Keep Playing, It Might Get Better

I often questioned my motivations for making my way through the entirety of Prey. I knew it was awful the moment I stepped through the asshole - so why did I keep playing? Was it to write a complete and fair review? Was it because I had been waiting along with everyone else for the last eleven years? Motivations for playing a game can vary from genuine interest to just wanting to kill some time. But what about playing a bad game? Is that reserved for the masochist, the same person who spends time reading bad weblogs? My latest article at the Cultural Gutter tries to explain.

Prey: don't fear the reaper

But make no mistake, Prey is a long way off. "Sometime in '98" were the exact words of the developers. - from Gamespot's 1997 preview

Prey is late, but the gaming press has been oddly forgiving. Originally announced in 1995 and intended to be 3D Realms' follow-up to Duke Nukem 3D, it has seen a very troubled development cycle. It may not have promised to make us its bitch, but I would have expected a lot more than an overly-simplistic shooter that lets you turn into a ghost to walk through forcefields and takes less than eight hours to complete. The reviews may not be outright favorable, but the game receives a passing grade because it may just be the only big-ticket title released at a time when new games are a rare occurence. It also manages to make the most of the Doom 3 engine, even though the end result bears more than a passing resemblance to the other two games to use the engine. I expected a lot more analysis of a game that's taken over 10 years to materialize.

Note: this review tells you what happens in the game. If that doesn't bother you, go ahead and keep reading.

Valve is the new Blizzard

In a collective wank heard around the world, the new look for Team Fortress 2 and a trailer for Portal were fawned upon by the gaming masses. Never mind the impending release of Half Life 2: Episode Two that they are being packaged with. The visual style of Team Fortress 2 is certainly original - nobody wants another edgy, hardcore war simulator that seems to be all the rage lately. But what continues to astonish me is how selective the memory of the gaming press is when it comes to long promised, often delayed titles. Team Fortress 2 has been in development since 1999. Meanwhile, industry whipping boys like Duke Nukem Forever are dragged out at every possible opportunity.

My initial reaction to Portal was less cynical; in fact, I remember uttering "holy living fuck" at least once during the presentation. But then I realized that Portal is just an elaborate way of telling us that "noclip" is turned on by default. Nevertheless, the "portal gun" is the new gravity gun, which will no doubt bring its own assortment of followers in the years to come.

"It's hedgerows."

Last weekend we had a LAN party at Colin's place. It's been almost one and a half years since the last gathering I organized and participated in, which is a strong indicator of the time people have on the weekends to dedicate entirely to gaming. Of course there's the whole "make time for your hobby" defense, but tell that to someone who's married and juggling families and/or care of their kids. It's not easy. It's no wonder MMORPGs and other online-only games are so popular - you can play with others at your leisure, and not have to worry about the hassle of moving your computer (only to find out it won't boot).

The original plan was to play Unreal Tournament 2004 and Call of Duty 2, with SWAT 4 available to those who were interested in experiencing the slow, methodical action within. There was an open challenge in Dawn of War to anyone who dared to confront my deadly Eldar strategy, but that never happened. After about two hours of technical problems - including the wholesale replacement of Tony's computer - we were absorbed by the fast and furious action of Unreal Tournament 2004. That only lasted a couple of hours, though. After everyone had installed Call of Duty 2, it became the one game we would play for the rest of the night.

As I noted in my review, I was disappointed at the lack of any real improvements over its predecessor aside from technical ones. Nevertheless, the one thing I hated most about the single-player experience made multiplayer a much more satisfying experience.

The ability to regenerate health by taking cover seemed like such a mistake in a World War II shooter, and cheapened the whole experience for me. However in multiplayer, the lack of a health bar makes you think differently about how you approach the action. You're no longer fighting against script-controlled bots, you're fighting against humans who can follow you into that hiding space and finish the job. Running headlong into a firefight will always result in death. In fact, I don't remember a single time where I was able to regenerate my health due to the constant barrage of gunfire from all directions (and campers on their comfortable perches). The firefights were often chaotic and only separated by the time it took for people to find you. Call of Duty 2 made me dread being the one holding the enemy flag.

Where UT2004 relied on reflexes, often resulting in a frustrating number of deaths for the inexperienced, Call of Duty 2 was a little more flexible in the way it relies just as much on positioning. The weapons in UT2004 are deadly accurate, and a straight line of sight between you and your opponent was usually enough to score a kill with the right weapon. Call of Duty 2, on the other hand, adopts a more "realistic" approach to gunplay, and there is a noticable drop in accuracy in many of the weapons the farther away you got. This meant that spraying down an area with your Thompson or MP40 might only wound your opponent, whereas the slow-loading rifles would guarantee a shot - if you could set it up properly. Running and shooting a rifle rarely worked. I wouldn't call this implementation of WW2 combat as genuine as Day of Defeat's, but it was pretty close. Kneeling would provide more accuracy, as would using the ironsights instead of the aiming reticle. I learned to loathe the trench-clearing gun, essentially a shotgun to be used by the unskilled.

All of these elements combined made the victories in Call of Duty 2 a lot more gratifying; the matches weren't the tornadoes of rockets and translocators of UT2004. But it wasn't a "thinking" FPS experience, either, because the strategies were still mostly about running and shooting. Perhaps it was not knowing when you'd be dealt the killing shot, by sniper or by sidearm in your quest to retrieve the flag. Coupled with the time delay for respawns, it made player deaths actually mean something in a team-based encounter, knowing that you'd be unavailable for precious seconds instead of immediately dropping back into the arena. The gameplay was tense, riveting and prone to inducing bouts of foul language. It was fucking fun.

the stetchkov syndicate

The third mission in SWAT 4: The Stetchkov Syndicate is a perfectly clear example what the game is all about: decision making under pressure. The mission puts you in charge of defusing a hostage situation involving a group of armed maniacs that stormed an auditorium intent on ridding the world of devil-worshipping rock stars. I had approached the stage from the rear with Blue Team backing me up, only to see that one of the perpetrators had taken a band member by gunpoint. I had Red Team come through another entrance to gas the backstage area, but this had no effect. On a catwalk above the stage, another gunman who spotted the standoff opened fire on me and my team. Blue Team returned the fire, killing him - this startled the man with the hostage. My team and I urged the man to surrender. Clearly aggravated, he turned to what he felt was his only option: he shot his hostage and ran offstage. An innocent dies, and a mission fails. SWAT 4 puts a lot of power in your hands as the player. The control of two fire teams to assist in neutralizing hostiles and the arsenal of high-powered automatic weapons to do it with; the ability to preserve life and the power to take it.

teaching the value of human life

Once again I'm exploring SWAT 4, a game that is in need of more attention than it ever got in the year since its release. This time it's in the context of one of the most powerful choices the game offers players: do you take the life of a criminal or do you subdue them? Do you run the risk of killing your entire team because you assumed the last gunman would give himself up? It's an essential part of the strategy presented in SWAT 4 and its recent expansion, and this feature is unfortunately drowned out by the game's more marketable contemporaries. This month's article at The Cultural Gutter reveals why some games don't teach killing, but how it can be avoided.

the hunted

Is Metroid Prime: Hunters really the best first person shooter for a handheld? More than likely, even though it's probably the only one in the eyes of the average gamer. Some people seem to forget that both Doom and Doom 2 were released on the GBA just a couple of years ago, not to mention the countless number of homebrewed Doom and Quake ports on portable devices. As a finely tuned FPS, Metroid Prime: Hunters certainly delivers what you would expect, carrying over elements from the Gamecube versions that made them some of the best games I've ever played. The controls are suprisingly easy to get used to, but the lack of custom configurations is limiting for those that aren't huge fans of the touch screen and default button assignments for Right and Left handed players. The aiming and "mouselook" with the Thumb-strap felt completely natural as someone who plays FPS on the PC regularly, and I'm impressed how easily this control scheme has been adapted for the DS. As a result, the multiplayer feels fast and action-heavy, and a lot like playing Quake III Arena. The race for the big weapons and bunny hopping to dodge rockets is usually most players' default strategy. The fact that it plays so well without me realizing I'm using a handheld is evidence enough that Hunters has managed to make full use of the DS' abilities. But that's where some reviews seem to end. What about the game?

Black: a first person shooter

There is a science in creating an edgy title for a game. Despite its simplicity, I'm positive that a lot of thought went into the name for Black. It's a first person shooter with big guns and destructable environments - definitely appealing to the average gamer. Well, the ones that didn't already play Red Faction anyway. Developers Criterion needed to keep it short and simple, so that no one will forget it easily. Like Halo. Except they have to make it darker sounding, because this game is about killing and blowing shit up. So what's a dark word? Blood. It's already taken. Sin. Nope, that's gone too. Wait a second - Black. What's darker than "Black"? I mean it's black - darkness in a word. The shade of gunmetal. The heart of a mercenary. Perfect!

Now, about the actual game.

The Xbox version was pretty easy to pick up and play, because the control scheme is an exact duplicate of Halo. The demo I played dropped me into the middle of a building on a decimated city block. Shattered glass exploded all around me with the sound of gunfire drawing closer. I blew open the door with my shotgun and ran out into the street. I must have surprised my enemies because they didn't fire at first; though don't think I was able to get the drop on everyone. Bullets ejected from windows on the upper levels of buildings nearby and peppered the street in front of me. I threw a grenade into a nearby wrecked car that someone was using for cover and it exploded in suitable movie-styled fashion, bringing down a nearby wall.

I then rushed headlong into the next group of enemies with my AK-47 blazing, the shell casings decorating the bottom half of the screen. All of the weapons so far felt substantial and responsive, with the accompanying sounds strengthening the effect. I felt tough. I felt untouchable. I was soon entranced by the dull roar of gunfire.

But what was I doing here? Was the objective simply "kill or be killed"? Are we really still at the point where that's reason enough to keep playing a first person shooter?

From what I've read the game is one of the shortest in recent memory. Like the name. I guess the devs wanted to distract you until it was too late, to prevent you from thinking that the game you have been playing for the last 8 hours didn't have a story. Or worse - that it was not anything of consequence in the genre.

Call of Duty 2: Scripting the Battlefields of World War II

As someone who did everything short of rubbing myself with the box for Call of Duty, my opinions about about what the war shooter genre should be aiming for were dramatically changed after playing Brothers in Arms: The Road to Hill 30 last year. With sequels to both games hitting stores at around the same time last Fall, I made a point of checking out Call of Duty 2 to see if Infinity Ward was adding anything to their award-winning formula. Regrettably, I got the distinct feeling that it was a step backwards when contrasted against my experiences with Brothers in Arms. Or perhaps more accurately, Call of Duty 2 is simply running on the spot.

A Just War

What is the allure of the World War 2 shooter, exactly? As someone who's unapologetic about supporting this genre, it's a topic I enjoy exploring. You know, instead of just sitting around and complaining about how many were released last week (and by the way, that joke never gets old). Obviously there's something about them that resonates with gamer culture, though I'm sure with casual gamers to a greater degree as they are only exposed to the ones that get the most hype. And developers still manage to come up with new ideas for interactive war experiences, because they keep selling. An article I wrote over at The Cultural Gutter attempts to coalesce some of these thoughts.

Also, from this point on I'll be supplying material once a month for the video games section at the Gutter. Though I don't expect this to affect anything around here.

Day of Defeat

So I finally got to play Day of Defeat after almost 5 years.

I never really got into the mod scene for Half Life when it was out - Counter Strike was as far as I ventured into that territory, and after experiencing that for a while it was almost enough to turn me off of multiplayer FPS forever. You had to keep playing to maintain your skills; it was impossible to keep up.

The long overdue update to the original Day of Defeat mod came out late last year to very little fanfare. I think the launch of Half Life 2 Deathmatch (a free multiplayer add-on) got more attention because of the ability to use the Gravity Gun. This past weekend, Valve opened up Day of Defeat: Source to try for free. I think this pissed off a lot of veteran DoD players.

"Yay, we lost again."
"Fucking freebies…"
"teh awsum!!!1"
"Stop saying that!"
"noob!"
"omg this sucks."
[Disconnected by user]

Colorful community aside, Day of Defeat: Source offers a well planned selection of maps, including noticeably different tactical options in each. Matches are won by the team who is in possession of all the control points on a map, which are represented by flags. The U.S. Army and Wehrmacht have six classes, each fairly well balanced and serving a necessary role on each team. The Machine-Gunner, for example, would never run around firing their weapon, but instead sets up near control points to act as a defense that does greater amounts of damage. One thing I noticed is Valve's attention to realism on this game: you cannot run around a fire a weapon at the same time and expect to maintain any kind of accuracy. You must kneel, go prone, or run the risk of dying when you run into a room with your Thompson or MP40 blazing. In that sense, Day of Defeat imparts a framework for those willing to develop careful strategies for offense and defense. Though in my 8 hours with the game I never once saw this happen; there was more running after frag counts or stepping into an obvious line of fire, undoubtedly a result of the overbearing ratio of new players to experienced ones.

It's only $19.95 US to buy, but for an online-only game that doesn't offer much else than standard deathmatching - well, deathmatching with the capture of control points - I'm hard pressed to think of any reason why I'd keep playing. Both the original Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2 and of course Battlefield 1942 offer the same type of play - albeit in a lighter, fluffier arcade style - and they all have the lonely option of playing with…yourself. It's something that's sorely lacking from a fast paced game such as this, where practice can make all the difference between fun and unbridled frustration.

game of the year 2005: SWAT 4

SWAT 4 is a masterpiece of the tactical first-person shooter genre. It is also the best game that was released in 2005.

Halo gets 2D treatment

I'm not big a fan of Halo by any means, but when I saw the announcement for Halo Zero, I knew I had to check it out. This isn't the first time a beloved FPS has had a dimension removed: nuclear vision's Codename: Gordon was based on Half Life. Of course, the Codename: Gordon project was officially sanctioned by Valve and was the first game available through Steam. Whether Microsoft opts to take any legal action over this fan-created platformer remains to be seen.

In terms of gameplay, Halo Zero takes everything familiar to players of the XBox version and translates them directly: the recharging health meter, the Covenant's many plasma weapons, the Warthog - and all with their original sound effects. It's great fun, and like Codename: Gordon and Abuse before it, the mouse is integrated perfectly into the action. While the game's developers say this is the "Final" version, there are still a number of small bugs to be found (such as a finnicky weapon swap), and the game's resolution makes the art look worse than it should. Still, the bright, colorful graphics and campy cutscenes brought me back to the days of the Genesis and SNES. Though don't kid yourself - it doesn't provide the fast paced arcade action of Gunstar Heroes or Metal Slug, but instead offers an enjoyable diversion that's more novelty than anything else.

some candy talking

quake 4: leftover nightmares

The opening cinematic of Quake 4 pans across the back of a lone space marine, visible against the vast openness of space. The view rotates, and I was shown the marine's face, half of which has been removed exposing the grinning skull beneath. The numerous bodies of other space marines float past the virtual camera amongst the remnants of a space cruiser, foreshadowing the bloodshed that will undoubtedly take place on the battlefields of the planet below.

they hunger again

I recently learned that Neil Manke, famed designer of the mods USS Darkstar and the They Hunger series of zombie-slaying mods for the original Half Life, is at work on a new mod for Source called They Hunger: Lost Souls. There are some screens up, but to be honest they don't look that different from the Ravenholm sequence in Half-Life 2. One thing I remember about They Hunger is the difficulty - like the original Resident Evil, you'd be screaming at yourself for wasting bullets while zombies continue to shamble towards you. It was also clear that Manke spent a lot of time developing a tangible feeling of dread behind his well-designed maps. In a Q&A following the new mod's official announcement, Manke assures gamers that this isn't a continuation of the trilogy, but a brand new game that takes advantage of the unique gameplay aspects that have become available by using the Source engine. It will likely be offered as a paid product through Steam, adding to the growing number of independently developed modifications for Half Life 2.

Hellgate opened

Putting aside all nostalgia surrounding LucasArts adventures, Diablo II is the best game I have ever played. Including the expansion, I was completely enveloped in its womb of kill-reward gameplay for about 2 years, caring little to interact with humans on Battle.Net and instead opting to grind my way to a complete set of Sigon's Complete Steel. Blizzard North effectively established the model for action RPGs, and the only thing that's come close since is probably World of Warcraft. Or maybe Guild Wars, if it wasn't so...instanced. When Bill Roper announced the creation of Flagship Studios, which was to be made up of a number of ex-Blizzard North developers, I was intrigued. Soon after, Namco was named as publisher of their first project, known only as an RPG. All eyes turned to Flagship. Would someone finally get a Diablo clone right?

One of the reasons for forming Flagship was that Roper was tired of Diablo. I don't blame the guy; aside from a much bigger game, and better items, they weren't really challenged to develop anything beyond the original game's basic concepts. Enter Hellgate: London, Flagship's mystery RPG that according to Flagship's Erich Schaefer, will "blaze a new trail and not simply create clones of our past successes." Sounds like a great idea. I'm always up for a little innovation.

Except.

I saw the screens, and I became immediately terrified. Not because they were scary, either. I saw a clone of Doom 3. Doom 3 was criticized for it's very bland monster design, and I see it here. Even the story has hints of the same: a portal to Hell (Hellgate!) opens in London (London?), a subsequent demon invasion, and then the human race sends out a one man army for damage control. It's getting ridiculous.

Where Flagship is careful to make the distinction, though, are the randomized items and maps that will supposedly increase the replay value. This "item centric" gameplay will encourage the player to collect new weapons and equipment to outfit themselves against the demon horde, though I find it hard to believe this is a selling feature in 2005. The weapons themselves are also being described as "spell delivery systems" as opposed to "guns" in the traditional FPS sense. And being an RPG, Hellgate: London will take into account player and weapon stats, with a small part being played by actual player skill. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines did this with firearms, but combat was more of a distraction than a core part of the game. The excellent story and character interaction were why I kept playing. It doesn't sound like Hellgate is offering the same, but there is a significant amount of questing that will move gameplay along so I'll reserve my judgement on that point.

The randomized levels are also a bit peculiar. Why? Is it a carry-over from the Diablo days, where critics praised the notion of never adventuring into the same dungeon twice? I can't see how this method of level creation will support continuous gameplay. The graphics engine was apparently created in-house, and when you're dealing with 3D there will naturally be loading screens. Part of what made Diablo II so easy to play for hours at a time was that gameplay wasn't broken up by the game loading the next area.

The character classes are also touted as being fully customizable, but there isn't nearly enough information on that now (ie. number, types, etc.). Compared against other FPSRPGs like Deus Ex or Morrowind, expectations naturally run pretty high. Character customization and development will be what makes this game worth playing, because I care little about shooting demons after playing Doom 3.

I'm seeing a lot of information out there now that follows the standard PR fluff routine in preparation for E3. A few screens, a few vague details about what the game is about, and hints of a fully playable version on the exhibit floor. That's all well and good for Flagship, because I doubt I'm the only one that was curious to see what they were up to. That being said I can't help but feel an overwhelming sense of loss. It's great that Flagship are trying something different, because in today's gaming market that doesn't usually get you very far unless you've got a track record or hot property to back it up. Sure, I can support a little innovation, but part of me wanted that isometric clickfest.

like my first time that I caught fire

another medal

A recent interview at Gamespot shows that EA changed the name of their upcoming console only WWII shooter from the previously advertised "Dogs of War" to "European Assault". The reason for the change is unknown, though one can only guess at EA's logic behind replacing an unoriginal title with something more benign, yet equally bland. Also in this interview with military advisor Captain Dale Dye of the US Marine Corps (Ret.), Gamespot announces his likeness will be in the game as an NPC you fight alongside in one of the missions. Anyone familiar with military movies should recognize Capt. Dye, as he has been involved as a military advisor and actor with Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and as recently as Alexander. Video games are nothing new for him either, as he helped develop the original concept of Medal of Honor shortly after working with Steven Spielberg on Saving Private Ryan.

Even if the intent of this article is to simply develop interest in the title, the release date is awfully close and I still don't know why I should be playing European Assault. It's nice to see that Capt. Dye is being honored with such a treatment after his long involvement with the series, but that's hardly a reason. I've played Brothers in Arms, and I know this formula can be improved. Is Medal of Honor destined to be the next Madden, shoveled out yearly with minimal improvements? I find it funny that Captain Dye says that the series has always been about realism. Allied Assault definitely succeeded in capturing the cinematic feel of Saving Private Ryan, and that's what made it so engrossing. But that selling point is wearing a bit thin, and I still consider Call of Duty a finer game than last year's Pacific Assault. Though my peers assuage this is hardly a genre to worry about, I still believe there is both educational and entertainment value left to be obtained.

vivendi scrapes off tribes vengeance

I can't say I've put much emotional investment into the Tribes franchise, but when I heard that Vivendi Universal had cancelled the forthcoming patch for Tribes: Vengeance, and effectively dropped all support for the game, I was a bit troubled. After surfing the community forum I found out that some poor sap in marketing had actually told everyone that the patch was being worked on only a couple of days earlier. Needless to say this pissed a few people off.

While I wasn't that impressed with what the demo had to offer, this is no way for a game to die after only six months of shelf time. The "Tribes" brand is a landmark in online gaming, and a move like this completely ruins its possible future, both for the fans and as a profitable series. There was much negativity in the responses to the cancellation, the most prominent (and predictable) being the boycott of all Vivendi Universal products. The more passionate but level headed complained that this game shouldn't have been released in the first place, as it wasn't even fit to be called "Tribes". I agree for the most part, because it felt too much like a modification for Unreal Tournament. Tribes was never known for its fast paced, close quarters battles and lone wolf style gameplay.

Shortly after the news of the patch cancellation, the development team behind Renegades, a Tribes modification, announced they would be leaving the Tribes: Vengeance engine behind and joining forces with the Legends team, who have designed a "Tribes-like" game based on the Torque engine that was used for Tribes 2. In this regard, the "unofficial" future of Tribes is in the hands of some dedicated fans, perhaps at the price of falling into obscurity.

swat 4: compliance is your only option

SWAT 4 successfully integrates a fluid interface, real time tactics and a completely believable simulation. And like its predecessor, it's a welcome change from the tactical shooters that typically let you shoot first and ask questions later.

The SWAT series has changed form three times since its first release as Daryl F. Gates Police Quest: SWAT, a spin-off of Sierra's recognized adventure brand. Tacking on Gates' name to the title would add credibility, as the former Los Angeles police chief basically invented the whole SWAT (special weapons and tactics) concept and had a hand in the game's design - though it ended up as some kind of one-man FMV adventure. SWAT 2 would take an isometric real-time strategy approach, introducing more of an action element to the game but also allowing you to control an entire squad. Finally, SWAT 3: Close Quarters Battle would arrive after Rainbow Six established a new genre: the tactical first person shooter. Sharing similar design elements, SWAT 3 would still hold its own as a fairly realistic interpretation of these elite police units.

I played SWAT 3 shortly after I completed Eagle Watch, the first expansion for Rainbow Six. The inability to completely plan a mission beforehand made me extra cautious in my approach to the gameplay, because in SWAT you were dropped into a mission and had to deal with tactical situations as they happened - you were never informed of how many adversaries you were facing or their last known locations. The situations were often chaotic, and the civilians weren't always being held at gunpoint - they would sometimes be running around just trying to get to safety, creating a highly distracting battlefield.

I liked that you were able communicate directly with the aggressors: yelling such things as "drop your weapon!", "Stay down!" or "hands in the air", sometimes causing them to open fire. Though they would occasionally comply, allowing you or one of your squad mates to approach and restrain them. It was an obvious movie-like interpretation of this kind of police work, but it allowed every mission to unfold in a believable manner, where not every guy with a gun in his hand was necessarily a threatening target.

Along with a new engine adapted from Irrational's Tribes Vengeance, all of these elements are back in SWAT 4. Though where the game really impresses me is the interface. It fosters a completely seamless experience where the novice can issue "default" commands as the situation applies, or the experienced can delve deeper into the on-screen context sensitive drop down menu and issue a particular command to be executed. Moreover, the interface seems to be designed to let you sit back and let your team do all the work, allowing the player to effectively become the leader. The team AI is very adept in this regard - the only time a team member was incapacitated was because of my carelessness, after I asked them to run into a room without using proper breach and clear tactics. The enemy AI is also unpredictable - rarely will they immediately open fire, and this causes you to approach each possible hostile with caution instead of running nonchalantly through the mission, finger poised on the "Fire" button.

Though this is all seen through the eyes of a fan of SWAT 3; I would hardly call the mission selected for the demo exciting. This may be detrimental for prospective newcomers, and that's a damn shame. In SWAT 3 and the first two Rainbow Six games, reconaissance and non-deadly force missions were always part of the package, conveying the message that to "win" doesn't mean putting a bullet in the enemy. Though sound in their presentation of tactics, games like Full Spectrum Warrior and Close Combat: First to Fight are putting less of an emphasis on enemy apprehension or de-armament and instead opt for simple neutralization - adapting the aforementioned mentality of shooting first and asking questions later. It's nice to know SWAT 4 is taking a more civilized approach, even though the game essentially revolves around the same "player versus the bad guy" model. I'm fully aware of what's happening to the Rainbow Six series, so I'm glad that Irrational has taken care in trying to reproduce what made SWAT 3 so enjoyable. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the full version this April.

the regiment

In my haste to name the squad tactical shooters to be released this year, I seem to have overlooked Konami Europe's The Regiment for the PS2 and PC. The Regiment will introduce gamers to the world of Britain's SAS counter-terrorist force, which became world renowned in the televised takedown of the Iranian embassy in London in 1980. Powered by the Unreal engine (and making obvious allowances for the PS2), The Regiment will intermix fictional missions with a re-enactment of the famous operation at the embassy. I'm glad to see a developer examining this subject, as the inspiration for this genre has traditionally been very U.S.-centric.

attack of the commando clones

With Republic Commando, Close Combat: First to Fight, Brothers in Arms, Rainbow Six: Lockdown and SWAT 4 all arriving in the next couple of months, PC gaming appears to be fixated on squad tactical shooters for the moment. Which is fine by me, as long as they're offering something more than genre lip service.

I guess it wasn't much of a stretch for LucasArts to develop its own take on the genre with Republic Commando: take the nameless, faceless clone troopers from Episode II: Attack of the Clones and put them in close combat engagements, picking and choosing from the featuresets of games to come before it, and creating what can only be called a mediocre first person shooter.

I downloaded the demo last week after hearing a mixed bag of opinions. I was interested to see if LucasArts could tackle the squad tactics genre on its own, as this would be the first Star Wars game in some time that was actually developed-in house. The first thing I noticed was only one of the four squad members actually sounded like Temuera Morrison (Jango Fett). They also had their own "nicknames", and different personalities. I thought they were supposed to be a cross section of an army of clones? Why get tied up in things like "cameraderie" and "sassy one liners" when you're essentially a one man army multiplied a thousand times?

LucasArts definitely took some liberties with the character design, but everything ended up looking like Galactic Heroes. Of course, it's up to the player whether they like this interpretation or not. As someone who enjoys employing precision tactics when facing my enemy, I'd rather not be looking at a chunky, obtrusive interface and even chunkier avatars. I'm really not a fan of the "visor view" either, and in my mind it goes down in history with the likes of Deus Ex: Invisible War's HUD. I can only imagine what this view will be like in Rainbow Six: Lockdown.

I liked the way squad commands felt intuitive, but I wouldn't call it tactics. It doesn't require any real problem solving by the player: simply mousing over points on the map will show "hot" areas, or actions a squad member can complete. Clicking on these points will issue the associated command, but it's not like you get the option of storming a room with thermal detonators or sneaking in quietly. The objectives and their solutions are completely transparent. In the demo's mission, Republic Commando does a good job of making you feel surrounded and overwhelmed, but I never feared for my life. There's a pretty good chance when you go down with 0 health a squad mate will be by to heal you up with seemingly unlimited medkits.

All the weapons felt insubstantial, like toys. I've played Star Wars FPS before, and I know what a repeater blaster should "feel" like. I also find it hard to believe that every character has the entire Republic arsenal at their disposal. Wouldn't it make more sense for the squad to have a Heavy Blaster unit, a sniper unit and a support unit? That way your men become indispensable - not interchangeable. In the face of existing and soon to be released squad tactical shooters, the whole game feels like a toy. More like squad tactical action figures.

The biggest thing this game has going for it is that it's suprisingly polished given LucasArts' past foray into 3D. Perhaps the campaign is really interesting, and eclipses the shortfalls of the game's core mechanics. However I'm not willing to take the time to find out. If you're looking for another Star Wars FPS that doesn't involve the words "Jedi Knight", then I suppose Republic Commando is for you.

Now I'd like to talk about Ash. Ash is a band from Ireland that was introduced to me during the end credits/blooper scenes from the North American release of Rumble in the Bronx. Their catchy tribute to old martial arts films, the aptly named "Kung Fu", played in the background. The next day I bought the album it was from, "1977". Opening with the sound of a tie fighter flying by, and later learning that the album was named after the year Star Wars was released (despite any of the members not being born yet), I knew these guys were for real. I even had the chance to meet them when they came to Toronto back in 1996 to promote that album.

This week I found that one of the songs off of their upcoming album was selected to be on the Republic Commando soundtrack. Once again falling back on their clever songwriting skills, "Clones" will also appear on an exclusive EP called "Commando" which includes a playable demo for the game. I can't vouch for their popularity at the moment, as I've been into Ash for years. Though if anyone will benefit from this multi-media promotion it will be the band. Incidentally, Ash will be back in Toronto at the Opera House April 13th. I will be there.

I don't know if you knew that

wargaming: the gateway to military service?

It appears that the official website for Close Combat: First to Fight has re-launched. I remain impressed by what the game has to offer.

Browsing through some of the material confirms my belief that this will be another ultra-realistic war shooter, and like Full Spectrum Warrior has taken great pains to recreate the experiences of modern warfare. But instead of Pandemic's military advisors, developers Destineer have supposedly involved more than 40 active-duty Marines who only a short time before were dodging bullets in Iraq. In fact, your team in the game will be made up of real-life soldiers, the bios of whom are listed on the official site. The boundaries of reality are blurred accordingly.

What I found even more interesting was in the "Making it Real" section of the site. There's an innocent link to the "About the Marines" page, where an additional link to the U.S. Marines official site lies after the brief description, available "for additional information". Conversely, there is a disclaimer on Full Spectrum Warrior official site that reads: "The Full Spectrum Warrior game is not sponsored or endorsed by the United States Army." Clearly the distinction was made on the latter, but the former does nothing less than insinuate that the game is some kind of recruitment tool.

The average FPS gamer may think they know how to fire a gun, but as an article in December's issue of Computer Games notes, I hardly think they have any idea what it's like to be in 40 pounds of equipment in stifling desert heat, or how to correct their aim for recoil on an actual weapon. It's still just fantasy to them, and these aggressive tactics by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps just further reinforce some comments made on my review of Full Spectrum Warrior. These games may be just the push they need to investigate the armed forces in earnest, and perhaps enlist. It may very well end up to be the most effective form of advertising we've seen to date.

Describing the success of the U.S. Army's pet project America's Army, an article in the Globe and Mail compares it against Canada's own policy for drumming up interest in the younger population to join the Canadian Forces. Major Ken Orr, Sr. Staff Officer at the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group Headquarters says that there are CD-ROMs available that provide virtual tours and information about each branch of the military, but nothing as interactive as a game. This perfectly echoes Canada's stance on the military.

Before I firmly plant myself aboard a soapbox, I should divulge that I recently finished reading J.L. Granatstein's Who Killed Canada's Military?, which puts together a compelling argument about Canada's military capabilities, and essentially established the following windy tirade. The number of enlisted soliders currently serving in the Canadian Forces is at an embarassing low: 60,000 soldiers in all ranks, for a population of 32 million. Defense spending is equally low, with most of our purchases being decommissioned or unwanted equipment from our allies. Given the recent accidents that have befallen our military, it's clear we are in no shape to participate in warfare in the 21st century. Granted, we are world renowned for our peacekeeping efforts, but what most people don't realize is that peacekeeping in today's political climate is more like peace enforcement, and without the proper training, equipment and personnel to carry out these activities we aren't much help to the United Nations. Most importantly though, we are in no way fit to defend ourselves from attack, instead always relying on our gung-ho neighbours to the south. I find it ironic that anti-Americanism is so rampant in Canada right now, given that they are technically our last line of defence (and before you start proclaiming the love other countries have for us, note that the Atlantic is pretty fucking wide). I also find it a bit naive of Canada to continue to assume that no one will ever attack or invade us. Call this media influenced alarmist thinking, but I find it sad that the best Canada will be able to do in a time of crisis is call Washington for help. I agree no blood should be shed for oil, but I think we're collectively missing the point: as a country we should be ready and able to stand up and protect our own interests, first and foremost.

all we want from you are the kicks you've given us

lockdown

Rainbow Six 4: Lockdown. This time, it's personal.

Or so the trailer would have you believe. I really have a hard time accepting this latest attempt by UbiSoft to make their critically acclaimed series more accessible. Maybe it's the lack of helmets, and the soldiers sporting non-standard haircuts and different uniforms. Or perhaps it's the selection of America's latest hot-bed of activity, the Middle East, as the setting for the game.

The screens released a couple of months ago showing off the game's new "goggle interface" that "fully immerse[s] you in the game experience" almost had me in conniptions. Fans had a hard enough time with Raven Shield, which for the first time in the series' history actually made the weapon viewable in first-person mode. It was removable in the options, of course, but the reaction is what's important. The graphics are less than inspiring as well, obviously a result of Lockdown being a multi-platform release. And everything about the gameplay preview points to this being a standard first person shooter, removing everything that made its predecessors unique or interesting to play.

I also love how the game features list rag doll physics as if it means something. Ever since Unreal Tournament 2003 started using havok (and in case UbiSoft's PR department has forgotten already, Raven Shield used the new Unreal/havok engines as well) it's been pretty much standard in every FPS on the PC. Then again, this title clearly isn't aimed at fans of the original - it's aimed at gamers who want to kill terrorists and wouldn't know a squad tactical shooter if it kicked them in the balls. This would also explain Lockdown's "unprecedented multiplayer". What, like totally different than the multiplayer that was available from Rainbow Six in 1998?

What seems to be the spiritual successor to Rainbow Six is Close Combat: First to Fight, a training simulator developed by the U.S. Marine Corps. I saw some of the gameplay demos a few weeks ago, and I am absolutely impressed. Following in the footsteps of Full Spectrum Warrior, the tactics of fire and suppress are used again, but with an entirely new approach to interacting with the environment. Vehicles can be used, and you can actually go inside buildings, where room takedowns are similar to those in Rainbow Six. Morale is apparently used as well, making poor or just plain bad orders have an effect on your squad; though this also applies to an overwhelmed enemy that may just retreat after seeing their comrades cut down around them. I'm a little uneasy about the setting, and the graphics aren't exactly top-notch either, which surprises me considering the game is only being developed for the XBox and PC. Military shooters such as these are becoming a double-edged sword. If you want realism, you have to swallow the propaganda; otherwise you succumb to the curse of accessibility, making the game more of an arcade shooter than something actually worth playing.

bottle up and explode

Half Life 2: The Enemy is Instinct

With PC gaming in its current state, I didn't think a game like Half Life 2 was possible. The FPS genre had become stagnated, and aside from my occasionally burdensome fascination with war-themed shooters, I didn't see the genre on the PC heading in a very healthy direction. As much as I enjoyed Far Cry, easily the underdog release of the year, it was fairly conventional in its execution. And Doom 3, another game touting a technically superior engine, produced a truly disappointing experience. But over the past week, I have seen the future.

Forget everything you ever thought was a convention of first person shooters. Then purchase and install Half Life 2. And then prepare to have your expectations of what an interactive gaming experience should be permanently raised.

Note: As this review is essentially a diary of my adventures in the world of Half Life 2, it is rife with spoilers. Anyone who hasn't finished the game and wants to keep the magic alive should stop reading at once.

Call of Duty: United Offensive (PC)

The expansion pack has developed into a quandary for PC gamers over the years. While at first they were made to extend the life of a game, they quickly degenerated into a way for the publisher to capitalize on the original game's success while expending a minimal amount of effort. The expansions for FPS are infamously short, sometimes even adding in features that should have been in the original game. Disappointed in the inconsistent efforts of EA for the Medal of Honor expansions, I expected a lot from Grey Matter for the expansion to the similarly high profile Call of Duty. I'm happy to report that United Offensive delivers a substantial payload.

tribes vengeance

In the past, demos were a pretty good indicator of what games would be like. You can thank id Software for that, because most often the demo would be the entire first mission of their games. I'm not saying that other developers (or publishers, for that matter) don't do the same, but recently it's been tough to gauge how good the final product will be when they take a mission out of context from the middle of the single player game, ask you to play through, and attempt to enjoy it. Far Cry easily comes to mind in this regard, while Thief: Deadly Shadows did an excellent job of convincing you why you should be buying the game. Multiplayer demos by their very nature are a little easier to create: the inclusion of a few maps and game types should keep the fans happy until release. My first exposure to Tribes: Vengeance was the multiplayer beta, which was fairly satisfying as a reimagining of Tribes gameplay. Having a single player campaign thrown in goes back to the game's roots, although at the time Starsiege seemed like more of a poor man's Mechwarrior.

I played the hell out of the final multiplayer demo, whereas the single player mission acted like more of a distraction. In a sad parody of the opening cutscene of Unreal Tournament 2003, the mission lets you to play as the leader of the Phoenix Tribe dropped into an arena to fight for his life. Because the mission was clearly taken from a point midway through the game, the preceding cutscene only served to confuse things.

The action overall is certainly fast-paced, but the small to medium sized maps and trigger-happy combat would be more suitable in Unreal Tournament or others of its ilk - hell, I could easily deal with having jetpacks in a deluxe version of Onslaught. But what this approach does is take out the large-scale team efforts that were probably my fondest memories of Tribes 2. There was something epic about the fields of battle in Tribes 2, a feeling that is unfortunately lost amongst the hustle of Vengeance. There were times where I was able to launch a coordinated assault for the enemy's flag, but most often it was simply bunch of sequential solo runs for the opposing team's base with a vehicle, which is the type of activity you would see on a BF1942 server. Even the spinfusor, the flagship member of the Tribes arsenal, feels a lot different and is a real bitch to aim properly. Granted, it does as much damage as a grenade launcher (including splash/area damage), but the rate of fire makes it a liability to wield.

The Unreal engine looks good, and Vengeance conveys the same types of bright colors and similarly detailed models as you would find in Unreal Tournament 2003. Attractive as this game is, players of Tribes 2 may find something missing. Vengeance almost feels stripped of the soul that made its forerunners so engaging. Some of the new included multiplayer modes like Fuel and Ball just seem uninspired, and if you really want to run across the field with a ball while being shot at, you should be playing Bombing Run.

All that being said, I found "Winterlake" to be the closest map that gave me that old school Tribes feeling. Seeing the enemy's fearsome dropship on the snow-peaked horizon making an approach for our base, I would often run to one of the stationary cannons and cut loose on the ship and its heavy-armoured escorts. I think many of my favorite moments while playing Vengenace was defending the base, simply because attacking felt so haphazard.

Because multiplayer feels like a Tribes skin on an existing game, I think the average player's reaction to Vengeance will boil down to the single player campaign. This is most unfortunate for a game that pretty much pioneered multiplayer combat on a massive scale. I guess it's only natural that something like this would happen - as we have seen in the past, multiplayer focused games will almost always short change on the single player. In the case of Tribes Vengeance, they just got it backwards.

three completes the five

from rts to fps

Eidos announced yesterday the development of Commandos: Strike Force, bringing a well-known RTS/squad tactics series to the first person. This decision is most unusual when examining the reaction to last year's Commandos 3, and the media's reaction to the franchise overall. A cynic would say that they've given up the RTS route and are ready to move on to something new while carrying a recognizable brand. But I think in every RTS gamer there lies a secret desire to suit up as one of the many units at your command, instead of offhandedly ordering them to certain doom.

Regardless, this isn't the first attempt at making the jump from isometric to FPS as Command and Conquer: Renegade and the frustratingly elusive Starcraft: Ghost have shown. Even Savage, though not a pre-existing brand, allowed you choose between the two viewpoints in the same game. Whether this was gaming progress or not is still up for debate.

I always saw the Commandos series as being one of "those" games - Eidos and their flogging of standard bearers Lara Croft, Legacy of Kain and a port of FFVII in the late 90s put me off the publisher as a whole. Which of course changed quite suddenly when I played Thief. Furthermore, many reviews bemoaned the level of difficulty in Commandos, claiming most missions were incredibly hard - downright impossible in some parts - and that's not a quality I hold in high regard when looking for something to play. The concept was good, and hasn't really been attempted by anyone else, albeit the original Hidden and Dangerous did hold some similarities.

I've seen the screens, and Strike Force has been assimilated into the tedious conventions of the WW2FPS. I'm sure that stealth, a keystone of the series, will be a large component of the gameplay, but like C&C Renegade's unoriginal transition I really don't see the need for this venture. Starcraft: Ghost, on the other hand, intrigues me deeply and I am fully prepared to wait another six months for a more intimate view of the Starcraft universe.

running speed trials standing in place

pacific assault

As much as it burns many gamers to see game publishing behemoth EA succeed, it's not from lack of a solid lineup. The entire EA Sports brand, Need for Speed, The Sims and of course Medal of Honor have all proven to be guaranteed moneymakers, regardless of quality. The cynical might even say that EA's reliance on past successes and hard focus on sequels make it the whore of the industry; in the case of Pacific Assault I'd say that they've at least been paying attention. Not to be outdone by its competitors, EA has incorporated the best aspects of Allied Assault, the squad-like gameplay of Call of Duty and some brand new features all its own.

At half a gig though, the demo is criminally short and barely allows you to get into the game. Needless to say I've played through it around 20 times, intent on gathering as much reconaissance as possible from the meager mission included. The Unreal engine makes this tropical setting visually credible - from the waving palms to the fighters flying overhead. Although objects like towers and aircraft explode more believably this time around, terrain and most objects are static and suffer the same fate as other games using the Unreal engine. I can use oil drums on an airfield for cover, with no need to fear a stray bullet causing my protection to blow up in my face. Vegetation is similarly indestructible. With the Unreal engine comes improved physics, and character models now fall realistically instead of the awkward contortions of Raven Shield and Unreal Tournament 2003/2004.

The frantic and chaotic feeling of battle definitely took a few pointers from the presentation of Call of Duty. You can hear your fellow soldiers yelling "grenade!" when you or the enemy cuts one loose or medics tending to the wounded, gently assuring the fallen that things will be okay. As another realistic touch, when one of your squadmates falls, shouts of "he's gone, forget about him!" are heard above the gunfire and explosions. Assigning character to each of the AI controlled allies is something that we will also see in Brothers in Arms.

Taking damage in this game is quite interesting, as your physical state will deteriorate the more wounds you sustain. You will move slower the less health you have, and your vision will become blurry. You could say this was just an influence of Doom, but it's much more realistic than being able to run around aiming perfectly with next to no health. A great design decision was removing randomly placed medkits; instead, you have a limited number of times you can call a field medic who will come over to fix you up. This process is not instantaneous, and while he is tending your wounds you are essentially incapacitated. As a result there is still a chance you can get hit by nearby fire. This adds a much needed level of realism, and certainly adds a cohesiveness to your squad, because the medic doesn't just magically appear. He's always around, assisting your wounded sqaudmates. As a result you will have to defend your medic, because he is unarmed and will usually be taking fire with the rest of your squad.

There are also no dropped or placed ammo reserves - you can pick up any weapon and use it, and that's pretty much how you're going to replenish your supply. One of the biggest complaints about the Medal of Honor series was your inability to go completely prone, even though the enemy could, providing some extremely imbalanced firefights in low-cover situations. Pacific Assault thankfully allows this. Both were features of Call of Duty's that were wisely integrated.

Probably the most noticable addition, though, is your character's ability to issue basic squad commands such as Attack, Retreat, and Regroup. This can be useful in completing objectives, or if you're in a tough spot and need reinforcements, but the demo didn't really let me use these real-time tactics to their full extent. As part of the larger campaign though, I can definitely see them coming in useful.

I can't really say much about the enemy AI at this point, as the demo takes place in an especially brutal battle at Henderson Field at Guadalcanal. The Japanese use mostly swarming and "banzai" tactics, but they do take cover and launch distance or grenade attacks where the terrain allows it. This could all be simple scripting, but the AI seemed to respond to my playing methods: I played it safe in some instances, firing from a distance; in another play through of the demo I ran full on into the enemy. The latter seemed to prompt close quarters retaliation with bayonets. You can apply the real-life tactics of the Japanese in that sense, because their answer to eliminating US Forces was constant waves of soldiers doing these "banzai" attacks; whether they could actually manage to secure the position was almost happenstance.

Taken as a whole, I can easily see myself purchasing this game strictly as a fan of the genre. Pacific Assault isn't that much of a departure from the tried and true elements of these games: supress the enemy, jump on that stationary gun and eliminate fighters flying overhead - I mean this stuff has been done to death. But I can still see some innovation peeking through: the use of basic squad maneuvers, the field medics you can call for assistance, and for me this is enough to keep play interesting. Most importantly for EA, though, this game will be released before Brothers in Arms, which will be supplying many of the same improvements to further rejuvenate a tired genre. After a number of delays, my anticipation of this title has only dwindled somewhat; as the year comes to a close there are just too many games competing for my attention.

drawn to the ground

I have a bad feeling about this...

Considered as a media event alone, Doom 3 is a veritable blockbuster. It could easily be the most highly anticipated computer game of all time. I'm hearing about Doom 3 from people who don't even play games. This makes it very uncomfortable for me, because how are you supposed to reply to that? Getting passionate about comptuer games with someone who can barely discern the difference between pixel shading and bump-mapping would be a waste of time and energy. The release of Doom 3 was talked about on the radio, television and in newspapers - just like the opening of Episode I or Fellowship of the Ring. The mainstream news media once again looked upon the hardcore lined up to be the first to get it with morbid fascination. I imagine this will be the same when Valve decides that Half Life 2 is ready to go gold, but when that will be is anyone's guess.

I'll admit I have a soft spot for the shooter that spawned an entire genre, but I doubt anyone bought Doom 3 for nostalgic purposes. Doom 3 is a new benchmark, the game you will play in front of your friends to show off your rig. The visual proficiency of the graphics engine will remain unmatched for some time - finally seeing this engine in action while secretly dreaming of what other developers will do with it was worth the price of admission. Despite my two year old computer specs, I was pleased beyond belief to learn that I didn't need a new video card to run the game with medium textures, all details turned on and at 1280x1024. Clothing and surfaces look amazing, and there is a realistic sheen to the metal throughout the Mars base. What I really have to comment on are the skin textures, whether it be on the human characters like Bertruger shown in the cutscenes or the Pinky demons crying out for your flesh. It seemed to move and stretch, even though I knew it was just a two-dimensional tile covering a bunch of polygons. This made the monsters especially creepy, but unfortunately they didn't explode the way I thought they would. Instead, in a very feeble spraying of blood the bodies kind of just disappear with a wisp of hellfire. The limited palette for the environment was also a little disappointing. Drab tones may have worked for Doom II and Quake, but after a while it becomes monotonous. Indeed, feeling like you've been somewhere before can be claustrophobic and inspire a real sense of panic, but when you get to the game's later switch hunts it quickly develops into an annoyance.

When I first started playing I was immediately taken in by the atmosphere; It truly flows from this game. It's like seeing the trailers for a scary movie: you know something bad is going to happen, it just becomes a matter of when. And when it does happen, you're suddenly in the middle of something terrifying, running for your life. When I encountered the zombies and demons for the first time, I have to admit I was scared. Again, the skin - just watching the creatures move made me cringe and want to get out of there in a hurry. There was something unsettling about seeing the zombies shamble towards me. I knew I could kill them, but it was more a feeling of inevitability that creeps up, telling you that you'd eventually die by being outnumbered - not from lack of firepower. Coupled with the ambient banging of metal grates and screaming radio chatter, I felt I was part of an event much larger than the genre - this was a groundbreaking game and Doom 3 deserved every high score.

These feelings of elation were quickly replaced after a few more encounters, as I realized that in small numbers the monsters don't do much damage on Normal difficulty. The first time you're attacked by a demon jumping from a concealed corner, it can be pants-soilingly scary - but it's not like Far Cry. In Far Cry, if you let the mutants get too close you're more than likely going to die. After being attacked by Doom 3's demons a few times, you get to see how much damage can be done and getting hit becomes more of a nuisance. If you know you're going to walk away alive, what use is there to fear for your virtual life?

The use of darkness and shadow is on par with the Splinter Cell series and Thief: Deadly Shadows. Though moody to the extreme, it's used as a cheap tactic more often as the game progresses, a result of the asinine decision to make the flashlight an entirely separate item. The flashlight is indispensable given the game's enveloping darkness, and you're expected to whip it out for every dark corner, having to switch to a weapon if you stumble upon a demon or wandering zombie. Luckily in the days since release, someone has already solved this problem with the Duct Tape Mod, which works great. Without the sticky-light I suppose fending off demons could be more terrifying, but when you're being attacked from all sides having no point of reference except sets of glowing eyes and no real hope of defence it's clear the challenge is artificial.

Another unfortunate design decision is the use of "monster closets", or small mini-areas that are opened after walking over hot spots or picking up items. These are tactics used in the id games of old: Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, and Quake. Worse still, monsters will occasionally spawn behind you after you've cleared a room. Again: at first this is kind of scary, because you have no idea where your enemies are coming from. But after being ambushed like this repeatedly, it just becomes another hasty design decision that makes the game appear scripted, and your presence in the gameworld irrelevant.

Using the same tactics as games such as System Shock 2 and Tron 2.0, the plot that isn't delivered through the meager cutscenes can be found in bits of documentation you find in PDAs spread throughout the facility. Listening to the voice journals or reading emails isn't essential to the game, so the PDAs become more or less a supply of access codes you can use to open up the locked doors and supply lockers on your jaunt through the base. I'd say the computer and object interface screens have reached a new level or realism in Doom 3: instead of a zoomed-in view or a separate screen, the aiming reticle becomes a cursor with which you interface with the objects directly in your field of view. After such a massive disaster, there is a surprising abundance of weapons, ammo, armour and health packs strewn about the ruins of the base. While some doors malfunction, every single airlock is in perfect working order. These criticisms probably seem nitpicky, but it's obvious that id were going for some sort of realism in the retelling of their FPS classic and this is just inconsistent with the intended feel of the game.

The on-weapon ammo display is a big deal to some reviewers, but I remember seeing this type of weapon readout in Unreal Tournament. That doesn't mean it isn't useful, it's just one of many features grafted onto this game from a previous title. Considering this, I found it especially strange that none of the weapons had a secondary fire mode. I mean if you're going to copy a game, fucking copy it. The sounds from the weapons are also less than encouraging. I'm supposed to fight demonic hordes with a shotgun that is put to shame by the original Doom? The weapons, like their sounds, feel weak and insubstantial - I found the only reliable weapon in the game without insane load times was probably the chainsaw. At first I thought it was as tiring as the spam emails you find, but it's surprisingly effective against many of the large enemies as long as you can afford to let them get close. This lack of a decent arsenal made me think back to FarCry, and how incredibly realistic the weapons felt and sounded - I mean those made my desk shake. I also found it a little peculiar that I could recognize some item pickup sounds lifted straight from Quake III such as the armour shards and health packs.

I like the fact that there isn't much of a musical score to this game, as it would seem a bit stupid if you were sending zombies and demons back to hell to some arbitrary nu-rock theme. The whispering of otherworldly voices, the clanging of bulkheads, and the sound of your own footsteps are more than adequate enough to set the mood. At one point, fending off the spider sentries in one of the many darkened rooms with my machine gun, the only light coming from my gun and the ammo readout made me feel like I was in Aliens. The enemies kept coming and I was running out of bullets fast, evoking a real sense of last-stand desperation. I listened for the clicking of the spiders as they traversed the ducts, just waiting for them to pop out and attack. It was a great moment, but one of the game's few.

For the first bunch of objectives, it was fun to be constantly scared, frantically reloading and not knowing what to expect next. But after a while other feelings set in. Not quite apathy, but closer to boredom. At this point I had a Matrix-like revelation where I could strip away the beautiful graphics and be left playing a 10 year old game, which depressed the hell out of me. At the elevator at the end of each level, I half expected to see my score, number of kills and secret area tally pop up. From people I've talked to that have finished the game, I'm about halfway through, having just entered the Communications Tower Area. So far the game isn't much of a challenge, and it's unfortunate. The linearity is painfully obvious, and although the narrow corridors and passageways serve a purpose in establishing atmosphere, over time it felt like a rail shooter, as if each new hallway was simply a conveyor to the next room of demons and undead to kill.

I dutifully read the PC Gamer review after finding out they gave it a 94%. I figured this would be the gaming event of the summer, possibly even the year. It's funny that I began this post with mention of The Phantom Menace, because I could easily equate the release of this game to that movie. My anticipation for both was extremely high. I was euphoric after experiencing each for the first time, but as I had a chance to reflect the shortcomings made themselves agonizingly known. I hate being so negative, because it seems like such a contemptuous thing to do when all PC gamers have been waiting for this moment whether they've played the original or not. But the way I see it, the hype was bound to backfire on four years worth of lofty expectations. I just cannot give this game the praise that others deem it worthy, and I would hardly call it a "masterpiece of the artform". The engine may make me want to mount my computer screen in the most unnatural of ways, but the frustratingly uninspired level design, artificial scares and the lack of any substantial gameplay make Doom 3 a chore at times to blast through. My hope is that someone else can put this amazing technology to good use.

burn it backwards

joint ops

If you've read any of the reviews of Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising, you might find yourself looking at the words "Battlefield 1942/Vietnam-killer" more than once. The surface comparisons are easy: battles take place between two teams on large-scale maps, with a selection of pilotable vehicles that can be brought into the fight. The standard player kits are also present, allowing you to outfit your avatar with the tools of a medic or sniper. In Joint Operations, Novalogic takes a terrorist insurrection in present-day Indonesia and creates the setting for a multiplayer FPS in which Joint Ops (consisting of traditionally allied countries) take on Indonesian Rebels.

Novalogic is probably best remembered for its Delta Force series, the latest of which was last year's questionable Black Hawk Down. I even go so far as to call Joint Operations a kind of unofficial sequel to this series, because it plays very similar. In fact, the biggest disappointment is the graphics, as if they decided that the already aging engine of BHD was the zenith of their graphical prowess and would settle with basing their Battlefield 1942 clone upon it.

Unlike BF1942's 64-player server limit, JO supports up to 150 players, making this the biggest game of its kind. The maps, as huge as they are, still fall prey to the action clustering around control points, and even on the most populated servers (the demo had a 100 player limit), I would run great distances just to find someone on my own team, let alone the enemy. Control point capturing is simply a matter of having enough team members in the area to overtake it. I have to admit, due to the larger number of players in a given map control points don't change hands so quickly, which make bat