On the Subject of Money

Random TnA

Back in the day games tended to be developed by gamers, for gamers. It was a nerdy industry, consumed by nerds, and none of them (us) cared. There were good, imaginative, innovative games which we all enjoyed and everything was good. Then, like any sizeable subculture, it began to be groomed and exploited and commercialised by big business. I'd suggest that a great deal of the responsibility lies at Sony's door, because it was really the original Playstation which triggered the transformation of gaming into a fashion, or at least the attempt to expand gaming beyond nerds and into the hands of the regular yahoos.
As a result, games are no longer developed by gamers for gamers, they're produced by corporations for their shareholders. Game development is being driven by anonymous "investors" who quite likely have no interest or experience in gaming, and whose sole focus is to maximise dividends. You don't do that by innovating, or by producing a high quality product for a niche market like authentic flight sims. You do it by churning out derivative, lowest-common-denominator trash which can be mass-produced, in terms of the sheer number of titles that are published, especially when you include sequels. So-called games which require minimal R&D, little development outside of slapping some new levels on an old engine, and end up forced down the throats of mindless console zombies by a bulldozer of marketing.
Or you hitch your pony to whichever social networking or consumer gadget phenomenon is flavour of the week, like Zynga do, and knock out some worthless, bullshit flash games which make next-to-no money per player, but which get played by trillions of Facebook obsessives.

The sad thing is, there's an increasing trend within society to consider that to be the "correct" direction for the industry. To question games that dare to be different because they're "doing it wrong", and "you'll never sell 100 million copies unless you make it simpler" or "you mustn't use that complex, gorgeous engine which will only run maxed-out on a high-end enthusiast PC". Because everyone, apparently, should aspire to be Mark Zuckerberg, and become unfathomably rich by creating something dumb, but glossy and accessible. Ignoring the fact that Facebook's success owes a great deal more to being in the right place at the right time than it does to offering anything particularly clever, innovative or useful.

So what we end up with is a torrent of tedious shooters like Halo, latter-day Call of Duty, or Gears of War, or trivial rhythm action games like Rock Band or Guitar Hero. And then we get their sequels. More and more sequels. Games mostly played by people who don't give a shit about games, but who want to have a laugh with their mates before going out clubbing (or before their mum makes tea). People who would probably be equally impressed by a bit of coloured rag on a stick. Wooo, look at the flappy rag!
And the businesses behind them are unrepentant. Even if they try to excuse their selling out by blaming piracy, or the used games market, or whatever it is this week, the fact is someone waved big bucks in their faces and they sold their souls. I don't blame them, but it sickens me when they try to pretend that they're still working to produce interesting, intelligent games when they can barely speak for all the corporate cock they're busy gobbling, and when the games they actually produce prove otherwise.

Which isn't to say there aren't people out there who would love to be able to go back to the days of pushing boundaries and developing the sorts of games they themselves want to play, and to hell with what some dickhead slouched in front of an xbox with his dickhead mates, or some dickhead reviewing his investment portfolio thinks of it. The problem those people have is that despite the console builders' best efforts to hold it back, technology has advanced to the point where it's simply not logistically possible for a small group of people to build a substantial game from the ground up, at least not outside of more manageable genres like puzzle or stylised platform or strategy games. Occasionally something will punch through from the underground, perhaps from people modding established games, and might get picked up by a big developer as happened with Portal and Left 4 Dead. But there aren't any garage crews building games of the order of Call of Duty or GTA or WoW or any other big name you care to mention.

Of course there are still a handful of sizeable independents out there. Valve is the obvious one, and are to be commended for holding out against the whorish charms and promises of public sale. I don't believe going public can ever be a good move for a creative industry. Of course neither have Valve really come up with anything interesting of their own (as opposed to buying mod groups, tarting up their work and selling it) since Half-Life 2, so they need to get on that. And hire some decent writers while they're at it.

So the future's looking bleak, but the game's not over just yet.

The Field Marshal's New Year Honours List

Some Keeley Hazell (and friends) boobs to compensate for a disappointing year in video games

This year's awards have been the source of some serious head-scratching. Not only did I already know which game had taken the top slot back in February, but also there was very little else of any value released, or at the very least played, in the time since. This follows 2009 when I had already failed to award a full quota of medals due to lack of contenders. What the fuck is wrong with gaming at the moment? Of course, what's wrong with gaming is consoles. Console games are largely shit, and developers are so busy fellating Microsoft and Sony that PC gaming has taken a serious hit. Even established PC titles like Call of Duty (Modern Warfare was awarded the coveted Bennett Service Order in 2007, lest we forgot) have been run into the ground in the rush to make them as accessible and retard-friendly as possible.

Honourable Mentions
Despite awarding Dragon Age the Bennett Service order for 2009, 2010 was the year I actually got around to completing it. After a slightly shaky start it improves greatly although the combat is still too old-fashioned. Just Cause 2 was very impressive, but more in the tech-demo sense than as a coherent gaming experience. I could never really be bothered to spend much time with it, so while it's certainly an honourable mention it doesn't seem right to bestow upon it a more prestigious award.

Dishonourable Mentions
Mafia 2 could have been great and featured a great engine, but managed to be shit. Irrespective of whether it was due to the publishers fucking with the game in order to maximise the DLC potential, or just simple incompetence on the part of the developers, it was a very poor piece of work.
Red Dead Redemption might be a great game, but I wouldn't know because Rockstar haven't seen fit to release a PC version. Cunts.

So that was certainly an underwhelming conclusion to the year. Instead, let's have a brief look at some of the forthcoming releases due in 2011 (until they're pushed back).

Crysis 2

This should be the cause of much rejoicing, but contrary to claims made by idiots who believe this will be the long-overdue debut of a proper, next-gen game engine, experienced pundits are aware that it's not so much "Crysis 2" as "Crysis for Consoles". Don't expect CryEngine 3 to be nearly as revolutionary as its predecessor, unless you're a console gamer and never played the original on account of it being a PC exclusive. And lets not forget that the original Crysis wasn't exactly a masterpiece in the game play department, especially in the latter stages. Factor in the dumbed-down, dual-mode nanosuit and it's not looking good. This game is definitely on the "meh" list.

Test Drive Unlimited 2

Should have been released in 2010, and if it had been then maybe I would have had another title with which to pad out the awards. As it is I still know very little about the game, other than the fact that I enjoyed the original a great deal.

The Witcher 2

This is a big one, for me at least. The original Witcher was a fantastic piece of work and still puts the likes of Dragon Age to shame. The combat might have been somewhat basic, but the sheer atmosphere of the game is unmatched. I do have some concerns regarding the follow-up, in particular the dubious and in my opinion entirely unwarranted redesign of Geralt. Still, that aside it's looking good, and even if it's no better than the original, it will still be a great game and a potential Bennett Cross for 2011.

Mass Effect 3

Personally I doubt that this will see the light of day in 2011, and if it does then that raises doubts about the quality of the game. I suspect ME3 will be built on the same technology as ME2 and so will do little more than continue (and theoretically complete) the ME story. That would be a shame, considering the technological advances made for ME2. As much of a ME fan as I have become, I can't help feeling a certain trepidation with respect to the next chapter.

Dragon Age 2

I find it strangely hard to care about this game. There are reports that a lot will be different in part 2, mostly things which fans of the original are up in arms about, but things which seem entirely justified to me, like reducing the dialogue options so that your character can have proper voice acting like in Mass Effect. Or more streamlined, less wanky combat that isn't designed for people playing PnP games in the 80s. So it could be a vast improvement over an already serviceable game, or else it could be more console trash. Time will tell.

Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim

Very little is known about this game right now, thanks to an entirely worthless pre-rendered teaser being the only proof of the game's existence. With only 11 months until its supposed release, it's difficult to make any predictions although I guarantee old-school RPG players will find loads of shit to complain about. And if they don't seriously improve the levelling mechanics, voice acting and storyline after Oblivion, I will have complaints of my own.

Rage

All the id fans are working themselves into a masturbatory frenzy already, and I don't even know when this game's supposed to ship, but I predict that it will massively fail to live up to expectations. id have basically been releasing the same game over and over again since the original Doom, trading mostly on John Carmack's impressive engine technology with little thought or innovation evident in the game design. Not only will Rage be more of the same (albeit with vehicles), it'll also be a console release and therefore probably trash.

Diablo 3

Another game which I'm not sure we'll see in 2011. As someone who was never really into the original I'm not weighed down by historical baggage and so rather than bitching about the colourful graphics I'll at least be able to judge the game on its own merits.

Guild Wars 2

Who knows if we'll see anything from Arena Net in 2011. I would guess a beta or two would be likely, if not the final game. I do have high hopes for the game, on the basis that ANet have something of a history of doing things their own way rather than ploughing the same WoW-clone furrow as everyone else. On the other hand, GW went steadily downhill with the release of the later chapters, including an ever-increasing emphasis on grindy titles that doesn't bode well for the sequel.

I've just noticed that every single one of these games with the exception of Rage is a sequel. Although given that id have been remaking the same game over and over again since Doom 1, that's not saying much.

On the Subject of Gameophiles

Jennifer Love Hewitt

I had an epiphany. I've (quite rightly) belittled audiophiles in passing, but it occurred to me that some of the more obnoxious behaviours exibited by an increasing number of gamers bear more than a passing resemblance to those sanctimonious, misguided and tragic individuals.

A common practice which I have observed amongst audiophiles is to immediately condemn any particular device or even brand as being generally inferior to some ambiguous, "serious" audio equipment. What is particularly notable is how many audiophiles will go out of their way to avoid in any way being specific about what exactly might constitute a superior alternative. This is of course born out of the pant-shitting terror that a higher-ranking audiophile might come along in turn and condemn that alternative, and by implication impune the credentials of the first audiophile. Thus there exists a situation where the only way an audiophile might consider exerting their (imagined and delusional) authority is by belittling others. There is very little in the way of constructive feedback, and consequently the whole scene tends to stagnate.

Now, this is an attitude which is becoming increasingly common within the gaming community (for want of a better word). First-person shooters are the prime candidate for this behaviour. Not a single shooter will be published without a seemingly obligatory round of smug ridicule from your typical PHaGS sufferers. The gun sounds aren't authentic enough, or there are no dedicated servers, or the field of view is wrong, or bla bla bla. It's increasingly rare for the complaints to be accompanied by any constructive advice on what might be considered a respectable alternative. Not because no such thing exists, but because should someone name names, you can guarantee it will be accompanied its own round of twattish mockery from other self-styled elite gamers. In the worst cases this can devolve into an infinite feedback loop between the aggressively partisan fans of directly opposing games or licenses, for example Quake 3 vs Unreal Tournament, or even Unreal Tournament (insert a version here) vs Unreal Tournament (insert a different version).

MMOs or even single player RPGs are another prime spawning pit for negative gaming energy. Unlike with FPSes, whose elite players are typically the deluded armchair pros who secretly believe they're skilled enough to rival properly qualified players on the basis that they came top on some random public server leaderboard one time, RPG players have the additional handicap of rose-tinted spectacles and the idiotic belief that innovation ought to be avoided at all costs. They're the sort of players who don't play EverQuest 2 any more because they've "been there, done that", but who still believe that any new MMO must adhere to EQ2's design principles, to the point where it would be identical. Cue an avalanche of criticisms regarding "carebear" gameplay, because the gamer has forgotten or is simply too stupid to recognise the fact that "hardcore" game play elements of veteran games were a result of technical (and creative) limitations and are not actually fun.

This isn't helped by the now-compulsary open beta period which every game must go through, as dictated by gamer law. This allows PHaGs to pretend they're especially "in the loop", as if they're some sort of industry insider who has been recognised for their gaming expertise, rather than simply a person with an email address. It also allows them to be early to the criticism party, and with the additional advantage of not requiring any financial outlay (i.e. asking their parents to buy the game for them). Because the sooner you can smear your pompous critical shit over the various gaming forums, the more important and insightful it must be. And then when the game goes live and inevitably slides into obscurity, you can claim you "called it". As if that actually means something.

The end result is a clique of gamers who are essentially unable to enjoy modern games. Any modern games. Because if you're seen to like something, someone you (or perhaps other people) respect more might come along and be critical of it, and you will shown to be a fool. These people are blind to the fact that it's them who suffer from this attitude. It's analogous to a typical audiophile's obsession with "reference" sound. Because they can't possibly enjoy music or movies unless they can prove, preferably with an oscilloscope, that the frequency response of their system is as flat as can be. It's almost as if the sound they're trying to hear is itself an inconvenience which spoils the audio purity. They may as well just listen to no input signal at all, so that they can sit back and masterbate smugly while they consider the exceptional signal-to-noise ratio of their DAC. Similarly, there's no real point in gameophiles (or whatever the equivalent would be) actually bothering to play games at all, since there cannot, by definition, be a game that lives up to their impossible standards.

On the Subject of Standards

"Proper Actress" Sasha Grey

I've noticed a disappointing trend emerging over the last couple of years when it comes to AAA games. It seems to me that people's standards are dropping rapidly, leading to excessive laudation for distinctly mediocre titles. I have concluded that we're seeing a new generation of gamers who aren't old enough to have experienced games pre-Playstation. Because naturally I blame the PS and the associated mass-marketing of consoles beyond the traditional realm of spotty nerds and into the "lifestyle" sector for this phenomenon. It's all about accessibility now, accessible to the sort of idiots that consider ADD something to boast about. Why should you have to learn to play a game? Why should there be rules and narratives to follow when you just want to pwn some random online tard? Fucking gamers today, I hate them. They're all fucking idiots. It's all about competition, about "beating" a game, even if it's some single-player RPG. As if being good at a game actually means anything. It's like those idiots who think that being familiar with the latest, and especially the most obscure internet memes is somehow a valuable life skill.
Anyway, here I present some recent(ish) games that I consider to be indicative of an overall decline in game quality, but which have still managed to be feted by press and idiot gamers alike.

Exhibit A: Bioshock

An odd one this, because on paper it's almost identical to undisputed classic System Shock 2 but slotted into a submarine deco wonderland. So how come it fails to live up to its predecessor's standards, and how come a substantial number of people don't appear to appreciate its shortcomings?
Well the blatant consolisation didn't help. Console-tastic fov (aspect ratio issues notwithstanding), crappy laggy mouse controls, low-res effects and models and textures. Strange AI which I suspect is designed to cater for slow pads rather than superior keyboard/mouse players. Perhaps the odd sense of deja vu experienced by any SS2 fan worked against this game. I didn't really hate it, but I had to force myself to complete it and was left with a distinct sense of ambivalence. I didn't bother with the sequel.

Exhibit B: Assassin's Creed

AKA the most soul-less game ever released. Highly anticipated because of its Prince of Persia credentials, AC managed to take a pretty and impressive open-world design and shit out a tiresome, repetitive game all over it (Mafia 2 pulled the same trick more recently). Worthless sci-fi storyline, only about 3 types of mission from what I can remember, AC was one of few games I haven't been able to bring myself to complete because it was so fucking dull. Which didn't stop them from coming up with a sequel. Nor did it stop a lot of people from believing it was some sort of gaming masterpiece.
Of course we all know why this game was successful. It was because it was pimped by the lovely Jade Raymond. Lovely, lovely Jade.

Exhibit C: Dead Space

Shit. The fact that so many people cheer-lead for this game and the forthcoming sequel continues to baffle me. Why don't they see how terrible the controls are? (yes, I'm aware of the v-sync issue, but that's not the problem). Why don't they see how staggeringly bland and repetitive it is? Or how laughable the so-called scares are? I'm the first to admit being a big, scared baby when it comes to well-designed psychological thrillers. To this day I can't do that bit on the ladder in FEAR without closing my eyes. But Dead Space was utterly predictable and pedestrian. Even by hackneyed sci-fi game standards the story was abysmal. The characters are appropriately vacuous and forgettable. The third-person camera somehow manages to be absolutely awful. And yet the fans will claim all the many, many flaws are in fact intentional, and there to make the game more claustrophobic and immersive. They are wrong.

Exhibit D: Batman: Arkham Asylum

Another so-called "classic", and like Dead Space it has more than its fair share of fans cheering for the forthcoming sequel. I don't have quite so much contempt for B:AA largely because it mostly achieves what it sets out to achieve, unlike DS. Unfortunately, what it sets out to achieve isn't all that impressive, and so neither is the end result. It looks vaguely pretty, except that after about 10 minutes you've seen everything you're going to see. It simply lacks any real ambition, instead replacing it with endless worthless achievements to give a superficial illusion of depth and replayability. The locations all looks the same after a while, which isn't helped by trudging backwards and forwards through the grounds over and over again, fighting different combinations of the same enemies.

Exhibit E: Mafia 2

It is quite telling just how quickly this game fell off the forum radar. The first commercial DLC was generally lambasted for being a sack of shit (and no, I didn't bother with it). Other DLC includes new cars and even outfits for Vito. Why? What's the point of new cars in a game where there's nothing to do once you've completed the main story?
Then there's the quality of the game itself. Technically impressive as the engine undoubtedly is, the story is derivative wank of the sort a 14 year old who had just watched The Godfather might come up with. The dialogue was worse. The characters were even worse than that. The plot is disjointed to the point of incomprehisibility, with awkward cutscenes signposting the huge chunks which were cut from the game for whatever reason.
After the introductory war section my Vito stepped out of the cab and into the middle of whatever the pretend New York was called, tantalisingly right in front of a news stand. So naturally the first thing I did was attempt to buy a paper. And it wouldn't let me. I've since read that newspapers were supposed to be in the game, but were removed. That one experience, one of my very first in the game, ended up being representative of my whole time with it. Missed opportunities and a sad lack of attention to detail in the gameplay.
It seems like this game was butchered by the publishers as a blatant money-grab, but that hasn't stopped a lot of people attempting to defend it with the stupid "it's not trying to be GTA, so don't compare them" argument. The fact is if they'd tried harder to make it more like GTA, it would have been a much better game. I mostly bought it on the basis of the promising demo, but it turned out that there wasn't anything more to the full game than that.

The point isn't that these are bad games. They are, but what's strange is how a large number of people don't agree. They appear to have fallen head-first into the hype and believe that these must be good games because of the millions of dollars their respective publishers pissed away promoting them. They appear to have missed out on the requisite yardsticks of gaming quality that would inform any experienced gamer that these are sub-standard products. How could some who played System Shock 2 ever consider Bioshock its equal? Some people claim it is all the same, but I suspect their experience of SS2 occurred after its prime, when technology had moved on and the initial shine had worn off (SS2 wasn't particularly advanced technically, even when it was released).

There is some hope. The recent addition of Planescape: Torment to the catalogue of Good Old Games has been the cause of much rejoicing amongst RPG fans. Sadly I suspect that new-school gamers will take one look at the dated isometric graphics and recoil in disgust, to the sanctity and comfort of whatever new casual-friendly, glossy sequel has been released this week.

And all this nonsense isn't to say there aren't any good games made any more. There's the sublime Mass Effect series (which manages to shine despite encroaching consolisation), the possibly even more sublime The Witcher (TW2 being my #1 most highly anticipated game at the time of writing), not to mention undoubtedly solid releases from Blizzard, despite them being in bed with Activision (boo, hiss). The danger is more to do with the inevitable big business approach to the new golden egg-laying goose that they believe they've found in the video games industry. You only have to look at how Activision, the new enemy of gamers everywhere, has treated Call of Duty, turning it into the shooter version of Guitar Hero. These days it's all about squeezing every last penny out of a property, irrespective of quality. And why release a complete game when you can strip it for parts and sell them off piecemeal like 2K have done with Mafia 2? It's tempting to point to indie games as the last bastion of dependable gaming quality, but you can't ignore the simple logistics of creating a modern shooter or RPG, which put them mostly out of reach of small garage developers.

It's supply and demand, and unfortunately while younger (or dumber) gamers are incapable of accurately judging a game's quality, they're not going to demand quality games, and so the publishers aren't going to supply them.

On the Subject of Mafia II

No idea who this is

I never played the first Mafia so I didn't really have a frame of reference for the sequel, but I played the demo and thought it was very pretty and seemed to be essentially a 40s/50s mob mod for GTA4, such were the similarities. And on the strength of that I pre-ordered the full game (see? demos work!).

Of course fans of the series (not to mention the developers) are quick to point out that M2 isn't supposed to be a GTA clone, that it's not a sandbox game and that any criticisms related to sandbox-style game play are meaningless. That is, of course, bollocks.

The engine is lovely. It's not really fair to compare the actual art direction of the game with GTA4, as the latter is intentionally stylised almost to the point of being a cartoon, and when you really look closely there's not much difference in the detail being rendered, at least in the locations. M2 does a very nice job of achieving a naturalistic, rich environment. It's not as large an area as Liberty City but there's a great deal more variety and a more organic design with better differentiation between neighbourhoods. There's day & night, as well as weather, but as far as I could tell it wasn't really dynamic. Like with the different seasons and eras you experience as the game progresses, everything seems pretty much locked for the duration of the current segment of the mission so that the narrative can begin and end at predefined times of day. The city does look good at night, though, with the streaky reflections of street lights in the road and glows on the lamps themselves. More surprisingly it actually runs pretty damned well, and much more smoothly than GTA4, certainly post-Episodes.

It wasn't all plain-sailing, however, as the first time I ran the full game (the demo had worked fine), it completely locked up my machine which then proceeded to blue-screen on the next reboot. Fortunately after I reinstalled the video drivers it started to behave itself. Then, from about half way through the missions, it started to CTD pretty much once per mission. Given the hit-or-miss auto-saving, that could be no big deal or a pain in the arse. It was odd that the early stages were pretty stable. I've read suggestions of memory leaks and the like, so it might be related to the time spent in-game.

The driving is worth a mention, especially given how much of it is involved. According to the stats, at the end of my run-through (which was mostly missions and little sight-seeing) I had driven 117 miles. More surprisingly I covered an additional 16 miles on foot. The driving attempts to be a little more physical than GTA's bumper cars, with the vehicles seemingly weighing about a thousand tons. The more advanced "physics" mode pretends to be more realistic, but one car chase in particular along a freeway felt more like Ridge Racer than GTR2. Mostly it's a bit more restrained and perilous than GTA which isn't a bad thing and works well in the more limited area available. The traffic AI is also better than GTA's, with non-player vehicles mostly managing to avoid you (and each other) and travelling at a fair old pace the rest of the time. The rozzers even chase other road users occasionally, which is nice. The rules of the road are supposed to be a bit stricter than in GTA, with the cops supposedly alert to speeding, running red lights and hit-and-runs, although a lot of the time they don't seem that bothered. Additionally M2 offers a speed limiter which seems to include other driver aids and works well for those times you just want to cruise around without attracting attention.

There's hand-to-hand combat which I found a little more streamlined and useful than in GTA, although it's mostly useful in a handful of pre-defined Fight Club-style encounters. While it's not exactly complex, I did think it would work well in The Witcher, which suffered from pretty lame punch-ups. Speaking of the unarmed combat, you mostly learn (and use) it during a chapter set during your character's time in prison. I was quietly impressed by that chapter, having expected a fade-to-black followed by a "10 years later..." title screen. Like all the other story-driven elements, it could have been longer and more involved. Instead it's mostly an excuse for a bit of the old chin pistons, along with a run-in with the inevitable old boss man who's living in luxury and running the joint.

While there's not a lot to say about the gun-play, it was by far the most entertaining thing you actually do in the game, although that's not saying much because apart from driving and walking and watching cutscenes (and the occasional fisticuffs) it's basically the only thing you actually do. A few different guns, satisfying head-shots, reasonable if not perfect cover system. Some nice set piece battles, but of course not enough. And one or two less impressive boss battles.

Ok, it's not supposed to be a sandbox game. The problem with that is if you disregard the sandbox elements, M2 doesn't really have a lot going for it. The plot, the excruciatingly-laboured dialogue and the characters so two-dimensional they're virtually transparent are all entirely worthless. Honestly there isn't a single likable character in the whole game, including you. It's an endless conveyor belt of mindless thugs, smug, smarmy bosses and wide-eyed, helpless victims. You could argue that it's a mob game so of course they're going to be unlikable, but it doesn't help me warm to the game when I want my own character to die. The worst was perhaps the goofy, hapless kid who starts hanging around wanting to play with the big boys. From the moment he showed up, I wanted to put a bullet in his head myself, (spoiler alert!) only for the (other) bad guys to beat me to it. He was from the JK Rowling school of characterisation where bumbling, facetious retards are supposed to be endearing rather than utterly infuriating. Joe, too, is seemingly supposed to be the dim-witted, fat drunk who makes you go "awwwwww" and want to pat him on the head every time you see him as if he's some sort of puppy. He ends up being an even less likable imitation of Roman from GTA4, and I fully expected him to call me up to suggest we go bowling.
At least the cutscenes are skippable, although with allegedly 2 hours of the fuckers there won't be much left if you do. There was also one phone conversation in particular where a bartender calls to get you to deal with a very drunk Roman Joe which was just interminable, with the bartender doing a particularly awful, over-wrought 50s jive immitation. And that wasn't skippable. As I read it described in a comment somewhere or other, the dialogue in general is "embarrassingly try-hard".
So ignore anyone who says the dialogue or characters or story are good. The voice-acting is passable, and the nice engine means the cutscenes themselves are pretty and polished, but in terms of narrative it was just third-rate, Godfather-wannabe shit. It reminded me of Graham Linehan's astute suggestion that games designers rarely read books and rely on movies as their only form of research.

My greatest criticism of the game doesn't concern the narrative. What bothered me more was the amount of time you spend doing inconsequential tasks compared with the time spent actually playing the game. As the Kotaku review described, in an average mission you will spend much longer driving to and from the objectives (not even in pursuits), and nodding off through countless cutscenes than you will shooting guido nonces in the face. There were innumerable occasions which seemed to involve nothing more than walking from one cutscene to the next. If I remember correctly there was even a whole chapter during which the only interaction involved 3 or 4 car journeys, plus the short walk to and from the car in each case. It's a shame because the gunfights, when they occur, are pretty good fun. It's also a shame because the narrow-minded disregard for the whole sandbox concept means there is essentially nothing to do outside of the missions, and there are only 15 of those.

When it comes to games it's not uncommon to have the technology fail to keep up with the ambitions of the game designers. Curiously M2 appears to have more than adequate technology, but the designers have suffered from what Richard Herring might describe as "a paucity of ambition". If it isn't a sandbox game, then that memo didn't get to the engine developers because this engine would be more than up to the job. It's a slightly tragic waste of potential really, although I suspect that at least some of that potential will magically be fulfilled as 2K start to milk the game with DLC in the future. DLC which some people have suggested was intended to be in the original game, but which was subsequently removed either due to time or budget constraints, or else at the behest of 2K who want to wring every possible last penny from the title.
I'm not about to fall for that trick, not least because DLC content implies more unbearable characters and endless dialogue to sit through, followed by 10 minutes of driving, followed by another cutscene, followed by 2 minutes of shooting, followed by more cutscenes, and another 10 minutes of driving to get home again. Just like every other fucking chapter.
On the other hand, there is the cheap and tawdry gimmick of dozens of classic editions of Playboy to collect throughout the game, including the associated centerfolds. You can't argue with big tits.

On the Subject of Vuze*

"I'd rather go naked than use Vuze"

At one time I had a lot of love for Azureus. I was never that keen on it being written in Java but, hey, it did what I wanted with minimum hassle and Just Worked. Unfortunately, creating a useful and solid bit of software wasn't enough for the developers, so they had the bright idea of going all next-generation and turning good old Azureus into some bloated media portal server bullshit cunt-fest. In other words they turned it into Vuze, and Vuze is an unmitigated piece of shit.

I don't have crazy requirements for my torrent client, but I do need it to:

• run on linux. And preferably not via Wine (i.e. no uTorrent). My torrent box is a linux box, and that's not going to change.
• support blocklists. For obvious reasons.
• have a remote gui app available (at the very least for Windows) so that I can associate .torrent files with it and automatically send them to the torrent box when I download them from websites from either my laptop or desktop machines. I know this functionality can usually be achieved with the various web interfaces that most torrent clients offer these days, but it's sometimes useful to have a standalone app. I was using AzSMRC for Azureus.
• not be blacklisted on sites I frequent.

What I don't need is all the social networking, upnp media server, community bullshit that they've added to Vuze. I need a solid, reliable, stable torrent client that I can run 24/7. At a push I could live with Vuze (by turning off all the extraneous crap) if they hadn't managed to break the fundamentally decent client on which it was built. What do I mean by "break"? I mean that the more recent versions of Vuze are now blacklisted by some torrent sites because of the excessive load they put on trackers and/or for being "non-standard". That's a pretty good indication that you've fucked up your client.

And to add insult to injury, for the last few versions they've had the nerve to pop-up donation requests. As if I'm going to give them money for being a bunch of fucking idiots and breaking software I liked. Fuck off.

Anyway I had downgraded to an older version which had been creaking along with the occasional error message. But the straw which broke the camel's back was when, following a Java update, it finally went tits-up, seg-faulting Java on startup. Of course the latest Vuze still worked. Or, rather, "worked", but that's a fat lot of fucking good when it's banned by the trackers I need to use. So finally it was time to stop beating the shit out of that particular dead, diseased horse, and go back to basics. Deluge caught my eye mostly because of its Python core, but after running into some technical problems getting the web UI to work I've settled on Transmission for now. It does what I need (and the Transmission Remote GUI app is excellent), it doesn't do a load of fucking shit I don't need and it was easy and painless to get running. And it's not blacklisted by the trackers I use. I just hope they don't try and turn it into some ill-advised multimedia hub clusterfuck like Vuze.

* yes I know it's not a game

On the Subject of StarCraft 2

These typical RTS fans* can't contain their excitement at the release of SC2

Don't care. Beneath all the "OMG new Blizzard game!!!1!!11" hype, it's an RTS. I neither enjoy nor excel at RTS games, I know it and no amount of fanfare or fan hysteria is going to change that. I'm not saying it's a bad game at all, obviously I don't know whether it is or not, but I'm not going to buy it in the same way I wouldn't buy the new single from the latest Pop Idol winner. Although in the Idol case, the single would inevitably be a load of old wank.

It's curious just how rabid the fan response has been. Not so much in terms of ferocity, more in terms of volume. Maybe it's a relatively small number of very, very loud individuals but it seems to me that RTS games have never enjoyed the popularity of, say, first-person shooters. Nevertheless, drop into any games-related forum in the last few weeks and there will still be a crust from the tidal wave of jizz spunked-up by all the furiously-masturbating fanboys.

I suspect SC2 will be bought by a) everyone who loved SC1, and b) a lot of people who are either intrigued by the feverish excitement or who have found themselves hitched to another Blizzard wagon in the 12 years since the release of the first game. in the case of b) I suspect a fair number will discover that RTS games are indeed a niche genre for the simple reason that while they can inspire religious devotion in a relatively small fraction of gamers, it is still a relatively small fraction. RTS games are like chess, and chess games don't dominate the gaming charts. Clear a space for that soon-to-be-dusty SC2 box, probably next to your copy of Spore.

Don't imagine that I'm being a curmudgeon, though, I have nothing against SC2, nor even against the people who play it. I do however suspect that the celebration and joy which have been inspired by the release of SC2 will pale into insignificance compared with what we'll experience when Diablo 3 rolls around. And at least that's a game I'll be vaguely interested in playing. Start stockpiling the Kleenex, Diablo fans.

* Typical RTS fans not pictured

On the Subject of Dragon Age: Origins

Lorena

Damn the neverending Steam sales. Somehow the Dragon Age expansion appeared in my game library, as if by magic, and so I decided it was probably about time I completed the original game.

First time around I took what I presumed to be the straightforward route and built a standard issue tank character. This was fine to start with but I soon found the difficulty creeping upwards, despite lots of people posting on forums claiming that the encounters were "easy" (see my Guide to Forum Posting). If you find yourself in a similar position, you'll soon notice that all the people claiming the game is easy a) are playing mage characters, and b) recruited the additional healer party member Wynne. Unfortunately I a) was playing a tank and b) killed Wynne in the mages tower because I thought she was a sanctimonious old bitch. This leaves your party without a healer (unless you spec Morrigan as one, but that would be no fun), and I think you'll find that ups the difficulty considerably. Ultimately I got a bit bored of spamming potions and eventually moved on to other games, after completing perhaps 25% of DA.

So, lesson learned, this time I made a nice mage character, cranked up her healing skills, recruited Wynne (who turns out to be largely unnecessary if you play as a healer yourself) and set out to save the world from the nasty darkspawn.

It certainly was a lot easier this time, no doubt partly due to my familiarity with a large chunk of the game. Unfortunately that also made the early stages quite tedious, despite starting off from a different racial/class starting zone. I doubt I'll play DA again for a while, unlike both Mass Effect games which I've completely 2 or 3 times. I'm not sure why but I don't find the game world of DA quite as compelling, despite the storytelling and voice acting being very similar. Except for the fact that your own character doesn't speak in DA, which has quite an impact on your relationship with him/her. It sounds like that will be one of the big changes in DA2, and it's one I whole-heartedly endorse. Also there's a lot less party micro-management in ME which streamlines the game play a great deal. DA is quite an old-fashioned, almost turn-based game at heart so it doesn't "flow" as smoothly.
Still, once I caught up with myself and reached a point where I was facing new encounters it got a lot better. The story takes a while to find its feet, and of course it takes a while for your character to level to a point where you feel like a double-hard killing machine. Eventually you're felling dragons and laughing at the ragtag ruffians who dare to take you on and you reach that golden stage of really feeling like the hero you're supposed to be. I also turned my mage into a blood mage (at the expense of a poor, defenseless child), which is slightly odd in a game world where blood mages are villified while you're the great white hope for civilisation's future. You do get some cool spells though.

I'm still not keen on all the micro-management. I still want to play as my character and let all the others get on with their jobs. I don't mind gearing them all up, except for the fact that there are quite a lot of them, but forever pausing battles and switching party member to issue instructions or heal or whatever is a bit too RTS (not even "RT", mostly "S") for my liking. I could probably have tweaked the combat tactics a bit more, but in the end I just made them at least try to heal themselves, and to prioritise serious enemies, and protect my character above all else.

I'll admit I did cheat once, but I also maintain that it was forgivable. Essentially I wanted my pretty lady mage to get it on with naughty bard Leliana, but I ran into a bug where you can't trigger Leliana's personal quest if she likes you too much, so I had to make her a little less adoring temporarily.

And bugs are my main complaint. Not necessarily in terms of game play (although I did encounter stuck characters occasionally), but god DAMN the game crashed a lot. For a start if you play for extended periods then it begins to crawl, especially during loading screens. And I had any number of CTDs during battles, often "important" battles. I suspect they were audio-related, as a recent patch does list that as one of the fixes. But there were several sections, especially towards the end of the game, where the fucking thing would crash immediately upon entering a new area, over and over until by luck I could do a quick-save on the other side and restart. Given the relatively modest technical complexity of the engine (at least in PC terms) it was quite disappointing. Especially compared with the surprising reliability I had become used to while playing GTA4 (even if they did manage to fuck up the engine with the LC expansion).

Anyway, I got there in the end. The world was saved, the girl got the girl and various other boring shit probably happened but I couldn't be bothered with reading all the end-game text. I think I'll take a break before diving into Awakenings, though.

On the Subject of Episodes from Liberty City

Perla/Simi

As I reported previously, GTA4 was a surprise hit for me and so it was inevitable that I would pick up the Episodes from Liberty City expansion. Naturally I did so immediately before it was sold for tuppence in a Steam sale. You'd have thought I would have learnt that lesson by now (cf Grid, Dirt 2).

Anyway, after completing the original game (no thanks to the fucking stupid helicopter bug in the final mission which still hasn't been fixed as far as I'm aware), I was straight into The Ballard of Gay Tony. In hindsight that was possibly a mistake, as TBOGT is superior to The Lost and Damned, so I would have been better off getting the latter over and done with first.

First things first, and Rockstar somehow managed to cripple the engine with the release of EFLC. It's supposed to feature fancy-pants clever shadowing trickery, but ultimately makes the game run like shit compared with the earlier version. Unfortunately this shittery now applies to the original game too, thanks to the patch which was released alongside EFLC (and which is of course mandatory if you play through Steam). After a lot of dicking around with graphics settings and turning down shadow quality, I was eventually back in business.

Since this is an expansion, there's not too much to say. It's the exact same game world, and there are some clever crossovers between the three stories, especially regarding a central diamond heist. To be honest I prefer Niko to either of the expansions' protagonists, who are slightly one-dimensional in comparison. On the other hand, TBOGT in particular adds a lot of variety to the game play, often involving a parachute. I cannot fucking stand the helicopter sections though, that fucking thing is virtually unflyable, or at least it is when you're trying to shoot something else at the same time. And doubly so when that thing is also in the air. During one particularly annoying mission I kept having to land and take out persuing choppers with the (ludicrously overpowered) automatic shotgun thing (don't ask me), before taking to the air again to continue. Fucking awful.
Still, there's not too much of that, and plenty of the standard-issue infiltration and general carnage. With a slightly worthless rhythm game tacked-on in the nightclub. Speaking of the nightclub, I believe there's supposed to be some sort of "nightclub management" mini-game, but despite being asked to show up at the club by the doorman, and despite the woman being in the office, it never seemed to trigger for me. Didn't seem to make any difference in the end, at least it didn't prevent me from completing the game.

So in TBOGT you run around clearing up the mess made by an over-the-hill, coked-up club empresario in freefall, and in TLOD you're a biker gang-member who's chief has gone off the rails and is running the club into the ground for no apparent reason. To be fair, TLOD did pick up eventually and does has its moments, but it doesn't offer the variety or the humour of the other campaigns and feels a bit flat.

Together they form a pretty satisfying extension to the game, and overall I had a lot fun. I suspect that when I do dip back into the game in the future it will be into the original story rather than the expansions, but that's not a criticism of the expansions as much as a vindication of the original.

Thought for the Day: Tera Patrick

Get your pencil cases out, we're going back to the old school.

On the Subject of Batman: Arkham Asylum

Kelly Brook

People have been bleating on about Batman: Arkham Asylum being a great game for a while now. In between playing some games I genuinely was interested in, I thought I'd give it a try.

So far, so shit. The basics are there; it looks pretty enough, it runs smoothly enough, the controls... work. I've been using a 360 pad because it's "one of those games" which benefits from one.

One thing that bugs me about the game is how Batman seemingly isn't allowed to kill anyone. It's not that you get punished for killing people, it's that you don't get the chance. Henchman come at you armed with everything from fists to sniper rifles, by way of shotguns and pipes and cattle prods, but once you've taken (knocked) them out, you don't get to pick up any of the leftover firepower. Oh no, you must continue with only your pacifist-friendly problem-solving toolkit. Rather than humanise Batman, or make the game more challenging or whatever the fuck it's supposed to achieve, all it does for me is work against the self-conciously "dark" atmosphere of the game and make it seem cheap and shallow.

Talking of cheap and shallow, there's the dialogue. What a load of uninspired, cliched shit. The Joker is a mind-numbingly irritating and tiresome character which absolutely makes me want to kill him (just like in The Dark Knight, funnily enough), which is fair enough, but then of course you know you're not going to get the opportunity to properly cave his skull in and he'll probably just end up incapacitated and ultimately locked up again at the end of the game. Harley Quinn (or however you spell it) has a certain fancy-dress whore charm (i.e. she looks hot) but she manages to be even more of a whining, screeching, vacuous cunt. And I have to say, "Bats" is such a fucking pathetic nickname. "Oh hello, Bats. Nice to see you again". The dialogue in general is just grating and awkward and bad.

But who cares about that sort of thing, it's all about the action, right? Maybe I'm just not in tune with old-school console beat-em-up mechanics or something, but I don't seem to get on with AA's combat system. It usually seems to descend into a load of random button-mashing which, 90% of the time, will win the fight. And the other 10% you just try again and end up beating it the second time for no discernable reason. It seems like it should be similar to The Witcher's timing-based combo system, but unlike with that game in AA I don't feel the same connection to the moves. The cues are probably there, but I'm too bored by the randomness of it all to notice them.

But what turns me off the most is how tediously repetitive the game is. The whole thing is just "chase the Joker, almost catch up with him, watch him run off to another indistinguishable part of the asylum while you fight a boss". Repeat. I'm not a fan of boss battles in any case because they're usually contrived and meaningless to the story and just serve to get in the way and artificially extend the game, and that's definitely the case in AA. The random combat doesn't help.

So I'm unimpressed. Increasingly I'm coming to the conclusion that gamers have either given in to the torrent of cash-grabbing, derivative wank that some developers are putting out or else are too young to be familiar with genuinely innovative and involving games and so don't have an adequate frame of reference when it comes to quality. That is especially true of the absolutely loathesome Dead Space, and to a lesser extent Assassin's Creed. Although AA isn't quite in that league of middle-of-the-road, cheap, lazy piss-stained blandness, it's certainly not the impressive experience I was hoping for.

On the Subject of PCZone

Kelly Brook

I was slightly saddened to hear of the recent demise of PCZone magazine. That's right, "magazine". You know, bits of paper with words printed on them and glued together and sold in shops. Yes, shops - places where you would go to buy porn before the internet was invented. You know, porn - pictures of bare ladies printed in magazines and then dumped in the woods for kids who weren't old enough to buy them to find.

Slightly saddened, but perhaps more surprised that PCZone had survived this long. It was a must-buy for me back in the 90s, being significantly superior to the competing (and shit) PC Format. One of PCZone's most notable contributors was Charlie Brooker who started out as a cartoonist before emerging as one of the magazine's most memorable writers, and who has since gone on to become an established name in British TV and radio comedy, and who has been mercilessly ripped-off by that derivative, talentless hack "Yahtzee" Croshaw.

And lest we forget, PCZone was responsible for the magnificent Colin Culk, who's occasional videos were hidden away on the cover CDs.



Can't be arsed to link them all, just search youtube for Colin Culk, they're all on there.

Nostalgia aside, I won't really miss PCZone that much. I don't recall when I last bought an issue but the chances are it's been well over a decade. You could argue that's there's still a market for intelligently written, irreverent games-related journalism, but the fact is today's gamers are mostly fucking retards with single digit attention spans who think Zero Punctuation is a masterpiece of satire rather than repetitive, tiresome cuntery. In that sense the passing of PCZone is sad because its demise is a symptom of a broader malaise.

Thought for the Day: Anna AJ

I appear to have been neglecting my duties here recently. Let me make it up to you with some TnA.

On the Subject of GTA4

Maria Ozawa

I know I'm very late to the GTA4 party. In addition, I haven't played a single GTA since the very first, top-down version. That was fun enough, but I suspect I fell victim to media hyperbole with respect to the sequels. Not in the way the scaremongering media idiots would prefer, I suspect, but simply because I began to suspect Rockstar were becoming increasingly, needlessly controversial when it came to designing the GTA games in an attempt to sell games by way of controversy rather than quality.

Still, at $7.49 (I think) in the massive christmas Steam sale, I thought "why not?". Based almost entirely on forum feedback, I anticipated the game being a particularly poorly-performing port of the console version. And of course my expectations of the gameplay were no greater.

Another aspect I was aware of in advance was the ludicrous amount of hoops you initially have to jump through to get the fucking game started. Signing up to the Rockstar "Social Club" stupid online shit, then digging out my old MS GFW Live login from whatever piece of shit game originally required me to sign up for that, and then linking the accounts, and then logging into both just to get to the main game menu. Admittedly it's only really a hassle once, but bearing in mind that you're also running this from Steam itself if that's where you bought it, it really is quite unnecessary.

But as I said I was ready for that, so it didn't come as a surprise. What did surprise me was the actual quality of the game. For a "shitty console port" it seems to me that it runs pretty damn well, especially given the seamless scale of the city. I do experience a lot of flickering shadows, particularly in some indoor environments, but outside of that I really haven't had any technical issues. Not a single crash to date, despite some extended play sessions. Maybe the patches have improved the game, of course I can't tell.

More importantly though, I am impressed with the attention to detail and richness of the game itself. As far as story and missions go it's nothing mind-blowing, and the voice acting is very much on the cartoony side, but there's a great deal of warmth and humour, nods to various movies and some surprisingly subtle mocap acting which often adds more to the performance than the generic dialogue.

I have a soft-spot for big sandbox game worlds, and GTA's Liberty City is very impressive. From the more obvious touches like day/night cycles and the ever-popular steaming manhole covers, there's a decent weather system and a very good sense of a world going about its business. The city's civvies have a large library of behaviours and animations, there are all sorts of street vendors (and walkers), ambulances turn up when you beat someone senseless. On the first mission involving a helicopter I more or less ignored the mission objective and simply went on an extended aerial tour of the city, which is even more impressive seen from above in its entirety.

Of course there's the "controversial" stuff. Whether it's lap-dancing or street corner whores, a multitude of drug-addled storyline characters or the inevitable carnage, there's plenty to keep Fox news on their high horse. What Fox neglect to report is that there's plenty of "context" to the life of crime. Niko experiences plenty of introspection and a fair amount of humour, albeit before ultimately embarking on another killing spree. But the point is there is some depth to the game, it's not simply a teenagers' guide to carjacking and murder. That's what I wasn't expecting, and it was nice surprise.

I expected the game to be very gamepad-friendly, and it is, although it does a good job of not only supporting keyboard/mouse, but also switching between that and a pad on demand. Which is useful, because the firefights are much, much easier (for me) with KB/M, but I prefer driving on the pad, so I switch as necessary and it works very well.

So, much as I enjoy imagining Rockstar as being a bunch of mindless thug idiots, I have to admit I've been enjoying GTA4. I'm not finished with it yet, but I suspect I'm nearing the end. It does suffer from some repetition, but there are some more substantial missions spread out amongst the endless assassinations and car chases. The game also keeps coming up with new features as you progress, like a camera phone for spy missions, or the helicopter, or the various "loyalty" abilities (as I call them since playing ME2) of your friends.

On the Subject of Bioshock 2

Some model or other

Today got off to a positive start, with me enjoying a good old chuckle over the latest developments in the Bioshock 2 widescreen fiasco. Of course I haven't bothered with buying the game itself, on account of the first one being a mediocre effort and all indications suggesting that this one is more of the same.

But that's neither here nor there. The important point is that Bioshock 2 shipped with the same console-oriented field of view as the original game. That's amazing enough in itself, given the furore that 2K faced first time around. Sure enough, once again people started mistaking widescreengamingforums for some sort of important authoritative organisation rather than the random collection of self-important twats it actually is. Once again they began bitching and moaning about "horizontal+" and overlooking the actual issue, which is the limited fov which was designed for people sitting on a sofa playing games on their tv, not for the more sophisticated PC gamer.

Unsurprisingly, 2K developed a patch to address the issue. Again. What struck me as particularly amusing is how they have chosen to address the "problem". Bear in mind that when they patched Bioshock the first time, they never really admitted that they were fixing a bug, instead choosing to have a sly dig at the naysayers, suggesting they found the game too "intense". According to reports, the new patch for B2 does indeed apply a "horizontal+" logic to the widescreen cropping. So it's all good, right? Surely all those fucking idiots who raged about people on 4:3 displays being able to see more of the game world than them, the oh-so-select few with their fancy widescreen monitors, can shut the fuck up and crawl back under their rocks.

Seriously, how many people even game on 4:3 displays now? Surprisingly, looking at the latest Steam survey reveals the most common resolution is the 4:3 1280x1024. But if you start summing the results by ratio (which I can't be arsed to do throroughly) then it looks like more are playing at 16:10 resolutions. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the 1280x1024 players are actually playing at the wrong resolution for their display. The idiots. In any case, widescreen monitors are far from some sort of exclusive luxury item available only to a privileged few, as some people seem to believe.

Unfortunately, rather than expanding the horizontal fov with increased aspect ratio, 2K choose to close it down as the aspect ratio diminishes. So players on 16:9 displays experience no change, players on 16:10 see a bit less than they did before, and 4:3 see a lot less. The reason I find that so chucklesome is because it really highlights the two-pronged nature of the problem. All those fucking cocks who moaned about the unfairness of people with 4:3 displays seeing more should be satisfied, but of course they're in the uncomfortable position of realising that the cropping wasn't the actual problem in the first place.

Who gives a fuck what people on different displays see when they play the game? Really, if the game is comfortable and immersive to play, what does it matter to you if someone else sees a bit more at the top and bottom of the screen? Especially in a first-person shooter which a) is not multi-player oriented in the first place, and b) features most of the action on the horizontal ground plane, not above or below you.
So yes, I do think the fov should be adjustable, because people's situations and preferences vary. But beyond that, why do you fucking cunts even care about cropping? If the fov was adjustable within some mad range, like 60-150 degrees, what difference would it make if the 4:3 image was vert-? It wouldn't make any fucking difference, but you can guarantee the same shit-munchers would still bitch about it being "wrong". Or to look at it another way, if the fov was simply more sensible in the PC version, but the cropping was still vert-, why should widescreen players complain? Of course they shouldn't, it should be the 4:3 owners who are up in arms about the fov being too high on their displays but you can bet you'll never encounter that complaint.

More on the Subject of Mass Effect 2

Let's not beat around the bush.



The Bennett Cross
"... most conspicuous gameplay, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to entertainment in the presence of the enemy"

Mass Effect 2

I will be shocked if a better game is released this year, so I'm quite confident in awarding ME2 the top gong for 2010 even though it's only February.

Essentially it's like a big-budget Hollywood remake of Mass Effect, but without straying into Chris Roberts "I'm a proper director, me" pretension. Everything that was good about Mass Effect is cranked up to 11, mostly the characterisation, dialogue and storyline. The combat is more involved, and more fun, and "bigger". You're still stuck with only a couple of squad mates at any given time, and you can always see a firefight coming when you enter a region populated with convenient crates to take cover behind. But the action seems somehow better integrated with the cutscenes, maybe because the game has had an impressive visual makeover which can look quite stunning. Talking of cutscenes, there are lots and lots of them. Even the side-missions will feature a handful, even if the mission itself is no more involved than they were in the first game. It's all the more incentive to go exploring, because there are a lot of systems to visit which aren't touched by the primary storyline.
The paragon/renegade tracks are back, and have the amusing side-effect of being reflected in the state of Shepard's facial scars. Which just made me want to see how fucked-up she would look if I pushed her as far into renegade as possible. Unfortunately it seems to be difficult to minimise the paragon points because sometimes you get loads just for completing a mission, and as the paragon points increase they (visually) cancel out the renegade ones. Still, with glowing red terminator eyes which even seem to get reflected in the eyes of other cutscene characters, she ended up looking like a satisfyingly nasty piece of work. Plus the renegade dialogue tracks involve a lot of dark humour, not just Shepard being a bitch/bastard.

What's not to like? Well, some of the guis are more console-friendly than they ought to be in the PC version. No double-clicking to select options? Drilling down page after page just to change a quad member's weapons? Having to drop out to the main menu in order to get to the mission journal? Over-simplified RPG elements? Well, that last one is debatable. Yes, it is a shame to have to rely on drip-fed research to unlock new weapons and upgrades, and the armour selection is very limited compared with the first game. Is it a problem? Probably not. It's ultimately less micro-management, something which was somewhat painful in Dragon Age. The lack of variety and the reduced potential to customise your Shepard, both in terms of appearance and abilities, does grate occasionally. And as I already suspected in the preview, the Illusive Man is a pretty lazy, cliched addition which you could imagine the Half-Life "writers" coming up with.
I'm also not convinced that the repetitive and mindless planet scanning is an improvement over the repetitive and mindless Mako driving from the previous game. Scanning planets feels like something one of the Normandy's junior minions ought to be doing, not galactic savior and double-hard bastard Shepard.

Most importantly the game's too short, but only in the sense that it doesn't continue forever. Still, maybe they'll knock out a few DLC expansions to tide us over until ME3. Some Shepard back-story adventures would be nice. (S)he is "The Butcher of Torfan" after all, something you only learn about through some minor dialogue (and less so in ME2).

Anyway, enough talking about it, back to playing it. Meanwhile, pretty pictures ("Take pictures!"), including a disproportionate number featuring Miranda's impressive rack.