Silent Hill may be one of the strangest franchises in gaming.  Known more for their vivid, nightmarish atmosphere and mythology than any sort of gameplay, the Silent Hill games were always an extremely divisive prospect.  I played the second and third installments of the series and felt like they had sluggish controls, an awkward camera, poor combat, bland level design, obscure puzzles, inane fetch-quests, mediocre voice-acting, and yet, for some strange reason, I couldn't stop playing them until I had reached the end.  The sights and sounds of Silent Hill were guaranteed to be unique and surprising, and though the stories were sometimes nonsensical, they were intriguing enough to keep you coming back for more as you tried to piece it all together. Most of these things are true about the series' most recent outing, Silent Hill: Homecoming, but many of these aspects are ever so slightly improved making it my favorite Silent Hill yet.

The story has to do with Alex Shepherd, a soldier returning to his hometown of Shepherd's Glen in order to search for his lost brother, Joshua.  Upon arriving, it's clear that things are not going well, with a thick fog covering the streets, nobody's around, and your mom has gone completely catatonic and loco.  Oh, and the streets all end in an abyss to oblivion.  It's a compelling starting point, and does a great job engrossing you in the narrative as you try to figure just what the hell is going on.

But that's all to be expected from a Slient Hill game. The great thing about Homecoming is the subtle ways in which it has improved upon its predecessors.  The biggest improvement this time around is the camera.  Finally ditching the "cinematic" camera of yore for the more modern "behind the shoulder" approach, Homecoming is a far more fluid game to control than its' predecessors.  You still can't rotate the camera, and you turn rather slowly, but that only helps keep your view of your surroundings limited in order to keep the tension up.  It controls a bit like Resident Evil 4, except you'll hardly ever have ammo for your firearms and the melee combat is clunkier.



Speaking of combat, that's another thing Homecoming improves ever so slightly upon its predecessors.  You can now use light and strong attacks, and they've finally added a dodge button.  Some may say that this cheapens the game by making things too easy, but it really doesn't as combat is still a rather awkward, sluggish affair.  The attack animations can take awhile and likely won't keep up with your controller input, so don't be afraid that this has turned into a hack-and-slash by any means.  It's still good ol' Silent Hill where you'll likely end up mashing buttons and trading blows with enemies, so combat is something to be avoided, if possible.

And though combat has been improved, it seems to play a smaller role here than it usually does in these games.  It's not uncommon to play the game for a good hour and only encounter little more than a dozen enemies.  Some may say that fewer enemies will make the game less scary, and that may be true to some extent.  But it also makes the game less annoying and frustrating, as it improves the pacing dramatically by not making you run around aimlessly trying to sort out what to do, all the while enemies chip away at your health bar.  And the rare times when an enemy does rear its' ugly head, it will make you jump more than you'd expect, making it a different kind of scary than the predictable hallways full of slow moving enemies from past iterations.  So it's not a constant sense of dread exactly, but rather a delicate balancing act of letting you explore in relative peace only to shake things up when you least expect it.  As a result, it's equally scary as the past games, but definitely the most fun.



The best thing about the game is its' environments.  They're still the typical Silent Hill claustrophobic interior environments full of hallways, repetitive rooms, and lots of locked doors (something I initially hated about the series that has somehow grown on me), but they are varied enough and look beautiful.  There are some lazy, familiar locales like a hospital and a prison, but there's some really neat new ones like an abyss into Hell, for example.  I'd say more, but won't, so as not to spoil it for you all.  Even the familiar fog soaked streets of Silent Hill that we've seen 5 times before look better than ever on a "next-gen" system, without losing any of their surreal, otherworldly charm. 

The sound in particular is fantastic, utilizing a great orchestral score full of familiar themes and all new ones alike.  The enemies sound great, and the series' signature radio is still as creepy as ever, emitting static sounds to alert you to a nearby enemies' presence.  The voice-acting is not as strong however.  Alex sounds fine and so do a few of the supporting cast, but there's still some pretty bad acting by the likes of Alex's mom, brother, and a few other colorful characters you'll meet upon your quest.  It's still a step up from the voice-acting in the previous games though, so no love lost there.

Aside form the wonderful environments, my other favorite thing about Silent Hill: Homecoming, is its' creatures.  They're fantastic!  Some of the best I've ever seen, ever. Rather than going the tried and true route of giving everything tentacles, slime, and blood as so many horror games have done in the past, the creature here are generally bizarre mutations of human body parts cobbled together and contorted in grotesque ways.  Like a caterpillar made out of a mesh of several human torsos, arms, legs, hands, and an ass sticking out the back.  Or a giant bloody, spider-like mannequin.  The final boss in particular is especially gruesome, but I'll leave you all to discover that one for yourselves.  


Silent Hill games have always been known for their puzzles, but I was generally not a fan of them as they seemed too obtuse or illogical much of the time.  For better or worse, Homecoming really scales back the puzzles, so they're virtually nonexistent through much of the first half of the game, but the later areas have a few decent ones.  One puzzle, very late in the game, I particularly liked.  But there are seldom few solid, logical puzzles in the game.  The good news is that most puzzles are now self-contained and can be solved in the room you found them, rather than make you run all over looking for hard to see objects.  So while they don't add much to the game, they don't detract much either.

The game's story is very intriguing, but not always great.  It's mostly very surreal and metaphorical, except for when it isn't (which are the only times it seems silly).  There's lots and lots of backstory and symbolism here, so trying to piece together how it all fits is half the fun of these games (and where much of the replay value comes in).

That being said, Homecoming does have some shortcomings in this department.  In previous games it was always as if no two people were seeing the same thing, adding to the vivid, dreamlike atmosphere.  Here, there are times where you and other characters can see the same monsters, giving it a cheap, B-movie feel.  Some of the later chapters are particularly straightforward and literal, which is a shame. 



The games does feature multiple endings, a trademark of the series, but one that I never really liked that much.  I'm okay with different endings if they're directly tied to your actions, but here they seem rather arbitrary.  They're decided based on a few multiple choice questions late in the game and you could quite reasonably play the game "straight" as it were, only to receive the now infamous "flying saucer" easter egg joke ending that has become series tradition.  I'd rather have fewer endings that make sense, rather than multiple ones that do not.

Even worse, is that the multiple endings contradict one another in terms of what actually happened throughout the entire game.  I'll give you an example that isn't actually part of the game.  Let's say that in one ending a character is revealed to be a spy, but in another ending they're not.  Depending on whether they're a spy or not completely changes how you view the rest of the game.  I'm okay with multiple endings if they all tell the same story and merely conclude differently, but in this case, they all tell drastically different stories, some of which don't make any sense at all given the rest of the game.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of open-endedness, but that sort of thing is just lazy, unfocussed, and a copout from having to write a "real" ending.  There's still enough backstory here to form your own conclusion as to what really happened, but a little more focus on Double Helix's part would have been nice.

There are other flaws with the game as well.  One of my chief complaints about the previous Silent Hill games was that items and interactive objects were sometimes hard to see and so I'd find myself mashing the examine button around everything lest I miss something important.  Most items are more visible here, but there was at least one occasion where I got stuck for quite some time as I simply wasn't standing just the right way in front of a piece of interactive scenery and thus didn't get the "interact" prompt I needed to progress. Occurrences like this are few and far between, but can lead to much frustration when they do happen.



And while I'm nitpicking, I never liked the idea of bosses in a survival horror game.  That idea always seemed a bit at odds with me.  The concept of survival-horror was that you were "surviving," and that usually meant trying to flee enemy encounters.  Boss fights are more of a trope of action games and when placed in a game with survival-horror mechanics it just exposes them as being a "bad action game."  Even scripted sequences where you're running from a giant monster would make more sense in this sort of setting.  But hey, at least the bosses here look awesome, so it's only a small price to pay.

Still, Silent Hill: Homecoming is pretty much exactly what it aims to be; an old school, traditional survival-horror experience made fresh with new technology.  Better graphics, smoother controls, and significantly reduced load times all do wonders at making Silent Hill more fun than it's ever been.  The story gets a bit murky at times when it toggles between a surreal dreamlike experience and being a cliched literal B-movie, and the endings are rather unfocused, but the good more than makes up for the bad.  Silent Hill: Homecoming is not a revolution by any stretch of the imagination, but it gets Silent Hill's unique, haunting vibe down pat, and that makes it a trip worth taking.

8/10

Pros:
+Great environments and atmosphere.
+Improved camera and control.
+Fantastic creature design.
+Intriguing story.

Cons:
-Story gets muddled, contrived, and possibly contradictory in the end.
-Some bad voice-acting.
-Sometimes the game is too dark, making important things easy to miss.
-Arbitrary puzzles don't really fit the game.

I have a confession to make; prior to GTA IV, I was not a Grand Theft Auto fan.  I played a few hours of GTA: San Andreas and a wee bit of Vice City and neither held my interest for more than an hour.  But when a game comes along that briefly usurps Ocarina of Time's #1 spot on game rankings.com, I take notice.  Though I wasn't a fan of the previous games in the franchise, I thought "maybe this'll be the one."  Despite hearing numerous reports of it being a revolution in videogames and possibly the greatest game ever, I kept my expectations realistic.  As long as it was fun, I'd be satisfied.

It all starts out promising enough with its oh-so-stylish credit sequence where your character, Nico, arrives fresh off the boat (literally) to stay with his cousin, Roman, and live out the, say it with me now "American Dream."  You'll hear that phrase a lot in the game and it gets more irritating each time.  But the basic premise shows promise.  Unlike other GTA games, Nico isn't trying to work his way up the ranks of organized crime, but rather he wants to make an honest living, though he keeps getting caught in the crossfire between Roman and his loan sharks.  It's a compelling starting point and does a lot to draw you into this world.



Of course, it's a little hard to buy Nico as a "good guy" when he has no problem accepting assassination jobs left and right.  I have no problem playing as a badass antihero (often I even prefer it), but it simply doesn't make sense with Nico's character.  Of course, there'd be no game if he wasn't willing to accept dangerous missions, but they could have made him a little meaner so it wouldn't be such a stretch to see this otherwise nice guy nonchalantly murdering people left and right.

But maybe I'm taking things all a wee bit too seriously.  The whole point of Grand Theft Auto is to wreck havoc upon an immense, highly interactive environment.  And in that regard, the game starts out rather fun.  Running over pedestrians in my car, then slowly backing up over them again and again while others react in horror had to be one of the funniest moments I've had in gaming in a long, long time.  Shooting pedestrians in the legs and watching them stumble away as you chase them down with a baseball bat is likewise hilarious.  Yes, I am a terrible person.  But none of this would be so satisfying if you had to watch the same canned animations and listen to the same few sound bytes ad infinitum, and that's something GTA 4 gets down pat.  The euphoria physics engine works great here as every NPC reacts differently and there's a wealth of audio, so recurring sound bytes are rarely an issue.  All in all, interacting with (i.e. attacking) NPCs in the game is a lot of fun.

The environments are probably the game's greatest achievement, creating an enormous virtual replica of New York where no two streets are the same.  With varying, realistic weather effects, various radio stations to listen to, and a complete working in-game internet, GTA IV is a staggering achievement in terms of detail.  The best in the medium by a country mile. And it's here that GTA IV will be remembered.



But all the detail in the world doesn't mean a thing if the game isn't fun to play, and that's where GTA IV loses much of its momentum. The game has extraordinarily uncreative mission designs that are comprised entirely of driving to a specific spot, killing a specific target, or both. That wouldn't be so bad if either of these mechanics were actually that fun.

The driving is a bit of a divisive issue. Rather than having the cars control like arcade videogame cars, they control like real cars. While it may be realistic, they're just not that much fun to drive as they all control so horribly. However, I can understand what they were going for here, so I can't really call it outright bad. I recall that I didn't like controlling the horse in Shadow of the Colossus at first until I came to grips with the fact that he controlled like a horse rather than a car, so this might be the same where you have to forget everything you know about driving in videogames and learn to cope with an all new mechanic. Some people like the driving here and that could easily make or break the game for you as a good half of the game is merely driving around. But I'm not here to report what other people thought about the game; I'm here to report what I thought about it. If you're good at driving in this game and you like it, more power to you! But after 20+ hours, I couldn't come to grips with it and I'm sure there are many who will buy the game based on hype and will be disappointed by the driving sections. I'd advise giving it a rent first just to see where you fall on that subject.

The game's shooting is probably its weakest aspect. This is a shame as next to driving, it's probably the game's second largest aspect. The combat allows you to take cover, though the cover doesn't always work. And when it does work, the game lets you both blind-fire around corners and lock on to enemies while blind-firing. Where's the skill in that? You may take an occasional shot to the arm, but nothing more. The enemy AI seems to be non-existent at times as I never once encountered an enemy try to flank me or run me out of my hiding spot behind a pillar. The combat isn't always easy though as you don't automatically regenerate health ala Gears of War, and there's no quick-turn, so if an enemy comes up at you from behind, you'll likely take a lot of damage before you can get a good shot at them. It's either really easy and boring or really hard and cheap. Rarely ever is it balanced and fun.



There is one aspect of GTA IV that is really, truly awful and which I feel needs to be addressed; and that is the games sadistic checkpointing. When you die, rather than start the mission over where it begins, you'll respawn at the place where you first accepted the mission, which is often across town from where the mission actually takes place. For example, let's say you accept a mission to go racing. This mission starts at a garage, but you'll have to drive around town until you can get to where your buddy's racing car is stashed, get in the car, then drive to where the race actually begins. Then you try the race, and supposing you fail (as you probably will at first. Those things are hard), you'll start all the way back at the garage and have to do it all over again just to take another stab at the race. Apparently this is series tradition, but it's still awful.

Worse was a mission where I had to follow some guy and kill him. As soon as you get to the mission marker, a cutscene will play of you meeting your target and him taking off on his motorcycle. You'll immediately be told to chase after him. Since you start the mission on foot, I immediately went in the opposite direction because I wanted to steal a car first. But after about 5 seconds of that I got a response that I failed the mission. So the next time I parked my car right next to where the mission began, so I wouldn't have to waste time wandering about, looking for a car. But much to my dismay, my car would disappear after the cutscene had ended. So I failed again after only a few seconds. And every time I'd fail this mission through route trial and error, I'd have to make my way all the way across town for another stab at it. Even the inevitable chase was less fun than it should have been as I was dreading the idea of having to make my way to the mission start again for the umpteenth time.



Still, despite all my bitching and moaning, GTA IV is not without its strengths.  When you're not succumbing to the sadistic checkpoint system or uncreative mission objectives, there's a lot of fun to be had just messing about.  My favorite experience with the game came when I was on a date.  I'd pick up my date, Michelle, then proceed to mow down as many pedestrians as I could with my car.  Michelle would say things like "Nico, watch the road!"  But it was never a deal breaker for her.  What a gal! After taking her out I got the urge to shoot her in the head just to see what would happen (kids, don't try this at home), but wanted to wait until I drove her back home, so I wouldn't have to redo the entire mission. I was dismayed that upon bringing her back to the magical glowing checkpoint, a cutscene was triggered and it ended with her going inside. I still wanted to shoot her in the head, so I called her up on my cell phone to see if she'd like to go out on another date. She'd consistently rebuke me saying that we just went out and that she needed her space. I decided to play the stalker and called her back numerous times and she'd say something new each time (though eventually her responses would repeat). It was a pretty cool detail as I've never been rejected by a girl for being too clingy in a videogame before. Also, I did later get an opportunity to shoot her in the head. It doesn't hurt her, but she gets offended by it and doesn't want to see me anymore. What a hypocrite! So it's fine when I run other people over, but you don't like it when I shoot you in the head? Good riddance!



Flaws and all, GTA IV works best as virtual tourism of New York and as a pedestrian murdering simulator, but not so much as an action-adventure game. Depending on what you're trying to get out of it, you'll have a vastly different experience. The actual things that make it a game; the goals, missions, objectives, etc. are all rather pedestrian and unpolished. It's still all good fun for awhile though, and it shows great promise as far as what game designers can do when crafting a virtual city. There's lots to see and lots to do, but once the novelty wears off, the core game underneath really shows its weaknesses. Feel free to disagree with me in the comments section below. But please, no death threats. Unless death threats are a sign that I'm starting to make it as a games journalist. In that case, please, send death threats. Lots of them.

7/10

Pros:
+AMAZING level of detail. Liberty City looks great!
+Lots to see and do outside the main missions.
+Killing people is fun!

Cons:
-Awkward driving controls.
-Poor shooting mechanics.
-Rubbish checkpointing.

In honor of Bioshock coming soon to the PS3, I'm reviewing it for the 360. See how it stacks up over a year later!

Bioshock Review:

As a rule, I'm generally skeptical of any game that promotes itself as being inspired by Ayn Rand, but Bioshock is the exception. Winning numerous E3 awards both in 2006 and 2007, Bioshock was to be the game for the Xbox360 (and over a year later, the PS3). Combining elements of first-person shooters, survival-horror-games, and action-RPGs, Bioshock sought to transcend genres altogether and be nothing less than the greatest game ever made. Not that game creator, Ken Levine was ever that cocky, but it was hard not to buy into the enormous potential that came with Bioshock. Of course, having that much hype is as much a curse as a blessings, as there's little to no way a game could possibly live up to such lofty expectations. But does Bioshock have the chops to what so few games have done and live up the its' enormous hype train? Read on, dear reader, and find out.

Bioshock begins with what is possibly the greatest opening hour ever in a videogame. Okay, maybe I oversold it. Now you're going to be disappointed. Sorry. Let me rephrase. Bioshock begins with one of the greatest openings in a videogame. After the 10 second opening credit cutscene depicting the protagonist going down in a plane crash, you'll start the game out in the water surrounded by flaming debris, and it may well take you a few seconds before you even realize you can move because the graphics are just that real. But move you will to an abandoned lighthouse full of brilliant art deco plaques and statues as a scratchy instrumental rendition of "Beyond the Sea" plays on. You'll then find a submarine that'll take you 40,000 leagues under the sea to the decaying ruins of a city called Rapture. It's here that the game begins proper.



The most memorable thing about Bioshock is its' setting and Rapture does not disappoint. The idea is that all manner of artists and scientists rejected the world of the common man and rather chose to build their own society with their own rules. They also chose to build it underwater. (Perhaps they were fond of aquariums?) Of course, everything went horribly wrong and now it's full of genetically-mutated, mentally unstable murderous psychopaths, but it's clear that things weren't always this way and figuring out what went wrong is half the fun.

The greatest thing about Rapture is that though it lies in ruin at the bottom of the ocean, it was clearly a wonderful sprawling metropolis at one point. Built in the 1950s, it looks a bit like the works of Jules Verne crossed with Raymond Chandler as depicted by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. From the fake movie posters to the oppressive political propaganda, to the clothes the enemies wear (such as their creepy papier-mâchÊ masks that are depicted on a flyer for a New Year's Eve masquerade early on), every detail is pitch perfect. Clearly the fine folks at 2K went to a lot of effort to research this era, and it shows. Rapture feels like a real place with a real history. It's also just bloody gorgeous to look at.

Special mention should go to the soundtrack, employing a mix of orchestral scores and established music from that era such as: The Ink Spots, Django Reinhardt, Bing Crosby, and more. The soundtrack of Bioshock is among the best and most atmospheric I've ever heard.



So we know the game looks and sounds great, but how does it play? Quite well as a matter of fact. Strange as it may sound, the game reminded me of a mixture of Half-Life and Oblivion. The first-person storytelling and linear progression give it more in common with Valve's groundbreaking FPS saga, yet the game controls much more like Oblivion. You'll have conventional weapons in your right hand (like pistols, shotguns, etc) and then use what are called "plasmids," which are genetic enhancements i.e. special powers you can buy and inject into yourself (basically "magic" in any other game) with your left hand ala Oblivion. The similarities don't stop there as you'll use the different attacks with the Left and Right shoulder buttons respectively, and you'll be able to level up your different attacks. You'll also spend a lot of time scrounging for supplies off dead foes and crates lying around. So yeah, it's a lot like Oblivion, but scaled down to fit the Half-Life mold.

Which is not to say that game is not original. There's a lot of innovative ideas at work here. For one thing, the game has a unique, controversial way of dealing with death. When you die, you merely respawn at the nearest vita chamber (usually within a few rooms of your current location) with a new bit of health and magic blue plasmid juice (called "eve" in case you wanted to know), but the enemies who you just faced will have the same amount of health as when you died. In essence, there is no penalty for dying and you could take down even the toughest foes through simple repetition. But where's the fun in that? Even though you can die with no consequences, it's more fun to try and stay alive as best ye can if you really want to get the most out of it. And if you're truly hardcore, you could just reload your last save after every death.



But the truly genius thing about Bioshock is just how damn scary the whole thing is. A lot of games have scared me in the past, but never for the right reasons. I'm usually scared because I'm worried I'll get a game over and have to restart at the last save point long ago. Heck, the last hammer brother in Super Mario Bros is scary for that reason. But Bioshock scares you the right way. Even though you know there is no penalty for dying you'll still be terrified simply wandering about and that's quite an achievement. Much of this has to do with the brilliant sound design where you can hear enemies long before seeing them.

Another brilliant move is the way the game handles respawning enemies. Usually a pet peeve of mine, Bioshock circumvents this by making it so no specific enemies respawn, but enemies will respawn randomly in random locales. So even if you die and are just making your way back to where you left off, there may still be a nasty surprise in store for you in the form of a wondering enemy. It even makes logistical sense too as this is a full city after all and it would be silly to think that no one new would come stumbling about the same areas as you. This sense that everything is playing out in real-time goes a long way in immersing you in this subterranean world.



And while the game looks and sounds great, has an intriguing premise, and solid, scary exploration, there are some flaws with the game; two rather huge ones in particular.

One is that the game has some pretty severe weapon balancing issues. By the end of the game, a powered up wrench is way more powerful than a powered up shotgun. For the last several hours of the game I had full ammo with every gun as I rarely had reason to use them between my plasmids and my magic wand of death (i.e. wrench). Also, not all plasmids are created equal. Some are really cool ideas, but not all that effective. Plasmids were perhaps Bioshock's biggest selling point as the idea was that you'd be able to craft your own unique strategies for dealing with foes such as: setting them on fire, then electrocuting them once they jump in water to douse said fire. Or using telekinesis for moving tripwires and setting traps. Or setting up a decoy then turning invisible. You can still do all of these things, but all too often it's just as effective to use brute force and stick to the tried and true one-two plasmid/wrench punch.

The exception to this is the wonderful Big Daddy fights. These scuba armored brutes will not attack you unless provoked either by attacking them directly, or attacking their "Little Sister" who they're committed to protect. Since you have all the time in the world to scope out their patterns and the surrounding terrain, you can really get creative in how to take them out. It's here that the combat really shines. Even the aforementioned weapon and plasmid balance issues seem more balanced when dealing with these beasts. Truly great stuff!



There was one other major flaw in Bioshock and I shudder to go into too much detail about it here, but lets just say the ending is anticlimactic. In fact the game's plot, great though it may be, sort of peters out at the 75-80% mark and there's not much story left after that. All off a sudden the levels lose their mystique as you plow on towards the end, which is sure to disappoint (no matter which ending you get).

But even though the game loses much of its' narrative steam in its' final act and there are some balance issues with the combat, Bioshock is still an amazing achievement in immersion. This is what videogames tourism is all about. You get to go through a unique, gorgeous setting, discover a strange and interesting tale, and feel the dread of being hunted in a place that you do not belong. It's far from perfect and a bit aggravating in how much better it could have been with just a few details changed, but it's still what I would consider a flawed masterpiece.

9/10

Pros:
+Unique, beautiful, haunting setting.
+Fantastic soundtrack.
+Intriguing narrative.
+Real scary, without being cheap.

Cons:
-Anti-climactic final quarter
-Weapon/plasmid balance issues
-The occasional cheesy voice-acting/dialogue

There's been a lot of discussion as to whether games need to be interactive at all times, or if it's an equally valid approach to rip control away from the player in the form of cutscenes, mandatory text, etc...  Interactivity is, after all, the one thing that separates gaming from any other artform.  But do games need to strive to do this all the time in order to best take advantage of the medium? 

In 1996 Half-Life was revolutionary in that it told a complete story without ever breaking interactivity.  At no point could you not move around or control the first-person viewpoint.  Everything was told in-game through clever level design and subtly scripted sequences.  This worked fantastically and proved that you don't need to rip control away from the player in order to spin a good yarn.

Six years later and Half-Life 2 tried the same approach.  It still worked well, but I took issue with it a little more the second time.  See, in the first Half-Life, Gordon was alone almost the entire game.  The games' intro had a few people saying "hello" to him, but that was about it.  It was a very lonely game and everything the game had to tell could be told simply by viewing things through Gordon's eyes.  But in Half-Life 2, Gordon has friends.  People talk to him like he's their buddy.  He even has a sort of romantic interest.  The fact that Gordon never, ever talks and we never see him (outside the games' boxart) makes us wonder what exactly anyone sees in him. In short, it feels false.

For example, there's a moment in Half-Life 2: Episode 1 where Alex hugs Gordon in first-person.  It's an interesting moment, and something I haven't seen in a game before, but to me, it highlighted the weaknesses of the medium.  I wasn't getting a hug.  I was on sitting on my couch.  Granted the same would be true in any medium, but by trying to be extra immersive it ended up just looking goofy and thus breaking the immersion.  Conversely, had this been handled in third-person and we actually saw two people hugging, we'd strike more of a connection with that (think Ico).  We connect with what we can see.  We do this all the time when we look at animals and personify them.  In Half-Life 2 I can see Alex, and thus I can connect with her.  She feels real to me.  But Gordon?  Even though I'm in his head, seeing through his eyes, he never really feels like a character. 

Admittedly, this is only a problem when interacting with other characters.  Some of the more epic set pieces like seeing an army of marching soldiers on a bridge up ahead convey a greater sense of power as it's all happening in real-time and you feel more immersed in what's going on.  So the first-person/silent-protagonist/never-breaking-the-action thing can work really well sometimes.  Just not all the time.  

A game that I think does an excellent job at combining non-interactive storytelling with gameplay is Shadow of the Colossus.  Shadow of the Colossus does use cutscenes.  Very archaic, non-interactive, old school cutscenes.  But it uses them sparingly, and it uses them well.  Here's why it works:   SotC is at once a short story and a massive epic.  Its' actual plot is very small and vague, but it feels epic because of the scope of the game.  You could write a SotC book or make a SotC movie, but it would be extremely boring as there'd be no talking, no other characters, nor any plot developments to speak of for most of the middle 90% of the story.  To make it at all interesting, you'd have to cut out most of the middle (by scaling it down to only a few colossi perhaps?).  But if you did that, it would no longer feel like an epic and the ending would lose much of its' resonance. Thus, the only way to truly experience this simple, yet epic tale is to play it.

And while a vast majority of the game is interactive, the parts where the plot is explained (to some degree) are done through very traditional cutscenes (with the exception of a couple brief, yet poignant interactive scenes at the end).  But this works because it's a linear story with a prescribed outcome.  You're merely a pawn in Fumito Ueda's story.  Giving you extra control would only break this carefully crafted minimalist tale.

The unique thing about videogames is that they're capable of all forms of multimedia.  While a cutscene is "just a movie," or text is "just reading;" things that have been covered by film and books long before videogames came along, we've never been able to mix them into one concise piece of art until now.  Okay, some movies will have a tad bit of reading (like the opening scroll of Star Wars), but that's about it.  Just because a comic book is pictures and text working together, does that mean that Alan Moore should not have written the text-only inserts between each chapter of The Watchmen?  I felt they added a lot to the story and helped flesh out the world that that story took place in.  But that's one of the rare examples outside videogames where different mediums have melded together.

I used to hate videogame cutscenes because I felt like I could just be watching a movie, and I hated reading a lot of text in games because I felt like I could just be reading a book, but lately I've realized that while taken on their own, these things may seem like a misuse of the medium, but taken as one giant multimedia virtual art gallery, gaming can do things other mediums can't even when they do break away from the idea of being interactive at all times. A game that I feel uses its' medium to it's full potential is Braid.  Braid has no cutscenes, but it does have text.  The neat things about the game is that none of the text is mandatory.  You never have to hit "A" to skip.  It's all there if you want it, but it doesn't get in the way of things at all.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg. 
 
The really interesting thing about Braid is that the text, on it's own, doesn't tell a complete story.  Neither do the levels.  If you just read the text online and don't play the game, it won't make much sense.  If you just play the game and don't read the text, it also won't make much sense.  (Though in the case of Braid you could likely do both and it still won't make sense.  It's not an easy game to grasp).  The story and themes of Braid are told through clever level design, well-written text, and paintings, of all things.  The background art and music also play a big part in adding to the game in both mood and themes (though that's not something specific to Braid).  The point is that Braid combines reading, painting, music, and interactivity to create something completely unique that could not be accomplished by any other single medium.

Not all games do this that well though.  While I haven't played Lost Odyssey, I've heard that one of the highpoints of the game is a collection of short stories that you find scattered throughout the game describing dreams the protagonist has had.  Shane Bettenhausen from 1up.com criticized these for being a misuse of the medium.  While I haven't played the game, I could see his point.  It's not that the text was bad (even Shane said they were good stories on their own), but that they didn't blend well at all with the game surrounding it.  If the different mediums a game is comprised of gel together well it can be harmonious.  If they don't, it can be jarring.

I think cutscenes are often given a bad wrap not because they're bad on their own terms, but because they feel jarring when they feel like they don't belong to the game.  In a game like Condemned, for example, you'll be playing in first-person and make it to a checkpoint, at which point you'll sit through a load screen and then start watching a cutscene of your character in third-person now in another location.  What you're watching doesn't feel like what you've been playing, and it sticks out like a sore thumb.

The Metal Gear Solid franchise is known for extraordinarily long cutscenes, but at least in MGS4 they transition very well to the parts where you get to play (usually ending with a behind the shoulder shot that syncs with the in-game camera).  I feel like there are pacing issues with that game and that some of the cutscenes drag on longer than they need to, but at least the movie I'm watching and the game I'm playing seem cohesive as the tale of Snake's final adventure.

All games strive for something different, so there's no one right way to approach game design.  If a game is telling a linear story, it's okay to break from the interactivity for a bit in order to convey a clear message to the audience that you want them to see.  But if a game spends too much time with no interaction it may frustrate you or bog down the pacing (especially if it's long narration in something that's otherwise an action game).  It's a delicate balance and each designer will handle it differently. But just because videogames can be interactive all of the time, doesn't mean they need to be.

Swing from a bionic arm! Grumble about your ex-wife! Make Hitler’s head explod! (yes, “explod”) Bionic Commando Rearmed is awesome times one thousand!

First things first, if you haven’t played the original Bionic Commando from 1988 (also known as “Top Secret: Hitler‘s Revival” in Japan), you’re going to struggle with the controls. The game looks like Contra, but there’s no jump button. It’s a bit of a case of forgetting everything you know; after 20 years of being trained to jump over enemy fire that is no longer an option. You can only avoid enemy fire by ducking under it or deflecting it with your bionic arm. Mega Man this ain’t.

But stick with it young grasshopper and the rewards are plentiful. The bionic arm takes some getting used to, but once you get the hang of it you’ll be swinging around like a pro. Which isn’t to say the controls are entirely graceful. This isn’t Super Metroid after all. It can seem a bit silly when you can’t hop over a crate that only goes up to your waist, but this offbeat style of platforming isn’t without it’s charms. You have to be more patient and thoughtful in your approach (a bit like Ghouls n’ Ghosts where you couldn’t change the trajectory of your jump), but that’s not entirely a bad thing. It lends the game a less hectic sense of action that is no less difficult. Considering that Rearmed is a platformer without a jump button, the fact that it manages to be as fun as it is is quite the achievement.

Much of this goes out to the brilliant level design. Comprised of all the 80s classic settings you’d expect like the docks, a hi-tech fortress, and my favorite, a factory that apparently produces lava, Bionic Commando Rearmed has a wide range of environments. But the genius is in how they play. One particular level is comprised of conveyer belts and rolling barrels of death; an obvious nod to Donkey Kong, but having to deal with such familiar obstacles without jumping gives the game a very distinct identity.

The bosses in particular are extremely creative; all requiring you to use your signature bionic arm in a new, unique way. While the bosses do repeat in the second half of the game, they all come back with an extra attack, so you’d best be on your toes. Even better is that on harder difficulty settings they’ll have more attacks, so just when you think you’ve got a handle on things they’ll come up with new ways to surprise you.



I should probably say something about the game’s plot. At it’s core it’s a pretty basic save-the-world story, but look deeper and its amazingly offbeat and eccentric. Rather than have to save a damsel in distress or stop some egomaniacal villain from taking over the world (which does happen eventually), you’re tasked with saving some guy. But he’s not just any regular joe. Oh no. He’s Super Joe! Which is quite possibly my favorite name in a videogame ever. Along the way you’ll team up with hot helicopter pilot, Hailey, delve into the protagonists marital issues, and fight a bunch of villainous midgets. Yes midgets! Because midgets are evil apparently. Oh, and while the game never explicitly mentions it, the final boss is supposed to be Hitler.

While rushing through the game will only take a handful of hours, there’s plenty of replay value on display here. There’s plenty of secret weapons and items to find as well as a hard mode, and an unlockable very hard mode. On normal mode the enemies didn’t give me much trouble, and the difficulty came from the platforming. On hard the platforming stays the same, but the enemies are much harder and you can’t take much damage. And on very hard you’d best have a priest handy. Especially if you somehow manage to get to the final boss on that mode. My hats off to you if you can beat him.

If there’s one thing that Bionic Commando doesn’t do so well it’s the semi-random top-down encounters with enemies between levels. The level select screen has you in a helicopter flying from level to level on set paths. But if you run into an enemy truck you’ll be plunged into a top-down Commandoesque mini-level. These levels are generally extremely easy (accept on very hard with no rocket launcher, which is near impossible), and you can sometimes get extra lives in them, but they break up the pacing significantly. Especially when you’re just trying to roam around scouring the levels for secrets and hidden goodies. Apparently these were part of the original game, so I understand why Grin included them, but they could just as well have been completely abolished and I don’t think anyone would miss them.



Special mention should go out to Rearmed’s unique “challenge rooms.” A Metal Gear Solidesque virtual reality array of obstacle courses relying solely on platforming. And let me say the name “challenge rooms” does not lie. While they start off easy enough, some near the end comprise some of the hardest levels I’ve seen in any game ever. Some of these levels took me over 300 attempts to complete. I could beat 53 of the 56 rooms, never scoring more than 4 out of 5 stars on my rank. There’s also an additional set of secret challenge rooms hidden throughout the main campaign. So for the truly hardcore, there’s A LOT of extra content here.

Bionic Commando Rearmed is nearly perfect for what it is. While the top-down mini-missions begin to grate, the rest of the game is exactly what you’d want from an NES update. Beautiful 3D graphics, the addition of saving, a story that pokes fun at how nonsensical it is, and a wonderfully remixed version of the original score. Coupled with all the extra bonus features and goodies for the extremely low price of $10 and you have no reason not to get it. Unless for some reason, you like Hitler.

9/10

Pros:
+Original, unique take on the side-scrolling platformer.
+Wonderful graphics and sound
+Hilarious story that pokes fun at the genre
+You can make Hitler’s head explod

Cons:
-Top-down sequences grate after awhile

Depending on who you are and when you were born the name Mega Man may mean a myriad of different things for you.  It'll either bring back wonderfully nostalgic memories of childhood or a soulless franchise that peaked in the late 80s that Capcom has unfathomably refused to let go.  Personally, one of my greatest videogame memories ever was taking turns with my brother playing Mega Man 2 until we'd eventually beaten it.  This may have had to do with the fact that this was in the preinternet days, so hints were not readily available and as a child I didn't exactly have the funds to go around buying games left and right, so I had yet to grow cynical of rehashed game design.  But in that time and at that place Mega Man 2 was quite possibly the greatest thing ever.

       The much hailed Mega Man 9 seeks to do away with all that Mega Man has done since the late 80s in order to become a the true successor to the now legendary Mega Man 2.  Gone are the charge shot, the power slide, the 16 bit graphics.  This is oldschool Mega Man to a T, like it or not.

     The opening cinematic sets the scene perfectly.  In a hilariously campy storyline Dr. Light is being framed for attempted world domination.  The short blips of text tend to cut off midsentence at the most ill-conceived moments, so you'll get such wonderful exchanges as "Mega Man: We have to do something about," wait for the next screen to load... "those robots!!"  Brilliant! It’s here that you’ll realize that Mega Man 9 is both a retro 8-bit game as well as a parody of retro 8-bit gaming. And as such it succeeds beautifully.

     You'll then launch into the now famous Brady Bunch-style menu where you can face any stage in any order.  It's here that the true brilliance of the game lies as everyone will conquer the stages differently.  Sure there are some stages that are mercifully easier than others, but none are exactly easy.  The level design throughout is quite clever, with no two stages being at all alike.  Some are water based, others have disappearing platforms, and one particularly fiendish stage has platforming on tiny platforms where the wind keeps altering your trajectory.  It's all good, if sadistic stuff.

     Then comes the bosses, the highlight of any Mega Man game, and here's where my nostalgia begins to fall apart.  The bosses are hard.  Sometimes really hard.  But much of that has to do with the fact that Mega Man can't jump very high (or duck for that matter) and the bosses can be rather large and you'll fight most of them in cramped quarters.  At times they can feel rather cheap as they try to corner you, but once you get their trick down they all become rather easy.  The problem is that if you run out lives on a boss (which will happen a lot), you'll have to redo the entire stage leading up to them.  Sure, this is tradition for the series, but it ends up being frustrating in a way that isn't fun as you're just repeating stuff you know you can do, rather than embracing new challenges at every turn.  But the stages are short, so it's not too bad.

     What's worse is the final act of the game.  As anyone whose played a Mega Man game knows, after defeating all 8 robots you'll have to enter a four stage castle with no save points.  I'm all for a good challenge, but once you get to the 4th stage of the castle and realize you don't stand a chance, you'll be begging for a break.  But if you turn the game off you'll have to make your way through the entire castle again.  Given that the game saves your progress after beating each of the main 8 stages, would it really be too much to ask for them to do the same with the final 4 stages?  Especially as there are rewards in place for those who can beat the game with no continues (or one particularly impossible award for beating the game without taking a single hit.  Good luck with that one), it seems like they wouldn't have cheapened the game that much by adding more save points in the end.

       And while it may sound hypocritical, I'm actually not in favor of the in-game store.  You can now buy energy tanks and the like, giving the game an almost RPG like quality that makes it not so hard, if you're willing to waste a lot of time farming for currency.  As a result, the game will either be too easy or too hard, depending on what equipment you've got.  I'd much prefer if the game had no equipment, but better checkpointing.

Ultimately, Mega Man 9 is a bit like meeting up with an old friend who you haven't seen in years, only to realize they're at the same job, with the same person, and really haven't changed that much at all.  You'll still have a good time playing catch up, but realize that you don't have as much in common as you once did.  Still, if the worst thing I can say about Mega Man 9 is that it's not as amazing as Mega Man 2 was back in the day, then I'd say it's still a pretty good game.  Even with the rubbish checkpointing making the game more frustrating than actually "hard," Mega Man 9 is still a lot of fun.  The great level design and "tough, but fair" challenge make this still a trip worth taking (especially for the piddly $10 price point).  Just don't expect it to rekindle all your long lost memories of childhood.

8/10

Pros:
+Great presentation that manages to be both sincere, and a parody of itself at the same time.
+Wonderfully challenging.
+Great level design.

Cons:
-Savepoints and checkpoints are as awful as they were back in 1988.
-Too much trial and error.