I cant be bothered to write formal reviews, I'll write about games and talk about them, you'll get my impressions and that'll have to do. Because the formality of a game review for a blog I'm writing seems questionable at best. Well to me anyways.
So Devil May Cry 4, no review coming. EVER!!! The last post covered it quite well and I believe that will do. If you enjoy stylized frenetic difficulty based games, then you should definately give it a spin.
N+: Quirky adorable platform puzzler-ish that is so fucking hard you will need to buy new controllers. Awesome sound effects too. Visuals are bare but surprisingly
Awesome physics are what make the game. So yep. Its like $10, and it's easy
to play a few
levels at a time. Your call. Quite hard to beat the later stuff however. Multi-player is hilarious though.
Las Vegas 2: Its a fairly competent "tactical" shooter. Its not really tactical and the PVP, multiplayer is mediocre at best, but I want to talk about that more in depth in a moment.
I had not played the first and hadnt played a Rainbow Six game since the first came out 10 years ago or something, so the story made no sense whatsoever. Overall though the Singleplayer was enjoyable, fun sequences, good challenge, could have used a coupla better placements of checkpoints. And making you rely on teammates is good, but then suddenly pulling them out and dropping you in a place where simply seeing your opponents is a challenge, and expecting survival is a joke at best. Luckily Co-Op play countered that quite well. But still, it shouldnt be forced to simply beat a level. However the rest of game was good enough that it is still a very good game.
Overall if you have a buddy to play with, definately get it. If not... well you might just wanna rent it.
Okay but playing multiplayer for Vegas was brutal. Simply because the maps are complete and utter crap. CoD4 suffered for the exact same thing. Halo 2 & 3 as well.
I should clarify that however. All of the game mentioned have awesome deathmatch/team deathmatch levels. But These games also have many different modes of play that are much "better" (imo) than decade old deathmatches. Tragically the maps are never made with this in mind, (sometimes downloadable content is made with alternate modes in mind but they are sold seperately and thus dont count in an original purchase decision) so you get deathmatch levels that are being forced to run objective based play. Which you should never do. Objective based play needs objective based map design. This is considerably harder, Team Fortress shipped with 6 maps. But they are infinately superior maps specifically because they were created for one purpose (you might counter that cp_well can be played as ctf_well, but ctf_well doesnt work as good as the capture point it was originally built for, and i think simply furthers my argument that levels should not be jack-of-all-trades).
Basically to summarize the point I want deathmatch levels for playing deathmatches, and objective based levels for playing objective based modes. None of this lazy level designing that says make 8-14 maps that can play every game type and call it a night.
Now i understand that maps take lots of time to make, believe I tried my hands at such things back in my Counter-Strike days. But having a single map that exists solely for one gameplay type is an infinately more enjoyable level than one level that can play every gameplay type ever conceived.
My other gripe is the recycling of singleplayer levels for multiplayer matches. Thats really just topnotch slack on the multi-player level design team. Sure its technically efficient use of a limited number of resources, but usually those levels are no right being there.
The ideal i have in my mind is of course based on the original multi-player king.
Unreal Tournament. That game comes withn over 40 maps, mostly deathmatch, but many also specifically objective based, many solely capture the flag, many solely domination, many solely assault (when we had it). Although Unreal tournament was a game built to be multiplayer, largely eschewing its
So guess I'm saying that I like my multi-player games to be built around multiplayer. None of this add it on later.
Also work sucks. Especially managers. Burn in Hell you shitty shitty horrible person.