Tomb Raider: Underworld

Tomb Raider's evolved a lot since its early days, when you would work at it for hours trying to solve a squarely graphicated yet surprisingly complex puzzle, then getting a huge feeling of success after completing it and thinking 'this is what gaming is all about'. When the PS2 and the 6th gen consoles came into play (gaming pun) and more fancy-pants controlles and such tried to 'raise the bar', Tomb Raider unfortunately changed for the worst (don't kid yourself, we all know Angel of Darkness pretty much sucked). This is the first Tomb Raider I've bought for the Xbox 360 and I have hoped that in these new golden days of gaming of the 7th gen consoles that things have improved.

I didn't expect Eidos to have gone old school and made this exactly the same as the old games, and to be honest I kinda didn't want them to, because there's an element of high-tech gaming that's brilliant in new games. Fortunately, the game has been kept of an up-to-date standard, and yet it does work pretty well. I think a good way of putting it is that it's fun in a completely different way to the classics; it's got the brilliant jumping around, grabbing onto stuff, shimmying and of course shooting that you would think of a Tomb Raider and this is all well and good, in fact Lara can now do much more acrobatic things and this is definitely a good point, but it's noticeably dumbed-down. The puzzles don't require all that much thought, and although you should have great fun swinging and flying across huge Aztec stone chambers to reach that 100 foot high ledge, there's nothing to work at feel good about beating which was a let down.

Anyone who played Legend will be aquainted with the storyline (which irritatingly I wasn't) and it continues here. Even though I don't know the half of it I must say it's not bad at all, and there are good twists involving Lara's family. What was one of the best points overall is the scenery; some backdrops you get whilst carefully choosing your precarious paths are outstanding, in particular those in the Coastal Thailand mission. The graphics are brilliant when it comes to trees, skylighting and Indiana Jones-type ancient landmarks.

In terms of the 'fun factor', TRU is great in fairly short doses. It's not a game to be hooked on, and I wouldn't want to play the single player more than twice. It doesn't really break barriers, and although it doesn't necessarily let down the Tomb Raider franchise it's not enough like the first games in that it doesn't challenge you in the way it should. A classic problem-solving game is becoming a little too action-based, but there's not too much to dislike. 7/10 for stylishness, graphics and fantastic environments, but Eidos may want to take a step back to take a step forward, so to speak.

Update: Max Payne 3!

There's barely any info, but Rockstar Games have FINALLY annoucned starting work on the next Max Payne game. Seeing as I rated Max Payne 2 11/10, I AM SO EXCITED.

Unfortunately for now this is all they have as info - a picture and a rough date.

http://www.rockstargames.com/maxpayne3/

Halo Wars

Halo is not exactly one of the first games you'd expect to be made into an RTS, and I was certainly surprised. This game was in production for a long time, and I imagine Bungie really wanted an RTS version done (probably because they used to make RTSs themselves). For some reason it is not developed by Bungie however, it is done by Ensemble Studios (Age of Empires III), I imagine Bungie are busy enough working on Halo 3: ODST which I'm greatly looking forward to. Anyway, I bought the Limited Edition so as to obtain the Halo 3 Mythic Maps and I must say I'm not disappointed.

If you were a fan of the first Battle for Middle Earth game - which I strongly recommend - this works in a similar way; you get a central base and you have a certain amount of building slots. Players may find this annoying but it makes you build tactically, for example building a lot of supply pads will get you a strong economy, but will leave you less space for barracks, vehicle depots etc to build your army from. What's great about the units is that they're just about all recognisable from the Halo series - Warthogs remain my favourites and there are also Scorpions, Hornets etc. I nearly cried when I found you couldn't get Mongooses, though. In Skirmishes and on the Live Multiplayer you are also able to play as the Covenant and Ensemble have really pulled out the stops here. They run in a completely different way and it requires a different type of thinking to win as them. Units are generally weaker, such as the obvious grunts and jackels, but they work in a much more horde-like way as max population is larger. With enough Resources you are also able to build Scarabs which are definitely a bitch for your enemy to bring down. A few unseen units are introduced, minaly in the form of vehicles, and they fill the gaps when needed.

The campaign is set a decade or two before the first Halo game, so Spartans are far from extinct (and prove VERY useful). It follows the role of the frigate 'The Spirit of Fire' during the war, ranging all across the galaxy. You will encounter huge Covenant armies and the dreaded Flood. The storyline is great, but I must say there is a little repetition, with objectives that don't vary much from 'pick up Squadron Omega' or 'cleanse this area'. The maps can also seem fairly dreary. All round, not an awful experience, but could have been better. This can all be done on Co-Op over Xbox Live which I think livenes it up considerably. The cutscenes are also a huge plus, the graphics are sensational (some of the best I've ever seen, about as good as Resident Evil 5), and the cutscene before the very last mission is just fantastic. The multiplayer, however, is what I would buy the game for. Matchmaking has 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 games which can be done with friends or random people, and you can play normal games starting off with next to nothing or deathmatches where you start off with enough resources to build an army in minutes. It doesn't get old, and it really engages with your strategetic side, especially with its tactic-based maps. It takes practise and there is a certain nack to it, so no lucky shots, but one of the most satisfying games to win at I think.

As an overall rating I think it deserves 7/10, it's not a bad RTS at all. There's a slight lack of really powerful units so you sometimes feel you have to keep throwing weak units until the enemy can't take any more, but it's a good many hours of fun (there's even an achievement for playing for a total 24 hours :D). However, for people liking fast, pacy shooters this isn't your game at all.

Call of Duty: World at War

I was a big fan of the World War 2 games from CoD, so when I found they were making another go at them, I was interested to see what it was like.

As always, I started with the campaign. It covers areas of the second world war which many games have left untouched: the brutal, almost inhuman fighting with the Japanese which involves fire, fire and more fire, and the relentless conflict between Russia and Nazi Germany which required more endurance and pure resolve than firepower. I was impressed by the choice, especially in the Russian sections. So I got going. Unfortunately, I was not at all impressed for the first hour or two, in fact at that time I was considering taking it back to the shop already. There's simply nothing to it; endlessly repetitive sound samples of your comrades shouting - 'Miller, get that barrell. Miller, get that barrell. Miller, get that barrell' - the irritatingly mediocre graphics and the only occasional ragdoll. Very small amount of things really stand out and intensity has all but gone out the window. The campaign gets slightly better, and damn it I mean slightly. Russian battles are better but still live up to no promises. A disappointment to say the least.

Multiplayer is of course going to be the reason a majority of players buy the game since Modern Warfare just about blew the charts. For those, thankfully, this is NOT a dissapointment. To my (somewhat limited) knowledge of CoD4 multiplayer, just about nothing has changed negatively. Leveling system with perks, new weapons and prestige mode remains the same, and it is fantastic. No achievements to be earned which makes an achievement hoe like me sad, but you get enough of a feeling of achievement with the multiplayer challenges giving you large EXP boosts and a new gun for most level-ups. Lots of well-varied match types and all-rounded, even maps supply many hours of multiplayer fun, and I have yet to get bored of it. Good stuff here, very good indeed.

So it seems CoD: WaW is quite the one-trick-pony, which is very annoying for me personally seeing as I enjoyed Call of Duty 3 pretty much only for its campaign. Perhaps it's too alien compared to the classic Normandy campaign Saving Private Ryan stuff we're all used to, but I had hoped it would be pulled off in a particularly spectacular way, and Treyarch didn't deliver. However, for multiplayer fans this is a must-buy; as far as online play goes the game's brilliant.
I give it 6/10, the campiagn seriously weighing down its score.