Your face is a fighting game

Yeah, cop that.

Evolution 2011 was perhaps less exciting overall than previous Evo's, but still had its moments. Some of the highlights in the following video were some I managed to watch myself and I must say, watching a live-stream tournament like this concurrently with others, you do get pretty worked up. Especially when you only just notice your mouth is on the floor with chips falling out of it. I have to remember not to eat at my computer...



Daigo, unfortunately, did not win SSFIV:AE though, which is a loss for quiet, humble gamers everywhere. I am not a quiet, humble gamer. Actually come to think of it, I only know a few people who (really) are. My point is, he should win the tournament on these characteristics alone, as a parody to the vast majority of the other contestants, some who are so cocky that they literally dance in their seat (see above video) ... which is kinda weird. Not to mention American.

HAADOUUKEN!!!!!

It is not I who am crazy ...

... it is I WHO AM MAD!!!!!!!

Once more into the fray!

Upon writing this, Duke Nukem: Forever has been released for roughly a month. It was not a great game. However, at the same time, it was not a bad game. It, like Bulletstorm before it, is a game that suffers from conflicting game play mechanics that, for a lot of people, destroy the potential experience a game like it should offer. Once again, I blame modern FPS game play mechanics and the need to appease a crowd of simple minded, non-resource-manageable 'realism' obsessed kids that think Halo and Call of Duty are the greatest and most skillful FPS games ever made.

I actually stopped playing at the strip club section, much to the dismay of my inner 12 yr old

I don't really care about Duke, how he behaves, his sexist attitude, his immaturity and all that crap. To me he is simply a video game character. If people want to get all worked up and feel somehow offended by his actions then that's their problem. What I do find rather absurd though is the amount of general hate and malice the game has received, especially from non-fans of the series. If you were a long-time fan of Duke Nukem 3D and felt let down by its rather late sequel, fair enough. If you are simply a sheep, jumping on the bandwagon of negativity and hate, describing how terrible the game is without having even played the damn thing, then to you I present my most exasperated and fatigued '/sigh' face I can muster. Wanting to hate something or simply disliking something to be part of the cool club is one of the most despicable things I can think of, and something that is both common and unmentioned in our society (regarding other topics of course). Also, comparing something like DN:F's facial animations to that of LA Noire and describing that to be completely unacceptable in a game nowadays is like complaining that Doom II had a lack of bunny rabbits in it. It was not designed for it, so who the fuck cares?

I am by no means defending DN:F. I played it and found it to be a pretty standard modern day shooter in my opinion. You could at least jump. There are just times that I see social trends emerging across the gaming community that irk me somewhat, especially when they are unwarranted. Nevertheless, I am reminded of why, generally speaking, I dislike most modern day FPS games, and so, comma, I have decided to make a short list of 5 more aspects that should be included in FPS games if you want them to be a success:

1. More than two weapons
Yep. This 'press-button-to-change-to-other-weapon' bullshit has to go. I don't care how realistic it is for a super soldier (lol?) to only be able to carry two weapons, the fact of the matter is that the more weapons a player is allowed to character, the more fun they potentially can have. That means there should be more ammo scattered around the place for said weapons. That means maps should support said weapon/ammo variety. That means they should stop being fucking linear, funneling the player towards the next ammo dump for them to refill at. It is obvious how aspects like this bleed into one another from a design perspective and how something as simple as reducing the number of weapons a player can hold has totally destroyed the explorative qualities of an entire genre.

2. Faster game speed
I have brought this up before, but relating more to the movement speed of the player's avatar. Now I am proposing that the speed of FPS games be increased as a whole. Basically for the same reasons. A slow game is boring and a boring game has limited re-playability. Think about it. What are some of the old arcade-like games you come back to every now and then? Were they, to a point, fast in terms of game play? Why was that enjoyable? Exactly.

Zankuu Hadouken!

3. Movement speed options
Again, something I have mentioned many times, but not clearly enough for it to be considered a principle design factor. Dodge-jumping, bunny hopping, rocket/grenade jumping, jump-pads, jetpacks, accelerators. All mechanics employed by oldskool FPS games that gave speed and freedom of movement to players both skilled and newbie alike. Sure, mastery of a technique works in favour for those who have mastered it. Sure, this gives said players an advantage. What's stopping everyone from learning these new and interesting techniques? They should be embraced and encouraged instead of shunned and removed, and if you can't do it on a controller ... well then maybe you are using the wrong platform mate.

4. Modability
Some of the best games ever made have come from mods. Some of these games have gone to e-sport levels, and still are today (CS 1.6/Source, DOTA). When you provide games with open source development tools, you effectively hand control of your game's potential fame and enterprise to the gaming community. This should be seen as a good thing. Look at Valve. They started from a small company using the code from ID Game's Quake 2 engine. They are now in charge of the world's most popular software distribution network because of the success of mods made for Half-life.

Lauren: The best bot in any game outside of Xan and Xaero

5. Bots
A dying breed, but FPS games with factory made bots are so rare nowadays it is saddening. The last proper game to support true FPS player-like bots was actually UT3 released in 2007. To an extent, this is understandable. The explosion that has been multiplayer gaming has removed the need for a company to even consider programming AI to do the same tasks as a player, except worse. Why would anyone make bots? The answer isn't so straightforward, but it does exist. First and foremost, there does exist a breed of player that enjoys playing offline and experimenting with game mechanics without having the face the troll/rage fest that is the average online experience. For example, the birth of Coop Vs AI in League of Legends has shown how beneficial experimentation can be in non-serious games. Secondly, having an AI framework allows even more possibilities for both custom gaming and modding by the community. Players willing to fight outnumbered against hordes of AI opponents have traditionally been in for a thrilling time, cooperating with other human players to work the system and perform the impossible. Translation: fun.

Personally I feel things are starting to come around. People are slowly seeing just how boring and mindless some of today's FPS game play mechanics are that a slight resurgence of the oldskool design philosophies are coming through. They may not have reached the minds of developers yet, but the community is becoming slightly more aware of it each week. Perhaps it is worth hoping after all.

Also, Doom II had a bunny rabbit in it. So ... yeah.

Random forums posts worth mentioning

Gaming forums are ... strange beasts. A source for trolling for some, a source of QQ for others and a source of entertainment and knowledge for those willing to seek out the information they desire. I am not a big forum poster. Probably the most posts I have ever made was on the old WoW forum boards years ago, and that number of posts probably wouldn't exceed ten in the years that I used to play that game. Generally speaking, unless I have something insightful or meaningful to say, posting on forums is not really worth my time.

However, about a month ago, one of the two Escapist forum posts I have ever made was selected as being a 'Letter to the Editor'. I'm not really sure what that means, but basically it was selected because it was apparently a good post with something interesting being said. I thought this was rather unusual and amusing considering the thousands of posts a site like that would receive a day, let alone a week. That either says something really bad about the average forum poster, or maybe I just got lucky and posted something meaningful when someone high up was looking. It's not really important.

What is important was the context of the post, in reply to Yahtzee's article about action not being finisher porn in fighting and action games. It was a follow up to his review on Mortal Kombat, a review where I think he kind of missed the point of the game. Nevertheless, after reading through the posts of the articles associated forum, I became slightly irritated at the complete disregard for how the concept was being seen from a competitive standpoint. As I have always been in support of competitive gaming I made the following reply:

"I feel something that should be mentioned here is how these over-the-top powerful moves/combos tie into the competitive fighting game scene, and how infrequently they are actually used. Besides MvC3, attempting to get off these sort of moves is incredibly risky and are not of great priority. Most of the time they are blocked or whiff (miss) as competitive players are so very used to avoiding them or anticipating them in the first place.

From a casual point of view (I am a casual myself), fighting games may seem like they are entirely about these super/hyper/ultra/X-ray moves. You see them in all the trailers and there is so much emphasis on them in the media. Really though, these moves form a very small part of a fighting game's actual mechanics and should be seen as merely a catchup option if someone is getting owned. A competitive player is more likely to burn their super/xray bar through enhanced attacks then leaving the whole thing for said move, mainly because it is more advantageous for them to do so. The sparring or 'footsies' of a fighting game is what a competitive player is focusing on 90% of the time. Should said 'footsies' allow them a small window of opportunity to properly place one of these special moves, then great! If you watch enough tournament videos you will know that it is THIS that entertains and awes the crowd, not the special move itself. This is because at the competitive level, successfully getting off one of these moves is not easy. It is incredibly hard.

I guess what I am trying to say is that people are probably looking at these moves the wrong way and thinking of them in the wrong light. Yes, for the casual beating up his friend who doesn't know how to block these moves can get boring and probably pull the action away for both of them. But for two people who are actually fighting competitively, getting these moves off are significant, difficult and highly entertaining.

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDnaTmGHb1g&t=10m10s

Also, fatalities are nothing more than glorified finishing moves. You don't have to do them. Anyone complaining about how they are forcing unnecessary gore porn down your throat is just silly.

- TinmanX"

I'm sure no one actually read the post, being the typical forum readers that everyone is, so I didn't think much about it at the time. The truth is though that using fighting games as a benchmark for game play analysis is a useful tool, not just because of the competitive community that surrounds them, but also the amount of tweaking and balance changes necessary to make them competitive. Unlike most games (save maybe a Blizzard RTS), fighting games must undergo serious stress tests to find bugs, exploits and generally overpowered moves and characters that could break the game. This is because patching a console game is a little more tricky than patching a PC game, and releasing a broken product straight off the bat is never a good idea for a game that is purely competitive. The process is however never entirely foolproof.

I only just realised this comparative strength when reading another fellow's opinion on Vladimir in League of Legends. Vladimir, as of writing this, is still seen to be an incredibly powerful champion, overly powerful in fact, by most of the community, including the competitive scene where he is either consistently played or banned. Ironically he also used a fighting game (SF4) to get his point across, and to me (at least) he makes a good point about character balance and the community's perception of it:

"Vlad players take the term "Vlad is OP" as a personal attack, and the ones who scream it just got rolled by said Vlad, it's the same way people think Morde/Trynd/Xin/whoever just facerolled them are OP. The problem with Vlad is, has been stated before, tournament results are obvious signs that something is wrong.

I can bring up other games in this arguement. Lets see Sagat from the original SF4, that.

That was OP.

However, at the same time people claimed the blanka ball strategy to be OP.

People complained about both, and due to a lot of QQ about such things as the blanka ball strat and the Bison headstomp strat, people treated it the same, until in high level play it became apparent, and people still tried to treat it the same (However once you completely bypass the skill-level and enter the most controlled "control group" you can get, scientifically speaking, the results don't lie.)

The difference being Sagats chip damage and fast recovery times, mixed with ease of use turned out to be a global issue, seeing as someone SPAMMING Tiger Shots actually beat Daigo. (Anyone who follows fighting games/evo tournies knows the epicness that is the Daigo.)

This Vlad issue is very similar. Sagat, in SSF4, got his chip damage nerfed and his recovery time lowered. He is still INCREDIBLY viable but not as easily picked up as before.

Blanka however, WAS a case of people just not understanding the mechanics as you didn't see someone go to top tier in a tournament using that strategy, yet lower level players still claimed it was overpowered.


... I feel I trailed off at the end there, but you should get the gist of it.

SF4 = Sagat
LoL = Vlad
Sagat = Vlad = Something is truly wrong

SF4 = Blanka
LoL = Morde
Blanka = Morde = People simply don't understand enough to counter it yet
(Also the irony of Morde es #1 and Blanka being from brazil is hilarious.)"

- Krimlin

I'm sure we could use many other games or scenarios to explain the same kind of balance relationship, but he makes a fair point. Often I see people complain about things in games being overpowered, cheap or just unfair. Most of the time this can be traced back to a lack of understanding on how certain mechanics work. In the case of League of Legends, most characters that may seem incredibly powerful for newcomers become standard problems later down the track when a player becomes more experienced. For example, Mordekaiser can be nuked, CCed or just simply ignored, with no real escape options at his disposal. Tyrndamere is slightly more complex, but a combination of well timed CC, ignites and general teamwork can shut one down very easily. Karthus' Ult can be countered by having decent support, MR items (Banshee's, Hexdrinker) or generally just not playing like shit. Be wary of Teemo's and Shaco's popping in and out of bushes with low health: a hoard of traps await you. True stealth characters are even easier, providing you have the gold to afford an appropriate ward or elixir. The list goes on...

I guess my point at the end of all this is that everything in gaming, from what people perceive to be unfair, to things in games that they feel are unnecessary, has a different side of the coin which can usually be garnered via experience or just general understanding. So the next time you want to cry aimbot at that ridiculous sniper in Quake, cheap to the invincible 2-shotting Tyrndamere in LoL or think your most recent kill in any game is a result of you being better than them, think about the situation and see if your point of view could in fact be wrong.

... unless it's a Vladimir.

You were killed by an Asian

In League of Legends, my first encounter with Xin Zhao (or Bob as he is reffered to on occasion) was a scary experience. I believe it was my 3rd week of playing, roughly level 10, and I had just picked up Mordekaiser (hue) not 3 days prior. This was back in the day when I was commonly posted to mid which, while I usually dominated with the man of metal, I can happily say I don't miss one bit. Having never encountered a Xin before, I was immediately rather cautious of the fellow. That spear looked painful and that ridiculous ponytail impractical in every sense of the word. It was clear he possessed some sort of sorcerous black arts for it to be attached to his head and for him to not to have some sort of hernia.

pull my finger

I think I died at level three. A charge, a knockup, a corpse. I don't think I realised what had actually happened until I noticed I wasn't moving and my screen was grey. As you may have expected, my response was a typical "WTF!!?". This was strange. Dying on Mord at that level (pre-changes) usually was. I think it took me a few more attempts, usually resulting in a death, to get a basic understanding of Mr Zhao, that being this: he will kill you 1v1.

Today, that more or less still holds true, but to a much less degree. After receiving nerfs both to him and tanky dps in general, Xin is not the monster he used to be. He is very killable if you know what you are doing. Comparitively there are better champions at doing some of the specific things he can do, but still not really any that do all of them together which is why I think I decided to pick him up. To be honest, I hated the bastard after that game. Powered of the over kind my opinion was. I didn't pick him up so much as to play him but more to counter him as much as I could on any character I played. It was not till I started playing him in serious matches that I learnt of his glaring play style issues, some that I guess should have been obvious, but probably weren't on the receiving end of his ... spear. Ahem.



Anyways, Xin is a beast in a melee. It is of my opinion that he is essentially designed to be an offtank/initiator/assassin. I say this because in a teamfight with Xin, when you go in, you either stay in or you die. This is because he has nothing outside of summoner spells to get himself out of hairy situations. To an extent you can use his slow and knockup to save yourself, but when retreating from multiple opponents, charging back into the fray and autoattacking 3 times is not the healthiest decision. On a character like Tyrndamere (-_-) you could sucessfully pull something like this off, spin back through the enemy team, aoe slow while they are still facing the other way (without even being near them) and spin off into the horizon. Or you could just press R.

My point is, with Xin, I was finally playing a character where positioning and choosing your battles wisely is very important. With Mord, it isn't a problem. You stroll in and out of combat like you are the guy at the party no one wants to talk to. With Shen it's even less of one, dashing and porting out of harms way with relative ease. With Xin you must choose your fights appropriately, often exchanging places with the tank to either mop up or 'Xinitiate' for your team. After that ... you faceroll. Seriously. Buttons. Push all of them. Now. Your summoner spell/s (ghost) and item activateables (Sword of the Divine, Ghostblade, Omen) too. Get in there and kill everything. That is your mission. His Ultimate speaks volumes of "initiate with this spell", giving you up to 90 free MR and Armor for 6 seconds, depending on how many people you hit with it and chopping off up to 30% of their current HP (before mitigation). If the enemy has any sense, which most of them do, they will look at you and try to kill you. I mean, he is an asian afterall. Racist pricks.

CHARACTER: Xin, STATUS: Fucked

This is usually the point where you die. In my months of playing and fighting Xin I have seen this occur all too frequently. Fight starts, Xin (or I) goes in, everyones bars turn red, ponytailed man falls on ground or seen running for the hills. The truth of the matter is unless you are completely dominating the enemy, you cannot afford to just build offensive items and expect to do well. Sure, you may gib a guy every teamfight, but is that really worth you dying straight away? The answer should be no. Your abilities, while somewhat useless for saving your own hide, are excellent for peeling enemies, keeping them in place and slowing them almost indefinetly. They also do decent damage even without full dps gear. In a nutshell, you are more threatening and useful if you are HARDER to kill, not because you won't be doing as much damage but because you will survive longer TO DO MORE. You don't do any damage when you are dead.

Which brings me to my final component of my Xin Zhao ... review ... thing. Whatever this is. His items. Out of all the characters that I have mucked around with in LoL, he has gone under the most revisions by far. The problem derives from the fact that he is so good at killing another person 1v1 because his spells are designed for shutting them down and melting them. This makes his ability to farm creeps abysmal, especially when laning against anything ranged. Autoattack in melee becomes your worst enemy, and your creep kills suffers massively if you don't get the advantage quickly. So unless you go out of your way to gank the shit out of the enemy your income will suck donkey balls. Getting the most out of the limited gold he earns is the key here, which means that having a standard build for fighting every team is non-sensical. As much as you should never have a standard build for any character, Xin is the only character that I play where I consider the enemy as a team, individually (laning) and item wise (i.e. theirs) constantly throughout the game. What you buy on him for the current situation is key to winning the next fight and consequently the game. The following is something I mixed up as an example of possible builds I would use, but centred around a longer game buying items that give me gold. The buying of these items are in relative order of importance at the time, but could be rotated depending on the situation. Should the game be under different circumstances (e.g. fighting a Tyrndamere, stacking massive armor, all tanky dps etc) I would be buying different items altogether.


It is probably safe to say, however, that these sort of build decisions are common amongst all LoL players.

Lololololol

A couple of days ago a few friends and I played some LoL. For once in a very long time (perhaps ever!) we won three (3) games in a row as a premade team. It was an enjoyable night, one with many memories both good and negative.

Even though I don't really have time to spare, I said fuck it and made a short video anyway. This video highlights some of the more interesting moments that happened that night ... although really it is just me on Xin killing everything. This is also a mere taste of what one can expect when I finally get round to editing a much larger video and with weeks (not hours) to spare editing it. There is a strong, linear correlation as to how good a video looks and how long was spent on it.



Unfortunately LoL Replay doesn't support teammate healthbars unless you are looking/looked at them recently. I believe this is a limitation of the actual game engine however and not something the 3rd party programmers can easily remedy. In any case it has prevented me from happily recording a few teammate instances due to a lack of HP bars being shown.

My thoughts on Apple

Oh boy. This is bound to cause some controversy. Usually I avoid this topic like the plague, mainly because I know where I stand and I don't really care about discussing it to or convincing anyone else otherwise. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. What you prefer and what works best for you is something that you yourself know and no-one else should be able to tell for you. Unless you are incredibly naive.

I should probably also mention that this article does not relate to anyone who would read this or that I would call a friend. While many of my friends use Apple products, they are but the tip of the iceberg in terms of what I am bringing up here. In short terms, anyone who is actually reading this need not be concerned. I am not talking about you.

My problem with the discourse concerning the Apple brand is when my opinion is brought into question about it, usually by the overly energetic, hip, young 'creative' professionals I seem to encounter on a daily basis. You may categorize some of these characters as 'Apple fanboys'. I prefer to call them deluded. While I have nothing against people's opinions, I am against people thinking that their own opinion about things needs to be heard constantly, as well as the fact that their own opinion is superior (i.e. more vocal). This supposed superiority of opinion also somehow makes opposition less credible, for whatever reason, and therefore owners of opposing opinions are somehow regarded with peculiarity. While this is general human nature, to disregard someone else's opinions and beliefs and brand them as heretics, it is also rather stupid, particularly concerning technology in this day and age.



So what has brought about my slight frustration about this Apple topic, especially now? Well, mainly this. I currently sit in a cubicle with four chaps of roughly the same age. They all (all) use Apple products extensively. I believe I am the only one among them that doesn't own and has never owned an Apple product. I probably would be seen as the outcast if I wasn't the most progressed among us. Nevertheless, this does cause some problems to arise daily, especially concerning topics of software compatibility, discussion of technology and their general uses. Because of this, I find the issue being brought up far too frequently and although I attempt to stay out of it as much as I can (I have work to do afterall), there are moments where I am forced to directly and unwillingly contribute. I am really quite an antisocial bastard aren't I?

So, my justification behind my choices usually starts like this. First of all, I am not one for social looks and trends. It is actually my strongest argument against Apple products, strangely enough. They are admittedly shiny. People like new, fancy and especially shiny things. Look at me now as I use my new, fancy shiny thing in this public place. Look at how awesome I am with my casual clothes and terrible haircut. I am so hip and cool and using this shiny, overpriced gadget that is catered towards my generation of hip, cool youngsters personifies my existence and speaks volumes of my worth as a human being. I am unemployed but have 7 university degrees and am trying to get into editing movies which I can only do with a Mac. Look at me! LOOK AT ME!!! Me me ME!!! I, I, I! Iphone, iTouch, iPod, iPad! How bout ... iDon'tcare? Yes I know this is a massive over-exaggeration and that many users of Apple products don't think this way at all (or just pretend not to) but there are enough around for it to be a problem. In this increasingly materialistic, egocentric and narcissistic society of facebook, tweeting, constant social interaction and over-opinionated perspectives on 'living', characterizing with and worshipping the shiny, arguably underdog brand that is Apple is not something that should be viewed with respect or awe. If anything, it should be viewed as an evaluation of how spoilt you are, or even how much you are spoiling yourself.


That really is my driving argument. We all do it to an extent. Hell, I know I splurge all over certain types of technology at times. My personal computer is an excellent example. The difference is I don't carry that around with me all the time as I lock the contents of it up in a big, black, steel case where no-one can see it. It is also a conglomeration of many parts from all different brands and models ... so maybe I am not really talking about the same thing here. Put it this way: I once caved into the social pressure of buying a new fancy phone. After minor research I bought a Samsung Galaxy S. It was and still is alright. It has an array of useful features which can be handy at times. Do I actually need these features? No. Can I live happily without them? Yes. Would a cheaper phone from an even less respectable brand been fine. Most definitely. So why did I buy it? The social trends I mentioned previously. Sometimes I am embarrassed to even use it, just for that reason.

The thing is, Apple is apparently different. They appear to be a company that is attempting to cater for your every technological need. From computers, to laptops, media players, phones, tablets etc. Why would you want to buy any other brand besides Apple? Well, this is essentially my second reason, and it isn't the stereotypical corporate domination response you would expect. It is the most basic one. Their damn price. It has vexed me for years how people can fork out that much money for products that do the same thing as others, sometimes even worse. This argument branches into all corners of their platform, from the (in my experience) crap involved using iTunes to their non-generic connection interfaces with other technologies. Alright, sure, sometimes the Apple experience may innately be easier and more user friendly than other interfaces. Is it really worth spending a few hundred more dollars to save yourself a few seconds? Not to mention with a different interface you might understand what is actually going on. Ignorance is sometimes not bliss, and if you take into account how much Apple is actually charging you for their products (compared to others) you may realise just how much they are ripping you off.


My last and weakest argument is that of user control. You have all heard the horror stories of companies like Apple and Sony going tits up when people try to tinker with their products. The court cases, the threats, the lies etc. To me, the idea of having a product I can't modify to my own desire is just bullshit. When that money comes out of my hand, that product and everything about it should be mine to do with as I want. I am not buying it so you can lock me out of certain features depending on my location/tampering, nor should the product become unusable if you do tamper with it. 'Jailbreaking' shouldn't be necessary at all and punishing people for doing so should not even be possible by the owning company. However, never having actually owned an Apple product and having no intent on ever buying one I can say, for the moment, that this issue doesn't really bother me in the slightest. My PS3 on the other hand ...

So, the next time you or someone else asks me why I don't own a Macbook, why I have never owned an iPhone and why I use an assortment of alternative products to fill the apparent 'gap' that is my technological and social life that is so very important ... I will just link you this post. I think it will still be relevant at the time. Generally speaking though, I don't really care. You can use whatever you want. Just let me do the same.

Note: Yes, I am aware that a lot of the pictorial and video based content is outdated. It is more there for entertainment value.

Portal Wombat

Well then. Here we are again. It is late at night and I am bored and so I shall write some drivel about games. You are lost, possibly confused and/or on hard drugs, attempting to read this drivel. I commend your efforts, but I also question them. Surely there is something else better you can be doing.

Nevertheless ... games. I assume the reason you are here is to read my biased and sometimes confounded opinion on them, so here we go. First off the recent list would be Portal 2. Now, I wouldn't call myself a massive fan of Portal. The original was a good game, don't get me wrong, but I am not fanatical about the series. To me they provide an interesting but forgettable challenge that doesn't really invite me to go and replay them again. Or at least until I know I have forgotten all of the puzzles, because essentially that is what Portal 2 is. Puzzles involving portals with an interesting (and humorous) story thrown over the top. This time round, Valve have gone to great lengths to tell a compelling story exploring various historical aspects of the Aperture Science company and exposing its many abandoned locales to the player. These make for sometimes frustrating puzzle environments as you look for that one hidden bit of white-wall to put your orange portal on to walk/fly through to get to the next area. Certain new technologies and 'goo' types make for interesting portal useage which can be interesting to uncover the first time around. The coop is a bit more of a brain-buster than the singleplayer providing much more difficult challenges involving synchronization of player actions and using each other's portals appropriately. Still, not a game I think I will revisit the singleplayer any time soon. Interesting, entertaining ... but otherwise forgettable. I would love to see what the mod community comes up with though.


Crysis 2. I'm kinda scratching my head as to how I should approach this one. I probably think the best way to describe my opinion of Crysis 2 is like this: I hate cities. I hate them in real life and I hate them in games. They are visually unimpressive and unless designed properly, provide incredibly static, linear and boring game play, which Crysis 2 very much was in my opinion. Even if its New York. The overused, cliché of a city always being destroyed by a monster, aliens or crime overlord just really doesn't do it for me. It's not really even because it is a city. If it were Tokyo, Cairo or even Berlin I probably wouldn't have hated the environment so much. It's because it's an American city that I got pissed off with it. I don't believe I have made an Americanisation rant when it comes to games, and maybe I shouldn't, but to an extent it is true. Especially in recent times with military themed shooters. Oh yes, various American themed forces are here to save the world (i.e. Americans) from enemy X from taking over America ... in America. The rest of the world doesn't matter because America is the centre of the world. It is also partly because the environment is such a downgrade from the original game. In the original Crysis I was running Koreans over on beaches, stalking them through jungles and hiding from aliens in the snow. I was on a holiday! Now? Oh ... you are funneling me towards yet another subway. Walk in a straight line for 200 yards along this street, right. You want me to find another guy in another building? I swear this building is an exact replica of the one that was destroyed in the last 10 minute cutscene you forced me to watch, and you don't want to get me started on the cutscenes. We'll also leave out the whole console-isation and catering for the lowest common denominator (i.e. consoles) technologically, this time :). My overall opinion? Crysis was much better. Maybe not visually (pretty damn close) but singleplayer and multiplayer wise (Crysis Wars), it shits all over Crysis 2.

-_-

Finally, the most recent game I have been playing around with is in fact banned in this country. I'll save that topic for another time. In the meantime, I will say that Mortal Kombat is something I have looked forward to for awhile, and it was definitely worth the wait. I personally believe it is the best fighting game out in recent years and should help raise the bar concerning how lacklustre the genre has been lately. While it is true that fighting games are all really about the fight, the footsies, the dueling between two combatants (sif use a K), there really is no excuse for major titles being released to ONLY be about that. MvC3 is a classic example with very little to offer outside its raw game play. Needless to say, they get boring quickly, especially for the casual player. What MK does differently is add pretty much what every fighting game should have had in the past 5 years. Multiple game modes, a ... really good story mode (seriously), cooperative/tag team modes (which are incredibly fun), an enormous list of unlockables and decent tutorials to slowly break in new players to the genre. It is also a decent fighter, not as complex mechanically as something like SSFIV or MvC3 and not as memory game/buttonmashy as Tekken. It sits snugly somewhere in between. An example of this working effectively can be seen in the new X-Ray moves, which is basically an accumulation of bonus 'energy' from taking/dealing damage. It is similar to Street Fighter's Ultra/Super bars except for one distinct property: its execution. Two buttons, the same two for every character. Dead simple. Why is this good? Well, it means that everyone can get a chance to pull off impressive signature moves at some point regardless of the character they are controlling. How is this balanced? They are blockable, don't have high chip/guard damage, and like in SSFIV, are not so easy to actually get off on a smart player ... but at least you can 'perform' them without breaking your thumbs or brain farting. If you buy one fighting game this year I would highly recommend buying MK. How you go about doing that is up to you.

Push death into them!

Yes. Recently finished a long, domination, coop campaign with a friend in Shogun 2. It took ... a month? I wasn't counting, and we didn't play it all the time. Still, it was an interesting experience with many frustrating and hilarious moments such as:

- Friend fighting 3 different enemies at the same time all in one province, and having his capital ninjaed by another enemy
- Outnumbered in battles, but kiting the AI with cavalry to reduce focus
- Me at certain points generating enough income for both of us
- Building armies worthy of Mordor
- Synchronisation bugs and errors
- Friend having a 65 year old max rank ninja killing everything
- Me bribing an entire enemy army with an army of metsukes and 40000 koku
- Spreading Buddhism over Christianity via means of extermination
- One of my highest ranked generals drowning
- Taking towns of 60 men with armies of ... well over 9000, honestly
- Two asshole armies sitting in a bush trying to ambush us for like 5 years
- Getting harassed continuously by pirates
- Not building a single rocket soldier or siege machine as Hojo
- Assaulting and taking Kyoto with horses



I probably wouldn't do it again for awhile, and if I did it would have to be in a different Total War game. We shall see...