Blizzard piss away some money. Meanwhile Diablo 3 could use some work, fuckers.
It's been a quiet few months on the gaming front, save for some minor Guild Wars 2 beta action. But I have a hard time getting into betas, knowing that any progress will be wiped and anyway you only get one chance at the magical first impression, your first journey through the game world, and I'd rather save that for release. So while I'm debating whether to buy Max Payne 3 now or wait until the price drops (probably the latter) I got an itchy credit card and waved it in Blizzard's direction.
I was very, very late to the Diablo party, to the point that I didn't actually rate D2 that highly, what with its ancient graphics and clunky interface. So I thought D3 might be a good "in", and that I would benefit from not being burdened by the unconditional love many people have for the previous games, in the event that D3 dared to deviate from the formula.
But first things first, my experience of actually downloading and installing the game was fucking awful. Blizzard are one of these arrogant rich companies that think it's clever to have a peer-to-peer download system built into their installer. Hey Blizzard, if you want to use MY bandwidth to distribute YOUR fucking game, how about you pay me? What's that? You still want $60 for the game even though it's a digital download and you don't even have to provide sufficient dedicated bandwidth? Fuck OFF you CUNTS.
So yes I turned that shit off straight away. But it turned out that here in the colonies, with or without the P2P I was getting shit-all downloaded. It would start off at a healthy 1-2MB/s (yes megabytes) but then immediately drop off to nothing until I restarted the download. After about 24 hours and 2% downloaded I took the only sensible course of action and downloaded a torrent of the install disk. In fact I torrented it to a remote machine and copied it to my home machine before the installer had reached 3%. Good job Blizzard. This didn't bode well for a game which is notorious for requiring an always-on network connection.
Anyway it still took a while to install the game, as it presumably downloaded patches that had been released since the dvd went gold. But it got there eventually.
So, what about the game? Well to start with it's important to understand that D3 isn't so much a game as a tool to enable Blizzard to make money from their delayed-due-to-rampant-account-hacking (not that they'll admit it) Real Money Auction House. When you frame it that way, the design decisions start to make sense. This is a game about items, and you can (eventually) buy items from the RMAH, and Blizzard make money from those purchases, therefore it's in their interest to make you dependent on the RMAH if you want to advance to the highest levels by having absurdly stingy drop rates for the most part, at least when it comes to items your character can actually use.
Although in all honesty that doesn't really affect me. I couldn't give fewer fucks about "beating" the game on the higher levels. I'll be content to go through it once on normal difficulty, and maybe engage in a little (non-public) co-op action now and again. I'll be happy with whatever limited bling I acquire in the regular course of playing, and have absolutely no intention of giving Blizzard or Chinese farmers or some sweaty, masturbating basement-dweller any more money by using the auction house.
But I have to return to the always-on connection requirement. What a fucking load of shit. So many reports of connection errors, and I've had my share of being booted out immediately after logging in, not to mention rubber-banding and lag in game. Like I said, a load of fucking shit. I'm sitting there playing a single-player game, I don't care about PvP or the RMAH so cheating does not even factor into the game for me, and yet it's like playing an overcrowded MMO. Even the Guild Wars 2 beta had less lag, and there were thousands of other real life people in that game world.
It is so fucking stupid it's barely possible to describe the fucking stupidity adequately. And of course the real reasons are all to do with the RMAH. And Blizzard have just gone dark while they wait for the number of players to die down so that the server congestion becomes less of a problem, rather than offer apologies and provide adequate capacity for the paying customers playing right now. People like to point out how World of Warcraft subscriptions are on the decline, but Blizzard are still raking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year from that game. This is absolutely a company with the resources to do these things "right", but just not the motivation it seems. But it's ok because they spunked away thousands on celebrating the (financially) successful launch.
Given my so far limited time with the game I tend to agree with those who suggest that Diablo 3 could not possibly have taken the last decade to produce. More like a couple of years, while the actual talent at the company was siphoned into developing the RMAH and whatever inevitable paid DLC that's going to appear. D3 isn't so much a game as a glorified PayPal which only lets you send money to Blizzard Activision.
So here it is, the concluding part of the epic Mass Effect trilogy, in which Commander Insert-name-here Shepard saved the galaxy from the Reapers not once, but three times (sort of). At this point I would like to clarify that I will probably refer to Shepard as "her", because I've only ever played with a "femshep". She will always be a woman to me, no matter how many ads are produced pretending otherwise.
I predicted, and to some extent was wary that ME3 was going to be little more than a glorified ME2 expansion pack and to an extent I was right. Technically very, very little has changed since the previous instalment. Where ME2 offered significant visual improvements compared with its predecessor, 3 adds pretty much nothing. Even in terms of game play, the only real difference I can think of is that they brought back a degree of weapon micromanagement, which was very welcome as far as I was concerned. And they got rid of the fucking planet scanning, but only just, because you still have to perform a perfunctory scan in order to locate artefacts or whatever shit you need to locate for a lot of the tedious Citadel side-missions. Indeed, the stupid micro-machines galaxy map remains unchanged, including having to refuel the Normandy. Although now there's the added "feature" that when you scan a system for stuff to collect, you increase the Reapers' awareness of your presence. Raise it enough and they suddenly appear (in micro-machines form) and chase you out of the system until you complete another proper mission. Which really adds nothing to the game except minor annoyance.
But that's all just details. The important thing is that getting into the rhythm of ME3, assuming you're coming into the game having played the previous episodes, and preferably importing an existing Shepard, has that comfortable feeling of slipping on your favourite, snug coat on a cold day. There was something of a bump on the way in, however, as for some reason ME3 failed to reconstruct the look of my Shepard. What the fuck, Bioware? You managed perfectly well when I imported her into ME2, what's the problem? It took me 3 attempts to craft her look from scratch before I was satisfied with the likeness. It really irritated me that it was broken, though. And it also irritated me that she lost her all-important renegade scars from the previous game and I had to start over. They may sound like small issues, but these games are supposed to offer a certain continuity and it's not like there should be any technical limitations given that ME2 & 3 are basically built on the same engine and assets. Having these problems is like taking away "your" Shepard and replacing her with an imposter.
But once I was in, it was business as usual. And business is good. The ham-fisted, one-button-does-everything controls aren't great, there's still too much "no you fucking moron, I wanted you to take cover not vault over the rock". But there's action, and shooting things, and some talking, and some more shooting things, followed by more talking. It's definitely Mass Effect.
One thing I could have done without was Kai Leng, a tiresome token sword-wielding Asian assassin who is taken from the Mass Effect novels apparently. Every appearance was jarring and awkward, as they tried to crow-bar a new (to the game) character into the plot for no good reason. And in typical Batman/Joker style, he manages to slip away every time you've just about caught up with him, resulting in him massively outstaying his welcome. One mission would have been more than enough, thanks all the same.
And so the ending. Ah, yes. After many hours spent carefully guiding your personal Shepard through the complexities of galactic diplomacy and conflict, not helped by The Illusive Man's determined pursuit of his own agenda, whatever the fuck that might be, friends made and lost along the way, potentially whole civilisations reconciled or wiped out at the flick of a dialogue wheel.
And Bioware pissed it all away at the last moment.
I've read suggestions that the ending was "written" (or more likely, shat onto the page) by a couple of the leads working in isolation from the rest of the writing team, and I can believe it. I could also easily believe that those leads were two of the less talented of the writers, and that on top of that they were blinded by smugness and ego to produce something bafflingly disjointed from absolutely everything which had gone before it.
I can't even be bothered to describe it in detail, there are plenty of other sources for that, but suffice it to say that every decision you made on the long journey from Eden Prime in ME1 counted for exactly nought at the final reckoning. I bet the writers thought they were being clever and abstract and innovative, as if this was their "2001: A Space Odyssey". They really weren't.
And it was going quite well. I was having fun fighting through the tough final battles, especially against those teleporting Asari bitches which are the ME3 foes I love to hate, and I even liked the bit where Shepard is knocked out by an explosion, and comes to in a slow-mo scene reminiscent of the nuclear blast in Call of Duty 4. Except without the protagonist dying. And then you're (eventually, because Shepard's taking her fucking time at this point) beaming up to the Citadel like you did in the Mako near the end of ME1. And then, well you might as well switch the game off at that point. Naturally The Illusive Man shows up to spout some more pointless shit and argue with Shepard for a while. And it's all downhill from there.
At this point I would like to talk about so-called Indoctrination Theory, which is the height of fashion when it comes to attempts to rationalise the current end-game. In reality it's mostly a bunch of Mass Effect pseuds trying to twist and distort any and all insignificant plot details to justify a pathetic "it was all a dream" get-out clause. Ah, yes, the ending was shit, but don't you see? It was all an illusion created within Shepard's mind in response to the Reapers' attempts to control her. Fuck OFF. If you're going to dream away the ending, why stop there? Why not reveal that everything in all three games has just been a continuation of the Prothean vision Shepard had on Eden Prime? That way they can make (and sell) the whole series all over again! Hurrah! Even worse, people appear to be increasingly susceptible to the delusion that "Oh, ya, now that I've seen the evidence for the Indoctrination Theory I'm completely convinced and I, like, really understand the story on a profound level and so I see that the ending is, like, really clever and not actually shit, you know?". NO. The ending is shit. It doesn't fucking matter whether you can explain what was going on. It doesn't fucking matter how many bullshit little details you can twist and torture to fit whichever bullshit theory you subscribe to. "If you sort all the codex entries by length, and arrange them into a grid and rotate it by ninety degrees and then take every 12th letter on alternate lines, except every 8th line, it spells "indoctrination" in Taiwanese." "That pixel in that one texture map in that one cutscene was the same shade of blue as Saren's eyeballs in ME1!" The ending was SHIT. It was terribly written, terribly designed, and boiled down to a three-way choice of coloured explosions. Indoctrination Theory won't change that.
Personally I would have preferred for the game to have ended on a cliffhanger, to be continued in some other form further down the road. If they do bend to the will of the disgruntled rabble and put out some revised conclusion it will almost certainly fail to satisfy anyone. Not least if they rewind the current ending and then play it out differently, but in a paid DLC add-on.
The ending is a lazy load of old shit, but let's not pretend that PC gaming has a rich history of cleverly crafted game endings. Remember how System Shock 2 finished? You may have forgotten, despite the game being one of the mostly commonly cited examples of sci-fi gaming excellence of all time. But that was a game which went to hell in a handcart as soon as the action transferred to the alien ship, and the developers themselves admitted that the final cut-scene was a cheap piece of shit which was all they had time to produce.
Indeed it was. Although it's still arguably better than ME3, offering a more logical conclusion, even if it was a badly-written one. Half-Life, both 1 and 2, had annoying, frustrating endings which offered no closure. Valve's G-Man was the proto-Illusive Man, seemingly able to side-step any notion of narrative logic and appear whenever the writers ran out of ideas to offer idiotic faux-enigmatic nonsense in lieu of actual plot, turning what you thought was going on upside down at the last minute and then... well, nothing really. Half-Life 2's plot especially was always a big fat crock of shit, despite what the fanboys like to believe.
What ME3 does offer is the opportunity to reflect on your own personal journey through the exceptionally well-designed and presented universe, and think about what you would actually consider to be a satisfying conclusion. My femshep was always a renegade, no matter how many times I played the various instalments. Renegade didn't simply mean "bitch", it was quite often more a case of not taking the easy route, nor making the easy decisions, but still having good intentions. One of my favourite sections of ME3 was revisiting the moral questions regarding the Krogan genophage, a potential cure for which I had destroyed in the previous game for reasons I can't remember. But despite being given the option to fake a failed attempt to cure it this time round, it was immensely satisfying to take the position of "No, fuck you, I owe it to Wrex to fix this shit once and for all". But I digress. I'm not a big fan of stories which kill key characters in order to elicit tragedy. Like JK Rowling was overly fond of doing in the Harry Potter books. It's cheap and lazy and tiresome, and the notion of Shepard dying at the end of ME3, while seeming somewhat inevitable, is all the more ineffective as a result of that inevitability. I would have preferred an ending where, despite ultimately sacrificing herself for the good of the galaxy, Shepard survives in such a way as to have to live with that sacrifice, unable to rejoin (in any presently conceivable way at least - potential future DLC!) her friends and especially her girlfriend for any more steamy shower action. Perhaps she could have merged with the Reaper AI, the way she did with Legion and the Geth in an earlier mission, but her physical body is destroyed leaving her trapped, albeit able to control and/or destroy the Reaper threat. Sort of like when the protagonist of FEAR 2 ends up trapped in Alma Wade's disembodied psychological hell, but with more giant robots and less psychic rape. Shepard could become a ghostly digital presence. It addresses the Reaper threat, calls back to a previous mission so it doesn't come completely out of left-field like the ridiculous crucible catalyst child, and doesn't end with Shepard's death, while still offering closure with a pinch of tragedy and of course the all-important opportunity to reprise Mansell's "Leaving Earth" theme.
That's a lot of swearing and insults directed at a game I did, for the most part, enjoy enormously. It lost some of the fat that bogged down ME2, it brought back hints of the good things that had been lost from ME1, it had some interesting missions in interesting environments and some decent foes. Yes, the ending was poorly crafted and nonsensical, but it was at least relatively brief.
Some company that made a couple of console games which consisted entirely of quick time events puts out a tech demo masquerading as some sort of revolution in story telling; easily impressed internet idiots fall over themselves to gush praise.
Contrary to the evidence presented in this blog, I'm not really a "hater". If I see something which really does impress me, I'll happily say so, and I can sing praises with the best of them. After reading the hyperbole for the Kara demo I even went in expecting to be impressed, but I simply wasn't.
1. Theme
Oh yes, it's the "OMG I'm alive please don't kill me" robot story. Packaged in a "pretty" (because she isn't all that), vulnerable girly package to get the nerd hormones resonating with the white knight effect. Secretly, the fans just want a Kara of their own on which to perform unspeakable sex acts. Publicly, they pretend to feel proper grown-up sympathy for the poor, abused, helpless little creature, because this is serious story telling, and art, and not some worthless promo for a video game company.
2. Design
It might be impressive if it wasn't a second-rate Chris Cunningham rip-off. It's a blindingly unoriginal take on the sleek, sexy robot look. But all the nerds are too busy searching frame-by-frame for that Basic Instinct flash of TnA to notice.
It doesn't help that Valorie Curry over-acts like she's in some amateur dramatics production of a play written by a 12 year old. She would have been great in the Harry Potter movies. She does, however, have the same open-mouthed, squinty smile as Keira Knightly. Only less pretty. And with less acting ability.
Separated at birth: Kara, Keira and Boo
3. Writing
Describing this as "written by a 12 year old" is actually too kind. The dialogue is painfully trite and awkward.
4. Direction
What the fuck is up with the camera? Perhaps it's just my personal aversion to over-cooked digital camera work, but this demo is an exceptional example of how animators can get carried away with the freedom offered in the virtual domain, and throw away all the hard-learned rules of cinematic mise en scene. Yeah, let's suddenly swoop by the character with a stupidly short lens for no fucking reason.
5. Tech
It doesn't even look that good. The skin shading is pretty poor (especially in a demo with only one character). The mo-cap is, well, mo-cap so it's no better or worse than any other mo-cap. The facial animation is surprisingly mediocre for a demo which is supposed to push boundaries. It's not a patch on Rockstar's LA Noire capture tech, and looks slow and artificial by comparison. The eye close-ups reminds me of that Diablo 3 teaser, only not as good. See how we animated the small eye movements and eyelids, just like everyone else does!
Ok, it's running (allegedly) in real time on a PS3. But that is more of an excuse for its limitations than a reason to applaud the end result.
Funnily enough the developers secretly recognise this, which is why it's touted more as a story telling demo than a tech demo. It's also why there's a disclaimer in the small print claiming that the tech is a year old. Fine, put out an up-to-date version if it makes so much difference.
6. Cheesy, emotionally manipulative bullshit
I have actually read that some people claim to have shed a tear over this demo. What. The. Fuck. Do you cry when you see rainbows too, you fucking twats? Chopper Read would like a word.
Seriously, the Kara demo is so relentlessly mawkish it makes Spielberg's A.I. seem subtle and sophisticated. And it's not even well written. But it seems that if you bury something under enough sad strings and tinkly piano then some people will start bawling their crybaby eyes out.
I happened to find this when I was looking for a link to the video, and it echoes a lot of my own impressions (even if he does gush about the tech). So maybe not everyone on the internet is an easily-impressed idiot after all.
As a shiny new year begins, let's have a look at what happened to those predictions I made for 2011, and concoct some new ones for the coming year.
Crisis 2 "Don't expect CryEngine 3 to be nearly as revolutionary as its predecessor ... This game is definitely on the "meh" list."
Pretty much hitting the nail on the head, I'm sure you'll agree. Crytek wanted to become console stars this year, but with gameplay never being their strong suit and ancient console hardware not doing justice to their tech expertise, neither the console nor PC audiences were terribly impressed.
The Witcher 2 "it's looking good, and even if it's no better than the original, it will still be a great game"
The Witcher was always going to be a tough act to follow, and like Portal 2, TW2 suffers from following in its predecessor's footsteps rather than blowing up out of nowhere. But it managed to be a solid and entertaining game in its own right, as expected.
Mass Effect 3 "Personally I doubt that this will see the light of day in 2011"
Damn, I'm good.
Dragon Age 2 "it could be a vast improvement over an already serviceable game, or else it could be more console trash"
Not so much console trash, as it turned out, but a pretty uninspired and rushed game by most accounts. I didn't bother with it in the end.
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim "I guarantee old-school RPG players will find loads of shit to complain about"
Funnily enough I haven't really noticed many complaints about the actual mechanics of the game, although that might just be because (PC) players take it for granted that they will be able to modify the game to their heart's content. Of course I'm yet to play it myself so it's hard to judge but it appears to be a pretty solid effort, even if it features Bethesda's notorious (lack of) quality control with respect to bugs.
Rage "it will massively fail to live up to expectations"
Did it ever. As predicted, Rage was largely console trash. What was more surprising was how it suffered from a lack of Id's usual technical excellence, and the PC version had various issues at launch. Even the die-hards began to fear that they had lost one of the last bastions of hardcore PC gaming.
Diablo 3 "Another game which I'm not sure we'll see in 2011"
And we didn't, although there was various beta activity should you give a shit. I don't.
Guild Wars 2 "Who knows if we'll see anything from Arena Net in 2011"
We saw various profession videos, but as yet it has been all quiet with regard to an actual release, or even a beta.
So as usual, pretty much on the money. But what does the discerning gamer (and console monkey) have to look forward to in 2012?
Mass Effect 3
Slated for March, this is my big one for the coming year. As I recall, ME was supposed to be a trilogy so in theory this should tie up the central Mass Effect story arc, although I don't imagine for a second that they won't continue to milk this franchise for many years to come. As I suggested a year ago, I still suspect that there will be much less to differentiate ME3 from ME2 than there was with the first two games. But I'm a fan, and as I said when I covered ME2, I just want it to go on forever, so the more the merrier.
Max Payne 3
I initially dismissed this as a shitty cash-in on the original (and excellent) Max Payne games, but I'm finding myself strangely optimistic about this Rockstar-developed take on the MP series. I don't know much about it, but I'm tempted to support any game from Rockstar which is released on the PC (excluding the mediocre, and late, LA Noire).
GTAV
Which brings us to GTAV. The question isn't whether there'll be a PC version any time soon, so much as will there be a PC version ever? For some reason Rockstar thought it would be worthwhile porting the over-hyped LA Noire to the PC, even though it was long after anyone stopped caring about the game, but the potentially much more impressive Red Dead Redemption is still MIA, and will be indefinitely according to the developers.
I was a latecomer to GTA4, but it was a landmark gaming experience and one I'd be keen to continue.
Guild Wars 2
It looks likely there'll be some action on the GW front this year, although whether it's a succession of betas or an actual release remains to be seen. I don't really know any more about it than I did this time last year, but if they make it, I will come.
Alan Wake
Apparently there's going to be a PC version. Of the game which was originally supposed to be a PC exclusive and Windows Vista showcase title. Meanwhile Microsoft threw enough money at Remedy to make it a 360 exclusive, the game was seriously compromised to make it accessible to the console Neanderthals and so it'll probably be a load of old shit when it finally does make it to the PC. Too little, (much) too late, Remedy.
Diablo 3
Seems to be progressing towards an actual release, via closed betas. It'll be a colossal mountain of hype, expectation and now doubt disillusionment when it does arrive, but that's less to do with the quality of the game and more to do with idiot gamers and expert marketing.
Metro: Last Light
I think I have Metro 2033 in my Steam library after some sale or other, but I haven't got around to playing it yet. Sounds like some sort of STALKER-meets-Crysis linear shooter, but many people have good things to say about it. Some of the trailer footage for Last light looks pretty sweet, although that doesn't mean much. I would expect it to be serviceable as a game, and quite likely capable of bringing a high-end machine to its knees.
In fact there aren't really many noteworthy titles to look forward to this year. Maybe a few surprises will pop up out of the blue, and I already have enough of a backlog to deal with.
I have been somewhat remiss in my reviews/rants/porn of late, but even I won't let a New Year pass without bestowing my traditional honours. 2011 couldn't have been much worse for PC gaming than 2010, but in fact there were a few gems this year, scattered amongst the endless tide of console dross. With no sign of any next-generation consoles, even console gamers are starting to notice the cracks. Meanwhile increasingly few developers are bothering to create games which take advantage of the PC's advanced technology and the unquestionable superiority of the keyboard/mouse combination as a FPS controller.
But that's a rant for another time. Let's get back to the business in hand.
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"
Serious Sam 3
In which Croteam gets out its pencil case and takes us back to the old school. Speaking of games developed for the PC, here comes a prime example. The game suffers from a slow start, something which has seemingly put off a lot of players (including reviewers), and really makes you work for each new weapon, but eventually you do get back to the classic SS hoards, and the game slips on like a comfortable old jacket. It's the first shooter I've played in a very long time where the mechanics just feel "right". The weapons have satisfying punch and each has value, so along with the carefully meted-out ammo you don't tend to just stick to one particular favourite.
SS3 features relatively subdued and more realistic, less cartoony environments than its predecessors (particularly SS2) but there's still humour and plenty of ridiculous, laugh-out-loud moments. There is perhaps too little variation in the environments (mostly being samey urban Egyptian streets and tombs), but apart from that it's just good old-fashioned fun. Too old-fashioned for some, but then SS3 walks a difficult line between being a proper old-school PC shooter, and incorporating the shiny innovations of more modern games. What exactly do you think it's missing, regenerating health? SS3 is easily the best single player shooter of 2011, although admittedly that's not saying much.
The Bennett Service Order "... acts of the greatest gameplay or of the most conspicuous entertainment in circumstances of extreme danger"
The Witcher 2
It may be a shock relegation to second place overall, but that's not to say that TW2 isn't a great game, and another PC exclusive (for a few months at least). It has been handicapped by the fact that I haven't managed to spend a great deal of time with it this year, but on the other hand it deserves to be penalised for the tiresome and lazy use of quick time events.
Still, it looks great, not including the unnecessary Geralt redesign, there are tits and swearing as befits a Witcher game, the combat takes a little getting used to but is slightly more involving than that of the original game, and the atmosphere and storytelling of the original remain intact.
The Bennett Medal "... acts of gallantry and devotion to game play under fire"
Saints Row: The Third
I bought this on a whim because Amazon had the digital download for $40 rather than the increasingly-common $60, and that's something I whole-heartedly support. I hadn't played a Saints Row before, so all I knew about the game was drawn from one or two slightly odd trailers which appeared to feature pro-wrestling moves and giant dildos. Turns out it's a more cartoonish and amped-up open world sandbox which can be compared with GTA4, but only slightly. It's not quite as polished as GTA4, and swings much more towards the arcade end of the spectrum, but there's some good variety, well-presented core missions and lots of opportunities to upgrade and customise.
Honourable Mentions
Perhaps a slightly unfair omission from The Big Three, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim shot itself in the foot by launching in the stupid and unjustifiable $60 price bracket and was barely discounted by any retailers. I vowed not to buy the game before it dropped to $40 or less, which only occurred during the Steam Christmas sales, so it's currently languishing in my Steam library, unplayed. Test Drive Unlimited 2 is a pretty good game, but suffers from some short-sighted development decisions (shitty stearing wheel support) and a mediocre physics model which is neither arcade nor simulation. However, graphically the engine received a nice overhaul, there's a proper day/night cycle and varied weather, fun and well-implemented off-roading, and if you were disappointed that Ibeza seems, if anything, smaller than Oahu then at least they included Oahu as well. Portal 2 is more Portal, with a slightly more prominent narrative angle and a few more puzzles than the first game. Stephen Merchant's voice acting deserved better writing, and overall the game seemed much easier than the original, but it still features the legendary Valve polish.
Dishonourable mentions Portal 2 may be a fun diversion, but it's not Game of the Year material, contrary to popular opinion. It's still too short for a full-price game, despite being maybe twice the length of Portal, and most damningly it still has absolutely zero replay potential. I haven't tried the co-op and I'm sure that adds a little to the initial longevity, but that's offset by the tiresome "humour" and surprisingly poor writing of the single-player campaign. Id Software are the kings of tech demos masquerading as games but with Rage they experienced something of a fall from grace even in the eyes of their more dedicated fans. Rage was an unashamed console game ported to the PC for the first time in Id history, and despite having "mega" in the name, the megatexture tech was designed more to work around console limitations than take advantage of contemporary PC hardware. If an Id game doesn't have impressive tech, then it has nothing at all. Oh and Crisis 2 came out in 2011, and while featuring some impressive tech, it ended up being just another console port from the PC point of view.
Neither Here Nor There Battlefield 3 looks pretty and is the multi-player game du jour for the self-styled armchair pro FPS crowd. The increased focus (a relative term: increased from virtually nothing to very little) on a single-player campaign didn't really pay off, as it is reportedly short, uninspired, full of quick-time events and predictably just like all the Call of Duty: Modern Warefares. But as any fans will fall over themselves to tell you, the SP is irrelevant. Which is why the Battlefield games are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
