Words that rang true as the two hits of acid began to sink in, as we were completely involved in the already-trippy artwork that Microsoft had contracted for desktop wallpaper and subsequently used for the playing cards, handbags, puzzle and so forth that they included with their "Party Pack."

On a whim I had signed up for this Windows 7 House Party thing. I didn't really expect to be selected as a host, but the prospect of a free copy of Win7 was enough to spend ten minutes of time signing up for the thing. As it happened, I did get selected, and sometime in mid-October I received the big blue box of party.

Little did Microsoft know, little did I expect, the thing actually kind of worked.



I asked my housemate Matt if Microsoft was wasting their money with this project. Being an Economics major (or some shit like that), he suggested that if at least one person bought Windows 7 who wouldn't normally have otherwise, it would probably pay for itself.

Now, I don't know about all that. All I do know is that the mere existence of this party pack led to many, many questions about Windows 7. Having used the beta since last December (and totally advocating its usage over Vista, XP, OSX, and even Linux, which I had previously been using) I was more than prepared to tell people about it. Hell, I had already converted two other housemates into using the beta - one of them using it instead of OSX on his new Mac Mini. And he had been an OSX user for years.

Now, we never specifically threw a Windows 7 party... but we did have at least three bake-offs (congregations over double-batches of chocolate chip cookies and that other kind of baking) and one huge house party that ultimately ended at the arrival of the cops. The balloons and streamers (representing the Windows logo) perfectly complemented the Yellow, Green, Blue and Red of the Twister mat we "artistically" taped to our dance floor. The playing cards withstood their fair share of spilled beer in many a Kings game. The poster... well, the poster never got hung up, because it was kind of lame. Shame, Microsoft.

Anyway, I don't really know if any of the other party packs did squat for selling copies of Windows. For all I know, people installed the free Ultimate edition and threw away the rest. But at this house, more than one person went away with more knowledge of Windows 7, and possibly with hope that they can rectify the cruddy states their computers were in. One person told me last night, in fact, that he had just acquired his copy (for the student price) and couldn't be happier.

And hey, Windows 7 is pretty fucking good. Love the taskbar.

I'll let the pictures do the rest of the talking.

I've been a Steam user since Half-Life 2 was released in 2004, but back then, I still had bought the game on DVD and thought the mandatory Steam process was silly and unnecessary. Things were different back then. My rural town had just barely began offering broadband in any capacity, but the idea of downloading a game - NOT having a physical copy of it with a snazzy box and handy-dandy instruction booklet - seemed strange and somehow less satisfying to me back then.

Then I discovered a nifty perk of Steam. I could go to a friend's house, install Steam, and download Half-Life 2 on his computer within hours. No penalty. Of course we couldn't play online together, but I simply wanted him to experience the greatness that was HL2. And he could. And he did. And he wasn't the only one. [Ultimately I had to change my password, because one jerk gifted my extra HL copies to some random person.]



When Episode One rolled around, I bit the bullet and pre-ordered it through Steam. I distinctly remember coming home from work on the day it was released, finding it had pre-downloaded and installed itself... and having to do absolutely nothing but launch the freakin' thing. Amazing.

Now, I'm not a major online gamer. I haven't logged hundreds of hours into Team Fortress 2 like my hometown buds did, but I've logged a few. The Friends system and Stats that were implemented around that time made joining games with the people I wanted so easy; it was like the polish of Xbox Live, with the convenience of a keyboard and mouse. And free. Wonderful.

I've insofar neglected to actually purchase a 360 or a PS3, and the Wii's internet capabilities are reprehensible at best. Which is strange for me - since I got the NES for my 4th birthday, I've always considered myself a console gamer who would only occasionally defect to the PC for masterpieces like, oh, Half-Life and Starcraft. But I am hesitant now. Now, many games are multiplatform. Many games are downloadable. Many of these games are excellent.



I have actually put some money on the table for downloadable games on my housemates' consoles. Worms 2, Schizoid, Bomberman Live, Peggle, Braid: these are all amazing games. It's lovely to not have to change physical disc media and wait for extraneous load times.

But what happens when your Xbox dies? Ours have (both of 'em!) and then we're shit outta luck. Or what happens when Microsoft releases the next Xbox? Hopefully we have a few years before that happens, but is there any guarantee that you can play these games on it? The idea of backwards compatibility in consoles has been played with since the PS2's launch, but only in terms of physical media.

In theory, it shouldn't be that hard for the next iteration of consoles to play these games, but it's still an issue in the back of my mind that keeps me from wanting to purchase more downloadable games for the consoles. I'm already going to lose everything I've bought when my housemates move out and take their consoles with them.

But not with Steam. I've upgraded my video card probably three times since HL2 came out - hell, probably overhauled my entire system - and every time, I've had zero problems re-downloading my games and honestly, I can't imagine a situation where I WON'T be able to play them. I don't have to take my PC with me if I feel like playing a little Half-Life at my parent's house over Thanksgiving break. I don't have to bring anything at all. That's amazing. That is a platform I can get behind: a rather intangible one, but the benefits lie in it not being tied down to any specific hardware at all.



I've bought a whole bunch of games on Steam this year: Bioshock, Crysis Warhead, Far Cry 2, Flock, Left 4 Dead 2 -- and I've even rebought games I've already purchased for other systems! Beyond Good & Evil was too tempting to pass up at $10, despite already owning it on Xbox and the disc-based PC version, and Psychonauts will eventually make it to my games list, too. Hell, I downloaded Braid for the 360, too, but ended up re-buying that on Steam as well!

But there are so many more games I would buy in an instant on Steam if I could.

Easily my most-played Wii game of the last year was Mega Man 9. I bought it the day it was released, and the DLC, too, and few games have been able to attract our whole house of seven dudes to the TV for hours on end, taking turns passing around a control. The few and the hardy end up moving to Hard Mode, then Super Hard. There's a game with a lot of replay value. But I find it a pain to use the Wii for the game; in a college sort of house where we're moving consoles back and forth to different rooms all the time, the Wii is a pain in the ass. Making sure the sensor bar is in place, making sure I have AA's on hand, having to use the Wii cursor to select a game, even if the game doesn't use the IR sensor at all -- I personally find this extremely annoying to do to play just one game. That sensor bar is a real pain and requiring it to navigate the main menus could have been avoided; hell, it probably could be with a software update.

I'd buy that game on Steam again in a second. None of that hardware hassle - it's on my PC and ready to roll. I suspect that the game would play well even on computers with lesser graphical prowess. My Bluetoothed, wireless PS3 controller is ready to play this game, CAPCOM!!!

That controller is also ready to play a shit-ton of console games that I absolutely adore from the past - games I love but play because it's hard to justify lugging around all of my past consoles just to play a few games on each. [Actually, my Super Nintendo is hanging around our house; its durability is unprecedented and its library of games has led to a shocking number of hours logged on the thing in 2009.] Seriously: I would put down cold hard (digitally-interfaced) cash immediately for Beetle Adventure Racing, the MGS series, Chrono Trigger, Blaster Master, the Ninja Gaiden trilogy, Little Nemo: Dream Master...



Beetle Adventure Racing, specifically. There is something so awesome about that game: it's hybrid nature of high-speed racing and adventure in finding a mandatory number of points-boxes, its ingenious, multi-path-laden level design, and it's addictive car-combat multiplayer mode. This game doesn't play well with emulators. My N64 controllers don't play well with age. Somebody, somewhere, make this happen!

I guess I've said about all I can about Steam right now. The past 15 hours or so of playing L4D2, easily linking up with friends from that old rural town and having a gay old time, then leisurely poring over my stats afterwards... all from a game that I didn't even have to leave the house to buy and never have to worry about not being able to play. Ever. Steam is awesome.

So, what do you guys like - or dislike - about Steam? Do you prefer the interface of the 360 or PS3? Do you make use of the Wii's delivery service and overpriced ROMs? (Can't say I haven't bought a few.) Are there games, new or old, that you want to see on Steam?

I probably shouldn't be writing this yet - I rented "New Super Mario Bros. Wii" less than 24 hours ago and mostly played it in a stupor of being awake for far more than 24 hours. I've also only completed World 3, and played mostly solo, so I'll try to keep these impressions as humble as I can.

This game pisses me off.

This is a game that, at least in the first three worlds, cannot seem to decide what it wants to be. It has distinctive elements of Super Mario 1, 3, and World; it has appearances by Kamek from Yoshi's Island; it has music from Mario 64; it has the overarching feel of New Super Mario Bros. DS - which is to say, it rips from all of these games without having a unique soul of its own, and expects that the player will find it a masterpiece greater than the sum of its parts.



Yet I find it's "homages" little more than "anti-creativity". Of course I would expect goombas, koopa-troopas, bullet bills, piranha plants, and the usual cast of characters. But the Nintendo of Old wouldn't have been content without expanding that army. Mario 3 introduced Dry-Bones, Boom-Booms, Bob-ombs, Boos, Thwomps, and Lakitus. Super Mario World had tons of new dinosaur enemies. It had koopas that popped out of their shells. It had goombas that got knocked out and could be picked up. It featured again the Koopa Kids as bosses, but their environments were varied and made each fight quite different.

So far I have not found one single "new" enemy in NSMBW, unless you count penguins - which were in Mario 64, anyway.

Mario 3's world map was a revelation at the time, each with an overarching theme, with different available paths, roaming monsters, roaming monsters, barriers that could be destroyed, hidden areas, mushroom houses and mini-games, bridges that would open or close, and an airship that moved if you didn't beat the boss the first time (sometimes forcing you to play levels to access it again, if you skipped on them originally). Mario World ditched the roaming enemies, but unified every "world" into a flowing whole; if the level looked like it took place in a small lake, it was likely a water level; when Mario goes into the base of a mountain for World 3, it makes sense that they are underground, cavernous areas. It actually felt like a Super Mario "World."

And again NSMBW can't decide what direction it wants to go in. Each World is a distinct entity here - no logical links between them. So it's Mario 3-esque, and I don't inherently have a problem with that - it could be argued Mario 3's worlds are at least as interesting as World's. The problem is that none of these worlds - or, at least, the first three - are as good as ANYTHING we've seen before. There are some roaming enemies, but there aren't any destroyable barriers; there are no items that can be used to affect the map. I ran into a Red Switch Palace, except it wasn't a palace at all, and could be switched off, too, so I don't know if it will have an effect on any other future levels - it quite clearly changed something in the level I just completed, and obviously I had to play it again to find the now-accessible exit. Gee, I really had to use my thinking cap there.



Let's talk Power-Ups. I understand that there is less emphasis on "flying" powers - no cape, no raccoon tail - because it would be hard to keep up to four players on screen at once. Sadly, that feeling of building momentum and just lifting off and flying away and not being sure of where you'll be able to land is nowhere to be found. The Propeller power-up sort-of replaces those, allowing for some quick upward blasts. It's better than nothing, but feels just like the launching from stationary platforms in NSMB-DS. (Why couldn't we see the return of the Bee Suit from Galaxy?) The Ice Flower is quite powerful - maybe too powerful - it can even freeze and destroy Dry-Bones. It's a good addition, though, as the ice blocks can be manipulated or used as platforms, which is cool. The Penguin suit is new and pretty cool, too; not only can you shoot ice balls, ice is far less slippery, and you can move into a belly-flop position to slide all over the place and knock out enemies. (It's much less reckless than the Turtle Shell powerup from the DS game, thank god.) And there's one more power-up I haven't come across yet, but it looks like the tiny mushroom from the DS game that shrinks you and makes control weird and floaty as hell.

The power-up selection could be worse, but I feel it's missing that spark of originality that Mario 3 had and the feeling of balance that World had.

The actual gameplay engine is cool. Like the DS game, you can kick off of pretty much any wall, which is awesome. There are lots of rotating platforms, and you can stand on some pletty slanted slopes. There are lots of slopes everywhere, which is fun for butt-sliding and penguin suit usage. Overall control feels tight and responsive.

As for the level design, I've so far found it less than memorable. The general idea seems to be "familiarity" - and boy, they sure succeeded there. I've run into a couple of tricky spots, and one level had a darkness gimmick with light around Mario (and his fireballs). Everything else feels like a blur.



Yoshi is here, and about as powerful as he was in Mario World; he has a bit of a flutter jump for extended air-time, but doesn't poop or throw eggs.

The bosses seem like a joke to me so far. Once again, they are the Koopa Kids, and so far, I've bonked each one on the head three times and then waited for them to spin around in their shells. I guess one did pull a "Wendy Koopa" and kept popping out of pipes like a Whack-a-Mole, and Iggy threw some bouncing balls around, but so far, they just feel boring.

And that's why I'm writing this now. I've only completed World 3, and I'm downright bored. I can pretty much count the number of things that are actually "new" about this game, and the rest has been a bizarre mish-mash of previously-seen Mario elements. It's just unfortunate because none of it seems to be even as good as when it originally appeared.

To state another example, whenever you beat the Koopa Kids, a key falls from the ceiling. In Mario 3, it was a wand, and if you let it hit the ground it bounced, and you could jump right into it - at which point Mario would freeze in mid-air, the background would dissipate, and Mario would begin falling past clouds, eventually landing in the now-human-again king's palace and returning his wand to him. Here, you touch the key and a sliding door opens on the right side of the screen.

It's just shit like that that pisses me off about this game. Where is the creativity of Mario games' past? WHERE IS IT????

I could really go on and on. Each level has three big coins to find. (The definition of filler content, in my mind.) There are some spots where eight red coins appear for a short time; this was done in the DS game. There are lots of "secret" areas accessible via pipe, but they're no different from the myriad areas like this in Mario games' past. The level goal is the flag, exactly like Mario 1 - nothing new like a moving point-scale in World, or the distinctive monochrome zig-zag transition in Mario 3 with a bonus item.

I personally find the graphics less than impressive. The 3D animation is decent, but at times downright bad: jumping off of the finish flag looks awkward and wrong. The backgrounds have little of interest and the foregrounds look like repeated patterns, over and over. I'm still waiting for a new sprite-based 2D Mario.

The music isn't just less than impressive, I find it so awful it's mute-worthy. The memorable melodies from Marios gone by are rearranged here with boring tonality and tons of vocal "bups" and "ba's" to promote some kind of cheery atmosphere that I find just plain annoying. The sound effects sound stale, and the end-level jingle doesn't promote satisfaction like I want it to. The best part, really, is the death sound, because it's ripped directly from Mario 1.

I know it can't all be bad; New Super Mario DS had at least one extremely memorable level (walking on a giant caterpillar!) and hearing that the game becomes quite challenging makes me hopeful. I know writing paragraphs upon paragraphs before completing half of the game might seem rash, but this is really how I feel about it at this point.

Granted, the multiplayer mode, from what I've played of it so far, is probably the game's saving grace, as it puts an entirely different spin on these levels that are so "merely adequate" when playing solo. I'm sure I'll have fun playing like that: accidentally (or not) killing friends, bouncing upon one another's heads, and so on. It's just majorly disappointing when the game, played alone, is not nearly as enticing.

One last thing, and it concerns this game's title. It was bad enough when "New Super Mario Bros" came out for the DS. What kind of a name is that, really? The game isn't going to be "new" at all in a few years' time, but at least it serves as a functional name. Now there's a new 2D Mario, and they call it "New Super Mario Bros. Wii"? Is this "New" thing a franchise now? Is it secretly an oxymoron, because there is in fact very little "new" about it? Is putting "Wii" in the title of your game any better than "64"? Couldn't they come up with something that isn't absolutely cringe-worthy to say in conversation?

I'll leave it at this: When I called Blockbuster to ask if they had the game, it went something like this:
"Um, I was wondering if you guys were carrying this New Super Mario Bros for Wii?"
"Uh, ... [pause] What's the name of the game?"
"Um, it's actually literally called New Super Mario Brothers... Wii."
"Oh. Yeah. We have four copies."


Whoa!! A new enemy? I guess I better finish the game.

Every year on September 9th, I remember the Dreamcast. It was my ritual, for some years after it's inevitable death, to invite friends over and reminisce and play the thing. And though I didn't do that this year, on catchy 9-9-09, it was certainly in my thoughts.

Some of us speak of it like a dead relative, the uncle we knew for just a couple of years, who would engage us in wonderful talk and play; some of us speak of it like a famous figure who died before his prime, wishing they could have given it support in its pivotal, live-or-die moments.

People are blogging here about how they hardly gave it a second glance until years later and regretted it, or how we're all liars in our 'love' for it. All valid, to be sure, but dammit, I was there for the whole ride.

I remember buying the Official Sega Dreamcast Magazine just before it came out, anxiously reading the review for Sonic Adventure (I think they only gave it an 8! Their honestly only enamored me!), reading interviews with Sega folk in Next Generation, and gushing about the clever memory cards, the potential of the online connection, and oh my god, the launch games!

I didn't have a Playstation at the time, so I wasn't used to quality releases coming out on such a regular basis (something I think Nintendo still needs to figure out - then again, not all of those Playstation releases resembled quality) - I wasn't used to having a loaded demo disc every other month, and I even surprised myself in how much I enjoyed sports games for the first (well, maybe last) time ever.

Being only like 12 at the time, I begged my parents to pre-order one, but I didn't know until Christmas whether that truly happened or not. It did, and in the last week of the previous century, I played the shit out of Sonic Adventure, and then Toy Commander, and then Soul Calibur, and loved every minute of it.

Back in those times we only had 56k internet, and only on weekends (because it was long-distance, and we had free long-distance on weekends), and I will never forget firing up the Dreamcast just before the clock ticked to midnight on Friday nights so I could hop on the net and look at porn in my own room.

But seriously, the games.

Sonic Adventure, though not without its faults - awful side character gameplay, a somewhat buggy camera, an overworld that felt like filler at times - actually made Sonic work in 3D. Its sequel would make the awful mistake of requiring that you play the shitty side character levels to advance to more Sonic ones (damn those Knuckles levels!), but this was a pure adrenaline rush through downright gorgeous levels at break-neck speed.

Soul Calibur, with its challenging and diverse mission mode, added an incredible layer of depth to the already deep gameplay mechanics. Honestly, the Dreamcast had a lot of great fighting games - Marvel vs. Capcom 2, Powerstone (if you count it), and Dead or Alive 2 (which I didn't play for the tits - well, maybe in part) ... never have I found fighting games to be more varied and just plain fun.

I remember very distinctly that following Easter. My sister had played a bit of Crazy Taxi and fell in love with it, and for a girl I could hardly get to play Mario 3 past World 2, she was very persuasive to my parents about WANTING THAT GAME. They got it for her as an Easter present, and I got RE: Code Veronica (how generous of them!) and the Dreamcast kept spinning nonstop all month. Even my mom played Crazy Taxi. I don't know about her enjoying it, but I can't recall her ever being willing to play any other video game. Ever. Before or after.

Then there are the impossibly whacked out games, the ones that somehow got published and actually marketed and were actually good - and of course despite plummeting Dreamcast prices, only those who already had the system gave any sort of damn. Jet Grind Radio - I had an incredible blast with this game, with the fluid rollerskating controls and complimentary level design, totally crazy music, spraypaint mechanics, running from the fuzz, an eclectic cast of characters, and an absolutely gorgeous demonstration of cel shaded graphics - this game is like nothing else, save for its Xbox sequel, which beefed up the level size but toned down the rest of the antics. Shit, I really want to play JGR again, just thinking about it.

And who can forget Seaman? Possibly the most frightening Tamagatchi-esque game ever invented, and one that will creep out your friends and family because you make a point to talk to it. Here is a "nurturing game" that actually got me to wake up ten minutes early to make sure Seaman was fed and his tank was at the proper temperature. Otherwise, he would BITCH! I still remember one of my friends somehow convincing my Seaman that I was gay, and forever after, he kept asking if I was getting along with my "hubby." Damn creepy fish with man-face.

And of course Chu Chu Rocket, the clever and cute and again, just plain weird puzzle game. I spent a lot of hours alone trying to get my mice safely into their rockets and out of cat's mouths, but the true fun was the chaotic free-for-all that was multiplayer mode, slapping directional arrows every-which-way and watching all hell break loose real quick. (This paragraph probably makes no sense if you've never played the game.)

And then, of course, the system died a quick and solemn death. The Official Dreamcast Magazine announced it would be no more, and the list of upcoming games dwindled to almost nothing, Sega exited the hardware business and became a then unthinkable third-party publisher, and people went and sold their Dreamcasts for PS2s. But I didn't. It would be years before I got a PS2 (maybe out of spite?), and I continued trying to get my hands on the rest of the weird catalog that I had missed: Shenmue, Phantasy Star Online, Sega Bass Fishing, and so on.

There was a glimmer of hope in Sega's early development for the Xbox that I wholeheartedly endorsed. Games like GunValkyrie, Jet Set Radio Future, and Panzer Dragoon Orta made me feel like Sega had made the right decision: they could still publish games as a third party, and they got to take advantage of the ever-increasing power of new consoles.

Of course, you fuckers didn't buy those games either, and now we're stuck watching Sega pathetically release 3D Sonics that just don't work.

In any case, this was ten years ago. I hold a grudge no more. But know, Destructoid!!! that at least one of us actually owned, played, and loved the damn thing when it needed support most. The Dreamcast represents Sega's first true step into 3D - with a capable system, but most importantly, games that actually took advantage of the medium and really shined. I hope some day they will return to publishing games in this spirit. Dreamcast forever!

(I realize this is four days late. Sorry!)

I've been using Windows 7 full-time since around December, and I particularly adore the new taskbar - turning the basic concept of it into a much more functional, easy to use, and aesthetically pleasing interface tool. See, I would always have tons and tons of programs open, and hardly make head or tail of what they were, so relying on established icons and sensible grouping of windows instead of long text strings for each program with a tiny icon is a GREAT idea, I think.

(I'm not going to get into whether it's a ripoff of the OSX dock. They are more similar than ever, but still different. I prefer 7's taskbar.)

Anyway, ever since I began using Firefox (back then, Firebird! Remember that?) I've had a problem with having waaay too many tabs in my internet browser for my own good. I still do. It gets really bad when I'm doing a report for school; I would easily have 40, 50, or more tabs open. It just gets out of control.

So after I had been using the Win7 taskbar for, gosh, maybe a week, I got an idea: why not make Firefox group tabs together JUST like that? Tons of sites already have memorable, recognizable favicons, so why not just use them?

I blogged about this (twice, actually) on a site that nobody ever read, and I would have just given up, but in case anybody is still reading, I've managed to use Stylish and an add-on called FaviconizeTab to create something similar to what I proposed nine months ago.



That's actually how many tabs I had open before I fairly innocently decided to take a screenshot and bring this up again. You know what? That's a real pain in the ass to manage when you have to scroll through like three lines to see them all. I know. Granted, right then I was searching for drivers for my new eeePC, but this is the kinda shit I do! I use a lot of tabs at once!

The FaviconizeTab add-on for Firefox will actually do pretty much just what that screenshot shows, especially if you set its filter to a * wildcard to make all tabs do that. You can specify specific sites, or just right-click a tab and faviconize it. Perhaps you consistently have the same six sites open - just faviconize 'em and make sure Firefox reloads your sessions!

If you want to "Windows-7-ize" them a bit (*cough* really just enlarge them *cough*), you can use Stylish with this code. I think I had to tweak the parameters slightly.

Granted, it doesn't really behave like a Windows 7 taskbar; it certainly doesn't group sites or tier them in any similar way, and it actually can be annoying when you have like four Destructoids open. But hey! It's helping me cope.

One step at a time...

I just don't get it. Granted, there are some pretty cool weapons in Resistance 2, and lots of giant monsters, big levels, and uh, online play. Yet all of these aspects are so hampered by the core gameplay, the lost potential just saddens me.

A forewarning: I didn't play the whole game. Don't kill me. I only have impressions more than complete observations, and mostly from the beginning and end of the game, and co-op. We only got our PlayStation 3 last week, and I can't compare this to its predecessor or any other FPS titles on the system right now.

Now don't get me wrong, the weapons are pretty cool: the sniper rifle with secondary "bullet-time" function, the gun that shoots through walls, the gun that tags an enemy and homes the rest of your clip on it, and the medic gun that gives you energy and recharges your comrades' energy are all nifty and I appreciate that.

But the level design, while attractive at times (particularly the gas station area and the bog/swamp area towards the end) is incredibly deceiving. There's constantly a waypoint marker telling you where to go. You don't really have any other options but to go towards it, and then to another, and another. And along the way there will be enemies that have pretty incredible aim and the balls to charge right at you.

And you will die, a lot, because you can't take much damage, and many areas are just traps waiting to spring. Invisible enemies, bullets that shoot through walls with reckless abandon, melee attacks from aliens that kill you instantly. There are lots of checkpoints, and you will be utilizing them, but it just ... isn't ... fun. What's fun about running into an area, getting slaughtered, going back to the checkpoint and doing it again, with more caution?

It doesn't really help, in my opinion, that there's no health bar. The first game I remember doing this is the game adaptation of Peter Jackson's King Kong, but that game tried to eschew any sense of a HUD to create a more cinematic style experience. (And it actually had Michel Ancel at the helm, and was kind of a neat game.) But this game already has an ammunition display, a waypoint marker, and other information - why the hell NOT a health meter?

Instead it's all peek out from a wall, or place a shield, and shoot as much as you can safely, and retreat, and hope you don't get swamped in creatures. Your teammates suck, and enemies ignore them anyway. And that appears to be the gameplay. Over and over and over. There are no interesting constraints placed upon you; there are no real interesting enemies to fight.

As for the giant monsters, the few that I saw required no more thinking than knowing where to acquire a rocket launcher or other similarly powerful explosive. In contrast with Half-Life 2: Episode 2, you're encouraged to use the Strider killing device (the proper name of which I can't remember) - you know, where you throw it at the Strider's head (a tiny traget), hope it sticks, and then blast it with a pistol and watch as its stilt-like legs fall apart.

Let's compare the final battles of HL2:E2 and R2. (Spoilers!)

Half Life pits you against like, a dozen Striders, on a big-ass forested battlefield, and you have to keep them from reaching a certain point. You have a car, a number of the Strider-killing devices, and that's about it. You have to anticipate from which direction they're coming and not let one breach your line of defense. Maybe you try and round a couple of them up. Maybe you don't. But that's not all. Then there are the reinforcements, the FAST and deadly Hunters, which require a completely different strategy to kill - there's no standing still allowed if you want to live, you're going to have to strafe quickly from side to side and take the fuckers out before they get you, while still not letting the Striders get away. It is hard. But it is engaging, it is fun, it is empowering, and when it is over, it is incredibly satisfying. Then there is some more interactive visual storytelling at the resolution of the game.

Resistance 2: You wander into an EXTREMELY Halo-esque spaceship environment, doing exactly what you've been doing: take cover and kill, take cover and kill, until you finally get into the final chamber, which is basically a linear walkway with some kind of armory-type structures littered along it. Don't worry, you won't get lost, there's waypoints telling you exactly which way to go! And don't worry as the big boss tries to claw at you, because he won't hit you, he's merely tearing apart the bunkers and clearing a path for you to progress. Then you finally get to the last section, and oh! Don't worry about figuring out what to do, or having any creative input, and certainly don't worry about any emergent gameplay, because the waypoint markers point out exactly which glowing orb you need to hit to kill the boss. Just don't get slashed and keep running in a circle.

Seriously. Then you run away from the area with a 4 minute countdown ticking, the base blows up, your character alludes to a sequel, and your teammate shoots you in the head. That's it. The end. Roll credits.

I wish I was kidding but I'll just leave it there. I don't know if you were as shocked or disappointed as me, but I guess that's what you get with merely adequate gameplay.

(P.S. I was going to write about the co-op, but I'm sure it's been written about plenty before; the leveling-up is a neat concept but yet another wasted opportunity because it takes SOOOO long to level-up and the gameplay is just plain monotonous. Fuck this game.)