The Sandbox Review

Battlefield 3 versus MW3...Who Cares?

2011-10-24T19:19:00.000-07:00

Over the past few months, there has clearly been a lot of hype and discussion about both Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Call of Duty 3; and rightly so. Both of these games come from solid foundations and are undoubtedly going to perform well in stores.
As a corollary discussion to this, we have also heard innumerable comparisons done, either officially or via the common-place blogger, between both mammoth titles. I pose the question: Who cares? These are different games. Actually, I take that back; they unfortunately seem to be too similar.

At heart, I am a Battlefield fan. I have played this series since 1942, and continue to love its expansive levels, its novel approach to the shooter genre - including a vastly different engine that offers some serious punching power - and an obvious passion shown by DICE that is frequently evident in its games. I have also played many Call of Duty games, but have stopped since Modern Warfare 2. While I find Battlefield constantly trying to perfect itself through incremental advances in more

ways than none, I find Call of Duty caught up in a static state of unoriginality, where constant in-your-face action, nauseatingly linear gameplay, and incredibly trite plots seem to translate into serious sales. And what's with the release on Remembrance Day? Cheeky.

But this is where I sense Battlefield has gone wrong (bearing in mind that I have yet to actually try my hand at the single-player campaign). From what is disconcertingly obvious, DICE sees Call of Duty as a competitor that it must triumph over in sales. And I regret that they have likely done this not only at the expense of their core audience but also of that appealing spirit that has hitherto made the Battlefield series so great. I don't criticize DICE for taking on a single-player campaign. What I do criticize them for is trying so hard to emulate Call of Duty-type story lines - which I reiterate are frustratingly trite, such as one would expect of Tom Clancy's failing enterprise of writing. What we - the loyal Battlefield fans - are left with is a hollow, unnecessarily linear campaign, that in almost every way deviates from that traditional paradigm of gameplay that has made these games so great since 1942. I haven't even played the campaign, but from my understanding of it so far, I probably won't, and will instead head straight to the multiplayer; Battlefield's good old stomping ground.

And so I return to the title of this post, and seek to express my disfavour over comparisons between these two games. I know I don't enjoy the Call of Duty franchise anymore. But I also know a great many people do, and this will probably lead to better sales over Battlefield 3. Personally, I don't care, because of just how much I love DICE's amazing franchise. I know I will buy this game - so much so that I have bought it on both 360 and PC (64 players online? Yes, please). Moreover, I think DICE should have asked themselves this core question. Had they done so, we may not have been left with a game that has tremendous multiplayer, but a campaign that, quite frankly, sounds like every other political-military thriller that either Hollywood or Tom Clancy and his minions of junior writers pump out during any given year. Battlefield has something incredibly special about it, and I'm sure every fan would venture a guess as to what this would be. For me? Well, knocking holes in walls is a starter. But with certainty, this is a game that maybe should have stood clear of answering the call of duty (sorry IGN).

Boldly Gone Where Many Have now Gone...

2010-02-03T06:36:00.000-08:00

So it's here: Star Trek Online has gone live, and I have already logged quite a few hours. Let's get that nagging question out of the way: Has the game lived up to my very high expectations? Surprisingly, it has to some extent. Don't misconstrue this, however, because I have a lot of issues with this game. I admit that it will take some time before I can properly grapple all of the intricacies of this newest MMO and subsequently write a full review. Therefore, bear in mind that these are initial impressions from a player that hasn't leveled beyond Lieutenant.

Ok, so the good: Well, I really do enjoy the space combat. It's hectic, explosive, and often a little stressful; maybe this is because I seem to constantly venture into marauding hordes of Klingon Warbirds and Battle Cruisers. Too many green phasers!! One issue I had before the game came out was the absense of damage on spacecraft after the protection offered by shields went done. This has been addressed, however limitlessly, and now shows discernable damage once the ship's hull begins to take heavy damage. Along with this are bits of electricity encompassing the nasels. This is nothing overly outstanding to look at, but I appreciate the effort to show temporary battle scars; certainly an area that could be improved upon in certain patches.

Another feature that I actually quite like about the space combat is the level of instances present in STO. Obviously, this is a main feature of this MMO, and while some might disagree, I found it pretty cool when I had to warp into a sector to defend a space station from attacking Klingons, only to look around me and find a plethora of other Starfleet vessels fighting off Worf's cousins. As well, there is no delay in getting into one of these instances.

That said, one issue I have with instances is the random enemy signal instances that you can encounter throughout your transit in space. It's a really cool concept that I think could have been extended a little bit, and made a tad more interesting. Instead, you warp into the same stylized instance every time, fight the same random Klingons that aimlessly fly in circles around the same volcanic-looking moon. It just doesn't seem that well thought out to me. Why not attach some limited storyline to these encounters, such as the those pertaining to Starbase 26 and 24, during the earlier part of the game? Maybe these roaming Klingons are invoking border conflicts along Federation space? Of anything, add a little more variety to the battles and the surrounding environment - I don't want to see that same volcanic moon following me around during each encounter; this isn't the Fifth Element!

Let's get to ground combat. Obviously in my earlier written impressions of this game, I really lambasted this componet of STO. Ultimately, I actually find it somewhat entertaining; at least for now...Obviously it is still a bit static, sort of in the WoW sense, but there seems to be improvement from the Beta. One thing that I believe makes this component of the game shine is the away team that you bring to an encounter. Obviously you can customize your respective away team members, thereby giving them various special abilities that really do aid you in an attack. That said, in typical Cryptic fashion (if you think of Champions Online), the ground levels look awful, in my opinion. They look like half-ass, bland, bleak looking, boring landscapes, with little or no convincing environmental features. Play WoW for five minutes - a game that is 5 years old - and just take note of the sheer amount of details and items strewn about a room, a city, ANYWHERE!! It's so simple, and yet, Cryptic decided to cease their efforts during the development of these environments. Why? Remember that STNG episode where that old man, super god-like, creature who killed billions of aliens when they murdered his wife and her civilization? You'll then recall the boring landscape with the one house and patch of green grass that lay in the midst of destruction? Very 1980's abilities. That was more interesting to look at than practically every ground area in STO.

Compare the ground areas to the space environments: the latter is exponentially more interesting to look at and certainly feel immersive. Just so disappointing; especially if you observe the few screenshots from the game's earlier development when Perpetual was at the helm (image below).

Anyway, as I have always thought, a Star Trek MMO has limitless potential in everyway. This game too, if Cryptic decides to invest more time and money into improving what should have been a really amazing game and, dare I say, comparable to WoW. I really hope they do, or loyal Star Trek fans such as me are going to ditch this one within a month or so.

Eagerly Awaiting Star Trek Online

2010-01-29T06:59:00.001-08:00

Ok, so this is no doubt one of my most highly anticipated games - of all time. Honestly, I have been monitoring the development of this game since Perpetual Entertainment first announced the game, and then its subsequent cancellation. I, as well as many Trekie fans, didn't have to wait long until Cryptic soon took up the mantle, and decided to give this game another shot. A breath of relief quickly escaped my gaping mouth.

The game comes out on Tuesday. The question I have to myself is, does the game I have seen so far live up to my high expectations? Honestly, not really. I don't want to jump the gun here, but what kind of gamer doesn't try to predict the state of a game before its release?

So far from what I have seen, the biggest issue I already have is the very static, clearly boring looking ground combat. How many videos have you seen of the ground component of this game in which pathetic looking Starfleet officers are standing still while pumelting Klingons who, for whatever reason, choose to stand there and take the barrage of phaser rounds? At a certain point, the Klingon will run up to the attacking officer and strike him/her with his Bat'leth. It almost looks like this component of the game has been rushed. Compare it to Star Wars: The Old Republic. What you have are similar fighting styles with similar long-ranged weapons. Incorporated into this are cover mechanics and other interesting, less static looking, tactics that spice up ground combat. Quite a leap ahead of Star Trek Online.

The other major element of this game is the space combat. This, I will grant, looks quite good. The ships look detailed and polished, and the panoramic landscapes of space and nearby planets look superb. That said, I wish ships in combat would exhibit some degree of damage and, when they are destroyed, to have pieces of the ship float around in an ensuing, fairly evident field of debris. Clearly, the ships simply explode and then disappear. I think I can live with this, however.

One thing I haven't seen, however, and with regards to space vessels, is the ability to walk around your own ship. Granted, there is evidence that players can explore their ship's bridge, but with no apparent purpose. Why can't I walk around my ship? Are you telling me that the only view of my ship with any discernable purpose is the third-person perspective? The ship was the main aspect of Star Trek. Come on Cryptic...

What about PvP? There has been suprisingly little mention of this component of the game. From what I can tell, players are forced to begin as Starfleet, and then, at some, much later stage of the game, play as the Klingon Defence Force. To me, the creation of a PvP combat system is as obvious as the Horde vs. Alliance in WoW. Why not let players just play as Klingons from the get-go?

Anyhow, I'm really skeptic about this game, which is disapointing given how much I was looking foward to it. Who knows, I might be surprised...

Empire Total War: Almost One Year Later...

2010-01-07T09:40:00.001-08:00

So, it's been almost one year since Empire: Total War hit store shelves. For me, this was probably one of the most anticipated games ever. While I obviously dabble with Xbox360, I have always been a PC'er at heart. The Total War series have always been my favorite. They have everything I want, from RTS and 'Civilization'-type, empire building. These games are also epic, particularly the battles. I have yet to see another game - possibly Supreme Commander - rival the battles of the Total War series.

So how does the game fare after nearly a year? Well, Napoleon: Total War is soon to be released, and, if other Total War players are like me, I expect that Empire will be quickly retired to my shelf. Not to say that there is anything particularly wrong with this game, but simply that Napoleon improves upon Empire in practically everyway, while offering new, innovative concepts, hitherto unseen in the series. For example, the 'drop-in' concept is particularly novel, wherein a player can literally drop-into another player's campaign when the latter is about to fight a battle that would otherwise comrpise a computer opponent. Conecpts like these add new flavour to this series.

For the most part, I think I got a lot out of Empire. I played countless hours and, for the first time, played against other people in multiplayer battles. This even inspired me to re-load Rome: Total War, and try my luck at some ancient multiplayer battles (obviously this was partly inspired by the Prince_of_Macedon, and the reinvigoration that I feel he has given this game).

There were a great many things about Empire that improved from previous titles. I won't go through the many amazing features of this game. Briefly, however, I had always wanted to see the Empire series renew their focus on the Napoleonic era of guns and cannons. Granted, all previous Total War games, with the exception of Rome, had guns and cannons. But definitely not to the extent of Empire. This was a welcomed move. I can only imagine how much better this will be in Napoleon.

I'm not sure if anyone will agree, or even has an answer to this, but does it seem strange that, exactly one year later, we are greeted by a new installment to the series in the form of an entirely new game? It's not even as if Napoleon is that much different - at least in terms of the era - than Empire. So why the rapid release date? To me, it almost seems as though Empire constituted that stage of development of Napoleon, last February, and to give people a taste of this new style-Total War, they released Empire. I know that's probably not the case, but if you think about it, that's how it seems.

Anyhow, I am just as eagerly awaiting the release of Napoleon. Thank you Empire. You have been good to me.

Left 4 Dead 2

2009-11-19T09:57:00.001-08:00

So it finally came out, and Left 4 Dead 2 is easily far superior to its predecessor in everyway. I loved the original, and although it is only a year since I first heard of Left 4 Dead, I have welcomed the sequel with open arms. The original was great, albeit it wasn't a game that could sustain itself for long. There were too few campaigns, and the installment of Survival mode, while intense, never really hit home for me. LFD2, on the other hand, expands on the original game in almost everyway, while incorporating elements of L4D, such as the previous Survival mode maps.

Obviously the most notable features of L4D2 are the new campaigns and different characters, each of which is just as predicatable and enjoyably cliché as the last game. The campaigns centre around a New Orléans, southeastern United States setting. Players now find themselves fighting back hordes of zombies in such contexts as Louisianna swamps and amusement parks, day and night. The addition of daytime battle adds an interesting new twist to this game, as nightime was the only context in which players fought in the last game. That said, fighting in daytime certainly does not entail an easier ride. Quite the opposite, in fact. No longer can players camp in one place at a time. This game is about speed and multiple options, both for the players and the zombies. Sitting still for too long will eventually be your downfall, as zombies can come from many different directions, even without the cover of dark.
I would also say that L4D2 is harder, at least in my opinion. It definitely became pretty easy in L4D to find a nice closet or abandoned room to camp in with your friends, and hold off incoming hordes. As I said already, you just can't do that in this game. The need to be quick on your feet with tighter group integrity adds a difficult twist to this game.

As morbid as it might sound, one of the best additions to this game is melee weapons. There is something far more appealing about decapitating a zombie, as opposed to shooting at them from a distance, the chainsaw especialy! From machetes, axes and baseball bats, to chainsaws and nightsticks, the addition of melee weapons offers a morbidly enhanced experience to the game. Moreover, it questions the reason as to why this was not an element of the first game. What kind of zombie-killing game omits the use of melee weapons? Again, a bit improvement from the first game.

In addition to melee weapons, players are also able to choose from a greater variety of weapons. While I would certainly like to see even more weapons in L4D2, the addition of these weapons is nonetheless welcomed. Now players can use the original L4D weapons, as well as numerous new ones, not the least of which is the grenade launcher. I think the best tactic here would be for one member of the team to have a grenade launcher, for when large hordes approach, and a good melee weapon, just for those few stragglers who make it through the barage of shrapnel and bullets.

Not every addition to this game is in favour of the player, however. Now the team must contend with additional special zombies, not to mention regular zombies outfitted with bullet-proof armour and Hazmat suits - I wonder how some of these people became infected if they were wearing Hazmat suits...? So, not only are the original special zombies still around, but now we see Spitters, who lace the ground with a toxic, green goo, donkeys, who jump on the backs of players and ride them until killed, and finally chargers, who, as the name suggests, charge you with relentless fury.

All in, this is a great game, and absolutely a huge improvement from its predecessor. While it doesn't really offer anything patricularly new by way of gameplay, fans of the series will definitely appreciate this newest addition.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

2009-11-17T06:58:00.000-08:00

It has been one week since Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was released. Since then, I have waisted many hours, lost too many times, with smatterings of improvement. I'm not intending to add to the litany of reviews already out there. Rather, I just want to spill some of my thoughts.

Let's start with the single player: In typical Call of Duty fashion, the single player is awesome. Scripted, yes. But still possessing that epic, movie-like show of action and gunfire that we have all come to expect of a Call of Duty game. On the downside, the single player is quite short, but somehow it doesn't feel short to me. Even the first time through on Normal, it feels as though the game's length is comparable to previous Call of Duty games. Perhaps we can again accredit this to the amazing ride that players experience while playing this game.

I admit that when I heard of this game, I didn't think I was going to buy it. Indeed, I didn't even buy the previous game, Call of Duty: World at War. Don't get me wrong, I love Call of Duty, but as my readers will know, I'm a huge fan of the Battlefield series, and the unscripted, sandbox format of those games. Somehow the scripted game of Call of Duty gets to me after a while, and never really invites me to play again. Sure, that first time through is epic, often heart-pounding. But once you've seen it, you've seen it. I loved the Dark Knight the first time though, but do I keep watching over and over again? Maybe in a year...

Where Call of Duty really shines is the multiplayer, as is the case with most current 360 games. Just like the single player, its action-packed, intense, and fast! You really can't sit still for more than a few seconds. I guarantee you won't survive for long. The multiplayer in this game, relative to its predecessor, is way more intense. Just consider the litany of airborne assets that you can temporarily activate and control. I admit, I ran for cover pretty fast the first time I heard that 105 shell coming down from a patrolling AC-130 Spectre Gunship.

Despite the fun accrued from playing Call of Duty's multiplayer, it still has one noticeable issue. Granted, this is not an issue for more experience players. I'm not saying I'm an amazing FPS, Call of Duty player, but I can usually wrack up more kills than deaths, so I suppose that's good...

Honestly though, if you're not good at FPS or even Call of Duty, it is so difficult to achieve any measure of success in this game! I had been playing Battlefield 1943 up until now, and boy, did I suck those first few rounds of Call of Duty. I was getting killed every several seconds. Now, as I said, I can do OK, but not great. I find it amazing when I see a player who has somehow achieved 51 kills in one round, and died only 10 times.

It's the same issue with Halo games; if you're not good or experienced at it, you are definitely going to suck. Which can be frustrating after a while. My advise: Just keep at it, look past the frustration of dying during every Predator strike, and eventually you will start to see success.

Have fun with the game. It really is one of the best FPS games out there, and I'm happy I bought it. I fear Left 4 Dead 2 might serve as a noble competitor, though...we'll have to wait and see.

The Seductive Influence of World of Warcraft

2009-08-11T12:45:00.001-07:00

How does World of Warcraft always entice me to renew my subscription and get me back playing? I can easily say that I have cancelled and renewed my subscription on no less than five to six occasions. Each time I cancel it, I feel a sign of relief, having realized that my personal free time has just increased exponentially. But then, later on, possibly months later, I feel this urge to get back into it. I play for a couple of months - sometimes less - and then re-cancel my subscription!

If I could venture a guess as to this puzzling pattern, I would have to say that the world created in WoW is so successful, so immersive, and with such a massive community, that it is just so much fun and engaging to be a part of. Even if you're not that into fantasy-type games, I really feel as though there is something so appealing about the Warcraft genre; whether that be the cartoon-like design of the world and its countless characters, the massively interesting story, or just the sheer volume of things that a player can do. Added to that is the 'sandbox' style of gameplay that exists in WoW. As a contrast, I really love the Call of Duty series, but I admit that once I've beaten it, I rarely go back to the single player. Games like that are so scripted that, while stunning the first time around, rapidly lose their novelty a second or third time playing. With a game like WoW, there is always a personal objective to achieve that really can have very little bearing on the preconceived script of the game. Even redoing many of the more laborious quests, especially in the earlier levels, doesn't detract from the many achievements and goals that every player invariably sets for him/herself.

This posting correlates with my recently renewed WoW subscription. I have no idea as to how long I will play for this time around, but right now it feels great to be once again immersed in this now five year old, but still amazing, world. I admit, this may be short lived.

Battlefield 1943: Almost One Month Later

2009-08-11T08:29:00.000-07:00

Battlefield 1943 has been out for almost one month now. I'm still loving it, and I'm sure its safe to say that everyone else is too. If I'm anything like most veterans of the Battlefield series, this game was probably my most anticipated addition to the summer line-up. Granted, it's not quite the same as other games, in the sense that it is downloadable, it costs only $15, and it's definitely a much more compact version of previous Battlefield games. Nonetheless, this game still seems to deliver, and is certainly just as fun as any other game that has hit the shelves this summer.

That said, when you consider that there are only four maps, you have to wonder about the survivability of this game. I assume there will be further downloadable content, similar to the Left 4 Dead scenario. But it's not just the limited number of maps. If you reflect on previous Battlefield games, particularly 1942, you realize that 1943 really only has three vehicles; a fourth, if you want to count the landing craft. Granted, both sides have their respective versions of the same vehicle, but in the end, there are only three. I admit that, right now, this is fine, and certainly doesn't detract from the enjoyability of the game. But three months or so down the road, is this going to cut it? Previous Battlefield games had a multitude of different vehicles, 1942 being the pinnacle of this heritage. I fondly remember firing massive battleship deck guns against unsuspecting players on Wake Island, or bombing Germans with a slow, but satisfying B-17 Flying Fortress.

I'm not suggesting that 1943 needs to include all of these elements. You might even suggest that 1942 had way too many vehicles; so much so that some would be underused, the submarines being a case in point. But I do think that forthcoming downloadable content is going to have to incorporate much more if the developers at DICE want to see this game being played long down the road.

I pick vehicles only because there are so few in 1943, where in previous titles there were so many to the extent that this element of gameplay really was a distinctive feature of the Battlefield series. Who doesn't want to take a few shots at an aircraft carrier with a destroyer around the shores of Iwo Jima? I would be interested to know what readers imagine could be possible vehicle additions; perhaps APC's of some sort, or even anti-tank artillery weapons?

All of that said, there is a lot to offer with 1943, and I do find it hard to criticize a game that only cost me $15. But does that mean we can't be critical of this game? I would say absolutely. I think we can justify our criticisms around the limitations of the current version of the game in the hope that future updates will address these deficiencies.

For now, I'm going to have loads of fun with this version, while keeping an eye on what this game could deliver even further. As I see it, there is so much more that DICE can deliver into this game, and I hope they will!