I seem to be in the mood to post today, and because, for the past couple of years I seem to post only about video game related stuff (today's other post notwithstanding), I'm gonna post about this:
Crackdown 2 (Wikipedia entry. the Computer and Video Games.com review)
The last line of the review sums up my feelings:
"but, if you buy it, don't be surprised to experience a twinge of disappointment as the game unravels."
Okay, what follows contains information that may be considered 'Spoilers," but you'll know most of this anyway after playing for an hour (if you go for the Story goals. I didn't. I spent my first night jumping and climbing to find orbs, because I loved doing it so much in the original game). If you don't want to know, just don't read.
Also, I'm only talking about the single player here. While I like co-op, I'm just not interested in the other, more competitive or adversarial multiplayer aspects. Not yet, anyway.
I loved the original Crackdown, and I spent months anticipating Crackdown 2. Mostly, my disappoint lies with the story. There really isn't one. Instead, you only have two tasks:
First, the task of activating sets of three energy-collecting gadgets in order to power up a beacon. Drop beacon into freak lair and defend it against vandalizing freaks while it warms up, At full power, it gets all glowy, burns all the freaks in the lair, and ends their good time. After that, you go out to rescue the next set of three collectors and repeat, for a total of nine beacons spread throughout the city. The big climax of the game is that you get to activate a tenth beacon located at Agency headquarters that will finish off all remaining freaks in the city.
The second task it to take control of specific 'tactical' points throughout the city from the local terrorist organization, The Cell.. Each tactical point seems to have a partner point in the same neighborhood that you should capture soon after the first. Otherwise, the Cell, will come back and reclaim their, uh, sidewalks?. The tactical points are mostly on the streets (with a few on the rooftops) so it's more like a place that a bunch of guys with guns like to hang out, like an NRA club meeting in the parking lot of the bowling alley. Claiming a tactical point gives you a place to resupply, to store newly discovered weapons, or to change your weapon loadout.
Both tasks feel like they should have been side missions (thus, the reason I call them tasks instead of missions), there only to keep you busy while waiting for the main storyline to progress.. Neither task gives you much of a feeling of making a difference against the game's Biggest Bads...
Saying 'Biggest Bads' in relation to Crackdown 2 is a little painful. Collecting the "In Story" Audio Files scattered across the city kind of makes you think there really is a Big Bad that you'll have a grand final battle with. But not so much. More of a hook for events in a Crackdown 3 (which, despite my mild disappointment with the second game, I'm still hoping hoping hoping for a third).
Having said all that, I still like the game. Still like the look and style, still like the gameplay, LOVE the climbing and jumping and blowing everything into tiny little bits. Still love the orbs (even though they were the source of HOURS of frustrated searching in the first Crackdown). Still love picking up cars and throwing them at people. Still love driving fast cars through crowds of squishy people. I even love the Voice of the Agency guy, even when he was calling me names and questioning my manhood. Most of the fun I had in the original game was in doing all those things, and I still get to do them in the second.
Combat is still wild, especially once you've leveled up your abilities and acquired the better weapons Big booms, little booms, chains of booms. Toss a car from a rooftop, fire a rocket launcher... flying boom! There's even a quacky yellow rubber duck boom! Gun battles even get a little harrowing at times when you're surrounded on the street by rifle-toting thugs and have a few punks with rocket launchers, grenade launchers or gun turrets above you, all shooting at you while you scramble for cover in the one doorway or alcove they can't get a line of sight on, healing up so you can make a dash for the rooftops, only to be blown back to the ground by the guy with the Agent-seeking rocket.
And heck, I still love Pacific City, even if she is all shabby and rundown and blown apart. I always have a difficult time navigating around sandbox and open world game cities without frequently calling up the map. I have some trouble recognizing differing areas of the cities, and absolutely NO sense of direction in-game (there's no real awareness of where the in-game sun is unless I'm looking up at it, so every direction feels the same to me). I have to play for dozens of hours before I'm able to get myself from one side of a city to the other without calling up the map at every second or third intersection or using a waypoint system (sometimes, I still get lost on Call of Duty maps, even though the entire field of battle is roughly the size of my backyard).
The new Pacific City really did seem all new. So, I was thrilled when, a couple of hours into the game, I recognized a particular set of buildings from the first game. No, it wasn't the amusement park, or a Shai-Gen building, or the oil rig. Just a couple of low buildings near the water, in view of Agency tower. It had been quite a while since I'd played the original Crackdown, and I assumed that the new Pacific City would be completely different except for a few high profile/well loved locations from the first game. Standing there, looking at these innocuous buildings that had no importance in the first game (or the second, for that matter), I realized that it really was my beloved Pacific City, and that I could find my way around after all.
I spent a few hours exploring for anything I could recognize from the first game. Got my low-ability-level self killed several times by bad guys, a couple of falls, and not running away from my own grenades fast enough, but it was worth it to see all the places I loved in the original Crackdown. They'd changed, fallen apart, been destroyed. But I could still see the places I'd fought those early battles, getting my butt kicked several times, places I returned to later after I was all grow'd up, just so I could throw a few cars at those bullies, toss in some grenades, then pick off the survivors with a harpoon gun. Ah, memories!
My recommendation for people like me, who aren't into the multiplayer: buy the original Crackdown if you don't already own it. Play through it for a while until Crackdown 2 has a more reasonable price, then pick up the sequel. I would have been less disappointed if I didn't also have the sting of paying full price for the game.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Tortured Mind of a Genius
From Fox News: PBS Defends Cutting Footage of McCartney's Jab at Bush From Broadcast
Is this even controversial? I've been out of the politics loop for a very long time, but this doesn't seem at all like something to get worked up about, or even report. It doesn't even seem like PBS is defending the cut, or only doing so half-heartedly. Quarter-heartedly. and with another guys heartedly-ness.
McCartney's comment doesn't seem all that bad either, other than being a tired old joke. He is probably also being lazy. If you're one of the most recognizable singer/songwriters in the world, invited to the White House, and standing in front of the President, you probably feel some pressure to say something memorable, but memorable is tricky. Maybe something amusing instead? Amusing is easier anyway, but you don't want to try to improvise something, because Jerry Seinfeld is watching only a few feet away and you just KNOW that if you try for the big laugh you'll be upstaged by him there or maybe later at some press-filled cocktail party that no-one told you about. Or you'll be ceaselessly compared to him, the way people are always secretly comparing you to Tilda Swinton... stupid Seinfeld. Stupid White Witch ...
Hmm.? Oh yes, focus.... a Democrat occupies the White House, so jokes about Republicans should fly, but who to make the butt of the joke? James Garfield? Nah, an assassination joke probably wouldn't go over well. Eisenhower? Nah, he's a war hero. Reagan, maybe? Golly, no way! That will definitely stir up a hornets nest of GOP anger. G.H.W. Bush ? Well... kind of tough. Seems to have been a decent guy, not a bad or controversial president, and only a single term. Would take too much thought to find something good. So that leaves... oh hey! The current President's predecessor! Hasn't been out of office too long, and the Dems REALLY seemed to dislike the guy and they talk like the current President's election was a complete repudiation of the last guy's entire term of service! Plus, all the jokes have already been written and retold! Can't miss!
So he spits out the easiest, laziest joke, just to get a quick chuckle. The crowd chuckles, mostly out of politeness for the venerable former-Beatle, then everyone goes to do whatever people do after a visit to the White House, like eat pizza or play Jenga or something.
Unless you're good ol' Paul. Instead, you go off and obsess about how you know you had something incredibly poignant and simultaneously hilarious to say but all the pressure of Jerry Seinfeld's presence probably made your brain lock it away in your subconscious for all time and now the world will never know it. Stupid Seinfeld with his handsome and charismatic presence.
Poor Paul... a tortured mind, if that fictionalized insider's view of his internal thought processes are accurate.
Anyway, I say this is a totally dumb thing to get worked up about, though former Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino would seem to disagree with me. She says, "It was sad to me someone of Paul McCartney's stature can in one moment erase years of goodwill that he built up with so many people in America."
People who would allow something this insignificant to "erase years of goodwill" probably already had their own right-leaningness and Paul's left-leaningness clash, erasing the goodwill long ago. The people who enjoy participating in the Us-vs.-Them politics and squabbling will still outraged, lined up on their respective sides, hollering and hooting at their opponents (they aren't really outraged, by the way. Blockbuster was out of the movie they wanted. Well, there were, like, a dozen copies, but all Blu-Ray, and they really don't want to spend so much for a Blu-Ray player right now. But if you can't make it a Blockbuster Night, may as well get pissed off about something ).
Those of us who don't give a flying hogmonkey's rump will just use it as a way to relieve their boredom of searching the interwebbs for one single, particular, stupid-ass t-shirt, or the bleeding manufacturer that doesn't have a website, or maybe a retail outlet that even mentions that they buy from this manufacturer. Please, Kibo, give me something!
Is this even controversial? I've been out of the politics loop for a very long time, but this doesn't seem at all like something to get worked up about, or even report. It doesn't even seem like PBS is defending the cut, or only doing so half-heartedly. Quarter-heartedly. and with another guys heartedly-ness.
McCartney's comment doesn't seem all that bad either, other than being a tired old joke. He is probably also being lazy. If you're one of the most recognizable singer/songwriters in the world, invited to the White House, and standing in front of the President, you probably feel some pressure to say something memorable, but memorable is tricky. Maybe something amusing instead? Amusing is easier anyway, but you don't want to try to improvise something, because Jerry Seinfeld is watching only a few feet away and you just KNOW that if you try for the big laugh you'll be upstaged by him there or maybe later at some press-filled cocktail party that no-one told you about. Or you'll be ceaselessly compared to him, the way people are always secretly comparing you to Tilda Swinton... stupid Seinfeld. Stupid White Witch ...
Hmm.? Oh yes, focus.... a Democrat occupies the White House, so jokes about Republicans should fly, but who to make the butt of the joke? James Garfield? Nah, an assassination joke probably wouldn't go over well. Eisenhower? Nah, he's a war hero. Reagan, maybe? Golly, no way! That will definitely stir up a hornets nest of GOP anger. G.H.W. Bush ? Well... kind of tough. Seems to have been a decent guy, not a bad or controversial president, and only a single term. Would take too much thought to find something good. So that leaves... oh hey! The current President's predecessor! Hasn't been out of office too long, and the Dems REALLY seemed to dislike the guy and they talk like the current President's election was a complete repudiation of the last guy's entire term of service! Plus, all the jokes have already been written and retold! Can't miss!
So he spits out the easiest, laziest joke, just to get a quick chuckle. The crowd chuckles, mostly out of politeness for the venerable former-Beatle, then everyone goes to do whatever people do after a visit to the White House, like eat pizza or play Jenga or something.
Unless you're good ol' Paul. Instead, you go off and obsess about how you know you had something incredibly poignant and simultaneously hilarious to say but all the pressure of Jerry Seinfeld's presence probably made your brain lock it away in your subconscious for all time and now the world will never know it. Stupid Seinfeld with his handsome and charismatic presence.
Poor Paul... a tortured mind, if that fictionalized insider's view of his internal thought processes are accurate.
Anyway, I say this is a totally dumb thing to get worked up about, though former Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino would seem to disagree with me. She says, "It was sad to me someone of Paul McCartney's stature can in one moment erase years of goodwill that he built up with so many people in America."
People who would allow something this insignificant to "erase years of goodwill" probably already had their own right-leaningness and Paul's left-leaningness clash, erasing the goodwill long ago. The people who enjoy participating in the Us-vs.-Them politics and squabbling will still outraged, lined up on their respective sides, hollering and hooting at their opponents (they aren't really outraged, by the way. Blockbuster was out of the movie they wanted. Well, there were, like, a dozen copies, but all Blu-Ray, and they really don't want to spend so much for a Blu-Ray player right now. But if you can't make it a Blockbuster Night, may as well get pissed off about something ).
Those of us who don't give a flying hogmonkey's rump will just use it as a way to relieve their boredom of searching the interwebbs for one single, particular, stupid-ass t-shirt, or the bleeding manufacturer that doesn't have a website, or maybe a retail outlet that even mentions that they buy from this manufacturer. Please, Kibo, give me something!
Sunday, July 25, 2010
My Plastic Box Can Beat Up Your Plastic Box!
I posted twice in 2006. Three posts in 2009. And now, I make my first post of 2010. If I'm not careful, this will become an addiction. Anyway...
"Are PC gamers better than console players?"
Silly argument. It's like asking if North Dakota is better than South Dakota. It doesn't matter.
Both camps are gamers. I like the Xbox 360. One fellow I work with likes the PS3. Another fellow at work plays PC games. We rag on each other and talk some mad shite, but we still recognize that the three of us all love the same thing. We all laugh when one of us talks about botched attempts at something in-game, and we all get idiot-grins when the other guy is describing that amazing multikill or killstreak. The platform we play on doesn't matter. We just love the games.
The article linked at the top does not, at all, answer the question in its own headline. Basically, one guy (who advocates PC gaming) speculates that Microsoft pulled out of some kind of cross-platform competitive experiment because the "mediocre" pc gamers routinely beat the "top-notch" Xbox gamers. Also, he states, "You simply don’t get the same level of detail or control as you do with a PC over a console." I think that last statement is quantitatively true (though 'level of detail' can be an aesthetic consideration), and that few people argue against it, but it isn't proof that the PC-ers are inherently better than console-ers.
There are some great gamers out there on all platforms, and there are some real suck-ass players on all platforms, too. Playing on one doesn't bestow greater skill than playing on another, and comparing the two camps is insincere if the limitations of the hardware are not considered. Take the PC gamer and limit him to eight pre-assigned buttons, the numberpad (numbers only, but no zero or five) and two thumbsticks (and the reduced precision that goes with those sticks vs. a mouse), and he'll be closer the handicap of the Xbox players (yes, we Xbox 360 gamers are handicapped by the limitations of the controller. It's a little like playing Scrabble, but only being able to start with four tiles while your opponent gets eight).
The last half of the article asks, "But, all things considered, does the PC provide the best experience?" This isn't remotely the same type of question as the one asked at the top of the article, and has nothing to do with it. Indeed, a good PC will give you better graphics and a smoother running game with better, more precise controls. Undoubtedly. That's not what makes for a better gaming experience though.
I play PC games when my Xbox Live friends are not online or are playing something I'm not in the mood to play. The better gaming experience, for me, comes from having people to play with regularly, ones that make the game much more fun than it would be otherwise. Yep, most of the people I've met on Xbox Live are douchebags, half-wits, loudmouths, assholes or crybaby punks (most of the people I've met in the offline world are the same), but there are a few that enhance the experience for me.
They watch my back during team deathmatches. They coach me when I can't hit crap with a sniper rifle (almost every shot is a miss!). They rag on me when I'm killed by a claymore. In same doorway as before. For the fourth time. They (virtually) high-five me when I end the match with a high k/d ratio. And when I get too caught up in the game, get too competitive, they remind me that it's just a game. Or they irritate the shit out of me until I give up on trying to win, take a deep breath, and go back to playing just for fun.
"Are PC gamers better than console players?"
Silly argument. It's like asking if North Dakota is better than South Dakota. It doesn't matter.
Both camps are gamers. I like the Xbox 360. One fellow I work with likes the PS3. Another fellow at work plays PC games. We rag on each other and talk some mad shite, but we still recognize that the three of us all love the same thing. We all laugh when one of us talks about botched attempts at something in-game, and we all get idiot-grins when the other guy is describing that amazing multikill or killstreak. The platform we play on doesn't matter. We just love the games.
The article linked at the top does not, at all, answer the question in its own headline. Basically, one guy (who advocates PC gaming) speculates that Microsoft pulled out of some kind of cross-platform competitive experiment because the "mediocre" pc gamers routinely beat the "top-notch" Xbox gamers. Also, he states, "You simply don’t get the same level of detail or control as you do with a PC over a console." I think that last statement is quantitatively true (though 'level of detail' can be an aesthetic consideration), and that few people argue against it, but it isn't proof that the PC-ers are inherently better than console-ers.
There are some great gamers out there on all platforms, and there are some real suck-ass players on all platforms, too. Playing on one doesn't bestow greater skill than playing on another, and comparing the two camps is insincere if the limitations of the hardware are not considered. Take the PC gamer and limit him to eight pre-assigned buttons, the numberpad (numbers only, but no zero or five) and two thumbsticks (and the reduced precision that goes with those sticks vs. a mouse), and he'll be closer the handicap of the Xbox players (yes, we Xbox 360 gamers are handicapped by the limitations of the controller. It's a little like playing Scrabble, but only being able to start with four tiles while your opponent gets eight).
The last half of the article asks, "But, all things considered, does the PC provide the best experience?" This isn't remotely the same type of question as the one asked at the top of the article, and has nothing to do with it. Indeed, a good PC will give you better graphics and a smoother running game with better, more precise controls. Undoubtedly. That's not what makes for a better gaming experience though.
I play PC games when my Xbox Live friends are not online or are playing something I'm not in the mood to play. The better gaming experience, for me, comes from having people to play with regularly, ones that make the game much more fun than it would be otherwise. Yep, most of the people I've met on Xbox Live are douchebags, half-wits, loudmouths, assholes or crybaby punks (most of the people I've met in the offline world are the same), but there are a few that enhance the experience for me.
They watch my back during team deathmatches. They coach me when I can't hit crap with a sniper rifle (almost every shot is a miss!). They rag on me when I'm killed by a claymore. In same doorway as before. For the fourth time. They (virtually) high-five me when I end the match with a high k/d ratio. And when I get too caught up in the game, get too competitive, they remind me that it's just a game. Or they irritate the shit out of me until I give up on trying to win, take a deep breath, and go back to playing just for fun.