Wednesday 20 July 2011

Games For The Impoverished: Volume 1 - Left 4 Dead 1 & 2

As all of my friends are total arseholes, they'd be quick to tell you that I'm a tight git when it comes to money.

Seeing as this is true, I figured the least I could do is share some secrets with you all, in regards to how I manage to mainline a steady stream of decent games when I usually can't afford a night on the piss.

Recently I've been playing a lot of Infection games on Halo Reach, so I've been in the mood for a proper zombie game. Remembering that Dead Island isn't finished yet and that the Dead Rising and Left 4 Dead series are in their own ways about as definitive as zombie games get, I figured this was a good area to revisit.

I bought the original Left 4 Dead at launch and loved it because:

1. It's a zombie game.
2. It should be used as a how-to on co-operative gameplay.

However, a few months down the line I got lumped with an internet connection that was crap, shortly followed by one that wouldn't support Xbox Live whatsoever. So I had a game that mastered online co-op, but no online capabilities. Reluctantly, I traded it in and got a surprising amount of my money back. Eventually I played Left 4 Dead 2; it's pretty much more of the same, albeit brighter and with some more variety in the form of a couple of spectacular set-pieces in lieu of the better atmosphere of the original.

In a nutshell, Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 are very good zombie shooters, big on co-op, but almost completely vacant in the story department. Let's face it, the longevity of the big hitters is in online play anyway, where you spend your time in matchmade games shooting at different people in the same few environments.

The Left 4 Dead games fit this concept beautifully, with an AI 'director' mixing up encounters and ammo caches depending on how well you're working together. Best of all, I picked them up for £8 a pop (including postage) from eBay, and Left 4 Dead 1 has a free downloadable 'survival mode'. If you play shooters online, you should own these games, if you can't play online for whatever reason, you wont get the most out of them, sorry.

Wednesday 13 July 2011

Pending Consumer Advice

Speaking as a cheapskate and previous employee of a well known games retailer, I assure you that I know a thing or two about getting good value for your games (along with when games are likely to shoot up in price: bet you all the Call of Duty games become suspiciously expensive in the month or so before Modern Warfare 3 comes out).

As such a cheapskate and smartarse, I'm setting myself a little challenge:

Assuming all goes well when my car goes into the garage next week, I'm planning to upgrade my old warhorse of an Xbox to one of the shiny new ones. My first challenge is to see how much I can save on buying a new Xbox, immediately followed by an expedition into bargain games.

How good a game can you get for £20 these days? Watch this space.

Tuesday 12 July 2011

Defending Duke Nukem Forever

So last month, as you should be aware, Duke Nukem Forever finally hit shelves across the globe, promising to bring The Duke along with a whole lot of fun back into shooters. Naturally, after 14 stupid years and the liberal use of the phrase ‘when it’s done’, everyone who ever gave a damn about Duke Nukem had long ago got brutally annoyed with waiting and have been planning to tear it and 3D Realms several new ones for taking so bloody long.

For some reason, I feel inclined to defend Duke Nukem Forever. I can’t really justify this compulsion; technically it’s shit, ugly, clunky and out-dated. It’s also short as fuck, joining the elite club of games that I’ve finished the first playthrough in a day (along with Mirror’s Edge, Halo 3: ODST and Halo 2, to name a few). But, before being spurred on to defend it by digging into the unsurprising kicking the entire internet gave it, I found myself disappointed when I finished Duke Nukem Forever; because I wanted more of it.

As several men have said to dissatisfied women, complaining that something’s over too soon generally means you were enjoying yourself. Like I said, Forever is definitely flawed but at least it’s not another bloody Call of Duty – which I maintain has become this generation’s FIFA, wallowing in the financial safety of online multiplayer and sapping any attempts at bringing new and exciting things into gaming – and it’s not Gears of War; a game that was technically impressive and interesting until the point where again, everyone decided to cash in and force us all into cover behind chest-high walls.

The selection of weapons is still a disappointment; I know it has the Shrink Ray and the Freeze Ray, and I know it was Doom had always had the sexy and interesting weapons, but as an answer to this ‘realism’ infection gaming picked up a few years ago, I was expecting something interesting. I mean, Painkiller showed us that interesting weapons can still be thought up, after all.

I don’t quite know what I was expecting from the weapons, but what I wasn’t expecting was for the shotgun to lodge itself firmly in my heart as the most satisfying weapon I’ve ever used in a game. Yes, I’ve played Bulletstorm, but Duke’s shotgun is satisfyingly louder and a well placed shot reunites us with the lost art of gibbing – using unnecessary force to reduce your target into a widely spread spattering of giblets.

I’m perhaps a little too grateful that it still has a sense of humour – aside from that bit. You know which one. I’m not going to complain that the humour relies on Forever being self-aware; seriously, if anything takes this long to come out and tries taking itself seriously, we’re all entitled to give it a kicking (like Too Human, which also took forever to come out and I think we’re all agreed that it was shit in every way).

Ultimately, say what I will about why you shouldn’t condemn Duke Nukem Forever, but I still feel like I’m waiting for the finished game. I feel the same about Duke Nukem Forever as I do about Mirror’s Edge, Alan Wake and Fable 3; for all their flaws and all the nasty things people have every right to say about them, I’m glad they exist, because they all tried something interesting.

The execution of these interesting things may have been a bit crap:

Duke Nukem Forever tried to bring back the fun to shooters, but forgot to rise above the things it was taking the piss out of.

Mirror’s Edge was astonishingly pretty and experimented with the whole ‘first person’ part of ‘first person shooter’, but the parkour was generally a bit temperamental and bloody difficult.

Alan Wake made a big thing about its light and dark motif, but completely buggered up the horror part of the horror game for lots of stupid reasons.

Fable 3 let you rise to power as the ruler of the land and then actually do ruler-type things, however briefly, but cut back significantly on the whole open world/moral choice thing.

Maybe the onslaught of samey mainstream crap has just lowered my standards in the desperate search for something different?

Oh yeah, whoever's responsible for the pathetic loading times on Duke Nukem Forever; I agree with each and every nasty thing said about the loading times. You're a dick.