O próximo review que farei será do FPS cooperativo Left 4 Dead 2, a ser postado assim que eu terminar as campanhas. Aqui vão alguns previews:

+ A Source Engine ainda é maravilhosa quanto aos modelos de personagem e à leveza dos jogos, que não dão uma travadinha sequer

+ Zumbis se desmancham bonito quando sob tiros ou uma motosserra

+ Algumas fases interessantes, como a final da campanha Dark Carnival

- Companheiros tem IA idiótica (eu sei que é multiplayer, mas até os bots de Counter-Strike são mais espertos)

- Repetitivo

- Fuzil de assalto = melhor arma do jogo. Outras armas não prestam pra nada

Um review completo será postado em breve.

• Number: 1
• Title: Halo: Combat Evolved (2003)
• Platform: PC
• Time Beaten: 5 hrs 30 mins
• Genre: First Person Shooter
• Difficulty: Normal

Comments: A very challenging and creative game. Easy to control, and easy to master. The campaign is perfect length to present a significant challenge, and the levels of the game are different enough to prevent repetitive play, which is quite a feat considering some of the sections of the game take place on the exact same ground over again. Excellent story ending that leaves the player ready for the next installment. Enemies are varied and require different strategies. The plot is compelling, and it really draws you in to the game to play without any kind of game guide.

One complaint that could be made, the pistol in the game is virtually unbeatable. Practically all of the enemies in the game can be neutralized with one headshot, and I spent most of the game never even picking up other weapons unless I was desperately out of ammo.

Link to review

Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising was an anticipated shooter, with a lot to live up to with its famous predecessor, a lot was gambling on the new release of Dragon Rising, but would it deliver as good as it promised?

To give you a good idea on the game, imagine the seriousness of a COD game, the tactical squad control of Rainbow Six Vegas, and the free roam of Far Cry 2. 3 great games, but could a combination of the three be pulled off so well to make it the granddaddy of FPS video games?

This is one heavy Mod:

You’ll need to hit 88 MPH and FPS to actually go back to the future, but we promise the effects in this DeLorean mod for Crysis/Crysis Wars will leave you like a slack-jawed Doc Brown.

No hoverboards or locomotives, sadly, but that is a fully-functioning DeLorean. And by fully, I mean fully.

Far Out!  Nice one an1sh

I prefer a video game with a story: otherwise what carries you through? To achieve a certain skill level? Bragging rights? Not all that interested. But games with a good story are just so addicting!
So we have purchased all of the Halo series over time but in the past week or so I actually went through the entire campaigns for 1, 2, 3 and ODST at the normal level. One night I stayed up past 4 finishing off the last. The online games can be fun (especially Halo 1 on the PC and ODST Firefight) but I’m not as drawn to these as much as to the storied campaign. I really like the history of the Forerunners, the Covenant and Master Chief/Cortana: it’s engaging and interesting with lots of twists. One day you’re fighting the Covenant and then the Flood and then you are allied with the Covenant against Prophets or the Flood or both. And in ODST there’s a lot of back and forth movement in the time line which grew on me, even though I was annoyed by it at first.
Again, it’s the story in Assassin’s Creed that drew me in. It is fascinating and involves both the future and the past in an interesting way. I like the fact that it’s a Canadian game and that it merges in real history as part of the experience. I also love the climbing and leap of faith abilities of Altaïr. I haven’t tried the newly released sequel yet but I’ve still got to finish the first one.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is quite a different animal. Although I have tried other COD titles they haven’t proved to be as interesting to me as the Halo series. What can I say, I’m a sci-fi fan and writer. In this case it was the hype that attracted me even though I haven’t tried Modern Warfare 1 (I didn’t even know the story line carries on from it until after). I’ll admit I was interested in what was drawing so much interest.  Activision has created an interesting game though and it is quite different in that your characters actually die in the game. I don’t mean they die because your skill and luck failed and you were killed, I mean that the characters in the story line who you have assumed actually die. And by betrayal. It left quite a cold taste in my mouth. I don’t like all the violence in shoot ‘em up games like these normally but Modern Warfare 2 really brings it over the top. In the end I find it, surprisingly, an anti-war game. The graphics are so realistic, stunning and blah blah blah that I felt dirtied by the act of playing. But the story made it even more so. After this game I find it even more amazing that mankind has been addicted to war for so long.  I’m glad I went through with the experience of doing the Modern Warfare 2 campaign but I’d rather be playing Halo or Assassin’s Creed.
In the end of this marathon of playing these games I am glad to get it out of my system. I’ll stay play, occasionally, but I need to get more done of a creative nature!

Our frag-happy pals at MEGamers posted a link to a mysterious new video of an FPS depicting Dubai as a sandy post-apocalyptic wasteland, complete with cameos of Emirates Towers, the Burj Al Arab and the Burj Dubai.

We’ve contacted our sources at 2K Games (who are allegedly publishing the game) for an official response, but as yet have received no word.

In the meantime head over to MEGamers to check out the video and wonder along with us what the PR implications for our fair city will be.

I’m not really sure where to start with Borderlands. It can be a great game, but it can alsto be a really bad game. Why? Because having a Xbox Live connection or a few good friends to play split screen with is crucial in order to enjoy this game.

Borderlands is a hybrid between a first person shooter and an action role playing game. I love the idea of that mixture, because I think the traditional straight forward first person shooters are downright boring. Adding a bit of role playing elements to it is welcomed.

One of the things I didn’t like that much about Borderlands is the opening, because there is no real introduction to either your character, nor the game world. You’re just trown in there. You find yourself in the middle of a Texas looking planet, and you’re given these odd messages by an odd woman that wants you to find something she calles “the vault”.

I don’t mind a Texas looking planet, or a woman telling me things, but I do like to know what’s going on. It feels like a bit of a weakness to the role playing factor of Borderlands.

That being said, I have mostly good things to say about the gameplay. It’s action driven, loot getting, level climbing and skill aquiring, just the way you want a good action RPG to be like. It’s almost like a mixture of Diablo and Fallout 3, and that’s meant in a good way.

It would be nice, however, if the single player part of it was better. You simply have to play this game as a team with other people, because that’s basically the only way it’s fun. Running around alone is just boring, because the game design is so aimed at a multiplayer co-op experience. If you don’t have another Xbox 360 controller, have no Xbox Live connection, or simply have no friends; don’t bother to buy Borderlands. If you do, this game is something to remember.

In a multiplayer game I usually don’t mind the story or storytelling qualities of the game. In a single player experience, I get put off by poorly developed and poorly delivered story elements. For Borderlands, the latter applies. Happily, I do have both friends and an Xbox Live connection.

Serious Sam, kicking names and taking ass since 2001. And now he’s back in HD.

Release date: Available now!
Serious Sam official site: www.serioussamhd.com
Croteam official site: www.croteam.com

Das Genre der First-Person-Shooter gehört spätestens seit dem weitgreifenden Erfolg von “Doom” zu den erfolgreichsten und zugleich meistdiskutierten unter den Computerspielen.
Als ein früher Meilenstein wird “Wolfenstein 3D” von 1992 angesehen, das es erstmals als immersives Erlebnis inszenierte, bewaffnet durch Korridore voller Feinde zu streifen. Das Motiv des “einsamen Wolfes”, des Protagonisten, der ohne Verbündete in einer Welt von Gegnern bestehen muss, wurde als integraler Bestandteil des Genres etabliert.
“Doom” brachte 1993 das Genre in sehr viele Kinderzimmer überall auf der Welt, denn im Vergleich zum nur ein Jahr älteren “Wolfenstein 3D”, dass die Dreidimensionalität noch heischerisch im Namen tragen musste, hatte die Immersion stark zugenommen: Sound wurde plötzlich in stereo wiedergegeben und erlaubte eine Verortung der Gegner im Raum nach Gehör, zudem gab es nun nicht mehr nur flache Korridore immer genau gleicher Höhe, sondern auch Treppen, Stege, Brücken, Fenster, Lavatümpel und so fort. Die Technik war weit fortgeschritten, aber: Noch immer waren alle Gegner nur Bitmaps, also flache Pappkameraden. 3D-Modelle, die sich auch noch bewegen konnten, waren 1993 noch nicht denkbar.
Erst 1996 bot “Quake” ein Spielerlebnis, bei dem man in echten 3D-Landschaften Monster bekämpfte, die ihrerseits als komplett dreidimensionale Modelle herumliefen. Das führte zu dem populären Irrtum (zuletzt reproduziert bei Spreeblick), dass “Quake” der erste First-Person-Shooter in kompletter 3D-Umgebung gewesen wäre.¹

Ein Irrtum ist das deshalb, weil das von Konkurrent Interplay bereits ein Jahr vorher veröffentlichte “Descent” auch schon ein First-Person-Shooter war, dessen Gegner komplette 3D-Modelle sind. Descent ist in technischer Hinsicht noch um einiges bedeutsamer als “Quake”: Nicht nur konnte man in einem bräunlichen Schloss herumlaufen, sondern das Setting in außerirdischen Minenstationen (also in Schwerelosigkeit) erlaubte 1995 ein ungebundenes Bewegen in jede beliebige Richtung, woraus sich entsprechend auch ein viel tiefergreifendes Raumgefühl ergab. Die Gegner, die man bekämpfte, waren entsprechend auch keine am Boden rumlaufenden Monster, sondern ebenfalls schwerelos fliegende Roboter – dreidimensional.
Leider hat Descent das Pech, dieses Vorreitertum oft nicht zuerkannt zu bekommen, was Quake schon bei dessen Erscheinen (Marketing!) stark in die Hände spielte. Die Gründe: Man sieht keinen waffenhaltenden Arm im Bild. Man ist nicht ans Am-Boden-Rumlaufen gebunden. Und die Gegner sind nur Roboter.

Manchmal wird Descent daher behelfsweise ins Genre der Weltraumshooter gesteckt, wo ihm dann natürlich “X-Wing” zuvorgekommen wäre: Das hatte schon 1993 Raumschiffe und Asteroiden (also alles, womit man kämpfen oder kollidieren konnte) in echtem 3D.
Vergleicht man mal Screenshots aus beiden Spielen, fällt auf: Tatsächlich haben beide ein eingeblendetes Cockpit (das in “Descent” konnte man ausblenden). Jedoch ist man in X-Wing permanent von freiem Weltraum umgeben (-> “Weltraumshooter”), in “Descent” hingegen wird man keinen einzigen Moment im Gameplay erleben, in dem man irgendwo Sterne sieht – ebenso wie “Doom” und “Quake” spielt “Descent” innen.
Auch daher beschießt man in X-Wing (wie auch bei “Wing Commander” und allen anderen Weltraumshootern) seine Gegner aus größerer, teilweise enorm großer Distanz. In “Descent” ist ein Gegner im Kampf selten weiter als hundert Meter entfernt, meistens kommt man in Kämpfen auf wenige Meter an diese heran – ebenso wie in “Wolfenstein 3D” oder “Doom”.
Überdies ist das Gameplay in “X-Wing” rein missionsbasiert: Für das Vernichten von Gegnern bekommt man Punkte, hat man alle Aufgaben einer Mission erfüllt, ist diese gewonnen, das ist alles – wie im Genre üblich gibt es innerhalb der Missionen keine “Goodies”. “Descent” lebt wie “Doom”, “Duke Nukem 3D” und “Quake” nicht zuletzt davon, dass abgeschossene Gegner Upgrades hinterlassen und man in geheimen Kammern Boni finden kann, mit denen sich Waffen aufrüsten und die eigene Kampfstärke aufbessern lassen.
Außerdem steuert sich der X-Wing (wie die Raumschiffe in den meisten Weltraumshootern) etwa wie ein Flugzeug: Man legt eine gewisse Geschwindigkeit in der Vorwärtsbewegung fest, die dann von selbst gehalten wird, und lenkt dann den Flug durch Schwenkbewegungen. In “Descent” bleibt man, sobald man die Vorwärtstaste loslässt, stehen, kann sich aber alternativ auch rückwärts oder seitwärts bewegen – ebenso wie in “Doom”, “Duke Nukem 3D”, “Quake” und “Half-Life”.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
“Descent” ist kein Weltraumshooter – Schwerelosigkeit, fahrbarer Untersatz und sonstige Ästhetizismen hin oder her. “Descent” ist ein First-Person-Shooter. Und als solcher der erste in echtem 3D.

Oder?

(“History Line” war natürlich gar kein Shooter sondern ein Strategiespiel und hatte auch nicht das Geringste mit 3D am Hut. Ich fand das Wort nur sehr griffig für die Überschrift.)

1. Tatsächlich ist “Quake” für ganz andere Errungenschaften bemerkenswert. Die wichtigste davon wirkt bis in die meisten 3D-Spiele der Gegenwart nach: Die Einführung des WASD-Steuerkreuzes. [↩]

I know it might sound as if I’ve beaten this horse as much as I have stalker here, but I think I’d like to add a few comments with a severely less hype-minded approach here.

At the moment, I’m around the midpoint of Borderlands and it’s starting to show its blemishes. The previous time I wrote about this game, I was fresh faced, bushy tailed and all that crazy bullshit, but after experiencing approximately around 20 hours with of gameplay, I’d like to share what I’ve experiences, with a maximum of 1 digression, what I’ve experience, and what I feel about it.

When I previously mentioned all that glorifying hype about side quests, I meant it, at least at the time. The beginning of the game really sucks you in. Then you get to the next area and it feels like you’re starting all over again, except the quests really fail to capture the magic, the essence that they did at the beginning. Maybe it was because the world was big, vast and mysterious, and you’re only poking your head out of the doorstep, but it really felt as you were just an errant item, stalking around the shadows and crenulations of Pandora, trying to get by without being noticed and not trying to upset too many people. This is up until just after you defeat this bastard of a gangster type Sledge in his domain when you realise that you can pretty well walk through everything, a destructive utensil of the enigmatic bounty board, with little fear of death. Or maybe this is because I had a revolver that fires exploding bullets.

It was a combination of the ease of the game, the pace, and boring AI and the ever increasingly collecto/kill-fest quests that really detract from some very nicely thought out level designs, but in a large part, it was really the soul of the game. I draw comparison to stalker, in which it actually has quite a few basic similarities. In stalker, people will fight tooth and nail for their small bit of territory that they call home. It all feels very real; they sit around the fire, talk, tell stories and tell jokes, whereas in borderlands, they sort of just randomly wander around until something turns up the kill them, this is why you never have any concern or interest for the denizens of the wastelands, and they really just feel like well-armed obstacles without personalities. This not only breaks immersion, but makes the places they inhabit feel dead and pointless. And the level design is really quite nice, and deserves complimentary elements, did I already mention that?

The design of the side quests is somewhat inevitable, somewhere along the line they’re going to run out of ideas, but since you spend the vast majority of your time engaged in a sidequest of some description, it would seem only sensible to give them more variety. In the second area, you had to do something similar to the first, except rather than visiting a gangster, then retrieving a key, then doing battle with the man himself, and everything in between, you merely piss off a few of his thugs and challenge him to one big ridiculous vehicular dual to the death. It would appear that they’re trying to persist with giving each area its own issues and personalities, but considering that the relevant plot was so curtailed, it hardly had any impact at all.

The final issue that I think deserves some attention is the games difficulty. Sure, it’s meant to be a hard game played with 3 other chums, but that really isn’t much fun with all the communication issues. So even with one other friend, the game really proves little challenge, especially if he steals all of your XP by killing a boss when he’s four levels higher than you, however it is quite fun, particularly with the Rakk boss, devising a strategy and screaming at each other down the mic (we use Skype) in the midst of the madness. There it is, my one digression, I hope you enjoyed it. But when playing singleplayer, which is sometimes a nice change of pace, the game is a breeze. And I mean REALLY easy, there is essentially nothing trying to stop you from reaching all of your objectives, and when they try; they’ve evolved to the stage of merely disrupting the scenery.

That and the fact that the sniper rifle, when scoped moves about a bloody millimetre every time you do as much as NUDGE THE MOUSE. This is infuriating, please fix it, it feels as if I’m playing with a man, made out of plastic with preset grooves of articulation in his joints that cannot be glossed over UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

This is a bit of an update because now I’ve played a considerable part further into the game, and I’m glad to say that it returns to its original ideals of the grand quests comprised of even more well designed levels. Although the gameplay is much the same as it was earlier, the level design really allows you to feel like the badass mercenary you are, regardless of your playstyle, and I think this is what is really sustaining the game for me, not necessarily the endless blood lust, or the story. and it does a lot for the game by building very well orchestrated worlds with interesting features, yet the best of these only really shine around the 25 hour mark when you start doing jobs for people around Newhaven, allowing you to explore the dockyards of a moonshine outfit, or the canyon city of Krom the gangster, a couple of great examples of thorough playtesting and design collaboration, but I wont spoil them for you.

So, I think I like borderlands in a sort of love/hate way. The art style is lovely, the gameplay is consistently fun, even in respects to the way the weapons sound, let along how they feel and look; and the level design is stellar. All in all, now that the hype engines have settled, I first recommend you try it, or if you’re a PC gamer, bug a friend who did buy it, at least he’ll speak his mind.

I caught up with the “Old School Crowd” today; my bunch of friends from school who I’ve been meaning to catch up with.

We settled in for a good session of Rock Band (the old favourite), Modern Warfare 2 and pizza. First person shooters like Call of Duty have never really excited me; I’m the kinda person that needs some zombies to shoot at or a big dirty laser gun to shoot with. The war-type realism just doesn’t pique my interest.

What I did like was the night-vision goggles that came with the “Prestige” edition of the game. We piled out into the cold November night to test them out. Good fun! Check out Wired’s Game|Life post about “Test-Driving Modern Warfare 2’s Night-Vision Goggles“.

The pizza was meat, meat and more meat, if you’re interested. (We’re typical boys).

“Increíble” es la palabra adecuada para este video, donde un jugador de Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 mata a un enemigo lanzando su cuchillo, en el modo multijugador.

Este First Person Shooter acaba de salir a la venta y ya está rompiendo récords de ventas y partidas en línea, pero no cabe duda que entre las miles o millones de partidas ya realizadas, ésta será de las más famosas.

Sólo vean el video y díganme qué les parece. Yo opino que si lo ensayaran durante un año seguiría sin salirles.

Saludos!

“Increíble” es la palabra adecuada para este video, donde un jugador de Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 mata a un enemigo lanzando su cuchillo, en el modo multijugador.

Este First Person Shooter acaba de salir a la venta y ya está rompiendo récords de ventas y partidas en línea, pero no cabe duda que entre las miles o millones de partidas ya realizadas, ésta será de las más famosas.

Sólo vean el video y díganme qué les parece. Yo opino que si lo ensayaran durante un año seguiría sin salirles.

Saludos!

Quite possibly one of the most eagerly awaited video games to date is finally here, thousands of people queued up to get their hands on a copy around the world and here’s Xboxliveaddicts official review on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

Click here to go to the full review!

I am a PC gamer. I am a huge fan of COD4, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, I think it’s the best FPS PC game ever released and its sales figures back up that claim. As with all games of this genre, while the single player experience is fun, the multiplayer mode is why you buy the game and what gives the game its replay value. In this regard, COD4 is awesome, absolutely without peer, IMO.

So, as you might imagine, ever since they announced a release date for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, I have been waiting in eager anticipation. Now, imagine my surprise when it turns out that Activision/Infinity Ward, in MW2, has stripped out all the multiplayer features that made COD4 such a success. Not only is this a major multiplayer experience downgrade (which they’re charging $10 more for), but it seems that this was done deliberately, as a slap in the face to the PC gaming community!

Modern Warfare 2: The Battleground for PC Gaming?

Every once in a while (every 10 minutes or so), the death knell of PC gaming is cried out by someone or other. And once in a while, it seems like they might be right. PC gaming is not, however, going anywhere. With such an open platform that allows anyone to get in without buying a dev kit, there will always be something to play. Nonetheless, the release of Modern Warfare 2, to me, signals one of the loudest shots fired from the bow of a major publisher against PC gaming.

Freelancer Mitch Dyer commented on his twitter feed earlier today that he was ranked one million something in Modern Warfare, meaning that in just 12 hours, the game has sold over a million copies on one platform. Any doubt that this game would be huge should be a distant memory by now.

The two console versions are pretty much feature-identical, as far as I know. It comes down to preferences for controllers and online service. Beside that, they’re the same game.

But then there’s the PC version.

The thing about PC gamers is, they expect certain things out of their games, things that have always been there as far back as Quake. First and foremost is the exclusion of support for dedicated servers. Back in the Quake II days, I remember logging into the same server (Nostromo) every night over the summer to play deathmatch over dial-up. On the 360 and PS3, matchmaking is an accepted part of the platform.

To not have that, as little an inconvenience as it may be in reality, seems like a major affront to PC gamers. Having the option to get familiar with a server and the group that shows up there has always been one of the benefits of the game, along with having the option to vote users off the server if they’re being disruptive without having to wait for an admin to get to it. Also, when the game isn’t hosted by a player, no one gets the home field advantage and no one affects the game when they pull the plug mid-match.

Of course on the publisher side, you get problems like servers with weird settings that encourage cheating and most importantly, servers that don’t verify that your copy of the game is legal. That’s the big thing. By having the entire online game run through a service, you force all your users to verify their copies of the game if they want to play online. Even if it means no clan home servers and worse, no local play.

Another missing aspect is the lack of console access. The best way to describe a PC gamer, to me, is to compare them to those car nuts that build hot rods from scratch. PC gamers build their systems, know the specs of every part in their computer, and have everything set-up just the way they like. Check out their World of Warcraft interfaces when they get to higher levels, and you’ll see something that barely looks like the same game. Similarly, some gamers like to have their shooters set-up just-so. Tweaking the field of view settings and sensitivity of the controls are things gamers expect to have the option to do as necessary. Instead, Infinity Ward has told gamers that they’d like them to play the game as they designed it, regardless of any user preferences that may not conform to what the publisher thinks is important.

Other limitations include restricting the maps to 9v9 (when the first Modern Warfare allowed games with 16v16) and the exclusion of the lean move, in the name of not having to recalibrate the maps. That lower team limit is a major thing for all the clans that formed on Modern Warfare servers trying to make the jump to the sequel. Split the team up? Have Alpha and Bravo teams? Not play the new one?

I won’t even mention that the PC version of the game is selling for the same price—$59.99—as the console equivalents. Oops, I just mentioned it.

All this together makes me think Infinity Ward/Activision is excluding expected features in hopes of discouraging PC users. Maybe not discouraging them, but taking away many of the advantages that have drawn PC users in the past while doing as much as possible to combat piracy. Of course, where there’s a will there’s a way, and there’s always a will in PC gaming, and I won’t be surprised if we see dedicated servers with 16v16 games within a few months.

Whether the mad geniuses of the mod world come up with a solution, Activision’s decision strikes me as a very clear message that PC games—or at least hardcore PC gamers—do not play a large role in their equation. While indie gaming and MMORPGs thrive, I have a feeling that some of the bigger publishers are going to give the PC less and less attention when they have a much more reliable option available.

See also:
Modern Warfare PC compared to Modern Warfare 2 PC
Modern Warfare 2 PC User reviews low…
PC Gamers Fear Modern Warfare 2 Is A Console Port [Video]
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 PC Multiplayer Capped at 18 players
Modern Warfare 2 (PC) Capped at 9v9
PC Players Revolting Against Modern Warfare 2
PC Modern Warfare 2: it’s much worse than you thought
Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 PC review
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 PC Review
Activision Not Concerned With Modern Warfare 2 PC Negativity
Modern Warfare 2 Hacks Already Available on PC

Needless to say, I’m extremely dissapointed and conflicted by this fiasco. I was really looking forward to playing this game but, on the other hand, on principle, I don’t want to financially reward Activision/Infinity Ward for their blatantly arrogant and hostile treatment of loyal PC gamers. They expect us to pay more for an inferior product after we’ve already seen that they’re capable of putting out an excellent multiplayer game like COD4. It sucks.

/for now, I guess I’m going to sit back, think about it some more, and wait and see how this controversy plays itself out