Saturday, February 25, 2006
My Black
Knowing full well that Tom has written about Black, i've decided to write my own impressions without having read so much as his post title. I figure it will be interesting to see how our thoughts differ and where we agree, as opposed to the usual point/counterpoint arguments we so often engage in.
Really, what the games sets out to do, it does spectacularly well. Let's review the rules:
1. Guns are the stars
2. Every bullet is your baby
3. Bigger and louder
4. Leave a trail of destruction
5. Death is an opportunity
Yeah, I'd say that it delivered on all of them, and even went above and beyond on a few. The sound design specifically is, in my humble, the best of it's generation. It may just be that I've recently upgraded my sound system tenfold, but no game's bullets (and there are a LOT of games with bullets) have sounded so exquisite as this. Every ricochet, echo and rumble of gasses meeting is precise and consistent with wherever you're standing and whatever you're shooting. The graphics are also pretty phenomenal, with draw distances and ambiance of a very high caliber (bah, no pun intended, but it works). The art direction is great, even if the art design isn't; it's a drab, depressingly accurate take on predictable environments that get away with being awesome simply because they're ripe for destruction. Steel refineries are lame and all, but they would be infinitely worse in a game that didn't let you make them crumble.
Overall, the gameplay in its most isolated state is brilliant, gratifying and visceral; taking advantage of the first person perspective in an almost fundamentally new way. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the game works as a whole. Burnout works as fantastically as it does because of the elements inherent in making a good racing game - how the car feels, and how the world reacts to your presence. Level design and presentation are a distant second to those ingredients. Criterion made racing games great again because they brought back the velocity and the tangibility of driving a car.
The shooter genre isn't so simple, and they're missing two vital elements - pacing and story. Pacing in that, as IGN hit right on the head, the game starts with a bang and is constantly entertaining, but has very few high or low points. As I was telling Tom, turning the side of a skyscraper into a smoke and glass pie with a rocket launcher would be a lot more impactful if it didn't happen in the first level. The game would be that much better if it started out typical and became consistently more destructive throughout. As it is, is starts out amazing and almost drowns in its own excessive vision. When I say story, I'm really just asking for the slightest bit of narrative motivation to be literally bringing down the house, even if the details are a throwaway. Halo has aliens, Call of Duty 2 has nazis, Timesplitters has flaming zombies - I don't necessarily need to know why I'm fighting them, but there a mutual understanding between the game and I that I should be. It's just how these things work. Whereas Black's quasi-terrorist-evil-vague-foreigner types just aren't menacing as much as they are fodder for falling through a pane of glass, as beautiful as it is.
First impressions are important, and Black made one I'll probably remember forever. Over four hours in, it all blends together a bit too much, even if it's simultaneously satisfying several of my needs as a human male. I'm not disappointed in the least, but I also can't unabashedly recommend it. It's myopic to the point of detriment, even if it does it's thing ridiculously well.
Really, what the games sets out to do, it does spectacularly well. Let's review the rules:
1. Guns are the stars
2. Every bullet is your baby
3. Bigger and louder
4. Leave a trail of destruction
5. Death is an opportunity
Yeah, I'd say that it delivered on all of them, and even went above and beyond on a few. The sound design specifically is, in my humble, the best of it's generation. It may just be that I've recently upgraded my sound system tenfold, but no game's bullets (and there are a LOT of games with bullets) have sounded so exquisite as this. Every ricochet, echo and rumble of gasses meeting is precise and consistent with wherever you're standing and whatever you're shooting. The graphics are also pretty phenomenal, with draw distances and ambiance of a very high caliber (bah, no pun intended, but it works). The art direction is great, even if the art design isn't; it's a drab, depressingly accurate take on predictable environments that get away with being awesome simply because they're ripe for destruction. Steel refineries are lame and all, but they would be infinitely worse in a game that didn't let you make them crumble.
Overall, the gameplay in its most isolated state is brilliant, gratifying and visceral; taking advantage of the first person perspective in an almost fundamentally new way. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the game works as a whole. Burnout works as fantastically as it does because of the elements inherent in making a good racing game - how the car feels, and how the world reacts to your presence. Level design and presentation are a distant second to those ingredients. Criterion made racing games great again because they brought back the velocity and the tangibility of driving a car.
The shooter genre isn't so simple, and they're missing two vital elements - pacing and story. Pacing in that, as IGN hit right on the head, the game starts with a bang and is constantly entertaining, but has very few high or low points. As I was telling Tom, turning the side of a skyscraper into a smoke and glass pie with a rocket launcher would be a lot more impactful if it didn't happen in the first level. The game would be that much better if it started out typical and became consistently more destructive throughout. As it is, is starts out amazing and almost drowns in its own excessive vision. When I say story, I'm really just asking for the slightest bit of narrative motivation to be literally bringing down the house, even if the details are a throwaway. Halo has aliens, Call of Duty 2 has nazis, Timesplitters has flaming zombies - I don't necessarily need to know why I'm fighting them, but there a mutual understanding between the game and I that I should be. It's just how these things work. Whereas Black's quasi-terrorist-evil-vague-foreigner types just aren't menacing as much as they are fodder for falling through a pane of glass, as beautiful as it is.
First impressions are important, and Black made one I'll probably remember forever. Over four hours in, it all blends together a bit too much, even if it's simultaneously satisfying several of my needs as a human male. I'm not disappointed in the least, but I also can't unabashedly recommend it. It's myopic to the point of detriment, even if it does it's thing ridiculously well.
Oh the love gone bad!
I never want to play Black again. How's that for a catchy lead? Didn't see that one coming, did you Nick? Believe me, this has nothing to do with my hatred for EA (which isn't so much hatred anymore. We'll call it a throbbing-ache of coldness). I'm not even terribly upset that Criterion ripped off the name of a perfectly good song. No, the problem with Black is that, like most First Person Shooters out there, it does very little to distinguish itself. Aside from using realistic guns - which gets a big thumbs down in my book compared to the Cerebral Bore and even the Klobb - and slightly improving on the Geo Mod craze from five years ago, there isn't anything in Black that's all that memorable. It's a darn shame too, because the Burnout guys have a ton of talent.
I actually had a good time playing through the first half of Black on Thursday with Nick. As I sat down to write about the game today, though, I realized I have had no desire to play it again the last two days. As satisfying as it was to blow up tanker trucks and shoot out someone's legs with a shotgun, the experience was so derivative for the most part that I have no need to see what happens next.
It's a shame that the thing Criterion worked hardest for - creating weapons and environments that react how they should - is the biggest weakness of the game. Because Black tries to be a strictly realistic shooter, you're left with boring levels and only about four different types of guns. The automatics all felt pretty much the same to me, and then you've got a pistol, rocket launcher and sniper rifle. With little variety in weapons you would think the levels would at least be different. Nope. They all play exactly the same. It was fun while it lasted, but what's the point of playing through the last four levels when I've seen it all in the first four?
Also, even though they touted destructible environments as one of the main selling points, that is a mixed bag as well. Just like in Red Faction, you can only destroy a small percentage of the environment. For instance, in one scene Nick walked down a hall with identical rooms lining the sides. He entered one room and walked up to the wall. Ooo! Grenades on the other side! So he shot the wall down with his shotgun. Awesome, right? The problem was, though the rooms and walls were all identical, he wasn't able to knock down every wall with his shotgun. These sorts of inconsistencies were frustrating after awhile. What you could and could not destroy is completely arbitrary. In the beginning, I was shooting ever surface to see what would happen. After I realized that most things just took my bullets with a smarmy smile, I resigned myself to merely shoot the people.
Another example! I came upon a guy in a tower. The tower was made of wood. You could say that I came upon a guy in a wooden tower. I was pretty close to him, looking up, so I couldn't really get a shot off. Unperturbed, I let loose on the floor beneath him. I assumed with a few well placed shots I could bust it open, causing him to fall to his death. Unfortunately, the floor sucked it up like a porn star, laughing at my feeble attempt to dent its surface. Booo!
Also, while the game stresses realism, it isn't actually realistic. Nick was constantly getting mad at me for my kamikaze tactics - I run at guys, firing at them the whole time. For some reason, this strategy doesn't work in Black. You see, my first experience with a realistic shooter was Goldeneye. In GE, when you shot a guy in the arm or leg he would wince, This allowed you to get a few more shots off without the fear of being attacked. It makes logical sense that someone, even if they're wearing Kevlar, will recoil if you shoot them. In Black, they just stand there and take it like a Super Man. Very frustrating for me, especially since I never adapted my strategy to conform to what the game wished.
There are a lot of good things about the game, though. For instance, the death animations are pretty awesome. At one point, Nick shot a guy who was stupidly hanging out by a rail. He flipped over head first and actually hung on to the rail for a second or two with his feet. I've never seen a guy just dangling above the ground like that before, head first, waiting to finally drop. Another time, I shot a guy and he also flipped over a rail. He held on with his hands, though, while I lined up a finishing shot. Nick was giddy with anticipation. He was like a kid in a candy store, except the candy store wasn't selling sweet but the chance to shoot a man dangling helplessly from a railing right in the back. As I fired my magnum I heard an ominous "click" and saw I was out of ammo. He ended up falling to his death anyway - through a pain of glass. So satisfying.
As I think back on the game now, though, all I really remember are the bad things. Because they stressed realism to such a high degree, every level just involves walking around and shooting people. There is no level with vehicles. Nothing with different objectives. There's one part where Nick was holed up on a building with a sniper rifle, gunning down advancing troops, but that was the most variety we encountered. It's like they put so much time into the weapons and semi-destructible environments that they forgot to make the rest of the game special.
Anyway, it is certainly fun and did not make me curse its existence like Full Auto, but they could have done so much more. As it is, it's just another game.
I actually had a good time playing through the first half of Black on Thursday with Nick. As I sat down to write about the game today, though, I realized I have had no desire to play it again the last two days. As satisfying as it was to blow up tanker trucks and shoot out someone's legs with a shotgun, the experience was so derivative for the most part that I have no need to see what happens next.
It's a shame that the thing Criterion worked hardest for - creating weapons and environments that react how they should - is the biggest weakness of the game. Because Black tries to be a strictly realistic shooter, you're left with boring levels and only about four different types of guns. The automatics all felt pretty much the same to me, and then you've got a pistol, rocket launcher and sniper rifle. With little variety in weapons you would think the levels would at least be different. Nope. They all play exactly the same. It was fun while it lasted, but what's the point of playing through the last four levels when I've seen it all in the first four?
Also, even though they touted destructible environments as one of the main selling points, that is a mixed bag as well. Just like in Red Faction, you can only destroy a small percentage of the environment. For instance, in one scene Nick walked down a hall with identical rooms lining the sides. He entered one room and walked up to the wall. Ooo! Grenades on the other side! So he shot the wall down with his shotgun. Awesome, right? The problem was, though the rooms and walls were all identical, he wasn't able to knock down every wall with his shotgun. These sorts of inconsistencies were frustrating after awhile. What you could and could not destroy is completely arbitrary. In the beginning, I was shooting ever surface to see what would happen. After I realized that most things just took my bullets with a smarmy smile, I resigned myself to merely shoot the people.
Another example! I came upon a guy in a tower. The tower was made of wood. You could say that I came upon a guy in a wooden tower. I was pretty close to him, looking up, so I couldn't really get a shot off. Unperturbed, I let loose on the floor beneath him. I assumed with a few well placed shots I could bust it open, causing him to fall to his death. Unfortunately, the floor sucked it up like a porn star, laughing at my feeble attempt to dent its surface. Booo!
Also, while the game stresses realism, it isn't actually realistic. Nick was constantly getting mad at me for my kamikaze tactics - I run at guys, firing at them the whole time. For some reason, this strategy doesn't work in Black. You see, my first experience with a realistic shooter was Goldeneye. In GE, when you shot a guy in the arm or leg he would wince, This allowed you to get a few more shots off without the fear of being attacked. It makes logical sense that someone, even if they're wearing Kevlar, will recoil if you shoot them. In Black, they just stand there and take it like a Super Man. Very frustrating for me, especially since I never adapted my strategy to conform to what the game wished.
There are a lot of good things about the game, though. For instance, the death animations are pretty awesome. At one point, Nick shot a guy who was stupidly hanging out by a rail. He flipped over head first and actually hung on to the rail for a second or two with his feet. I've never seen a guy just dangling above the ground like that before, head first, waiting to finally drop. Another time, I shot a guy and he also flipped over a rail. He held on with his hands, though, while I lined up a finishing shot. Nick was giddy with anticipation. He was like a kid in a candy store, except the candy store wasn't selling sweet but the chance to shoot a man dangling helplessly from a railing right in the back. As I fired my magnum I heard an ominous "click" and saw I was out of ammo. He ended up falling to his death anyway - through a pain of glass. So satisfying.
As I think back on the game now, though, all I really remember are the bad things. Because they stressed realism to such a high degree, every level just involves walking around and shooting people. There is no level with vehicles. Nothing with different objectives. There's one part where Nick was holed up on a building with a sniper rifle, gunning down advancing troops, but that was the most variety we encountered. It's like they put so much time into the weapons and semi-destructible environments that they forgot to make the rest of the game special.
Anyway, it is certainly fun and did not make me curse its existence like Full Auto, but they could have done so much more. As it is, it's just another game.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Oblivious to comedy gold
Let the record show that I am VERY disappointed by Oblivion's achievement list. I mean, I can appreciate that it will take several thousand hours to accomplish everything in each guild, etc., but man could they have been better. Say, for instance...one hundred deer combusted? Make a skeleton chase you for seven miles? Poison fifty NPCs? Ride a unicorn until it starves? Wear one ton of armor? C'mon, where's the funny? As the developer has said, it wasn't designed around the achievements and that's fine, but for the thousands of silly gamers that like doing silly things like Tom and I, it's heartbreakingly boring.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
I would bet 1up's collective liver that Sony will win the next gen war
The other day, Nick and his boss were talking about Sony's apparent immunity in the eyes of the media. I'm not sure where Nick stands on this issue, but Greg (his boss) argued that Sony is given a pass anytime they do something wrong. I agree with this sentiment as well. It seems like any time Nintendo or Microsoft do anything wrong the press jumps down their throats. But since Sony is the market leader, they can deep fry babies and still receive a positive spin. I love my PS2 as much as the next guy (actually, most likely significantly more than that unfeeling bastard), but there is a time and place to express my love and that place is not in a news story.
Of course, when this issue arose, I couldn't actually think of any specifics. Isn't that always the case? You know you're right about something but damned if you're not just spouting "It's true I tell you!" over and over again. Thankfully, 1up.com was kind enough to offer a perfect example of Sony bias in the press. Now remember, 1up is a reputable gaming site. They are probably the 3rd largest, behind only Gamespot and IGN; and are only that low because they haven't been around as long. You should also note that the URL I am going to link to actually has the words "newstory" right in it, so don't try to pass this off as an editorial. Here's the article, but I'm just going to paste the whole thing since it's small and no one clicks links anyway.
"In spite of Sony's sticking to their story about the spring launch, the doubts keep mushrooming among industry analysts and members of the press. Forbes.com is the latest to weigh in on whether the PS3 can really launch in the timeframe set by the company.
Is the news making investors a bit nervous? Not really. This is, after all, the behemoth Sony we're talking about. Since last week, when the latest round of rumors started, Sony's stock has dipped slightly, but is trading as of this report at a respectable 46.65, not far below the 52-week high of 51.16.
It surely rankles Sony to have to wait while Microsoft fulfills 360 orders, but they're in no danger of losing the console war."
Ok, let's just scan this for horrible reporting errors. 1up claims this news hasn't hurt Sony's stock, and yet I see a rather dramatic drop. In the beginning of February Sony's stock was over 50. Then the rumors of a delay started circulating. Now the stock is at about 46. I may not be a math major, but that's a 10% drop since these rumors hit. Seems pretty significant to me. Can you imagine if Bungie announced that Halo 3 was delayed until the end of 2007 and Microsoft's stock dipped 10%? Do you think news agencies would be saying it "dipped slightly?" I think not.
Furthermore, and this is what really boils my potato, 1up actually said "they're in no danger of losing the console war." Are you serious? Sony is in no danger? They have sold 0 next generation systems whereas Microsoft has sold over 500,000. Nintendo has introduced a revolutionary new system that is going to be significantly cheaper than the competition. They are also going to market to casual and non-gamers, a strategy that has made the Nintendo DS a colossal success and nearly impossible to obtain in Japan. The PS3 has shown almost no game footage, has no online network that we know of, and will most likely cost $400, if not more. Plus, it may be delayed until 2007. And yet 1up thinks they are in no danger of losing the console war? How is this objective news reporting?
Of course, when this issue arose, I couldn't actually think of any specifics. Isn't that always the case? You know you're right about something but damned if you're not just spouting "It's true I tell you!" over and over again. Thankfully, 1up.com was kind enough to offer a perfect example of Sony bias in the press. Now remember, 1up is a reputable gaming site. They are probably the 3rd largest, behind only Gamespot and IGN; and are only that low because they haven't been around as long. You should also note that the URL I am going to link to actually has the words "newstory" right in it, so don't try to pass this off as an editorial. Here's the article, but I'm just going to paste the whole thing since it's small and no one clicks links anyway.
"In spite of Sony's sticking to their story about the spring launch, the doubts keep mushrooming among industry analysts and members of the press. Forbes.com is the latest to weigh in on whether the PS3 can really launch in the timeframe set by the company.
Is the news making investors a bit nervous? Not really. This is, after all, the behemoth Sony we're talking about. Since last week, when the latest round of rumors started, Sony's stock has dipped slightly, but is trading as of this report at a respectable 46.65, not far below the 52-week high of 51.16.
It surely rankles Sony to have to wait while Microsoft fulfills 360 orders, but they're in no danger of losing the console war."
Ok, let's just scan this for horrible reporting errors. 1up claims this news hasn't hurt Sony's stock, and yet I see a rather dramatic drop. In the beginning of February Sony's stock was over 50. Then the rumors of a delay started circulating. Now the stock is at about 46. I may not be a math major, but that's a 10% drop since these rumors hit. Seems pretty significant to me. Can you imagine if Bungie announced that Halo 3 was delayed until the end of 2007 and Microsoft's stock dipped 10%? Do you think news agencies would be saying it "dipped slightly?" I think not.
Furthermore, and this is what really boils my potato, 1up actually said "they're in no danger of losing the console war." Are you serious? Sony is in no danger? They have sold 0 next generation systems whereas Microsoft has sold over 500,000. Nintendo has introduced a revolutionary new system that is going to be significantly cheaper than the competition. They are also going to market to casual and non-gamers, a strategy that has made the Nintendo DS a colossal success and nearly impossible to obtain in Japan. The PS3 has shown almost no game footage, has no online network that we know of, and will most likely cost $400, if not more. Plus, it may be delayed until 2007. And yet 1up thinks they are in no danger of losing the console war? How is this objective news reporting?
Monday, February 20, 2006
If Full Auto were a flavour of gum...
I must apologize for ignoring G-Pinions for the last two weeks. Unfortunately, since I am an English major and all my classes fall into that category, there are stretches where I feel dirty writing anything other than the assigned papers. While I spend more time avoiding all actual work whatsoever, as the deadline approaches I am even less likely to write about my favorite pastime because, seriously, I should at least get started. Ironically enough, I am typing this post two hours before my paper on French-turned-American-turned-Indian-turn-whatever Crevecoeur is to be handed in, yet it is still unfinished. However, I have restrained myself long enough, so J. Hector will just have to wait in its unfinished state while I talk about another in a long line of post-launch crappy Xbox 360 titles.
That may not be a fair designation. I widely exaggerated with the use of "long." Full Auto, featuring the song Fully Automatic, is only the second game to grace this sleek console since Perfect Dark, Kameo and all the rest burst on to the scene along with one or two actual systems to buy way back in November. I can't remember if I actually played Dead or Alive 4 or merely watched Nick for a few matches, but I can say with full faith that it is another worthless, shallow entry in the shockingly still relevant series, at least to those who have not yet played Soul Calibur. Unfortunately, Full Auto had only a marginally better chance of being a title worthy of my time than Team Ninja's latest flashy entry, and while it did offer a more fulfilling experience, it is hardly one that should usurp your time with Marble Blast Ultra or Geometry Wars.
I can imagine the head of Sega, who personally petitioned Wrigley or Extra or whoever actually made this game, saying "We need a shallow, forgettable title that we can release during the post-launch lull. How about something like Burnout except with guns?" Assuming that's how the conversation went, I can assure you that Eclipse (the real developer) missed their mark by quite a bit. Yes, there are guns present, but when you're racing on the same three tracks over and over again while slamming on the boost button to coax your odometer past 60MPH, I consider this a piss poor imitator of one of the most frantic racers out there.
For those who have played Full Auto, you're probably wondering why I am being so harsh towards this average title. Well, in this day and age, with so many titles available for less than $20, with a backlog of games on a short list of Best Games Ever, with next generation gaming in full swing, it's hard to respect such a weak effort. Yes, it is fun. It's an arcade-y, violent racing game. It controls decently well and looks like a really good Xbox title. But why should I play this when Burnout: Takedown is already out? The video game industry, coming off its best year in history, has reached a point when a solid though uninspired effort like Full Auto simply has to be forgotten and tossed aside immediately. There simply is no room for titles that are less than great anymore. With the PS2 hovering six inches off the ground at all times as it is dusted with thick coat of angel juice, the Nintendo DS offering amazing software on a consistent basis, and the PSP finally coming into its own, why would anyone spend $60 on this bland imitator? The Xbox 360 already has enough quality titles to make it impossible for any sane individual to justify a purchase of this game. You mean to tell me you played through Perfect Dark, Kameo, King Kong, Call of Duty 2, Condemned and Project Gothem Racing? You've already embarrassed your friends with your Geometry Wars score? You've beaten the ridiculous time requirements in Marble Blast Ultra and got a black gem in Hexic XD? Even if you answer "yes" to all of those questions, you still have no reason to buy this game. Have you not looked at the March release list? Do the words Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter mean anything to you? How about The Outfit and Oblivion?
I understand it's silly to review a game by just listing why you shouldn't play it rather than an honest critique of what's inside, but Full Auto just isn't worth the effort. If the world was truly run by the most intelligent beings on the planet, FA would sell zero copies and Eclipse Games would be forced to suspend all production until they come up with a worthwhile concept. Maybe every game can't be the jaw dropping experience I crave, but wasting my time with games that will only exist as trivia questions in the future because they are so darn trivial simply doesn't make any sense to me anymore. If you're not creating your own genre or at least improving on what's already out there, I have no idea why you're wasting my time with your existence.
That may not be a fair designation. I widely exaggerated with the use of "long." Full Auto, featuring the song Fully Automatic, is only the second game to grace this sleek console since Perfect Dark, Kameo and all the rest burst on to the scene along with one or two actual systems to buy way back in November. I can't remember if I actually played Dead or Alive 4 or merely watched Nick for a few matches, but I can say with full faith that it is another worthless, shallow entry in the shockingly still relevant series, at least to those who have not yet played Soul Calibur. Unfortunately, Full Auto had only a marginally better chance of being a title worthy of my time than Team Ninja's latest flashy entry, and while it did offer a more fulfilling experience, it is hardly one that should usurp your time with Marble Blast Ultra or Geometry Wars.
I can imagine the head of Sega, who personally petitioned Wrigley or Extra or whoever actually made this game, saying "We need a shallow, forgettable title that we can release during the post-launch lull. How about something like Burnout except with guns?" Assuming that's how the conversation went, I can assure you that Eclipse (the real developer) missed their mark by quite a bit. Yes, there are guns present, but when you're racing on the same three tracks over and over again while slamming on the boost button to coax your odometer past 60MPH, I consider this a piss poor imitator of one of the most frantic racers out there.
For those who have played Full Auto, you're probably wondering why I am being so harsh towards this average title. Well, in this day and age, with so many titles available for less than $20, with a backlog of games on a short list of Best Games Ever, with next generation gaming in full swing, it's hard to respect such a weak effort. Yes, it is fun. It's an arcade-y, violent racing game. It controls decently well and looks like a really good Xbox title. But why should I play this when Burnout: Takedown is already out? The video game industry, coming off its best year in history, has reached a point when a solid though uninspired effort like Full Auto simply has to be forgotten and tossed aside immediately. There simply is no room for titles that are less than great anymore. With the PS2 hovering six inches off the ground at all times as it is dusted with thick coat of angel juice, the Nintendo DS offering amazing software on a consistent basis, and the PSP finally coming into its own, why would anyone spend $60 on this bland imitator? The Xbox 360 already has enough quality titles to make it impossible for any sane individual to justify a purchase of this game. You mean to tell me you played through Perfect Dark, Kameo, King Kong, Call of Duty 2, Condemned and Project Gothem Racing? You've already embarrassed your friends with your Geometry Wars score? You've beaten the ridiculous time requirements in Marble Blast Ultra and got a black gem in Hexic XD? Even if you answer "yes" to all of those questions, you still have no reason to buy this game. Have you not looked at the March release list? Do the words Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter mean anything to you? How about The Outfit and Oblivion?
I understand it's silly to review a game by just listing why you shouldn't play it rather than an honest critique of what's inside, but Full Auto just isn't worth the effort. If the world was truly run by the most intelligent beings on the planet, FA would sell zero copies and Eclipse Games would be forced to suspend all production until they come up with a worthwhile concept. Maybe every game can't be the jaw dropping experience I crave, but wasting my time with games that will only exist as trivia questions in the future because they are so darn trivial simply doesn't make any sense to me anymore. If you're not creating your own genre or at least improving on what's already out there, I have no idea why you're wasting my time with your existence.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]