game. The map designs lead to some nice choke points and areas of intense conflict. However, Eufloria may be a bit too simple for its own good, as the game can get repetitive in the long term. The game really only has two important decisions: how many seedlings to use for trees and where (and when) to expand. This limited nature can result in monotony that more complex game do not suffer from. The relaxed pace of the game also cannot be adjusted, so you will typically have to sit around waiting for seedlings to develop; it helps that the game can be windowed so that you can do other things while waiting for populations to increase. In summary, Eufloria is like a slower paced Galcon, and its relaxed nature and unique simplified gameplay should be appealing to strategy fans.

Trine Review

2009-10-30T15:16:00.001-04:00

Trine, developed by Frozenbyte and published by Nobilis Publishing.
The Good: Three varied characters to control, straightforward controls, fantastic visuals, cooperative play
The Not So Good: Typically linear solutions, checkpoint-only saving, no level editor, no online features
What say you? A fanciful and unique physics-based puzzle game: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Do you like physics? Do you like puzzles? Do you like jumping over chasms adorned with spikes? Do you like cheese? Well, have I got the game for you: the developer of indie action title Shadowgrounds is tackling a much different genre this time around with a physics-based puzzle game. Now see why I asked all those questions? It all makes sense! Well, except for the cheese thing. Anyway, Trine has been getting some press for being a bit on the expensive side for a puzzle game. Is the price justified to rock your body?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Trine looks and sounds fantastic. Every aspect of the graphics is high quality, from the character models and animations to the special effects and level designs. Each of the game's characters and enemies have well detailed models and move fluidly through the landscape, though some of the animations (especially those dealing with death) tend to get a bit repetitive. The special powers and light effects have a nice glow to them that fits the fantasy world setting that is fantastically detailed. The puzzle elements could have been more plausibly integrated into the environment, but the theme remains strong. Even though the game plays on a 2-D plane, the use of 3-D graphics creates a distinctive look. The sound design is wonderful as well, with great narration and dialogue from the characters, as well as fittingly beautiful background music that imitates the tone of the game. The presentation of Trine is first rate.

ET AL.
Trine tells the tale of three characters brought together as one, chasing a magical something-or-other through a world with a disturbing amount of jumping puzzles. The game world is entirely in 2-D, featuring an assortment of physics-based puzzles and platform jumping sequences. Given this, it is surprising that Trine does not ship with a level editor so that you can create custom puzzles, a fairly standard feature for the genre. Trine's length is acceptable, although replay value is low since most of the levels require a specific strategy as the level design does not lend itself to experimentation well. The game's difficulty levels adjust the amount of damage your characters suffer, although it does not change the actual layouts at all, so the jumping sequences require the same precision no matter what. Trine has the annoying console “feature” of allowing checkpoint-only saves, which are infrequent enough to induce too much level repetition for my tastes. Trine technically has multiplayer, although it's a buried feature available if you have gamepads plugged into the computer and the option activated several menus deep. The lack of online elements is disappointing, but the game doesn't make adjustments for having multiple characters in the same level, so Trine is actually more difficult when you play nice with others. Thus, the lack of online play is not missed too much as it would be essentially impossible to coordinate with others; it's hard enough with someone sitting next to you.

There are three characters you can freely switch between during your time in Trine, assuming you haven't been totally incompetent and gotten them killed. The knight is your combat specialist, equipped with melee weapons and a shield to dispose of those nasty skeletons and whatever else magically spawns on either side of you. The thief is the ranged fighter armed with a grappling hook for accessing tricky, sneaky areas (or totally bypassing enemies altogether). Finally, the wizard is there to summon objects like blocks and platforms or levitate and move objects: a neat way of manipulating the environment. Each character has separate health and energy, so you will have to be aware of how close your tribe is to certain death. Between levels, you can gain upgrades for each of the characters (three skills with two upgrade levels per character), in addition to additional weapons and items. It's nice to have a little choice in who gets the upgrades and items, but the selection of abilities is far enough below a typical RPG to say that Trine has role-playing elements.

While the levels take full advantage of the robust physics engine, Trine does not offer enough solution variety for my taste. It's clear the developers have one way to do most, if not all, of the problems you will encounter. Now, the use of three characters with distinct abilities means the solutions are at least somewhat varied, with a combination of grappling hook, object movement, and combat elements. Still, it's a two-step process of figure out how the developers wanted you to solve the next room and then doing it, which can be trying with some of the more advanced platform sequences. I'm never a huge fan of jumping and timing puzzles, and Trine comes with enough of them to make the game frustrating on several occasions. The game is never really unfair, though, with a proper amount of death traps and enemies to content with. Trine overall does offer more variety that an average puzzle game thanks to the three characters and adept use of the grappling hook affords you some inventiveness, but since you can't use it everywhere, you are still mostly limited to what the developers have in mind.

IN CLOSING
Trine takes the physics-based puzzle game and injects enough innovation to make it stand out. The use of three character skill sets, though a bit gimmicky, separates the game strategy nicely and makes Trine more accessible to a casual audience. All three are important aspects to the game and the level design support using them in equal amounts. The game is pretty linear, though, as it eventually becomes quite obvious whom to use when and there isn't much leeway, other than skipping past entire sections of a level with daft use of the grappling hook. The game requires dexterity and timing to navigate past the healthy amount of jumping puzzles. This makes cooperative play less appealing since getting two or three separate characters past a tricky sequence can be, well, tricky. The game appears to have been designed for one morphing character rather than three, and the lack on online features further reduces the value of multiplayer in the game. The game is long enough; the original $30 price tag was on the expensive side, but it has recently been reduced to a more reasonable level. The stellar graphics is probably the justification for the originally increased cost, and though the game looks very nice, Trine is now more appropriately priced in the realm of $20 puzzle games. Nevertheless, puzzle fans will find a unique and enjoyable adventure.

RACE On Review

2009-10-26T14:51:00.002-04:00

RACE On, developed by SimBin Studios and published by Viva Media.
The Good: All of RACE 07 and STCC, new U.S. muscle and International Formula Master cars, two new U.S. tracks, 2008 WTCC season tracks and cars
The Not So Good: Does not include GTR Evolution content, missing one 2009 WTCC track
What say you? Admittedly limited if you own all previous expansions, this stand-alone product delivers entertaining feature-rich racing: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
SimBin has manufactured themselves a comfortable little rut. Starting with their first touring car simulation RACE, they have released yearly stand-alone expansions: RACE 07, STCC, and GTR Evolution. We now arrive at RACE On, which adds the Swedes from STCC to RACE 07 and adds a sprinkle of America with muscle cars and a couple of tracks, in addition to the 2008 WTCC season (why are they always a year behind?). Last time around, the embellishments were disappointing with a limited scope. Does RACE On successfully continue SimBin’s march of quality simulation racing products?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
RACE On looks the same as previous titles in the series, as it seems this version has not received any graphical enhancements. The game still looks good, although the overall level of quality is starting to lag behind titles like GRID that have more graphical flair. All of the car models and race tracks appear to be realistic, and there isn’t an overemphasis on confusing shiny effects like bloom and blur that distract you from driving. The damage effects could be more dramatic, as bumpers fall off but the frame is never deformed. Some of the textures could be more varied and detailed, too, as road-side objects can be blurry (even on the maximum settings) and grass and track surfaces are repetitive. The advantage to the lowered graphical quality is that RACE On performs very smoothly even with the detail level cranked up. The game prompts you to increase your settings if frame rates are high: a nice feature. The sound design is generally the same as before: informative tire squeals and satisfying engine effects. The same spotter is used again, and the main menu music features a very, very annoying person shouting about winning a race: I turned it off instantly. As long as RACE products act more like expansions that true sequels, the graphical quality will remain at the same average, but acceptable, level.

ET AL.
RACE On is, surprisingly, a racing game where you race in races. These can be done both by yourself and online by taking place in a number of events. Single races comprise of practice, qualifying, and warm-up sessions, followed by the two-race (in WTCC, at least) main event. You can also take place in a full championship season with a points system, or create your own custom season with any of the game’s cars and tracks; you can even mix car types to create a staggered series. You can enjoy time attack mode (complete with online leaderboards) and practice for those who don’t know what they are doing. It should be noted that RACE On still lacks a tutorial system, something I have complained about since the first RACE title. Have they read none of my review?! The game does provide corner markers for novice-level driving and pretty clear braking zones (noted by darker tire build-up) on the tracks to help new players somewhat. Online racing is still solid, though most of the servers are located in Europe so some event can be a little laggy, though nothing that is unplayable. You can join any server that is running RACE 07 or STCC in addition to RACE On, which serves to prevent gaming community fragmentation (unless, of course, it’s running GTR Evolution and you do not). Race rules can be customized, like superpole (one-lap) qualifying, rolling starts, race lengths (both laps and time), and mandatory pitstops.

You race with cars, and RACE On features an impressive array of vehicles. New to the series is the 2008 WTCC season, featuring six makes of vehicles that aren’t terribly different from the 2007 or 2006 seasons that are also included. Also new is the International Formula Masters series that use the same tracks as the WTCC with the exception of two (Hungaroring and Spa) that are not included in RACE On. The primary focus of RACE On is the new U.S. muscle cars. There are four models that come in both street and racing versions: the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V, 2009 Dodge Charger, 2009 Dodge Challenger, and 2009 Chevrolet Camaro. These heavy, powerful real-wheel drive cars behave differently from the WTCC vehicles, as they are prone to oversteer (or “loose” to us Americans) when exiting a corner if you are not careful with the throttle. Additional content is gathered from RACE 07 and STCC, which are actually installed alongside RACE On as separate games, though there is no reason why you’d use them instead of RACE On that includes all of their content anyway (Steam is weird like that). Here we go with some links: the 2008 STCC season comes with nine makes, the Camaro Cup Champsionship that features (surprise!) Camaros, Caterham (3 makes), Radical (6 makes), Formula 3000 (now GP2), Formula BMW, Mini Cooper, and the 1987 WTCC season. In addition, if you have previously purchased GTR Evolution, all of that content is imported as well, making RACE On the only executable you'll ever need. In all, that’s a lot of cars and a good variety of them.

What good are cars if you have no where to race them? RACE On features three new tracks: Okayama, Road America, and Laguna Seca. That’s not a lot of new content (RACE expansions have mostly been light on the new tracks), but when you combine them with all of the tracks from RACE 07 and STCC, you do get forty-seven total, which is nice. RACE On does not include Marrakech, Morocco, featured in the 2009 WTCC season (probably saved for RACE On 2: On Harder), but SimBin is always a year behind reality. There a nice variety of slow, fast, oval, and urban tracks to race on, and everyone should find at least something they enjoy. RACE On does include competitive setups for most cars on all tracks: a nice feature. Some of the more wacky combinations (like Caterhams on the Puebla Oval) won’t be found, but including all of the conventional possibilities is impressive. The physics are seemingly realistic and different for each kind of vehicle. I personally prefer cars that are slower but handle better, like the WTCC and Mini Cooper vehicles, rather than the muscle cars or open wheel vehicles. I will say, though, that the International Formula Masters cars are the least annoying open wheel cars I've ever virtually driven, as they are not prone to breaking loose exiting every turn. The AI is still competitive; I dislike having to tweak their difficulty the first couple of races to get them “just right” (an automated slider would be greatly appreciated), but on full power they will be quite competent racers. They will also make mistakes on occasion, running off track, and are aggressive without being idiotic: a good combination for exciting racing.

IN CLOSING
Your assessment of RACE On depends on how many of the previous SimBin games you own. If you have RACE 07 and STCC and GTR Evolution, then you are paying $30 for essentially two new car classes and three new tracks: a very tough sell. However, if you’ve been lagging behind or are new to the series, then RACE On represents an excellent value for what you get. The racing options are robust, from custom championships to online event against people who own previous titles in the series. The game comes with many styles of cars: four seasons of the WTCC, the 2008 STCC season, the Camaro Cup, International Formula Masters, Caterham, Radical, Formula 3000, Formula BMW, Mini Coopers, and street and racing versions of four American muscle cars. These cars can be run on forty-seven tracks; new additions to the series include Okayama, Road America, and Laguna Seca, in addition to all of the tracks from RACE 07 and STCC. RACE On does not include the 2009 season, though, which is one less track to enjoy. The AI continues to be strong if too consistent, and competitive setups for most cars are provided for all tracks. This is very enjoyable simulation racing, from the way the cars handle to the variety of content to enjoy. RACE On is $10 cheaper than buying both RACE 07 and STCC together on Steam, plus you get all of the new content. It’s the same price as getting RACE 07 with GTR Evolution, and this represents a better value in my opinion. I think this would be a definite buy if RACE On had all of the GTR Evolution content, too. Still, getting the RACE On bundle and GTR Evolution together ($30 plus $20) equals a full price game, which I would consider all of the content as a whole to be. In the end, one of the best racing simulation series continues with another strong entry.

Cities XL Review

2009-10-22T15:03:00.000-04:00

Cities XL, developed and published by Monte Cristo Games.
The Good: Simple but deep economy, easy to make large non-square cities quickly, informative interface, inter-city trade makes specialization meaningful, nice graphics
The Not So Good: Optional online components should be free, seems incomplete awaiting future priced content, oversimplifications will bother more veteran city planners, no scenario objectives, lacks random maps, server issues
What say you? An introductory city builder with a couple of nice features, but not enough for a monthly investment: 5/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
I like city builders. In the days of SimCity, the king of the genre, allowed you to create your own domestic empire and rule over the hungry masses while carefully planning urban sprawl. Nowadays, the city builder has gotten a distinctly more historical flavor, and the contemporary city government simulation only has one prominent series: City Life. That game has certainly run its course, as its blend of class dynamics quickly devolved in a multitude of substandard stand-alone expansion packs. Now, the same developer has an online-centric city builder: Cities XL. While city building has classically been a distinctly single player affair, the game hopes to apply the community of massively multiplayer online and make a unique title.

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Cities XL features decent graphics and sound production values. The most realistic part of Cities XL is the environments: each of the game’s maps look like real-life locations, with an impressive variety in both climate and terrain. The game seems to have imported actual topography data in order to make some interesting places for your cities, although these tools are not readily available to the consumer. The city landscapes are a step up from City Life, with cars and people traversing your towns and a realistic variety of structure architecture to break up the typical monotony of a computerized city landscape. The ease of making non-square cities results in more realistic looking developments, a far cry from the all-square nature of most other games in the genre. Performance is acceptable, although the game looks worse as you zoom further out, replacing cars with non-descript boxes to improve framerates. The sound design is acceptable: the hustle and bustle of the city is actually quite subdued and overshadowed by the generic music selection; there isn’t much distinct about the sounds of Cities XL. In all, Cities XL provide an acceptable level of visual quality.

ET AL.
Cities XL is meant to be an online game, although you can play the game as a single player, though you must log on first. The single player mode allows you to build on twenty-five different landscapes with no objective; while this allows you to do pretty much anything you want, having more direction or some concrete goals (like making a manufacturing hub or tourist attraction) would grant added motivation. The environments are varied and quite large, easily allowing for huge complex cities to be developed. Since the developers used real-life terrain to make some of the locales, it would be nice if the same tools were offered to the consumer (this will no doubt be included in a later expansion pack). Other highly-touted features are also missing, such as the GEMs: mini-games, like running a ski resort, will break up the monotony of running a metropolis, but only when they are actually released (for a price, of course). It’s difficult to access the quality of the GEMs if they do not exist. Blueprints can also be earned so that you can construct famous landmarks, although they are granted at random through a lottery instead of being awarded to good players based on skill.

Online play in Cities XL costs $10 a month, and it’s totally not worth it. You are paying for a glorified chat room and the ability to trade with other human players; since you can trade with the AI in single player mode anyway, this is a silly bonus feature. That’s not all: you can create a completely useless avatar that is rarely seen in-game and get access to twenty-five more map styles as a bribe to give the developer some extra cash each and every month. You can visit other people’s cities, which is kind of neat, but the server performance is terrible, with frequent disconnects which makes it impossible to trade and even exit the game. Since saving is done automatically when you exit, if you are disconnected while playing, all of your recent progress is lost and you can’t even leave the game. Nice. You receive a discount (meaning not free, even though you are paying them a monthly fee) on future GEMs, whenever they happen to be released. $10 a month for a chat room and trades with real people? No thanks.

The best aspect of Cities XL is the interface: it is well done and provides easy access to important data. All of your zoning and construction tools are given along the left side of the screen: fairly traditional. Along the top you have information about your budget, population, resources, and businesses. The budget screen breaks down tax income and expenditures and lists the most and least profitable businesses. Population data displays the satisfaction of your citizens along with unemployment, occupancy, and immigration rates. The resources screen lists those goods that you produce and need as part of your economy. Finally, clicking on a business type or population group will display a number of important needs in an easy-to-understand, one-click-accessible list. The overlay system uses colors to highlight various parts of your city, and this is the most cumbersome aspect of the interface because of its confusing organization (traffic is in the economy category?). Still, you can display a wide range of data, from population density to pollution to satisfaction with security and fire services.

Layouts in Cities XL succeed because of the “free draw” zoning tool, allowing you to create non-square regions quickly. All you need to do is draw out the boundary roads in any shape you’d like, including connecting them to existing intersections, and the game will automatically fill them with buildings and roads. It’s a great system that both greatly reduces the tedium of placing individual zones and allows for more realistic non-square city designs. In addition to the zone shape, you can adjust the density of each region, which affects the number and type of people that can use that area. There is a decent variety of buildings to place: housing for each of the four population groups (unqualified, qualified, executive, and elite workers), industry (farming, heavy, manufacturing, offices), commerce (retail, hotels, leisure), utilities (electricity, water, waste, fuel), and services (health, education, police). Structures that provide services, like fire stations, cover the entire city: this makes the process simplified but not realistic. You can also fill in gaps with decorations like plazas and parks. Additional structures unlock according to population growth in a very linear fashion; I would have liked it to be more tailored towards the type of structures you have placed, like unlocking manufacturing areas earlier for heavy industrial towns.

Cities XL allows you to place curved roads, although they can’t be very curved, in addition to bridges and airports. Transit systems are not enabled yet (future patch), though. Upgrading roads is a pain, since you have to bulldoze the existing road and surrounding buildings unless you convert them to one-way avenues. I guess that’s realistic, but it’s still annoying. There is an extensive, hidden economy that relates the different goods you produce to the businesses that use them. It’s all automated but some of the relationships aren’t terribly explicit. You are given information on employee and resource needs if you click directly on a business, but sometimes it’s not so obvious. The economy is highlighted in the trading model, where you can sell goods produced by your town to the AI or other players (if you are online) in exchange for cold, hard cash. This means you can make a specialized society, like a high tech mecca or fuel-producing oil town, and still survive by trading for those resources (like water) you aren’t making yourself. You are still required to have a minimum population to gain access to some of the more sophisticated industries, so the beginning of each town uses a linear game strategy that can become repetitive. It’s almost trivially easy to succeed in the game, assuming you wait to construct services (which cost a fixed $5,000 of daily income) until you have enough income, because the interface is so explicit. Because of this high level of information, it can be kind of boring since Cities XL lacks surprising events or overall objectives to keep you motivated beyond just making a big, successful town. Once you figure out how to pace your growth and take advantage of the economy, the next game of Cities XL will play out just like the last.

IN CLOSING
Cities XL is an approachable city builder thanks to its excellent user interface, making the game perfect for beginners to the genre. All of the information is easy to find (once you know which display filter it’s buried under) and pertinent data can usually be found in more than one location. The game features an advanced resource model, where certain businesses require goods from other businesses; while these relationships are automated, they are also not very explicit in the game, and it can be difficult to figure out what step you are missing until it’s too late. The interface makes it easy to make a thriving metropolis, providing housing and jobs for each of the game’s population groups. It is very easy to make a large city quickly thanks to the “free” zoning mode, where irregular-shaped communities can sprout rapidly. This also eliminates the classic “square city” phenomenon, which causes the cities in Cities XL to be much more visually appealing. There are obvious needs by each population group that can be easily solved, since all requirements are city-wide in scope; this simplification makes Cities XL easier to play but also much less challenging. Trade is an important aspect of the game: you can now make a true farming community that will export those goods in exchange for other needs, like heavy industry or fuel or power. All of these features are meant to be used online, but there is no way I would pay $10 a month for this game. The amount of content you get in the online mode is included for free in any good first person shooter or strategy game. Basically, you are paying for trade with humans (which can be done with the AI in single player mode) and chat. That’s not enough. There are also server issues and various bugs that might be fixed, if you pay the developer more cash on top of the retail cost. The game is also missing a lot of content, like mass transit and a variety of leisure activities, and one of the most touted features, the mini-game-like GEMs, are completely missing. Cities XL has “many future paid expansions” written all over it. Given Monte Cristo's track record of tons of micro-expansions with little content, I'm not surprised at their subscription model, trying to squeeze every last penny out of you. Cities XL would be much more appealing if the online components were free, but only really dedicated city planners will play the game online for more than a week. The game's lack of scenario objectives and low level of difficulty means it loses its appeal very quickly, becoming a trivially easy and uninteresting affair. I am very surprised at how easy the game is, considering the complex nature and subsequent difficulty of City Life. The quality interface and trade makes Cities XL stand out, but the oversimplification of some elements and lack of overall objectives mean tedious repetition will soon set in.

Order of War Review

2009-10-18T11:21:00.000-04:00

Order of War, developed by Wargaming.net and published by Square Enix.
The Good: Campaign unit upgrades
The Not So Good: Completely derivative gameplay, no fog of war and few commands seriously hinder strategy and tactics, generic units, very limited tactical air support options, conquest-only multiplayer with only six maps and four players
What say you? An obvious, inferior ripoff of World in Conflict: 3/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Given how great World in Conflict was, I'm surprised that the strategy genre hasn't been inundated with clones. The game's unique combination of action-packed tactical team-based gameplay with powerful aids and spectacular graphics was very enjoyable. Well, your wait is over as Order of War certainly takes heavy inspiration from this now classic strategy title. Eschewing resource management for pretty explosions and putting the player right into the fray, these tactical games put a focus on the action. Order of War takes the fighting back to ever-popular World War II, since using any unique setting that hasn't been done hundreds of times before would be just plain silly. Will Order of War improve and expand upon World in Conflict, or just be a shell of its inspiration's self?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
The graphics of Order of War do not compare favorably to contemporary strategy games, World in Conflict included. I think this mainly has to do with the extremely dark hues of the game: everything is dark green or brown, and this color palate only serves to make a very dreary environment. The textures are fine and the explosion effects are realistically understated. Some of the damage effects aren't quite as dramatic and detailed as I would like to see, as tanks seem to go from intact to burning wreck instantaneously. There are also some clipping problems, especially with infantry units of different squads simply overlapping into each other. Order of War emphasizes the use of the cinematic camera (it's the largest button of the interface, questionably overshadowing commands and controls you actually use), which automatically takes control of your view and puts you right up to the action; it's here that the texturing and effects are seen the best, and while the graphics are decent, they are certainly not impressive. In addition, there are problems with the game's resolution: the sides of the screen are cut-off for my video card (an ATI Radeon HD 4670) and changing resolution doesn't fix the problem. This would not be a huge deal of Order of War did not put things right on the edge; I can't observe the health of my bottom-row units. The sound effects are disappointing as well. The voice acting needs work, as it alternates between passable and annoying. The battle sounds are only heard when you are right on top of the action, making the chaos all but silent most of the game (since you'll want to access the action for far up above). The music is a bit too overly dramatic for my tastes; it would be nice if it dynamically adjusted for in-game events. As it stands, just moving troops around involves a loud, piercing score. While Order of War isn't the worst looking strategy game on the market, it does not offer any unique feature to make it stand out, either.

ET AL.
Order of War lets you control forces during a minor, regional engagement called World War II (or, as the Polish called it, “Hey, Germany, WTF?!”). The single player offerings include two campaigns of nine missions each that last a while, thanks to some lengthy missions involving multiple objectives. The Americans get a campaign as do the Germans, which is unique because no other strategy game has ever featured a German campaign. The two campaigns feature very typical objectives, attack them or defend this, and are quite scripted. The large maps do lend themselves to some strategic variety, although most of the objective locations lend themselves to only one optimal solution. The only unique part of Order of War is the campaign upgrades: following a successful mission, you can choose to improve the abilities of your troops, like range for artillery or accuracy for infantry. It’s a neat feature, but it’s pretty useless since you do not know what enemies you will encounter next or what friendly troops you will have at your disposal; it’s disappointing to spend all of your points on artillery and not be given any next mission. While Order of War does allow you to save your progress anywhere within a mission, doing so takes a good fifteen seconds; I have no idea why. Order of War also features a tutorial for new players to the genre (of whom the game is geared towards) and skirmish games against the AI. Multiplayer games are quite limited, featuring conquest-only games on only six maps. Plus, the action is limited to a maximum of four players, and the large maps are horribly designed for this low player count: you simply do no have enough units to cover all of the control points. I doubt that anyone will spend more than a game or two online. It should also be noted that Order of War requires Steam, whether you bought a physical DVD copy or not, for those who have issues (philosophical or otherwise) with the platform.

Order of War takes the increasingly popular stance of removing resource production altogether, replacing it with a continual stream of resource points that are dependent on how many control points you hold. The resource points are also used to buy “air support,” tactical assets, like bombers and artillery, that are deadly accurate. There is a very limited selection of air support available (only four choices) and none of them are very interesting. Units are equally uninteresting: your typical selection of tanks (light, medium, heavy), anti-tank guns, artillery, and infantry. Anyone can purchase any of the units, so you are not tactically restricted to a single class of vehicle. Reinforcements are always called in from the same point on the map (either the top or bottom), but you can designate a rally point for them once they enter the fray. There are no special abilities for any of the units, which makes Order of War quite dull as you are quite limited in your tactical options. Using the same points for both units and off-map artillery is an over-simplification that I find strategically limiting, especially considering the overpowered nature of the air support and how one strike can easily decimate a superior amount of enemy units in terms of cost.

There are some basic control problems with Order of War that make the game unwieldy at best. Moving the mouse to the edge of the screen does not scroll, requiring you to use the mini-map or the arrow keys. Your orders are also quite limited, as you are only given move, attack, stop, and unload. That’s all, folks. Units will engage enemy units (attack-move is “on” by default), but they will stop while doing so and usually not start moving again unless issued another movement command. Troops will also occasionally ignore enemy units. A group will move at the speed of the slowest unit, making coordinated attacks easier, though. The AI is not great, but the game doesn't lend itself towards advanced strategy with the vanilla units and lack of advanced orders. The enemy seems to have simple scripted paths and will head straight towards the objective without regard for terrain or enemy positioning. Order of War is simply a matter of having more troops. One of the biggest sins of Order of War is the lack of fog of war. Seriously? Yes, you know the positions of every enemy unit on the map at all times, making success trivially easy and the air support assets akin to cheating. Heck, a good strategy is to spend your initial resource points and bomb your enemy’s initial control point in the first five seconds of the game, since you know exactly where their troops are located. Order of War has amazingly shallow gameplay thanks to the lack of fog of war and no special abilities or advanced commands beyond “move.” World in Conflict had special abilities. Men of War had direct control of units. Order of War has nothing.

IN CLOSING
Order of War is at best a simple copy of World in Conflict transferred to World War II; at worst, it is a blatant sub-par ripoff. There is simply nothing that the game offers that is any better or even equal to other titles; in fact, Order of War removes a lot of the strategic depth that World in Conflict contained. The use of the cinematic camera says all you need to know about the game: it wants you to sit back and watch units explode, instead of playing a strategically interesting title. The two campaigns offer nothing special, other than the upgrades you can choose between missions. The multiplayer features are a joke: six maps and 2v2 only? Give me a break. The game is poorly balanced for this player count anyway, as there are too many control points and never enough units to defend them. Resource points must be divided between purchasing units and using air support; in-game performance is not rewarded at all, so you can sit back and spam overly powerful air support all you want, especially since Order of War inexplicably lacks fog of war, making all enemy units visible at all times. Talk about limiting your tactical options. The units themselves are generic and so its the gameplay: all you have are move orders, as units will attack automatically, and stop indefinitely while doing so. There are no special abilities or direct control to make Order of War anything above a very simplistic strategy game that is quite unsatisfying. The graphics are average and, along with the interface, exhibit a number of annoying bugs. I would expect a lot more from the developers behind Massive Assault, a somewhat interesting turn-based strategy title. Why would you buy a fraction of the game at twice the price?

Gridrunner Revolution Review

2009-10-14T13:02:00.001-04:00

Gridrunner Revolution, developed and published by Llamasoft.
The Good: Certifiably insane, distinctively weird visuals and audio, intuitive mouse-driven controls with auto-fire, multiple ships to quickly switch between, nifty use of gravity, includes original 80's versions
The Not So Good: Often (but not always) incomprehensibly chaotic, fast rotation speed makes it easy to “cheat,” indiscernible level variety, lacks multiplayer and online scoreboards
What say you? This frantic and unique arcade game is quite enjoyable: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
A majority of arcade games of the 70’s and 80’s involved shooting things. Why? Because people are inherently violent, that’s why. Plus, something has to be done with the incoming space invaders/centipedes/asteroids/tanks. What are you going to do, talk to them? Centipedes can’t talk! No, it is best to shoot first and ask questions later, questions such as “what does this rambling introduction have to do with Gridrunner Revolution?” Beats me, I’m just trying to fill space to make the review longer (shhh! trade secret!). This is a sequel to a sequel to a sequel to the original Gridrunner, which came out for a couple of the Commodore systems way back in the Silurian period. Let’s shoot some scorpions and save some sheep, shall we?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Like most of Llamasoft’s products, Gridrunner Revolution hits hard with the psychedelic stick. The game is overloaded with neon-colored effects, from the enemies to the bullets: it’s a chaos of stuff. You can play the game using Shader 2.0 or 3.0 settings, although I did not notice a huge difference other than a slight increase in load times. This is one of those games that looks really confusing because it is, and I think that is on purpose. It’s also distinctive, thanks to those chaotic graphics. The sound is equally strange: you will be inundated with “sheepie,” “attention!,” and “oops…loooooser” while playing, among other unique words and phrases. The techno music, along with the backgrounds, can be adjusted using the jukebox to suit your mood. The disorder actually fits the game well, to be honest, and makes for a particularly uncommon experience.

ET AL.
Gridrunner Revolution is an arcade shooter that takes over two hundred levels separated amongst four levels of difficulty, which are obviously named for types of curry. Each level takes about a minute to complete, which, for the level of insanity the game exhibits, is just right. There isn’t really any difference between level 1 and level 200 other than the amount of enemies and obstacles present, and specific levels certainly do not have any individuality or distinct features that make you say, “oh, yeah, that’s level 47!” Eventually, you will unlock additional gameplay modes, such as the original Commodore VIC-20 and Commodore 64 versions of Gridrunner, an endurance mode that limits you to just one life, and a thrust mode that uses point-and-click for movement. Gridrunner Revolution does not have any multiplayer features: neither competitive nor cooperative modes (which would be interesting) or online scoreboards to see how you stack up against the competition (a seemingly important contemporary feature for any arcade shooter that keeps score) are contained herein. Maybe for Gridrunner Revolution+.

Your primary objective in Gridrunner Revolution is to collect sheep. Obviously. Along the way, you’ll need to shoot enemies so that you do not die. Dying is bad. Obviously. Mouse control is preferred, although you can also use the keyboard or a gamepad; I find moving around the levels is quite a bit easier using the trusty mouse. Other than simply moving, you can rotate your ship (done with the mouse buttons) and select different ship types (mouse wheel). Thankfully, your ship will always fire, so there is no tedious hold-down-the-fire-button in Gridrunner Revolution. The game has a shrewd and subtle use of gravity, where your shots are curved around stars that are placed on the map. More curving equals more points for those striving for higher scores (and who isn’t?), so landing exotic shots is encouraged. You can also shoot stars to earn a bonus ship type once they morph into a black hole. The earth scientist in me would like to point out that yellow and orange stars lack the mass to actually turn into black holes, but if you are turning towards Gridrunner Revolution for scientific accuracy, you’re looking in the wrong place. The handful (six or so) ship types in the game are varied in their gun location, bullet velocity, bullet power, and mass (how the shots are affected by gravity). There are also additional differences if you are playing in the thrust mode. I must admit that the differences are very, very subtle and most people won’t even notice a change, to be quite honest.

Gridrunner Revolution comes with a lot of enemies, most of which look quite weird; they can follow set patterns or move towards you. The AI isn’t “smart,” but it doesn’t have to be, because the game, like pretty much any arcade shooter, throws a whole bunch of them at you at once, and that’s where the difficulty comes from. There are strategies to successfully deal with specific enemy types that you will learn along the way, though. Death is an interesting process: once you are inadvertently hit, you will descend the screen towards the bottom, but you can bounce on enemies to keep yourself in purgatory and attempt to hit a sheep on the way down to become resurrected. It’s a really cool mini-game dynamic to keep yourself alive, and you’ll get to do it a lot, since death is fairly common in Gridrunner Revolution. While the game is appropriately difficult, it can be easy to do what I consider to be cheating: you can just constantly rotate, thus shooting in all directions are killing all comers. As long as you avoid the environmental hazards, the rotation speed is high enough where this is a viable (and cheap) strategy. Of course, you can simply just play Gridrunner Revolution the “right” way (especially true since the game lacks multiplayer or online scoreboards), but it’s still a slight balance issue I’d like to see fixed, such as having to recharge rotation fuel, or something.

IN CLOSING
A number of things make Gridrunner Revolution stand out against the typical arcade shooter: the distinctive graphics and sound, bouncing off enemies to avoid dying, switching ship types, and the exaggerated use of sheep. The features are nice: two hundred levels of hot, shooting action (though it’s difficult to tell the difference between them), in addition to an alternative control method (the thrust mode), an endurance mode, and the original Commodore versions. The mouse-based controls are smooth and easy to use, from moving your ship to rotating it. The fact that your ship constantly shoots is a great feature that greatly decreases tedium. The game also allows you to quickly switch between ship types; while the differences are quite subtle (I had to contact the developer to figure out for sure what they were), there are some changes in firing rate, shot power, and bullet speed that can affect your strategy a little. Collecting sheep for more turrets and scoring bonuses is nice, and saving yourself from death by bouncing on enemy units and steering towards a falling sheep is a unique and interesting gameplay mechanic. Gridrunner Revolution does suffer from confusion due to sensory overload (although not to the same degree as Space Giraffe): it can be difficult to figure out exactly what the heck is going on. In addition, you can “cheat” by constantly rotating your ship: that’s a somewhat significant balance issue. The lack of online leaderboards means you are only cheating yourself, so I suppose it’s ultimately not that big of a deal. Gridrunner Revolution is actually pretty different from Gridrunner++ (I downloaded the demo), although it uses some of the same sound effects, and doesn’t suffer from sequel syndrome. The graphics and sound are trippy, and although they can negatively impact the gameplay, they do make for a distinctive look and feel. Fans of arcade shooters will find an approachable and unique game made so by several distinctive features.

Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Review

2009-10-09T15:16:00.001-04:00

Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich, developed by 2by3 Games and published by Matrix Games.
The Good: A unique component of World War II, opposing sides offer distinctly different gameplay, many scenarios of varied lengths and victory conditions, high level of historical detail, optional AI planning, great for play by e-mail
The Not So Good: Terribly outdated and tedious interface, exceedingly long turn resolution, no in-game tutorial
What say you? A pleasingly different approach for a wargame is ruined by its amazingly inept interface: 5/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Gary Grigsby is the Tyler Perry of computer games, his name ubiquitously placed on game after game after game after game after game (though the last two are less explicit about it). With Matrix Games’s acquiring of the entire line of Talonsoft software, the ubiquitousness has only gotten more ubiquitous (ubiquitously). This time around, it’s two games in one, covering the air campaign during (surprise!) World War II. Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich, also known as Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to the Bombing of the Reich, also known as Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing of the Reich, offers up a unique strategic package by focusing solely on the strategic decisions made with air units during the Battle of Britain and the Allied attack on Germany. This is my first crack at the titles, refurbished by Matrix Games with more betterness like improved AI and more comprehensive units. Let’s take to the skies and check out this strategy title!

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
It’s pretty clear that Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich did not receive hardly any graphical enhancements from its original state ten years ago. The map of Western Europe still looks great, but everything else is extremely outdated, such as the pixilated icons. The game is fixed at a resolution of 1024 by 768 pixels, but you can stick it in a window by putting a -w switch in the game shortcut. The interface is by far the worst aspect of the game, receiving no needed overhauls from its original lacking structure. Nothing is easy to do in the game: there are tons of sub-menus to wade through, and things that should be linked (like locations to bombing runs) are not. It’s simply too tedious to get things done, requiring too many clicks to do simple tasks, like selecting targets and plotting routes. In addition, the game puts information at the top and the bottom of the screen, requiring constant shifting of focus during gameplay. Who does that? You also cannot use your mouse wheel to zoom the map, and the mini-map is disabled while you are in a sub-menu. You also can’t easily back out to the main menu easily, as you must “exit screen” four times to switch between menus. It’s supremely frustrating. Ten years of time should have produced a usable, slick interface that is prevalent among contemporary strategy titles, but Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich received no such changes. This is why people don't become interested in wargames. There were significant shortcomings with the interface when the original games came out ten years ago, and its only exacerbated now. As for the sound, I didn’t notice anything other than a jarring selection indicator.

ET AL.
Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich is a re-release of two ten-year-old games: Battle of Britain and 12 O’Clock High: Bombing the Reich. Together, the package includes a satisfying amount of content: twenty-one campaigns spanning from a single day all the way up to 700. The full scenario is too long time-wise for mere mortals to complete (I estimate playing twenty-four hours a day for two straight months), but the smaller scenario sizes break up the action into digestible chunks. The shorter scenarios offer more simplified objectives (destroying enemy planes), while victory in the longer scenarios involve maintaining air superiority, industrial damage, and terror (urban bombing) as you support the ground invasion or really make the British angry (and burnt). Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich offers no in-game tutorial (boo!), but I thought the manual was informative and well-written, and it contains a two read-along single turn scenarios. The structure of Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich really lends itself for multiplayer play by e-mail; instead of being a tacked-on feature, it seems like the game was designed specifically for it, so those of us with actual human friends will enjoy the ability to incessantly bomb the British over the Internet.

As the attacker (the Germans in Eagle Day, and the Allies for Bombing the Reich), your objective is to blow the crap out of the enemy by sending bombing missions and support squads through the air to drop their payload of righteousness. Everything is done in the planning phase, where you are given an unlimited amount of time to hammer out your missions. Most of the time you will be developing bombing missions by selecting a primary target (by clicking on the map), a secondary target, the four component flight path (inbound, initial point, exit point, and outbound), the altitude, launch time, lead plane, and add additional bombers and escorts. You are free to make your paths anywhere on the map, so there is a great degree of freedom involved here, and you can easily create fake or decoy flight plans to deceive the enemy. You can also design flight paths to go over targets of opportunity on the way back to base, and if bombers have any payload left, they will attempt to make some craters on their return. You will also need to develop recon missions to access damage (five photos are taken per flight) and fighter sweeps for early interdiction against enemy airfields. The game automatically filters out planes you can’t use based on the targets you select, which makes planning slightly more straightforward. If all of these options are overwhelming (and they might be, considering you’ll can easily make a hundred missions for a single day), you can have your AI subordinate officers plan some or all of the missions; this is a useful feature for the less interesting recon and sweep missions that you might not feel like doing manually. You will have to pay attention to cloud cover and the level of daylight, as both can adversely affect your bomber’s performance. Although it should be easier to design missions without all that clicking, I do like the freedom and underlying strategy of the attacking force.

Defending is a completely different animal (most likely a squirrel). Here, you respond in real-time during the turn resolution to incoming raids that are detected by your radar and patrols. Before the turn begins, you can move some anti-aircraft guns and planes to the places you think the enemy will attempt to raid. For each squadron, you can decide on the alert level, which makes the unit respond more quickly but also fatigue faster, and tactics (direct or bounce). Once a raid is detected, it will show up on the map, and you click on it and send a squad (or five) to intercept them. Information is poor on the actual composition of a raid until it is quite close to the mainland, unless it is detected by a patrol you have set up beforehand. The problem is that using planes for patrols takes them away from countering raids, so there is an interesting strategic balance to meet. It is also impossible to respond to every raid, so you must guess where they are headed and how important the target might be. This is where the “chess match” of Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich becomes quite interesting, as the attacker and defender each try to outsmart their opponent.

Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich has an impressive level of historical detail, from ratings for each squad (experience, morale) to stats for all the planes (climing rate, gun range, maneuverability) and individual pilots (name, fatigue) flying them. The strategy pedigree of the game is quite strong, with the attacker feigning forces and attempting to cause the defender to make a wrong move. This game is not for the feint of heart, however, as it can quite literally take a couple of hours to plan a raid and resolve a single day of action. The game can also be quite overwhelming in the amount of options you have: the basics are straightforward (send out raids), but the choices you are granted can become tremendously tedious. Your AI opponent seems to be quite competitive, sending out varied raids, escorts, and interceptions that keep you on your toes. After a number of games the computer can become more predictable, but the AI takes good control of the strategic freedom that Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich has to offer.

IN CLOSING
Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich is an interesting and unique strategy title marred by its worthless interface. The game does stand out as (still) highlighting a distinctive aspect of World War II, letting you direct squads of planes as they attack or defend strategically important locations across Europe. Both sides play quite differently, as the aggressor will set up his flight patterns for the day and sit back and watch the action while the defender scrambles to send up defending flights to counter the incoming onslaught. It’s a very intriguing chess match of fake moves and counter-moves in the skies. Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich works great using play by e-mail, since only one side is actively doing something each turn. The turns can take a while to resolve, especially if you are defending and having to respond to incoming threats. The game comes with lots of scenarios for different lengths, and introduces varied victory conditions for each. The level of historical detail is high and impressive, containing seemingly accurate pilot lists in every scenario for both sides. The game can be overwhelming, since you are directing a large number of squadrons and the level of detail for planning your attacks and defenses is high. The lack of an in-game tutorial doesn’t help matters, but the AI can do some of the planning for you. Unfortunately, while the core of the game is fine, the interface needs a serious overhaul. It’s a serious limitation in the game, as doing even the simplest actions require many clicks of the trusty mouse. Important information and actions are buried within the obtuse menu system; interacting with Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich is a truly gigantic pain. The game is complicated enough as it is without having a confusing and tedious interface to deal with. Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich is a nice re-release of a fascinating game that could have greatly benefited from an interface renovation.

Madballs in...Babo:Invasion Review

2009-10-06T15:17:00.000-04:00

Madballs in...Babo:Invasion, developed and published by Playbrains.
The Good: Invasion mode allows for turn-based map creation online, fun cooperative and competitive multiplayer modes
The Not So Good: Unlimited ammunition and no reloading makes shooting completely trivial, have to unlock everything for use in campaign and multiplayer, superficial weapon-armor counter system, imprecise movement, interface indicates enemy weapon resistance poorly, uninspired level design, can't save progress mid-mission, invasion editor not extended to other modes, poor sound design
What say you? Generic, mindless action and many other problems overshadow a couple of nice features: 4/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Remember Madballs? No? Here, go watch this. I can wait.

Still nothing? You are hopeless, then. Anyways, the best way to capitalize off an obscure fad from the 80's is through a computer game, and that's exactly what we have with Madballs in...Babo:Invasion. In this strangely-titled and punctuation-heavy action game, you control a Madball as it rolls around levels, shooting enemy Madballs along the way in an orgy of death. Sounds plausible enough to me! Does Madballs in...Babo:Invasion differentiate itself from the pack with some unique gameplay features?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
The graphics of Madballs in...Babo:Invasion are low budget through and through. While the Madballs themselves are well designed and look just like their real-life counterparts thanks to some detailed textures, the environments in which they roll suffer from poor, washed-out details and repetitive design. They do not invoke any sense of plausibility, only consisting of very obvious platforms and pathways towards the end of the level. I’m not expecting a game that features Madballs equipped with guns to be realistic, per se, but some less obvious paths would be nice. Some of the weapon effects are nice, and the death sequences are violent enough for my tastes. The sound design is one of the low points of the game,: subtle and generic music with only a handful of voice over work. Each character (friendly and enemy) has only one phrase they will repeat over and over again, and the in-game dialogue (if you can call it that) also consists of one line of voice, no matter how long the text might be. You are certainly not going to play Madballs in...Babo:Invasion for the production values.

ET AL.
The best part about Madballs in...Babo:Invasion is the extensive features, starting with the relatively lengthy campaign. With each individual mission clocking in at around 30 minutes, the ten-level campaign will last about five hours, acceptable content for a $10 game. You can’t actually lose the game, as you will always respawn at the previous checkpoint and enemies stay dead, making it just a matter of time before you successfully destroy them all. The main problem with the campaign is the lack of a save feature: the levels are long enough where not being able to save anywhere is a real problem. If you quit in the middle of a level, be prepared to start all over, even if you have passed multiple checkpoints along the way. The campaign also suffers from very linear level designs designed to keep you going along one path, save for the occasional side track for bonus points. The game is action-oriented, but there are plenty of throw-a-switch puzzles and precarious cliffs to navigate through, both of which are annoying. You can go back and replay any level you have finished; maps contain things that are initially unlocked (even the first level), so there is a reason to go back to previously conquered locales. The tutorial level is drawn-out and quite superficial, as the game’s mechanics and controls are easy enough to learn reading the game’s menus. I am quite disappointed in the fact that you have to unlock almost everything in the game, from the weapons to the characters. You are even restricted in multiplayer: if you have not completed enough of the single player campaign, be prepared to be at a distinct tactical disadvantage once you venture online. The copious amount of achievements Madballs in...Babo:Invasion has does not offset the limitations of the campaign and the use of locked content.

Multiplayer offerings of Madballs in...Babo:Invasion are fairly robust. You can play any of the ten single player missions cooperatively online. There are also a wide selection of competitive modes, like deathmatch, team deathmatch, capture the flag, and base attack. The most unique aspect of Madballs in...Babo:Invasion is the invasion mode. Here, teams actually design the level right before the game begins by placing tiles. After the map is made, teams place their base and a couple of upgradable power nodes that can be used for healing and defense. It’s a really interesting mini-game that has some strategic depth, setting up defenses and funneling the enemy down death traps. It’s too bad that the invasion mode is essentially wasted in an otherwise sub-par game. The editing features are not used in any other part of the game, for some reason: you cannot create your own levels for single player or capture the flag events, even though the capability is obviously there. You can choose between five character classes that alter their stats: assault, heavy, support, flyer, and runner. You cannot fully customize the classes, though. Finally, bots are not available for multiplayer matches, so you must find actual humans to compete against.

Combat in Madballs in...Babo:Invasion involves moving and shooting. You will eventually have access to ten weapons that are variations upon classic action hardware: rifles, shotguns, missile launchers, sniper rifles, railguns, et cetera. Each weapon has two modes covering the four attack types in the game: impact, energy, heat, and cold. You will need to switch to a mode that the current enemy is susceptible towards in order to maximize your damage. This is similar to the system used in Project Aftermath, though the system is less elegant here because the interface does a terrible job clearing showing the enemy strengths. Really, the weapon mode switching is a gimmick as all it takes is a simple button press to switch weapons. Because Madballs in...Babo:Invasion only allows you to carry one weapon at a time, it is partially luck in choosing the right weapon before the next wave of enemies arrives. I favor skill over luck, so the weapon system in Madballs in...Babo:Invasion is less than great. The game does not allow you to switch weapons often enough, a strategic hallmark of all good shooters. There is, of course, a plentiful supply of weapons scattered around each level that you can’t use because they are not unlocked yet. You will always shoot forward, and the game automatically engages enemies above and below you. The enemies have very basic AI: while there are some varied behaviors (some are turrets, some burrow below the ground), they will always head straight towards you once spotted. The level designs do have some elements of cover available for somewhat interesting encounters, but the enemy units do not use them at all, making the combat in Madballs in...Babo:Invasion that much less enjoyable. In addition to the basic weapons, you have access to grenades and special abilities that are specific to each character (which, of course, must be unlocked). Movement in Madballs in...Babo:Invasion is not as crisp as I would have liked, and the imprecise movement is not designed for the amount of platform maneuvering the game has to offer. I routinely fell off ledges, requiring either a short detour or complete restart. I have no problem with platform gaming, but the controls must be precise enough to actually make the platform elements playable.

IN CLOSING
Madballs in...Babo:Invasion comes with one unique multiplayer game mode, but it’s lacking in every other area. The single player campaign is quite lengthy, though repetitive and very linear. Madballs in...Babo:Invasion commit the unforgivable sin of disabling saves during a level: you must complete each level in one sitting, a significant problem for people with a life that might not have a half-hour to dedicate without interruptions. Madballs in...Babo:Invasion also has almost everything initially locked: weapons, characters, and levels. This extends to the multiplayer portion of the game as well: people who have completed single player missions will be at an advantage in multiplayer games with access to a wider array of weapons and characters, a “feature” I really despise. Achievements are fine, but locking content from new users is stupid. While most of the multiplayer modes are seen in other games (deathmatch, capture the flag), the invasion mode really stands out as unique: teams design the map before the game starts, taking turns placing tiles. It’s a really neat dynamic that almost makes Madballs in...Babo:Invasion worth playing, but not quite. Madballs in...Babo:Invasion also comes with a comprehensive suite of achievements for those striving for online notoriety. Madballs in...Babo:Invasion really fails when it comes to the actual gameplay experience. The problems are two-fold: imprecise handling makes the plentiful platform sequences really exasperating, and the combat involves absolutely no strategy whatsoever. Since weapons have unlimited ammunition and do not require reloading, you can simply hold down the fire button from the beginning to the end of a level and attain a high score. The weapon that fires the fastest with the correct ammunition is the one to stick with for the entire game. Madballs in...Babo:Invasion attempts to introduce some strategy with enemy strengths and weaknesses, but it’s a simple button press to switch firing modes and dispose of the enemy quickly. Robotic enemy AI with predictable spawn locations don’t help matters; I was quite literally bored with Madballs in...Babo:Invasion five minutes in, and struggled to have the resolve to continue the game (who said reviewing games was easy?). The sound and the graphics also lack detail, making for a disappointing overall experience. I wonder how far along in the development of this game the Madballs license was acquired; the game uses the likenesses, but it doesn’t incorporate some level of unique gameplay that is ball-related to make a completely distinctive game. Overall, the positive features of Madballs in...Babo:Invasion are wasted on derivative, bland, and unbalanced gameplay.

Darkest of Days Review

2009-10-02T15:20:00.000-04:00

Darkest of Days, developed by 8monkey Labs and published by Phantom EFX.
The Good: Intriguing premise, weapon upgrades based on performance
The Not So Good: Bland shooting, very linear level design and highly scripted missions, inconsistent AI, lacks multiplayer
What say you? A novel plot partially compensates for flat first person shooting: 4/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
One of my favorite science fiction shows was Quantum Leap. Maybe it was Scott Bakula's overt rugged sexiness, but the premise was intriguing and there was rampant cross-dressing, so it’s win-win. Dr. Sam Beckett striving to put right what once went wrong is similar to Darkest of Days, except this game has plenty more guns. About to die in Custer’s Last Stand, the main character is recruited to take place in history’s famous battles, protecting important figures that are being killed off by some unknown force (probably the Evil Leaper). Sounds interesting, but how does it play?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Darkest of Days features a mixed bag of graphics. I found the textures to be quite nice on the PC, with a high level of detail on weapons, people, and environments. There are also some nice effects from weapons, most notably the smoke from a fired gun, very visible from the zoomed-in perspective. The engine also seems capable to render large numbers of enemy troops and maintain an acceptable frame rate, similar to Mount&Blade. Even with the good texturing and some nice effects (the aforementioned gun smoke, shimmering water and the time travel sphere), something still feels “off” about the graphics of Darkest of Days. I think the reason is twofold: the animations look like everything is moving in slow motion, and the level designs are unrealistic as they constantly funnel you down obviously linear valley paths. The sound design is acceptable: dramatic music with average voice acting, and period-specific battle sounds that are convincing enough. While Darkest of Days does not compete with top-notch first person shooters, the game compares favorably with a more budget-level game. Too bad Darkest of Days isn’t at a budget-level price.

ET AL.
The best part of Darkest of Days is the story: you are recruited from the Battle of Little Bighorn to fight throughout history, putting right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that the next leap…might be the leap home (or something like that). The sixteen levels of the campaign cover four time periods: the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in Pompeii, the American Civil War, World War I, and (of course) World War II. You typically have a choice to select the next mission from each time period (once you’ve progressed far enough). Each mission takes place in a very large map that is also astoundingly linear: Darkest of Days does not give you any strategic freedom, restricting you to obviously linear paths (through the use of invisible walls) towards the next objective location. Each level takes about a half-hour to complete, so in total Darkest of Days will occupy about eight hours of your time before you are finished with it. Because the game lacks multiplayer of any kind and the levels are so heavily scripted, there is no reason to play Darkest of Days for a second time. The title does have clear objectives, assuming you are close enough to the checkpoint. It can be confusing in spots, though, as enemies magically spawn seemingly out of nowhere. I went too far once past a hill and found myself inundated by enemy troops, for example. This amount of scripted action has its place and can be effective if done well, but Darkest of Days does not deliver the required level of realism. Darkest of Days does not allow you to save your progress at will, but the game utilizes very frequent auto saves (like every two minutes or so), so you will never have to repeat a significant amount of action.

Darkest of Days equips you with a selection of period-specific and futuristic weaponry to dispose of those pesky enemy units. You are given a primary (usually a rifle) and secondary (usually a pistol) weapon, though you can pick up any weapon from fallen soldiers if you have a preference. In addition, you can man artillery (with no aiming reticule) and chasers are used to incapacitate enemies without killing them. Reloading involves a quick time event, where you must time a button press, much like kicking field goals in the Madden series of football games (you might have heard of them). Weapon selection is kind of weird, as mouse wheel down will always select your chasers, while mouse wheel up will cycle between your primary and secondary weapons. Also, friendly soldiers don’t flinch when you are disposing of enemy units with a modern assault rifle or rocket launcher; I’m obviously not expecting Darkest of Days to adhere to ultimate realism (you are time traveling, by the way), but it’s still unintentionally hilarious. You are also given upgrades (rate of fire, reload speed, clip size, accuracy) depending on how many “important” blue-aura enemies you spare. In general, the shooting is quite bland and generic: you are given semi-automatic weapons that are deadly accurate, no matter what time period they are from. If you have the aiming reticule on an enemy unit, they will die with one shot. The only difference between the weapons is rate of fire and reloading time, since they are all so unrealistically accurate.

The generic shooting of Darkest of Days is made worse by the lackluster AI. The enemy infantry makes things really dull as they mostly stand motionless behind partial cover, once they magically spawn at the pre-determined time. It seems like their movement is pre-scripted and does not react at all to your position or strategy, making replay value extremely small. The AI will use cover unless they are scripted to do so, and sometimes they ignore you or don’t shoot at all. They are also quite inaccurate, and the game only becomes difficult when you are up against a large number of enemy units. Your AI allies are equally incompetent, leaving you to do most of the killing. In addition, AI allies keep killing the blue people you are not supposed to kill! Thanks a lot, jerk! The poor AI and generic shooting make Darkest of Days a forgettable experience despite the promising narrative.

IN CLOSING
Darkest of Days takes a great idea and doesn't do enough with it. The sixteen mission campaign is long enough (certainly not a brief three hour travesty), but the level design (and the action itself) is so extremely linear that you are never given anything in the way of tactics. The chosen variety of settings, covering Pompeii through World War II, tend to become repetitive (with the exception of the first) with unorganized skirmishes and lots of running between checkpoint objectives; at least the action is fairly constant. The objectives are clear enough, but only appear on your HUD when very close, requiring you to constantly refer to the map that covers the entire screen. Once you are finished with the campaign, there is no reason to replay Darkest of Days, thanks to the aforementioned linear level design and lack of multiplayer action (which could have been really cool, either in a cooperative or competitive setting). The period weaponry retain the slow firing speed and reloading of their real life counterparts, but are unrealistically accurate; this concession does make the game less frustrating, as you will always hit your mark if you put it in the crosshairs. Upgrading weapons by not killing important people is a neat dynamic ruined by allowing your AI allies to shoot them anyway. The AI, both friendly and enemy, is incompetent enough to make Darkest of Days really bland as a whole: your allies can barely hit anyone and vice versa, meaning you spend 90% of the game lining up stationary targets partially concealed by cover: not exactly scintillating gameplay. Add inconsistent graphics and you have a game with promise that fails to deliver.

Raven Squad Review

2009-09-28T15:14:00.000-04:00

Raven Squad, developed by Atomic Motion and published by Evolved Games and SouthPeak Games.
The Good: Seamless transition between RTS and FPS modes
The Not So Good: Rudimentary and dull strategy mode, shooting lacks innovation, lackluster AI needs detailed squad commands, short campaign with linear missions that's not challenging at all, LAN-only multiplayer, generally horrible presentation
What say you? A generic first person shooter and a limited real time strategy game combine very poorly: 3/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Remember the '80s? You know, full of crappy action movies like Rambo, Commando, and...uh...Commando (and Rambo). Get to the choppa! And all that jazz. It's a wonder nobody has capitalized on using that ever-popular tropical jungle setting for a campy action title. That is until now! Raven Squad lets you lead two groups of commandos (to I guess it should really be called Raven Squads) in to the jungle, possibly involving Jesse Ventura. The game attempts to combine the action of first person shooters and the planning of real time strategy games into a cohesive package of awesomeness. Though we have mostly seen use of role-playing elements in other genres, a FPS-RTS combination is almost unique. How does it all work out?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
The graphics of Raven Squad are not so great. I suspect some concessions are made because of the transition between a first person camera and an overhead view, but the closer view really suffers from poorly detailed textures. The jungle environment does not lend itself towards a variety of visuals, and the setting has been done better in games such as Far Cry; each new level looks just like the previous one. The character models also could move more fluidly, as the stiff animations are very apparent during death. Worse off is the sound design, with insufferable voice acting and a musical score that is distressingly reminiscent of Joint Operations. Raven Squad does not impress in any area, graphics and sound included.

ET AL.
Welcome to the jungle. We have fun and games. Although Raven Squad is mostly devoid of both, and here’s why. First off, the twelve-mission campaign is extremely short: each level clocks in at around fifteen minutes long, which makes the entire game about three hours from start to finish. Most people will be able to easily finish Raven Squad in one sitting. The game is also limited to LAN-only cooperative multiplayer, if you have any friends who were silly enough to also purchase this game. This would have been a notable inclusion if true online capabilities were present. As a result of these poor features, Raven Squad has no replay value. At least Raven Squad lets you save your progress anywhere, removing some of the console port stink.

Gameplay in Raven Squad comes in two flavors: first person shooting and real time strategy. The FPS mode is very conventional and offers nothing in the way of innovation. Firing down the scope is just as accurate as shooting from the hip, so the action is certainly on the arcade side of things. The game also has some weird default controls: Q to switch weapons? F keys for commands? Raven Squad was clearly designed for the consoles, as exemplified by the constant use of XBOX controller buttons in the menus. You will be able to control six different characters organized into two squads, each of which as a specific role as determined by their weaponry. They all have cute names: Paladin has a rifle and machine gun, Thor is equipped with a shotgun and rocket launcher, Special Agent Oso (yes, his name is really Oso…he’s o-so special!) has a submachine gun and grenades, Shadow is a sniper, Flash has flashbang grenades (get it? ha!), and Zombie has a scoped M16 with smoke grenades. You can’t customize the loadouts at all, and you must remember which character has which weapons on the fly to fight most effectively; there are icons for each character, but they only display one of the two weapons.

The real time strategy portion of Raven Squad is useful as a minimap, but that’s it. You can easily find ammunition, health, and all enemy locations, which makes the game trivially easy. You are limited to one-button context-sensitive commands: move, attack, or use. A command is issued to the entire squad of three, rendering their different abilities useless. While it is easy to move behind cover (similar to Dawn of War II), the fact that you can’t give individual commands and the AI is too dumb to figure out how to move as a unit with varied abilities really limits your strategic options. Units aren't effective at all killing enemy units, so it's just quicker to jump back into FPS mode to take them down. You also can't box select units, meaning you have to constantly tab back and forth between squads. The RTS elements are very lightweight indeed.

As I alluded to earlier, the AI is both dumb and heavily scripted (which serious cuts down on replay value). In addition, they are some of the most inaccurate highly trained marksmen ever seen: you really need to individually control at least one member in order to eliminate enemy units in a timely manner. The levels are very linear, offering nothing in the form of varied approaches in strategy. There is a lot of conveniently placed rocks and crates for cover and invisible walls you can’t pass. Yes, highly trained operatives are blocked by crates. Squads always stick together, two feet from each other, at all times; having some sort of individual command structure would allieviate some of the stupidity of Raven Squad, but you can’t ignore the completely useless nature of your AI teammates.

IN CLOSING
Raven Squad is one of those games that could have been innovative and great, but falls way short of the mark. The combination of real time strategy and first person shooting works well…in theory, but Raven Squad lacks the execution to make it a good game. The FPS half of Raven Squad is generic action we’ve seen in any shooter; add in an obtuse default control scheme (Q to switch weapons? really?) meant for a console controller, and nothing there impresses. The strategy portion of Raven Squad is severely underdeveloped: the fact that you are restricted to context-sensitive, one-button commands says a lot. The AI is so incompetent that you simply cannot play the entire game from the overhead view: units will rarely engage enemy units unless specifically told to do so. Really, the RTS mode is only for scouting enemy locations (and, since the view shows everything, it makes the game extraordinarily easy). The linear level designs leave nothing to the imagination. Controlling two squads effectively is impossible, as nobody can be left on their own. Constantly switching back and forth between squads is annoying and not fun. The graphics are sub par, and Raven Squad is also laughably short: three hours and that’s it. Cooperative multiplayer can only be done over a LAN, so there’s no reason to play this game after you’ve finished it, assuming you ignored my advice and played it in the first place. Raven Squad clearly shows what happens when good ideas go terribly, terribly wrong.

Winter Sports 2009 Review

2009-09-24T15:08:00.000-04:00

Winter Sports 2009, developed by RTL and published by Meridian4.
The Good: Ten events with several variations, several game modes
The Not So Good: Repetitive limited control schemes, questionable physics in all events, lacks online play
What say you? The monotonous roster of events limits this arcade Olympic title: 5/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Nothing says the end of summer like...Winter Sports 2009?! Yeah, so I might be just a little bit out of season doing this review, but I have no control over when stuff magically appears on Gamer’s Gate (or do I?). The 2009 version of Winter Sports is the sequel to the Winter Sports 2008 that came out near the tail end of 2007 (confused yet?)
I’m sure that everyone is high on Winter Olympics fever (the only prescription is more cowbell), considering the last Games were played…in…(looks at Wikipedia)…2006. But, hey, the next ones are a scant five months away: let the hype machine begin!

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Winter Sports 2009 has an inconsistent mix of graphics. The venues can be nicely detailed, but since there is only one per event, the visuals tend to get repetitive. Character animations range from fluid to robotic: the snowboarding effects are clearly the worst of the bunch with jarring jumping between motions. The effects are most noticeable with drops of water during the bobsled/luge/skeleton events: it looks nice so the developers felt it was necessary to over use them. Winter Sports 2009 doesn’t look terrible, but there are frequent moments of inconsistency that lowers the overall quality. The sound is worse off, with a repetitive collection of commentary and effects. I wouldn’t say that Winter Sports 2009 has a budget presentation, per se, but it’s not much better than that standard.

ET AL.
In Winter Sports 2009, you, yes, you, get to take place in Generic Event Featuring People From Different Countries That Is Totally Not The Olympics. The career mode consists of fifteen cups of assorted but pre-determined events. Now, you could argue the unrealism associated with being adept at all Olympic disciplines, but we’ll let that slide for now. Doing well earns experience points that you can assign to any discipline, although I have not see any noticeable difference in game performance by maxing out my figure skating skills. The campaign offers up specific objectives to attain during an event; it is the most original aspect of the game, as they usually aren’t limited to simply finishing well. The competition mode offers up a series of five, nine, sixteen, or a custom list of events; the specific events in the non-custom options seem to always be the same. And you can always enter a single event if you are pressed for time (especially since progress is not saved between events in a competition). You can also choose the difficulty level (which ranges from “pushover” to “requires perfection”) and venue, which has no noticeable effect on gameplay. Finally, you can play nice with others, but only on the same computer as Winter Sports 2009 lacks online competition of any kind. Overall, I was pleased with the features of Winter Sports 2009: there is a good selection of ways to compete and the campaign offers up a nice deviation, though the game could use more unpredictability in event order and online play is a must.

Now, the events. What initially seems like a nice assortment of ten distinct events devolves into one of two actions: timing or driving (or both at the same time). Snowboarding has you steering your character and pressing spacebar when you reach the edge of the half-pipe. Then, you enter a quick time event where you must press specific keys in order to complete tricks. Pressing the keyboard arrow keys in a circular pattern is essentially impossible, so I hope you brought an analog gamepad. This is disappointingly limited, as you can’t choose your own tricks (like in Tony Hawk Pro Skater) and thus removes any strategy whatsoever. The speed skating event is purely button pressing: you must time your pressed with on-screen cues that make absolutely no sense: am I supposed to press when the blue arrow is full or what? I am still confused by speed skating. Figure skating is the same as playing Dance Dance Revolution or Rock Band: press the right key at the right time and land that triple axel. More innovation or user input, like choosing your own tricks (either in real-time or beforehand) would make figure skating more interesting.

Alpine skiing and all of the sledding events (bobsleigh, luge, skeleton) are identical: shut up and drive. You start by mashing a key or timing it to maximum power, and then navigate your way down the mountain or track. The sledding events place an optimal path to follow, and doing so maximizes your speed, while the skiing events just place the flags you must navigate between. There are downhill, Super-G, Giant Slalom, and Slalom events to choose from, but they are all the same other than the length (I guess that goes for real life as well). Ski jumping involves balancing (steering) yourself as you hurtle down the ramp and jumping at the right time: it’s pretty difficult to get the timing down exactly as they want you to.

The two events that are the most unique are biathlon and curling. Biathlon is a lot like speed skating, in that you must alternate between button presses in order to move, but at least there are shooting elements that use the mouse to break up the monotony. Curling involves aiming and choosing a power level, usefully illustrated with a picture of the rink (or whatever it’s called) so you know pretty well how far it’s going to go. Once it’s gone, you can sweep, but I have yet to figure out the purpose of sweeping, as you seem to have to do it constantly in order to make it reach the target. This is the most strategically deep game in Winter Sports 2009 as it doesn’t rely on pressing lots of buttons. Of course, it’s no better than dedicated curling games, and with the rest of the respective events contained in Winter Sports 2009, there’s no real reason to get this. If the events were more along the lines of biathlon and curling with unique mechanics, than I could justify paying for the game, but as it stands, this is clearly not the case.

IN CLOSING
Winter Sports 2009 is a mixed bag, and unfortunately for Olympics fans, the mix is generally on the negative side. The game does have some nice game modes: a career spanning fifteen cups, a campaign with specific challenges, and competitions of multiple linked events. The experience points earned in the career mode don’t offer any discernable performance boost, and the competitions don’t seem to be randomized, so replay value is sadly low. The game also lacks online multiplayer, although you can play on the same PC against your friends. The real problems with Winter Sports 2009 surface when you play an event more than once: it’s all quite repetitive. Almost all of the events have one of two control schemes: pressing specific buttons at the right time (snowboard, speed skating, figure skating) or driving (alpine skiing, ski jumping, bobsled, luge, skeleton). Variety comes in the form of biathlon and curling, but only two events to break up the monotony of pressing buttons and driving down the same track isn’t much in the form of variety. Some of the events don’t even make sense as feedback is limited (speed skating specifically), and the physics are generally horrible (snowboard specifically). Winter Sports 2009 doesn’t have a single event that isn’t done better somewhere else. Once is enough for almost all events, as the mechanics repeat themselves ad nauseum. Thus, only people who really have a hankering for winter competition will want to check out this title.

Majesty 2 Review

2009-09-20T14:36:00.000-04:00

Majesty 2, developed by 1C:Ino-Co and published by Paradox Interactive.
The Good: Kingdom management through building and bribery, well developed heroes with good AI, online multiplayer
The Not So Good: Light on content and depth, repetitive strategy, no random maps or editing tools
What say you? This superficial sequel lacks innovation and variety: 5/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Classic real time strategy games aren’t exactly realistic. I mean, would the battlefield commander have intricate control over every single unit under his command? Of course not, which is part of the reason a lot of contemporary RTS titles put units into squads where you give general directives to a subordinate officer. Taking the formula a step further was the classic title Majesty, which actually gave you no direct control over units, instead allowing you to bribe them into completing missions. Real world economics at work! Well, the series is back under the tutelage of another developer, 1C:Ino-Co (responsible for Elven Legacy), and hopes to recapture that unique energy and update it for the masses.

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Not surprisingly, Majesty 2 has similar graphics to Elven Legacy, mainly because it’s developed by the same people. The bright graphics fit the theme of Majesty 2 well, complimenting the fantasy setting. There is a minor amount of variety in environments, as some levels take place in “plains” as opposed to “forests,” but the range is not as grand as I would like it to be. Everything in the game world is quite small, and Majesty 2 prevents you from zooming in too far; this may be an intentional limitation, as the textures might not be up to par. The effects could use some work, especially magic, and the animations are erratic, leading to some inadvertently comedic death sequences. The interface is pretty good, as the game displays the health, level, and current task (collecting treasure, going on a mission, fleeing) for each hero at all times. The overly dramatic voice acting, especially from the narrator, can get annoying after a while; the game seemed to be much more subdued in the original Russian audio tracks. Majesty 2 does not look or sound terrible, but it also does not differentiate itself from the mass of other fantasy settings.

ET AL.
Majesty 2 comes with a sixteen mission campaign, which sounds like its lengthy enough, but it’s not that long when you consider that you will most likely be playing with accelerated time waiting for something to happen. I think the most disappointing missing feature of Majesty 2 is the lack of randomized map layouts. There is no mystery with enemy and creep locations when you play a map for a second time, and considering the lack of an editor and the small suite of maps available, this would be a common occurrence. The six single missions could have been randomized, but are not, and multiplayer offerings, while fun in a competitive environment, have eight maps for varied team and free-for-all modes. Again, multiplayer could have greatly benefitted from randomized maps, but I suspect people getting Majesty 2 purely for the multiplayer will be amused for at least some time since online matches are far less scripted.

The first thing you’ll need to do in Majesty 2 is construct a majestic kingdom of majesty. Buildings are divided between economic structures like the marketplace and bazaar, defensive towers, unit-creation buildings, and temples for access to higher level units. Your options are really quite limited with only five economic buildings, and apparently the people of Ardania have never heard of walls to keep rats, bears, and skeletons out. Establishing a good economy is trivially easy: just place all of the economic buildings (which can be done immediately in most scenarios with your starting funds), search for a trading post, and watch the money flow in. Majesty 2 also needs much better defensive options, as simply placing puny little towers makes defending your sprawling kingdom essentially impossible. The economic and defensive aspects of the game certainly leave a lot to be desired. You also can’t build everywhere, as there seems to be a lot of invisible places blocking things (paths, I think). This is probably why you do not have access to walls and gates. Personally, Stronghold offers much more compelling resource management and more interesting defensive options.

The best part of Majesty 2 is the hero units, the part of the game that borrows heavily from role-playing games. Once you construct the appropriate guild, you’ll have access to a range of different units designed for specific roles: rangers for scouting, dwarves for whatever they do, and wizards for magic magicness. You can even recruit units from previous campaign scenarios that have been promoted to lord status (you can choose one new lord after each completed mission). Each hero has their own equipment (weapons, armor, potions) and increases in skill and learns new abilities through combat experience. Once you have researched it, you can create a party to take advantage of the strengths of each hero. This is the most complete aspect of the game that plays like any good role playing game should.

Unlike, well, pretty much every other computer game, you actually do not have direct control over your units. Instead, you get things done the old fashioned way: bribery. You place quest flags for exploring, attacking, defending, or avoiding enemies, and assign a monetary reward for competition. Your AI heroes will then decide which is most interesting and most profitable and go on their way. Luckily, the hero AI is pretty intelligent: they flee when hurt and choose the quests that are most appropriate for them. The enemy AI is less intelligent, but they are mindless creeps, so it’s OK. You can have some direct influence through the spells you can research (for healing or attacking, mostly), but most of the game is out of your hands and it feels like you are managing instead of controlling, for better or for worse. Majesty 2 would have failed miserably if the AI was poor, so thankfully this is not the case. You must budget quests correctly since there are no refunds, so there is an interesting game of management here that partially offsets the lack of true resource management in the game (but only partially). Unfortunately, you can use the same build order each game and every scenario plays out the same since the building list is small and you have access to the same general units each time. The lack of randomized maps hurt, too, since you know exactly where you will encounter pesky enemy units. You can thankfully accelerate time, since there is a lot of waiting for quests to finish and funds to accumulate once you get your basic town layout finished (which happens rather quickly). While Majesty 2 retains the goods of the original title, the limited resource management, disappointing defensive options, and short campaign make for an ultimately disappointing game.

IN CLOSING
Majesty 2 takes the original formula and adds…nothing new. For extreme fans of the first title, this is no problem, as repeating the same mechanics will maintain the unique approach of the original. However, Majesty 2 feels like an incomplete game, where the developers decided to replicate the original game, update with shinier graphics, and make some money. The content leaves a lot to be desired: a sixteen mission campaign is repetitive, the six single missions are not randomized at all, and the lack of an editor is distressing. The semi-random maps of the original game are no longer present, a distressing limitation that seriously cuts down on replay value. Multiplayer offerings are equally limited, with only eight maps to go online with, but can be fun if you get a good group of combatants together. Majesty 2’s lack of variety extends to the basic gameplay, as the same strategy will function in any scenario, as there is no advanced resource collection at all: just build some marketplaces and do some trade for extra income. Only if your kingdom is razed to the ground does money become an issue. There are upgrades for pretty much every building, but the lack of a sophisticated economics model leaves a lot to be desired. The units of the game are nicely varied with equipment and experience, but no more than a traditional role-playing game. The city management of Majesty 2 is simplistic, and the role-playing portion makes you feel like you are simply watching Majesty 2 instead of playing it. The one thing that Majesty 2 has going for it, the unique bribery ordering system, does make it stand out, but no more than the original game did almost 10 years ago. I prefer Stronghold for a more varied and similar experience at a fraction of the price.

AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity Review

2009-09-16T15:07:00.000-04:00

AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity, developed and published by Dejobaan Games.
The Good: Unique, lots of well designed maps that have numerous pathways, simple controls, fair level of challenge, really weird sense of humor, you get to flip people off
The Not So Good: Repetitive, no multiplayer, lacks a level editor
What say you? A novel premise and fine execution makes this action game exceptionally distinctive: 7/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
One of the more idiotic extreme sports is base jumping. I mean, you are inches away from cliffs or buildings that will severely injure, if not kill, you if the wind picks up. At least with skydiving there’s nothing to run in to other than the ground, and likewise with bungee jumping. Personally, I am partial to street luge (being a racing fan), and I am perturbed at its removal from the X Games (although the emphasis on personal-favorite rally racing is appreciated). Anyway, that brings us to the awesomely-named AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity, and in the interest of making my review longer, I will be referring to this game by its full name. Copy and paste FTW! This is the latest game from eccentric developer Dejobaan Games, responsible for Epidemic Groove (which I liked) and The Wonderful End of the World, a game I skipped due to its overt similarities to Katamari Damacy. If there’s no way I’m going to leap off buildings in a single bound in real life, I might as well try it in the computer realm.

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity retains the futuristic, neon setting of Dejobaan’s previous titles. The map designs are pretty basic, with only simple architecture and low-detail textures that clearly can’t compete with a high-budget game like Mirror’s Edge. The ads are occasionally funny, though. The game uses some effects that will actually cause some performance problems for older systems or laptops with on-board graphics cards (which, let’s be honest, shouldn’t really be used for gaming anyway…man up, people!). I will say that AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity is quite friendly to alt-tabbing out while writing a review, so it has that going for it, which is nice. The sound effects consist of audio warnings for pulling off stunts, verbal scoring, and background music that I enjoyed: exactly what is to be expected in an indie title. While AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity isn’t the greatest-looking game in the world, but the visuals never negatively impact the gameplay.

ET AL.
In AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity (which, let me say, is an awesome name for a game), you’ll jump off buildings and attempt to fall close to structures while not killing yourself. The game spans eighty levels that can be unlocked in a semi-non-linear manner (you can choose levels adjacent to completed ones in the giant rotating thingy of cubes); performing well earns teeth that are used to unlock new content. Not only are there eight or so levels, but you can also earn new abilities and weird stuff like meditative videos and instructions on how to bake cookies. The level selection “menu” (giant rotating thingy of cubes) doesn’t clearly indicate the score attained on each level without selecting it first: a minor annoyance. AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity also lacks multiplayer: a sad limitation, considering two (or more) people jumping at once with the ability to interfere with each other would be really fun (maybe for AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). And despite the robust collection of eighty levels, there is no level editor to make your own nefarious, dangerous creations.

Jump. Steer to avoid buildings. Get close to buildings to earn kisses. Stay close to earn hugs. That is how you play AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity, using incomplete sentences. The sense of speed and impending peril is great, as the game requires true skill to avoid the tops of buildings (and an automatic failure, because you are dead). Smacking the side of a building turns you around for a second or so, just enough time to become a human pancake (with tangy red syrup!). You are eventually given additional controls (once you unlock them): you can give thumbs up to fans (indicated with blue arrows) as you pass by with the left mouse button, or flip off protestors (red arrows) with the right mouse button. The middle mouse button is reserved to spraying graffiti on color-coded structures, and caffeine can slow time down for those especially tricky times. There are also scoring plates for extra points, used to distract you with their pretty colors. When you get near the landing areas, deploy your parachute with spacebar (the game helpfully reminds you) and collect your teeth! Every once in a while, the game throws something different at you like wind or a mountain (or the teleporter…spoiler alert!), but most of the time you are navigating through an urban-like landscape of skyscrapers, and gameplay does tend to get repetitive. Thankfully, most levels only last a minute (usually less), so you can play a couple of levels and then take a break if you so choose. The game is difficult, but not unfairly so: it just requires subtle adjustments in precision to fit through that gap with the scoring plate. I really like the level design: there is (almost) always more than one path to the bottom, and you have to make quick decisions (because you are traveling at terminal velocity) as to which way to fall. AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity could have failed epically if the levels weren’t interesting, but thankfully they are varied just enough to keep you wanting more. The maps are also short in duration (almost always less than a minute), so retries aren’t painful exercises in tedium. This is a very addictive game, where you just know you could have done that last level slightly better, so you do it again...20 more times.

IN CLOSING
AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity is a great action game thanks to its distinctive premise, robust map designs, and challenging difficulty. The game takes base jumping and places it in a futuristic setting with tall buildings and asks you to navigate close, but not too close, to them as you hurtle towards the surface. The controls are very straightforward, and the addition of gestures to spectators, tagging skyscrapers, and slowing time elevates the game beyond simple steering. The game does tend to get repetitive after a couple of plays, but the eighty maps do show some variety and each individual map typically lasts less than a minute, so the game rarely becomes tedious. Better is the fact that the map designs of AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity offer multiple pathways and freedom to find your own way to the bottom; there is always a higher scoring opportunity flashing by. It is difficult to earn five star ratings, but not unfairly so: with practice, you can get the subtle changes down and navigate the maps with relative ease. A fun sense of humor permeates throughout AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity, showing that this is clearly not a serious game. The lack of a level editor and multiplayer are minor shortcomings, as you’ll be busy unlocking more maps and improving previous scores. You’ll know in the first minute of playing whether AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity is right for you, and if it’s not, you are clearly a communist. The high-speed precision of AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity demonstrates the game’s unmatched gameplay experience.

Section 8 Review

2009-09-12T13:01:00.000-04:00

Section 8, developed by TimeGate Studios and published by SouthPeak Games.
The Good: Spawning anywhere elegantly solves camping, fully customizable loadouts with no experience-based limitations, deployable turrets and vehicles reward competent teammates, dynamic side missions always give you something to do, jetpacks and lock-on targeting promote varied combat, overdrive sprinting reduces cross-map transit time, low weapon damage promotes battle tactics
The Not So Good: Damn you Games for Windows Live, squads are pointless
What say you? Numerous positive innovations makes this online first person shooter really stand out: 8/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
TimeGate Studios is one of my favorite developers. Why? They are responsible for my favorite real-time strategy game of all time: Kohan II. It was innovative with a blend of clear-cut resource management, squad customization, and random maps. Plus, I was good at it. Since then, though, the studio has regressed, churning out a couple of lackluster F.E.A.R. expansions that really stunk. But now they have an IP of their own and hope to improve the online first person shooter for the better with a number of innovative features, like allowing you to spawn anywhere and completely customize your weapons and abilities instead of being restricted to childish classes. How will this online shooter stack up against the stiff competition offered by Enemy Territory, Battlefield 2, and Tribes?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Section 8 uses the Unreal Engine 3 and the visuals are quite comparable Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (which, incidentally, came out almost two years ago). Other than the neat and distinctive burn-in effect, there is nothing too impressive or innovative about the graphics. The character models are OK, although they look repetitive as everyone is issued identical armored suits. Large battles look convincingly chaotic thanks to tracers screaming across the landscape. Speaking of landscapes, Section 8 has a decent variety of settings, although the military architecture tends to repeat from map to map. Really, there’s nothing to set Section 8 apart from any other futuristic shooter: you could place screenshots of this game next to Enemy Territory: Quake Wars and Frontlines: Fuel of War and you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference. The sounds of battle are convincing but not unique: weapon effects, explosions, and the occasional automatic voice commands from your allies. The voice acting is passable, with an over emphasis on action. The musical score is enjoyable enough and only intrudes during the main menu. Overall, the graphics and sound of Section 8 are simply average.

ET AL.
Section 8 has been deployed on some planet to defend against the rebel force that has taken over something. The single player campaign is not the highlight of the game: although it incorporates the multiplayer aspects of the game well, the linear nature of the levels are more limited. Fortunately, the outdoor environments lend themselves to varied avenues of attack, but once you play through it once, that’s enough. Since you can respawn as many times as you’d like in a campaign mission, difficulty is more a matter of how tolerant you are of respawning over and over again. You can play a skirmish “instant action” game with and against the AI, although you are better off playing online since empty spots will be filled with bots anyway. The only point of doing offline action is to play one man army mode, which pits you against an entire team of AI bots: tough stuff.

Multiplayer games feature 16, 24, and 32 player map sizes and the game scales well The map designs are all the same: three or four buildings with open terrain in the middle. Each server is fixed at a certain maximum player population, so the game doesn’t dynamically adjust like Battlefield 2. In total, there are eight maps, although with size variations (smaller maps use portions of the larger ones) the number increases to eighteen. All of the maps use the control point mechanic popular among team-based shooters. There are options for almost competent AI allies: they can fill out the server, or all be placed on one side in equal (co-op mode) or greater (swarm mode) numbers. The AI in general does a decent job obtaining objectives, but isn’t aware of your presence fast enough, although the increased armor at higher difficulty levels make them a formidable foe. Games for Windows LIVE! almost brings the multiplayer aspect of the game screeching to a halt; I have no idea why developers continue to insist on using it. The game doesn’t log you on automatically and the server browser takes a good ten seconds to list all of the games: crap. The first week of release there were problems with stats being recorded correctly (that have been resolved); I didn't realize the intrinsic motivation of stat tracking until it didn't work correctly and I felt less motivated to play the game since all of my l33t skillz won't be recorded. The game automatically places you into squads, although they serve absolutely no purpose: there are no quick commands and certainly no coordination on public servers. and since you can spawn anywhere, the usefulness of a squad leader's position is minimized. The one thing Games for Windows LIVE! does bring to the table is voice chat. Yay.

While pre-scripted classes are nothing new, Section 8 gives you the freedom to fully customize your loadout, choosing any two weapons (an assault rifle, machine gun, missile launcher, pistol, shotgun, and sniper rifle), any two items (an explosives pack, grenades, knife, sensor radar, mortar, repair tool, and sensor jammer), and ten points to distribute amongst your attributes (armor, damage, anti-air, lock-on, repair, shields, the jetpack, detection, and recoil). This high degree of freedom is fantastic and leads to plenty of unique strategies you simply won’t see in other online shooters. It was quite easy to replace all six templates with custom choices, and I wish there were more slots available. You can opt for a long range sniper equipped with a mortar and sensor blocker, a paratrooper that is resistant to anti-air turrets, or an assault loadout focused on close quarters damage: the choices are many. There is a good weapon for every situation, from the long range sniper rifle to the medium range assault rifle. I actually use the pistol, the first game in a long time I can remember ever using it in a shooter, as it’s quite effective at close range. There is no single item that is useless, although there are ones I simply do not use myself (the knife and sensor pack, to name a couple). Importantly, Section 8 does not restrict any of the content, allowing new players to equip everything experienced players can (one of my primary complaints of Battlefield 2142). Section 8 uses a marvelous system for letting the user determine how to play.

Probably the feature that’s gotten the most press in Section 8 is “burning in,” which allows you to spawn anywhere on the map. Yes, no more predictable restrictions that promote significant spawn camping, and a much larger variety of strategies to complete objectives. It’s a great system that gives the player the strategic decision, rather than leaving it up to chance or not giving a choice at all. There are anti-air turrets (both static and deployable) that make life more difficult for those who did not equip the proper modules to prevent people from constantly dropping right on your base. I like to equip my paratrooper loadout (with maximum anti-air protection) and spawn right next to the anti-air turret range (indicated with a circle on the map), and then move towards the base once I have applied by brakes (as you have some control to fine-tune your landing spot once slowed). People won’t like enemies spawning directly behind them and knifing them in the back, but that’s what you get, sniper. Deal with it!

While you will be primarily capturing bases (by hacking control points), eventually dynamic combat missions will be generated that earn a significant amount of points for your team. Triggered using feat points earned for siege, assault, recon, and support actions by your team members, DCMs are a terrific way of changing up the gameplay and they give you something to do other than capture a couple of map locations. Missions include obtaining a briefcase and returning it to a location, escorting a commando or VIP, driving a convoy to a waypoint, defending an outpost, or planting a bomb. Not only do you get points for completing them, but you also earn some points (about half) for stopping the other team. Frantic fire fights routinely break out around outposts, convoys, and VIPs as each team strives to complete their objectives. Section 8 becomes a chaotic mix of people doing different missions, and you are never bored while playing thanks to the dynamic combat missions.

Section 8 also comes with a couple of features designed to take advantage of future technology. Everyone is equipped with shields that absorb damage, making combat a drawn-out process. Jetpacks are also utilized, although they are used in short bursts rather than for long gains of altitude seen in Tribes. Also, you are given a fast sprint called “overdrive” that is activated after five-or-so seconds of forward sprinting: it’s a great way to get across the map quickly. The most controversial feature of Section 8 is lock-on: zooming in with your radar and pressing “E” will lock on to the enemy. The main issue with lock-on is equating it to despised auto-aim seen in inferior console games, but since there are several ways to counter lock-on (the sensor blocker, using cover, modules) and it only lasts a couple of seconds, I find negative arguments to lack merit. Plus, it’s a great way to counter annoying bunny-hopping seen in a plethora of first person shooters. If you don’t like it, equip a sensor blocker! The final tool at your disposal are deployables: sensor arrays, turrets (anti-air, anti-personnel, and anti-tank), and supply depots you can call in anywhere on the map that isn’t covered by enemy anti-air turrets. These aren’t very resistant to damage and can be easily destroyed, but since they are meant for support rather than solitary defense, people expecting something they can plant and leave are using them incorrectly. You can also call in walkers and tanks, which provide a nice amount of firepower and armor, but aren’t invincible if countered with rocket launchers and turrets. The vehicles are locked for the purchaser, so there is no more waiting for vehicles or having others steal yours (or the one you were waiting for). The combat in Section 8 is well-balanced: there is always some weakness to each loadout, since you only have ten points to distribute among nine modules. The skirmishes are also drawn-out, thanks to high armor and shields and low damage weapons: even the sniper rifle takes three or four shots to down an enemy. Those accustomed to Call of Duty-style instant kills won’t like Section 8, but I value what the developers have done, giving you time to try different tactics, which elevates the gameplay above simple reflexes. Teamwork, proper loadouts, strategy, and tactics prevail over lightning-fast reaction times, something older gamers will no doubt appreciate.

IN CLOSING
I played a disturbingly large amount of Section 8 during the closed and open betas (when I probably should have been reviewing other games), and for good reason: the game is an excellent online first person shooter. Section 8 adds a number of well-developed features that are either unique or inspired (stolen) by other games into a cohesive package of fun. The basic package is there: average but capable graphics, multiplayer features with online stat tracking that occasionally functions (thanks a lot, Games for Windows LIVE!), and a forgettable single player campaign. Section 8’s unique draw start with spawning: you can start anywhere, preferably out of the range of enemy anti-air turrets, and this eliminates annoying spawn camping. Overdrive (really fast sprinting) lets you traverse the map quickly if you did spawn in the wrong place. You are also given total control of your weapons, equipment, and abilities: instead of being confined to infantile pre-made classes, you can determine how you want to play and which toys to play with. Not restricting beginners is also a great decision that puts everyone on the same level playing field in terms of military hardware. The dynamic combat missions, triggered by in-game feats, always give you something to do in addition to simply capturing control points: you will rarely be doing the same thing for more than a minute, which drastically reduces the tedium associated with repetitive objectives. I enjoy the more drawn-out combat Section 8 has to offer: it gives you time to try different tactics using your equipment and jetpack to avoid enemy fire. One-shot-kill kiddies from Call of Duty won’t like it, but I appreciate the balance of action and tactics. Players can also earn the ability to call in deployables for defensive support, in addition to walkers and tanks for more offensive actions. In short (too late!), Section 8 is a fantastic mix of ideas that produces a product fans of online shooters will enjoy.

Mad Skills Motocross Review

2009-09-08T15:13:00.000-04:00

Mad Skills Motocross, developed and published by Turborilla.
The Good: Robust track editor, simple control scheme, challenging layouts and AI opponents, decent amount of content, varied objectives, plausible physics, multi-platform
The Not So Good: Not innovative, peculiarly limited special abilities, lacks online play, slightly expensive, unimpressive graphics and sound design
What say you? It’s like Excitebike, but newer: 5/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Remember Exictebike? Of course you do, and if you don’t, I totally just linked to it. The 2-D motorcycle racing game was innovative for its simple mechanics and track editor, and the basic premise has been recaptured (ripped off) in Mad Skills Motocross. We’ve seen more puzzle-oriented titles like Trials 2 Second Edition before, but Mad Skills Motocross places more emphasis on speed and action. Does it recall the excitement of previous titles without being too much of a retread?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
The graphics of Mad Skills Motocross are passable for a 2-D racing game. The backgrounds are only hardly diverse and the track surfaces don’t change much. The 2-D rider is well animated for the most part, although the most dramatic crashes produce some questionable-looking results. Still, nothing approaches the high graphical quality of Trials 2 Second Edition, so we are left wanting more. The sound design is minimal, with only a basic assortment of effects with generic background music. I was left unenthusiastic but not annoyed by the quality of the graphics and sound of Mad Skills Motocross.

ET AL.
Mad Skills Motocross, like Exictebike (this will not be the last time I make this comparison), is a motorcycle racing game that takes place on a 2-D track, and you must navigate a series of jumps, ramps, and bumps and reach the finish line in an expedient manner. The game has four divisions of eleven races each, plus a special turbocharged series once you successfully complete the career mode. You will mostly be up against a single AI opponent, but sometimes (two to three times per division) there will be alternate objectives like a backflip or wheelie requirement. This does a nice job changing up the game from just being who finishes first. The game is available on the three major PC platforms (Windows, Linux, and Mac, for those scoring at home), but the game lacks online play or multiplayer of any kind, so competitions against humans is an sad impossibility. The price is also high for the content: $25 is more than the typical budget pricing level, and I would feel a lot better if Mad Skills Motocross was more along the lines of $15 or even $10.

The strongest feature of Mad Skills Motocross is the editor that allows you to create the course of your dreams (or nightmares! *insert evil laughter*). By mouse-selecting a section of track, you can change it to a ramp, curve, or “wavy” portion. You can also adjust the height, angle, frequency, offset, tension, or angle (depending on which part we’re talking about) for more precise creations. It can be difficult to smooth out transitions between sections, especially when you start dealing with ramps of different heights. The amount of freedom Mad Skills Motocross grants you is nice, but it can be tricky to get an even layout. You can also add elements to the design, like jumps, nitro, gliding sections, and jetpacks, and even add the alternate objectives I described earlier (you were paying attention, weren’t you?). The editor is probably the draw for most gamers, and it’s powerful and easy enough to use.

Mad Skills Motocross features a decent physics engine that produces plausible results…most of the time. During high-speed wrecks (which occur most of the time), things can become more unpredictable, and there are some jumps that I felt I should have landed, but these are minor and occasional issues at best. The control scheme is very straightforward, utilizing only the arrow keys and the space bar for a special action. This is where Mad Skills Motocross’s unique feature, the special action, appears and it’s sadly limited. With a simple press of the space bar, you can jump, enable a rocket, or glide towards the ground, but it’s an either/or feature, as you can only have one active at a time and you have no choice as to which one it is. The game only grants usage of the last power unlocked, and you will use this one until the next one becomes available. This is a disappointing limitation: there could have been some strategy involved in selecting which ability is best for the next track. The AI you race against is quite skilled, though somewhat fallible at pre-scripted (it seems) portions of the track. Since you never come into contact with the AI drivers, it’s more of a clock than a real opponent. Because of this, the races aren’t terribly exciting since you simply have to finish first (barring the occasional objective levels). The levels have some pleasingly difficult layouts, but strategy is usually limited to simply straightening out enough when you land, thanks to the single special ability that can’t be changed. Mad Skills Motocross doesn’t require the nervous precision of Trials 2 Second Edition and it isn’t as action-packed as a real motorcycle racer. The unique feature is so controlled that it loses most of its appeal, so Mad Skills Motocross ends up being a shadow of a 25-year-old game.

IN CLOSING
Mad Skills Motocross plays very similarly to Exictebike (the reason why I keep mentioning it), which ultimately is its downfall. The game needs a key feature to differentiate it from the competition, and Mad Skills Motocross doesn’t. The best feature of the game, the track editor, is powerful yet the interface is somewhat cumbersome and some editing elements are confusing to use and produce some strange results (namely ramps). The tracks that are included with the game run the gamut from “really easy” to “pleasingly difficult” are require adept use of the controls, positioning yourself for perfect landings in order to keep up with the skilled AI opponents. Most of the races are quick, so you can rapidly finish the game’s content if you are accomplished at this sort of game. I like the use of objectives other than simply finishing first, making you pull off funky stunts over the course of a layout. Still, you can’t get past the fact that Mad Skills Motocross feels like a duplicate of a classic title. The game lacks online play and doesn’t offer any feature to show at least some innovation in the past 25 years: Mad Skills Motocross simply doesn’t stand out. The only real unique feature, the special abilities, is only available one at a time and you don’t get to choose which one to use: a silly limitation. I suspect only people who really need a more modernized version of Exictebike (and don’t have a Wii for the virtual console) will fork over the above-budget-level cash required to experience Mad Skills Motocross.

Texas Cheat 'Em Review

2009-09-04T15:14:00.000-04:00

Texas Cheat 'Em, developed by Wideload Games and published by D3Publisher.
The Good: Cheating elements make for unpredictable and strategic gameplay, perfect for multiplayer, active AI opponents
The Not So Good: Mini-games are too repetitive and involve reflexes and luck rather than skill, unpopulated multiplayer servers
What say you? Rampant cheating makes poker just as fun: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
I've reviewed my fair share of poker games, from good to nude. Most of these have centered around the extremely popular No Limit Texas Hold 'Em rules used in the World Series of Poker, airing approximately 1,342 times a day on ESPN2. While cheating is obviously discouraged in the real tournament (something about being fair, or something), Texas Cheat 'Em wants you to cheat, early and often. This game removes the boredom and inactivity of normal poker and introduces a realm of constantly changing cards and other questionable activities. Do these actions accentuate the gameplay, or just make it more pointless?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Neither the graphics nor the sound in Texas Cheat 'Em are notable. The game is in 2-D and your opponents are simple portraits that are never animated. There are some subtle effects with some of the cheats, but none of these beyond what a layman could make in Paint. Compared to a 3-D accelerated game such as STACKED (which came out more than three years ago), Texas Cheat 'Em is clearly behind the curve and offers nothing beyond what a free online environment would provide. This goes for the sound as well: a minimal bunch of effects and forgettable background music. In short, I am not impressed.

ET AL.
Texas Cheat 'Em features Texas Hold ‘Em poker, but with cheating! Single player features include a career mode of four circuits consisting of four events each. You unlock additional venues with wins (which grant no in-game bonuses or changes) and earn money that can be used in the multiplayer portion of the game. Each event has a goal you must meet: earning a certain amount of chips, eliminating a specific competitor, or being ahead after a pre-determined number of hands. The combination of varied goals and earning money for multiplayer makes the career mode both interesting and purposeful. In addition, Texas Cheat 'Em lets you play a practice game with custom rules: location, difficulty, game length, and buy-in. There are no bonuses to be gained here, though. Texas Cheat 'Em also features a number of tutorials that teach the basics of the game through non-interactive screens, from basic poker rules to the changes made here. Texas Cheat 'Em is really designed for multiplayer, and the game does have a server browser where you can search for games with specific buy-ins and seats (in addition to listing all games at once). Unfortunately, Texas Cheat 'Em is not very popular, as I have yet to see anyone else playing. Finally, Texas Cheat 'Em has superficial features like leader boards and achievements to round out the package.

Like traditional poker, Texas Cheat 'Em lets you bet on your hand. However, all bets are done simultaneously and you only need to call the maximum bet as there are no re-raises. This is meant (I guess) to speed up gameplay, and it works just as well because the strategy lost in re-raising bets is gained back again in the cheating portion of the game. In addition, the top three hands win at least some money, which encourages aggressive playing even when you only have a marginally decent hand to start with. Now, the cheating: it’s actually interesting. Everyone starts out with the same number of cheat points that can be used to affect cards: seeing, changing, or swapping an opponent, the community, or yourself. You can also invest in stealing chips, automatically winning, or bluffing. Since everyone has the same ability to alter the cards, Texas Cheat 'Em quickly becomes a game of out-maneuvering your opponents, as any good strategy game is. There are also numerous viable strategies you can use: should I change the community, mess with the chip leader, or defend against attacks? The various actions make for some interesting game outcomes. There are certainly some cheats that I used more often (all of the community ones) and some I never use at all (swapping cards, because of the uncertainty of what you will get). The cheats are balanced well and the variety is certainly intact. Success in cheating depends on successful completion of a mini-game, and this is one aspect of Texas Cheat 'Em that I wish was more skill-based. You are normally given a timing game, such as a roulette wheel, slot machine, or strength tester. I much prefer the blackjack game or even the high/low game (think Card Sharks) as they rely on actual thinking and strategy rather than quick reflexes. I’m sure the developers could come up with some more skill-based events rather than relying solely on luck and timing. Changing the difficult makes the mini-games more difficult (a smaller window of success) and more frustrating overall. Still, I like the added dimension that cheating brings to the poker equation and Texas Cheat 'Em is just as strategic as the vanilla game.

IN CLOSING
It turns out cheating simply adds another layer of strategy, as Texas Cheat 'Em provides actual depth in the effective manner it uses cheats. I think this mechanic is more suitable for online play: since you can't read your opponent, there must be some other avenue to introduce skill instead of simple luck. The wide variety of cheats, where you can influence cards or view opponent or community hands, give you enough options to allow for a lot of different strategies, both offensive and defensive. It's a well designed and balanced system. It's too bad, then, that the mini-games are generally terrible, relying on quick reflexes almost all of the time. I would like them to be more along the lines of the Blackjack mini-game, where skill is emphasized, rather than the remainder that has you hit a keyboard button at the right time. The mini-games are also quite easy, resulting in rampant cheating and decreasing the difficulty level overall. The features are solid: a career mode where you can earn money for online multiplayer in addition to customizable events. The game is meant for multiplayer, so it's too bad that I never, ever found other people playing online. Still, the basic gameplay is executed very well, and with some more skill-based mini-games, Texas Cheat 'Em would be a very notable product.

Osmos Review

2009-09-01T15:14:00.000-04:00

Osmos, developed and published by Hemisphere Games.
The Good: Simple controls, clever use of gravitational physics, informative yet minimal interface, three distinct game modes, procedurally randomized levels with constantly changing layouts, mostly fair difficulty, time scale changes for the impatient or careful, nice graphics and fitting musical score, quite inexpensive
The Not So Good: Requires high level of precision and patience, repetitive, lacks multiplayer
What say you? A high-quality gravity-based absorption puzzle game: 7/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
A distinctive puzzle game is a hard thing to come by, as the genre is overpopulated with matching and click-management titles. So much so that it is becoming increasingly difficult to think of unique introductions for each and every puzzle game I review. Woe is me! The vogue things now are to combine several types of games together and to incorporate realistic physics to inject a sense of realism to the puzzling puzzles. That (I think) brings us to Osmos, a puzzle game that relies heavily on gravity as you guide your circle thing (I think we’ll call it an orb) around, absorbing smaller orbs in order to get big. It’s like Katamari in space. Or something.

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Osmos is entirely in 2-D, but it has a nice minimalist presentation that highlights subtle graphics and music that should run quite smoothly on a wide range of systems (always nice for a casual game). The orbs have pleasing animations that make them appear to be living things; it almost makes you feel bad for absorbing them (almost). The backgrounds are a plain assortment of points of light, but honestly anything more detailed or varied would be distracting during gameplay. The haunting music selection is a nice arrangement of relaxed tunes fitting for the game’s setting. Sounds are subtle and effective in their occasional use. In all, Osmos has minimal graphics and sounds done right.

ET AL.
Being the nice orb-thing you are, your job in Osmos is to inappropriately touch smaller orbs and absorb them in order to increase in size. It’s survival of the fattest! This is done through three game modes, each with their own unique idiosyncrasies. The more relaxed ambient mode puts you in the middle of lots of orbs of varied sizes that are commonly given some initial speed to make things interesting. The force mode puts everything in orbit around a massive central mass (I believe it’s called “Valerie Bertinelli”) for some neat astronomical physics effects. Finally, the sentient mode introduces five AI enemies that are also competition to attain maximum size. They have a range of skills, from lackadaisical to aggressive to speedy to really tough. The forty-seven levels all play differently in terms of aggressiveness and how fast you can (or should) move, and the replay value is increased as you can randomize the initial starting positions somewhat (it’s procedural) of other objects with a simple button press (Alt+Z). For only $10, this is the amount of content I would expect, but online competitive multiplayer would be a fantastic addition (hint, hint, developer!). Maybe for Osmos 2: Uranus’s Revenge.

So maybe Osmos doesn’t sound terribly difficult: just avoid big things and make your way to the smaller objects, right? Well, not so fast, my friend! Moving expels mass, so you must make very precise and careful movements, or the target you were aiming for might become larger than you, derailing your entire plan. Luckily, the minimal interface does a terrific job clearly showing which orbs are smaller and can be absorbed successfully with blue and red shading. Moving your orb involves placing the mouse behind you (initially counter-intutive) and pressing the mouse button. Other controls allow you to influence time, letting you speed up during boring parts when you are waiting to slowly traverse to a target, or slow down during those times that require the utmost precision. Osmos is quite a strategic game, because you can't move too much or you will decrease in size: you really need to plan ahead in order to be successful. The game is challenging even without a time limit, because of the number of other orbs and the fact that the layout is constantly changing because orbs are absorbing other orbs, altering the forces. Changing the time scale is a godsend, because the game rewards patience and otherwise Osmos would be completely impossible (instead of nearly impossible). You have to be really aggressive in the beginning of a level, since other objects are combining and slowly (or not so slowly) becoming larger than you are. The game, especially in the same game mode, can become repetitive, so Osmos is best in small bunches. A single level can last quite a long time, especially on the higher difficulty levels. Still, this challenge will reward more experienced gamers looking for a different puzzle experience.

IN CLOSING
Osmos is unique and varied enough to make it a distinctive puzzle game. The control scheme is very straightforward, making the game easy to learn. Each of the three level types comes with a different approach, from a more relaxed and exacting approach to aggressive, chaotic levels. Osmos ships with forty-seven map layouts, but each can be randomly generated using a script for essentially infinite replays. The underlying strategy is quite interesting: since your overall goal involves becoming the largest object (or large enough to successfully absorb a target orb) and moving expels matter, you really have to plan ahead and make smart moves. This makes the game quite challenging despite the lack of an artificial time limit, as many layouts require precise moves. Luckily, you can accelerate time as you wait for your orb to sllloooooowwwwly move across the screen. Your AI competitors don’t make things any easier, as they are trying to become the largest object as well. Their high skill level compensates for the lack of competitive multiplayer (hello, Osmos 2?). The interface clearly indicates which orbs can be absorbed without cluttering the screen. The high difficulty might prevent some people from accessing the later levels and fully enjoying the game and the levels do become repetitive, but Osmos is still great value at an inexpensive price point. The game is definitely worth it for fans of the genre and those looking for a quality casual game.

Angle of Attack Review

2009-08-28T15:07:00.002-04:00

Angle of Attack, developed and published by 3000AD.
The Good: Fun flight combat, online multiplayer, sixteen scenarios with four planes
The Not So Good: No scenario editor, nothing sets it apart from AAW
What say you? This is content that should have been included with All Aspect Warfare: 5/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
The strongest aspect (ha ha!) of All Aspect Warfare was the flight combat, where the combat was intense and the sky was the limit, with none of the limitations of the ground-based mode (AI, base design). Released concurrently was Angle of Attack, a stand-alone combat flight simulation that takes place in the same setting as All Aspect Warfare. Basically, it's a slightly-more-than-$20 mission pack for those who enjoy the planes more than the shooting. Does the content justify charging an additional sum for Angle of Attack, or should it have been included in All Aspect Warfare to begin with?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Graphics and sound in Angle of Attack are indistinguishable from those in All Aspect Warfare. This comes as no surprise, as the games were developed simultaneously and share common resources. I found performance to be quite better in the air than on the ground, so Angle of Attack should run smoothly on a wider range of machines than All Aspect Warfare did. Other than that, I can be lazy and just copy and paste my comments from my All Aspect Warfare review! Enjoy:
The graphics of ~~All Aspect Warfare~~ Angle of Attack are distinctly improved over previous 3000AD efforts, and parts of the game easily compete with any top-flight flight simulator. While the interiors of the buildings are bland, each vehicle and plane has a slightly different arrangement and the 3-D cockpits look good. The visual style is distinctive, creating a plausible space setting overall. The terrain of the planet changes with latitude, creating varied environments in which to blow stuff up. All Aspect Warfare also has dynamic weather and time-of-day effects to further increase the realism. Sound is slightly worse off, as in-game dialog is not voiced and the background music is repetitive (but effective at getting you PUMPED). Weapons and planes have appropriate effects, rounding out an effective presentation that exceeded expectations based on previous efforts.

ET AL.
Not surprisingly, most of Angle of Attack is identical to the flight simulation half of All Aspect Warfare, so really the only reason to get this over the other (since All Aspect Warfare also includes first person combat) is if the sixteen scenarios are good. But, there are not noticeably better or different from the aerial portion of All Aspect Warfare. There isn't a story mode, as all sixteen scenarios are unlocked from the beginning. Objectives are either intercepting incoming enemy aircraft or destroying land-based targets. You can change your loadout to fit the mission parameters, but you must memorize the role of each of the exotically named missiles and bombs (or print out the appropriate page in the user's manual). There are four planes to choose from that fly a bit differently, and you'll probably find one that fits your style the best. In addition to the sixteen missions, you can invade enemy air space in the sandbox mode; enemy units will never attack unless provoked by entering their airspace, so there is no real reason to play it. The lack of a scenario editor is quite disappointing, especially when you consider the large world Angle of Attack takes place in. You can jump online and undertake sixteen-player deathmatch and team-deathmatch modes, in addition to four-player cooperative play on any of the scenarios. The robust multiplayer options are quite the nice feature.

Controls in Angle of Attack are fairly intuitive for a flight simulator. Since the game lacks an interactive tutorial, you will have to consult the manual and print out the game keys document for easy reference (or read the PDF files in-game). All of the planes feature vertical take off and landing, which makes these events trivially easy. The HUD provides pertinent information on your aircraft: speed altitude, shields, and armor. The game has, like most combat flight sims, a damage model that disables semi-random systems for disconcerting crippled flight. Finding enemy targets is done by using the navigation map and radar display, and targets can be cycled using the keyboard or joystick. While you can target the closest enemy or attacker with a hotkey, going through a giant contact list could be easier. The use of crazy acronyms is thankfully at a minimum in Angle of Attack, which makes the game far more approachable than a hardcore flight sim.

Combat is a pleasingly chaotic affair, with warnings blaring (for launched missiles and being tracked by the enemy) and missiles flying. The weapons you can equip each has a specific role, either engaging air or ground targets, and firing these weapons is a straightforward affair. You can issue commands to wingmen to escort or attack, but the scenarios usually start with them already engaged in combat, so they can normally be left to their own devices for the most part. The AI is quite adept at flying, as they attempt to get into proper position for an attack and avoid incoming missiles effectively. It takes real skill to successfully take down enemy forces. Angle of Attack isn't difficult to learn or control, but it can be difficult to finish a mission successfully because of the competent and plentiful AI pilots.

IN CLOSING
Angle of Attack places itself in a tricky situation, as it offers a fraction of the gameplay of All Aspect Warfare and replaces it with more scenarios. Unfortunately, these scenarios are not enough to justify paying $20-plus, especially if you own All Aspect Warfare already, as they offer up the same type of combat we've experienced already. Those who enjoy flight simulations but not first person shooters might opt for getting Angle of Attack by itself, and in that case I would recommend it, as it does provide some exhilarating combat and controls that are intuitive enough (especially when compared against 3000AD's previous titles). As I stated in my review of All Aspect Warfare, the flight simulation aspects of that game were superior to the ground-based combat, so you are getting the best All Aspect Warfare has to offer. However, I can't help but feel that you're getting less than half the game. Multiplayer is a nice feature with cooperative and competitive play online, but the scenarios are nothing special. Frankly, Angle of Attack should have been either included in All Aspect Warfare, or offered as a $10 micro-expansion, rather than a $20-plus stand-alone title.

Bad Rats Review

2009-08-24T15:06:00.000-04:00

Bad Rats, developed and published by Invent4 Entertainment.
The Good: Numerous rat types and objects, varied difficulty levels with solutions for every puzzle, disturbingly violent, lengthy for the really cheap price
The Not So Good: Slightly inconvenient interface, no level editor, 2-D maps get slightly repetitive
What say you? A pleasantly bloody physics puzzle game: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
The historical struggle between cats and mice has been well documented, from Tom and Jerry to Warehouse Mouse and the Imagination Movers. While cats always had the size advantage, mice excelled in being sneaky and hiding in walls. Now, the playing field has been severely tipped in the rodent direction with Bad Rats. Equipped with weapons and other special abilities, it's just a matter of time before cats blow up in this physics-based puzzle game. This concept obviously has wide appeal: I mean, who hasn't wanted to microwave a cat using a Rube Goldberg device?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
Though the game takes place in two dimensions, Bad Rats features 3-D graphics that look pretty good for an independent game. All of the rat models are inventive and well animated (and a little offensive, in the case of the suicide bomber), and the cat deaths are amusingly violent affairs. The puzzles take place in the same warehouse setting, which does tend to get repetitive after a while. The sound effects are basic, with appropriate sounds for each in-game event (explosions, for example) and subtle background music. While I was not impressed with the presentation, Bad Rats does a decent enough job providing a cartoon-inspired atmosphere.

ET AL.
Bad Rats involved subjecting cats to unspeakable evils by guiding a ball towards their chosen path to death. Decapitating cats was never so much fun! The game has a satisfactory amount of content from the low, low price of $5: forty-four levels. Some of the levels don't take too long to complete, under a minute for a superstar such as myself, but things get tougher as you progress through the game. They become slightly repetitive after a while, since the 2-D nature of the map design tends to get old: there are only so many ways you can bounce a ball over an obstacle towards a microwave with a cat inside. The lack of a level editor is somewhat surprising, since you would think it'd be rather straightforward to make some 2-D creations. You can compare your scores on the Internet against other cat murderers, and there are some Steam achievements to be had. The game does not automatically save your progress, but provides a password to access unlocked levels; it's easier just to manually save your progress. Bad Rats features two difficulty levels, and “easy” gives you hints towards a solution by restricting the pieces you have to play with and displaying proper positions for those pieces. Since the hints tell you where to place things but not specifically what to place, it strikes a nice balance between being helpful and giving the answers away. There are typically only one or two solutions, but since the game suggests them, I don't have a huge problem with the lack of total flexibility.

Bad Rats is like Lemmings, but way more violent. You will place various objects around the room in order to trigger a bomb/microwave/machete/chainsaw that causes a cat to meet untimely death. The interface could use some more polish: all of the objects are located below the map off-screen; accessing them requires you to constantly pan up and down, which gets annoying. Objects can be rotates and flipped by right-clicking on them in order to get the angles correct. There are ten rat types, including suicide bombers, rocketeers, archers, and fat rats. In addition, you get typical physics-based items like crates, drums, and planks. The physics are executed well, with plausible results from your open-ended creations. Some of the puzzles require very specific solutions with exact timing, so it can get frustrating after a while. Still, the game has a solid base and introduces some unique elements.

IN CLOSING
Bad Rats is a good puzzle game. While the basics of the game have been done numerous times before, triggering events using contraptions and physics, the unique rat abilities and unnecessary feline violence make the game stand out. The game is very cheap at only $5, and for that price you get forty-four levels: a good value. The game lacks a level editor, some that would have been possible given the game's 2-D puzzles, but there is enough content here to certainly justify that bargain price. The varied rats and their abilities make for some unique solutions, all of which are outlined at the easy difficulty setting to reduce frustration significantly. The interface could be easier to use, as all of your objects are inconveniently off-screen and require constant panning of the camera to access. The graphics and sound design are solid enough, and the realistic physics round out a solid puzzling package. Puzzle fans should certainly check out this title for a very small monetary investment.

Combat Mission Shock Force: British Forces Review

2009-08-20T15:09:00.001-04:00

Combat Mission Shock Force: British Forces, developed and published by Battlefront.com.
The Good: Lengthy new campaign, plentiful single scenarios and quick battle maps, new British military toys
The Not So Good: Pathfinding and movement issues still remain, $25 is a bit too much
What say you? The second module is a lot like the first: content heavy but pricey: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
While the American military typically gets most of the attention in the world of computer gaming, there are other important nations on the Allied side of things, like Australia. But since they aren't dumb enough to invade Syria, it's time for some British Forces! The second expansion (module) to Combat Mission: Shock Force puts an ol' English spin on the give-orders-and-kill-people tactical strategy game. The previous module (expansion), Marines, added a new campaign, some stand-alone scenarios, and new weapons and vehicles for a slightly inflated price. Are the Brits any different?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
If you have seen or heard any of the previous Combat Mission: Shock Force games, then you know what to expect here. All of the British vehicles look very good up close, although admittedly you'll spend most of the game zoomed out. The special effects are the same, with tracer rounds screaming across the landscape and smoke-filled explosions dotting the map. The scenarios take place in some of the most realistic looking maps the series has seen; although Syria is not the most visually stimulating location in the world, the designs offer some good tactical gaming. Sound effects and background music remain the same, using the same sounds from American vehicles for their British counterparts.

ET AL.
As with the Marines module, the focus of Combat Mission Shock Force: British Forces is on the new campaign. It seems the Brits didn't want to feel left out and joined in the American-led invasion of Syria. Like the previous games, the campaign is a series of interconnected missions rather than a story-driven affair, although units carry over and the order in which you play the missions is determined by your level of success. The scenarios are well-designed, assault-heavy missions (better suited for the AI) across a variety of open and urban environments; they offer a high level of challenging difficulty that's suited well for the fans of the series that would be interested in this game. In addition to the main campaign, there are thirty stand-alone scenarios suitable for games against the AI and human opponents. For those who want a more random gaming experience, there is also a rather healthy 226 quick battle maps to choose from. British Forces adds 27 to the total, which is 185 or so more than when the original game came out. It almost makes up for the lack of randomly generated maps (almost). Most people will be buying Combat Mission Shock Force: British Forces for the new scenarios, and they are well designed and challenging for veteran players.

Controlling British Forces means you get to play with British stuff and use words like “armour” and “lift” and “fish and chips.” The order of battles are similar though some things are named differently; this has little impact on the actual gameplay, as changing the number of tanks or infantry in a section doesn't make a whole lot of difference. British armour seems to be less stout but slightly faster (this may be my eyes playing tricks on me), from the Challenger 2 tank to the Scimitar light tank and Sultan APC. Really, you could interchange the British units with American ones and most people won't notice any alteration in performance or capabilities. This goes for the weapons as well: the L85A2 rifle seems just as capable as the M16. For most people, I think the changes are purely cosmetic and certainly don't warrant a purchase solely based on the new hardware.

There are still a number of annoyances with Combat Mission Shock Force: British Forces, made even more so because the developers continue to avoid fixing them. Pathfinding is still significantly problematic, as units refuse to use roads for faster travel unless explicitly told to do so; playing a recent tactical game such as World War II General Commander only highlights the shortcomings in this area. Getting units to move in formation requires you to manually move them first, and you can't scroll past the map edge to better visualize units placed near the border. AI has gotten continual improvements and is now capable of putting up a good attack in addition to a quality defense. I will also mention that I experienced a handful of lock-ups while playing, and since the game doesn't automatically save, hours of progress was instantly lost.

IN CLOSING
So here's the $25 question: are you willing to spend that much on a new campaign, 30 stand-alone missions, and a host of quick battle maps? I would feel a lot better if Combat Mission Shock Force: British Forces was $5 to $10 less (I had the same opinion of the Marines module). The British forces of British Forces aren't terribly interesting or exotic, as they perform and behave much like their American counterparts; there aren't any drastic changes in tactics you need to make. The campaign is challenging fun and the missions and quick battle maps do make for a good increase in features, but the overall need to play this module (expansion) depends on how much you like Combat Mission: Shock Force in the first place. Personally, I have a hard time justifying the price when a lot of the basic interface and performance problems are still intact.

All Aspect Warfare Review

2009-08-16T12:04:00.000-04:00

All Aspect Warfare, developed and published by 3000AD on Gamer's Gate.
The Good: Huge planet with large-scale battles featuring lots of vehicle types, distinct visual style, varied soldier classes with unique items, 64-person multiplayer with competitive and cooperative modes, seamless campaign structure with no cut-scene or loading interruptions, much more intuitive than previous efforts
The Not So Good: Extremely high level of difficulty is discouraging, AI pathfinding issues when indoors, no scenario editor, bland base design and robotic enemy AI hinders shooting portion
What say you? Pleasing flight mechanics and passable FPS elements combine in this open-world futuristic military game: 6/8

MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION
Open world games are all the rage these days, providing insanely large areas to explore and usually shoot people in. From racing games like FUEL to military simulations like ArmA II, restricting the player to a linear adventure is very passe. The latest game from PC stalwart Derek Smart (who gets needlessly attacked on many online forums, partly attributed to his frank comments and propensity to respond) combines flight simulation and first person shooting elements from his previous games Galactic Command and Universal Combat. Taking place on a single (but quite large) planet, you and your team are against all odds versus an alien foe that likes to shoot you without hesitation. Does All Aspect Warfare feature the deep but impenetrable gameplay of previous entries, or was 3000AD finally developed a game that's more appropriate for a larger audience?

GRAPHICS AND SOUND
The graphics of All Aspect Warfare are distinctly improved over previous 3000AD efforts, and parts of the game easily compete with any top-flight flight simulator or first person shooter. Highlights include the buildings and vehicles, as they both are very detailed and look quite nice. No two buildings look the same, and the vehicles are also varied and have some nice effects such as heat trails behind aircraft. While the interiors of the buildings are bland, each vehicle and plane has a slightly different arrangement and the 3-D cockpits look good. The visual style is distinctive, creating a plausible space setting overall. The terrain of the planet changes with latitude, creating varied environments in which to blow stuff up. All Aspect Warfare also has dynamic weather and time-of-day effects to further increase the realism. Bases do need more small objects, as there is really nothing between buildings other than the occasional boxcar and supply station: additional cover would also make the FPS mode more interesting. Still, I was quite satisfied overall with the graphics of the game. Sound is slightly worse off, as in-game dialog is not voiced and the background music is repetitive (but effective at getting you PUMPED). Weapons and planes have appropriate effects, rounding out an effective presentation that exceeded expectations based on previous efforts.

ET AL.
Being stranded on a hostile planet can mean only one thing: it is time to make things explode. The game features a sixteen-mission campaign that follows your deserted patrol of four as they fight from behind enemy lines. There is a story to follow, although since All Aspect Warfare lacks voice acting of any kind, you'll have to read along. The campaign takes about eight hours or so, depending on how often you die (usually a lot) and have to start a mission over. I died multiple times two minutes into the first scenario, as I was hit with a rocket from an unseen enemy. Nice. The missions themselves involve either infiltrating or escaping enemy bases, and eventually waging war against the enemy. Normally you will be assaulting enemy bases, defending friendly ones, tracking down important data, or scouting for friendly troops. You will also drive and pilot a variety of vehicles, and typically you will be given a choice as to which ones to commandeer. This is decent variety for a first person shooter, though the missions feature scripted enemy locations so replay value is lowered. Still, the open nature of the levels removes any linear restrictions to strategy, and there is usually more than one way to approach an objective. Unfortunately, the game could be more clear on what, exactly, your objectives are: you really have to pay attention to what your allies are saying through the subtitles, as the game only gives very vague directions on what to do and where to go. The equally vague HUD (with yellow circles of interest but no explanation on what they mean) and planetary map that doesn't zoom out far enough don't help matters. The missions themselves flow together seamlessly without load times or cut-scenes interrupting the action, promoting a realistic nature to the campaign. There is a time limit for each mission, and if you finish more quickly, you must wait around healing and buying shiny new guns (or leave the room and watch TV, as I did) until the preordained allotment has passed. Of course, the flip side is that the next mission starts whether you are ready or not, so I suppose it's better to have too much time than not enough. You can choose to be any of the four characters in each mission; they only vary on their weapon loadouts (which are customizable from a list). There are also two sandbox missions where you can fly around, although there is no real point to these as there are no objectives, dynamically generated or otherwise. Sixteen instant action missions round out the features package, although there are really nine that vary time of day or vehicles. The instant action missions are too instant, retaining the high difficulty of the story mode. What would be really cool is the ability to design quick battles: just place some forces for either side and let them at each other. It looks like the AI is in place to handle this kind of situation, but we are relegated to the instant action missions for more immediate conflict.

The game world of All Aspect Warfare is quite large: four hundred square miles of terrain covering a variety of climates. There is a lot of boring empty space between bases (there are no cities or points of interest), but not being restricted in your travels is a nice feature. The large distances between bases makes for long travel times if you don't teleport or fly, increasing the need for a skilled pilot. The map could also zoom out more to display far-away bases better. All Aspect Warfare allows you to set waypoints to assist in navigation and you can prioritize targets for your AI allies. Multiplayer features five modes of chaos: deathmatch, team deathmatch, competitive cooperative play (two teams of two trying to get more AI kills), tactical strike (destroy the enemy mobile base), base wars (combination of assault and domination: you must hold four places surrounding an enemy base for a minute), and nuclear winter (arm the opponent's weapon). The game supports sixty-four players on official servers that offer stat tracking (for experience points so that you can pilot advanced vehicles). You can add AI bots, but they will be hostile only and will spawn only when you enter an enemy base. While the instant action missions allow you to control any vehicle in the game, skirmish modes (and the campaign) require you to have enough experience to control advanced craft. In fact, marines aren't allowed to pilot the more sophisticated airplanes ever. While this is a realistic limitation that rewards in-game progress, you can be stuck without a pilot if you join an empty server. All Aspect Warfare does not have an interactive tutorial (which, considering the last one, is probably a good thing), so you need to print out the quick start guide, keyboard reference chart, and manual and read them in order to understand what's going on. Now, I will say that All Aspect Warfare is much easier to learn than previous 3000AD efforts, with a decreased number of crazy abbreviations and a more consistent interface between vehicles.

There are two main things you'll be doing in All Aspect Warfare: shooting (with some driving) and flying. The FPS aspect of the game is fairly conventional, although there are some unique features to reflect the futuristic setting. You are given a radar to locate infantry, ground, and air units, in place of a minimap. In addition, you get a medkit for health and fatigue, nutripacks for health, toolkits for armor, night vision binoculars, target designators (for AI pilots), shields, cloaking mechanisms, electromagnetic jammers, turrets, and repair units. Oh, and the jetpack, of course. In addition to all of these fun tools, you get a robust selection of weapons: four pistols, five assault rifles, two machine guns, three sniper rifles, three shotguns, two grenade launchers, three rocket launchers, and five grenades. Weapons of the same type vary according to damage and clip size. Most of these weapons require different kinds of ammunition, so you'll need to memorize the requirements or keep the list from the manual handy. Supply stations will automatically rearm and reheal you, though. To prevent against incoming rounds, All Aspect Warfare has four levels of armor (from kevlar to heavy) that absorb shots up to its limit. Head shots are always lethal, which makes quite a bit of sense. If you have enough experience, you can also construct aircraft and turrets at the aforementioned supply station. In order to traverse the large distances, you can use jump pads to instantly travel to any friendly or enemy base. It would be nice to teleport just outside of enemy bases, so that you aren't instantly inundated by enemy fire. The large distances between bases means that driving is essentially an impossibility, so you must load any vehicles (APCs, jeeps)you want onto a gunship (or tow it) and do it that way. The futuristic equipment enhancements make All Aspect Warfare a slight cut above cookie-cutter first person shooters.

Considering the pedigree of the developer, it's not surprising that flight in All Aspect Warfare is more enjoyable that ground-based combat. Pilots get an assortment of fighters, gunships, and shuttles to engage and eliminate the enemy, which vary according to speed, shields, armor, and radar range. The planes uses the same radar as the FPS mode, where you can cycle through targets and select enemies who are nearest or engaging you. Some missiles are fire-and-forget while others need a constant lock, and jamming is an effective counter to an incoming missile. The trade off is that employing your jammer removes any missile locks, basically putting you in a defensive mode. This makes for a pleasing game of when-to-deploy-countermeasures. You are given lots of information on enemy craft, including health, speed, and whether they are using countermeasures themselves. In the event that you are damaged, you can suffer partial or total loss of a number of systems, including the HUD, engines, weapons, or main computer. Another nice innovation is that all planes use vertical take off and landing, making these procedures a lot more straightforward. Flying around in All Aspect Warfare is pretty intuitive; it only took a couple of flights to get accustomed to the control scheme.

AI pilots are quite talented and effective foes, delivering some epic battles as you attack and defend bases around the planet. The infantry AI is hard to evaluate because of the lack of cover: they run towards you until they get into range, and then stop to increase accuracy. If the bases were more interesting, there might be some cool land battles with cover, grenades, flanking, and other assorted heroism. The AI lacks pathfinding for indoor areas (it's not even coded in the game), so it's smart to avoid these areas or your allies will be stuck on walls and doors. You can give you squad orders to escort, defend, attack, and proceed to a waypoint, but there are some limitations to the system, such as the inability to have order an AI pilot to fly you around. All Aspect Warfare has a high level of difficulty because of its realism: you are a small squad up against a foe with superior numbers, so it's not unexpected to die. A lot. The game can be discouraging, though, when you die in an instant action mission in the first ten or fifteen seconds (for the fifth time in a row). This is much more noticeable in the first person shooter aspects of All Aspect Warfare, where enemy units engage you from large distances with extreme accuracy. Because of this, the shooting is much less satisfying than the aerial combat. Multiplayer and the more scripted campaign missions counteract these shortcomings, and All Aspect Warfare is a game that will appeal to the veteran PC gamer.

IN CLOSING
All Aspect Warfare succeeds in being more approachable than previous entries by the developer while retaining rewarding, intense planetary combat. The flight simulation aspects of All Aspect Warfare are the strongest part of the game, attributed to a substantial pedigree: dogfighting and aerial combat are action-packed events with missiles flying and warnings beeping. There are a lot of vehicles to choose from, each with their own strengths. The initial learning curve has also been reduced, as All Aspect Warfare decreases the number of hotkeys and confusing abbreviations and makes flying actually straightforward for the most part. The first person shooter portion of All Aspect Warfare is less impressive, although it also has its highlights, namely the in-game items that grant neat powers like flight and cloaking. The FPS part falls short thanks to bland base design that lacks copious amounts of cover to make for more interesting encounters and simple yet inhumanly deadly AI (although the lack of said cover might explain this predictable behavior). That said, All Aspect Warfare is still a difficult game, usually because you are up against superior numbers (though the plot explains this) that are just as deadly accurate as you are. These superior numbers do make for some dramatically large battles that are a joy to watch, at least until you die. The axillary elements are mixed: large multiplayer battles with competitive and cooperative play are quite nice, but instant action battles usually result in quick death and the lack of an editor to create your own content cannot be ignored. The campaign story is just OK: the lack of voice acting really disconnects you from the characters and the missions themselves are typical action-oriented affairs with scripted enemy placements and rudimentary AI opponents. I like the freedom granted in the campaign missions, though, as you never feel restricted to a single approach or strategy. The lack of loading times or obvious transitions between missions is also a nice touch, as the fluidity of the campaign structures adds realism. But despite having a huge world to play in, having a large-scale battle of predominantly AI troops is an impossibility outside of the fixed scenarios. While the level of difficulty might reserve All Aspect Warfare for the elite player, there is still a lot to like about the game for fans of both flight simulators and action games.