Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

18 months and roughly 18 million sales later, I FINALLY bought CoD4. It's won countless awards and has gained enough rep to be babbled about by 11 year old Floridians more than Halo 3. It's been said to be the best Call of Duty of all time, and although I don't generally believe that the vast majority has to be right, I thought with so much biggin' up there may be something awesome about CoD4. So I headed to the old Cex store and bought a second hand copy.

As I do with every game, I started off by playing the campaign, and my thoughts were in the exact same way as they were when I first played WaW; 'Well this is isn't too bad... Ok this isn't getting much better... is the whole game going to be like this?'. This was worrying, as WaW's campaign didn't turn out great... at all. Nonetheless, reminding myself of its 94% ratings from the very magazines that I trust and Gears of War 2's improvement during the campaign, I persevered. How did it turn out? Somehow, through unimaginable odds, WORSE than WaW's. Now, if I have any readers out there (which I doubt for the record), I imagine I just lost them all. Yep, I hated just about every minute of the campaign, nothing EVER happened that could vaguely stir up some kind of 'hell yeah' feeling, nothing got anywhere near intense, I was bored for a good 3-4 hours of playtime. Liking the modern environment is surely opinion-based but I have simply no idea how people could prefer samey, metal guns which aim for you with bloody stupid laser-sights and then miss horrifically with burst fire (thinking of the G36c right now...) instead the at least likeable WWII guns which had some character and vintage factor. The storyline is nothing original - a war with Americans and Britain against the Russians and Iraqis? What an original idea! - and because of this nothing was ever gripping enough to make me really want to beat the campaign. There's also a ridiculous amount of enemies and too many situations in which enemies will constantly spawn for about five minutes which makes it seem like you're some kind of invincible war hero on a anti-Commy kill spree, rather than the game being a modern warfare realistic - and realistic being the operative word - simulation. Lastly, the graphics, which somehow won an award, are hugely overrated. How were they awarded for a game with graphics not much better than PS2? Open your eyes; Halo 3 came out a whole year before Modern Warfare and they still blow me away.

Of course, what I should be commenting on is what made CoD4 so popular for the most part: the multiplayer. Once again, I set my hoped high because of the popularity and about 70% of my Live friends playing it religiously and whoop-de-fuckin'-doo here comes the disappointment again. Don't say it's because of me moving from WaW to an earlier installment; not only because I expected it to have fewer perks, weapons etc but because I'm also constantly told that CoD4's multiplayer is superior. Well, I couldn't agree with you... LESS. Nothing stands out to me whatsoever, the maps are boring as hell and don't allow for strategy, and the only thing I find enjoyable is sniping on Overgrown (lying down in the corn field wearing a ghillie suit makes you just about invisible, which is brilliant). How do you people play this game for so damn long?

Overall score is 2/10. Sniping's good fun, especially with the Barrett .50 cal rifle which is one of my favourite weapons ever, and there's the occasional 'this isn't so bad moment' but there is NO reason for all these people believing this game was crafted by the hands of God. Massively overrated and a huge letdown.

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.

Gears of War 2

Hype. There was a lot of it for Gears of War. It paid off by being one of the best selling games for the 360, and at points was the most played game on Xbox Live. There was a lot of hype for Gears 2. Make an educated guess what the game is like.

Where to start. What I love most about 'Gears Double' is that it is, as IGN put, 'definitely not Gears 1.5'. Everything has been improved or at least revised: from the new huge selection of executions (some being absolutely gut-wrenching), to the new enemies to the armoury of weapons, unlike its predecessor's selection of about 8. The combat is now truly intense, as cover explodes around you, and you blindfire ruthlessly until Locust blood covers the opposite wall, you'll realise what an incredible battle simulation EPIC have made. The colour pallette has improved, and although the rusty look of the first game was effective, the new look makes it seem a lot more real. The campaign is darker (somehow), but has what the first installment's campaign lacked: storyline and emotion. Dom's icky situation with his missing wive has both deteriorated and has become a large element of the game, but is noticeably Hollywood, so expect cheesy lines and all the rest. The storyline has a lot more depth, and although it is along the same lines (destroy the Locust all over again) it's much more army-based rather than just one squad embarking on a mission which results in the near extinction of the Locust horde - let's just face it, it was a rediculous idea, fun as it was.

The multiplayer. You remember what I said about it last time; well made, but shoddily kept. There was lag, bad lag, and lots of it. Gears 2 started off exactly the same, and I almost gave up hope. But a couple of months later, a title update came to the rescue and almost all of the bullet lag has been eliminated. It has huge variation, replayability and a big stack of achievements to be gained, making what I think is one of the best online games around. If you're an only-online kinda player, this is undoubtedly for you.

Bad points are getting scarce with my later reviews, I seem to be buying pretty good games. I would say that anything that could be labelled as 'bad' is nothing more than opinion; technically Gears of War 2 is a masterpiece, but some may not like the larger scale, or the huge variety of troop types. Seeing as the blood and gore has somehow stepped up, if you're squeamish stay right away, but that's really it.

9/10 sees it being one of the great shooters of this generatio, but just falling short of perfection. Brilliantly made and a heck of a lot of fun. Epic shows a strength many developers don't have: learning from previous mistakes and understanding what appeals to players and what doesn't.

Fallout 3

As a home-coming review, this will be long, as there is a LOT to cover. And I'm back after a long break, too long I think. I've been away as a result of a serious addiction I'm afraid. What's the drug? This very game no less.

I picked up Fallout 3 after hearing very good things from friends, and endless 9/10 ratings from loads of sites. My experience of RPGs is very low indeed so it was a new thing for me, but damn am I glad I did. Fallout 3 is very much different from its predecessors; instead of taking the Diablo-like camera angles and the much darker world, it goes to the first/third person style and the gameplay having friggin' loads of weapons and complex combat, fitting nicely into the RPG/Shooter genre. Its main feature is definitely addictiveness, I've had too many endless days of straight Fallout, but no regrets, it has to be among the best games of 2008, and can please many different types of players.

First off, combat/blood/guy stuff. There are about 60 weapons altogether, each being pretty much completely different and exciting in different ways (for example the Fat Man which fires mini nuclear bombs, or the seven different custom made weapons which you scavenge junk for). As for aiming, you use a system called V.A.T.S, which pauses time and lets you choose a body part to aim for, and shows your likelihood of hitting. After this, it will show the shot in cinematic beauty, and if you got a finisher on them will show flying limbs a many, blood spurting all over the walls. Not really a game for kids. The stuff you kill will range from savage mutated monsters like overgrown scorpions and ants, to the totalitarian government army, the Enclave. This keep things exciting the whole way through and I don't remember once feeling resentful to go into combat.

The storyline is long, and including the side quests can rack you up a good 40-50 hours gameplay, allowing you full exploration of a massive wasteland, which despite it being destroyed by man's inhumanity to man, has a certain tranquility to it which I have not before seen in a free-roaming game. The storyline has many twists and turns, but the basics are: You begin the game being born and raised in an underground vault within a community of those in the same position. The vault keeps them safe from the fallout of the war which ended in just a couple of minutes of worldwide nuclear devastation. The supposed belief is that the vault is shut and stays shut to prevent any danger coming in, but one day your dad disappears and one of your older friends is murdered. You must journey out of the vault to find your dad and investigate what made him leave, and discover the secrets of the past. I'm sure many Fallout players will agree with me when I say the moment you leave the vault for the first time, the sun blinding your eyes to reveal an obliterated village before a giant barren wasteland is one of the most awe-inspiring pieces of gaming...ever. The story will not bore you, it is emotive yet recognisable, and with dad being voice acted by Liam Neeson, can you really go wrong?

Bad things about Fallout 3? Erm... wow... let me think... I suppose if you don't like horror and zombies and stuff, some bits like the pitch black metro tunnels may not appeal. And generally if you're not into RPGs and think that 'quests' and the levelling system is too nerdy then well you probably don't want to get it. But technically it's well made, I've yet to find any faults with the enviroment and characters, as both are magically believable. The complaint I hear a lot, and one that I recognise, is character movement, as the running animation is shocking, and as it allows you to play in first or third person, you get the choice to make your character look like a twat any time you like. Brilliant! Also, I've experienced 3 crashes in the two weeks I've played, bloody irritating, but autosaves are regular so don't worry about losing too much stuff.

If you thought the main storyline was too short and ended rather abruptly (I don't really disagree with you, it was rather sudden), I have reason to believe an expansion is on the way, which I greatly look forward to. You guessed it, I'm putting this on the *choir music* LIST OF BEST GAMES EVER. 10/10 I give it, outstandingly good, the story, the amazing bullet cinematics, the harshness of the creatures and the gore, the voice acting, everything is enticing as hell. Animations in general suck, but that's the only thing I can really point out as bad, it is more likely you'll be too blown away by the sheer depth and ironic beauty to notice. I recommend in general to most, it is one of the best games of this generation that I have seen, and is replayable to the point where I have spent almost 200 hours playing it.