The GBA Cover Project has long since morphed into it’s own entity with covers from all sorts of platforms. We have reached an impressive milestone recently with breaking the 1000 cover marke (1017 currently) as well as having done just over half of the available N64 games. You can read a little more about it on [url=http://www.cheapassgamer.com/archives/n64-cover-project-reaches-halfway-point.php]CAG[/url].
April 2006
It has come to my attention that my recent mention of a new “logo” wasn’t clear. The new logo is the podcast logo that shows up in iTunes. For those of you not using iTunes here it is:
[center][img]http://www.snackbar-games.com/images/sb_itunes_logo.jpg[/img][/center]
I never got a chance to play the original Full Spectrum Warrior, but I did spend quite a bit of time playing Ten Hammers last night on my Xbox. Typically tactical military games are really not my thing, but I gave Ten Hammers a shot anyway. Coming from a run and gun type background I really had a hard time adapting to the strategic squad based gameplay. While the game really isn’t appealing to me in that sense the realism is just amazing. When a soldier goes down you can drag him behind cover or carry him back to get medical help. So far I am enjoying it and a full review is on the horizon from me or one of the other staff writers.
If you haven’t checked out FSW: Ten Hammers you can do so [url=http://www.hypemakers.net/fsw2/go/v/tl/adv/4466]here[/url].
With the launch of the Xbox 360 coming just a month following the release of Battlefield 2: Modern Combat for the Xbox and PlayStation 2, word began to spread quickly regarding a possible port of of the game to the new platform. It wasn’t until much later did the first details begin to emerge regarding the game’s debut for the Xbox 360, and even longer still before any concrete details began to emerge regarding the changes Battlefield 2: Modern Combat would undergo for its next-generation debut.
One of the most dramatic – and expected – differences between this version and those originally released in October 2005 comes by way of the game’s visual presentation. Everything looks more crisp and detailed this time around, as vehicles, weapons, and even soldier models looks far more detailed thanks to the extra horsepower afforded by the Xbox 360. It is disappointing that more attention was not paid to the environments, however. When compared to the lush, intricately detailed streets of Mexico found in G.R.A.W., the battlefields of Modern Combat feel particularly sterile and void of personality.
Something that differentiated this game from its PC counterpart with its original release was that while Battlefield 2 was and remains the benchmark for online team-based first-person shooters, Battlefield 2: Modern Combat instead was gifted with a tremendously robust single-player component. That observation remains true for this latest version as well. Seemingly by definition, Battlefield is a multiplayer experience, yet the developers have leveraged off of Electronic Art’s experience at delivering remarkable home console games, and have turned out a single-player campaign that almost measures up to its PC counterpart. However, as terrific as it is, the campaign is unfortunately saddled with a two-dimensional story that never amounts to anything more than forgettable.
Thankfully, while the story itself may be lacking, the sheer number of options available is not. While taking part in the nonstop frenetic firefights amidst the vast, highly-detailed environments, the player has access to over thirty vehicles, as well as new equipment and numerous upgrades. The other thing that makes the single-player experience such a breath of fresh air is hot swapping, or the ability to switch direct control from one soldier to any other within visual range on the fly. This sets up the opportunity to instantly become best-suited to deal with a given situation at the press of a button, and gives the player the feeling of being more in control of the battle rather than getting by at the mercy an A.I. that, while more impressive than what was found in the initial versions of the game, is still prone to bouts of stupidity.
This jumping from soldier to soldier, coupled with the game’s more forgiving nature when it comes to aiming and run-and-gun gameplay lends the whole experience to feel much more arcade-like than its PC originator. Weapons lack much of the realism that was found on the PC, and this more than any other change from the PC version is sure to alienate its share of players. Battlefield 2: Modern Combat has been built from the standpoint of delivering more of a pick up and play experience, and this has been achieved at the expense of the simulation feel that some existing fans may be expecting.
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat also includes support for some literally manic 24-player online multiplayer matches over Xbox Live. However, unlike its PC counterpart, here multiplayer plays a distant second to the game’s single-player campaign due to the fact that hot swapping, the key component that makes the single-player game work so well, not being available in multiplayer. Similarly, multiplayer matches are limited to just two modes: conquest and capture the flag. While fun, the lack of variety offered only serves to drive home the point that Battlefield 2: Modern Combat is primarily a single-player experience.
That said, however, this is still a fun game that succeeds for very different reasons than the series dictates. Whereas Battlefield‘s previous entries have benefited from deep realistic multiplayer experiences that bordered on wartime simulations, Modern Combat‘s strength instead lies in its solo arcade-style gameplay that, despite some problems still does the franchise proud. With a better A.I., more realistic enemy spawn points, and improved presentation, Modern Combat is a welcome addition to the Xbox 360’s library. It’s a hard sell to anyone who picked up the game for either the Xbox of PlayStation 2 upon initial release, but for anyone else looking for more gun play and explosions than a Bruckheimer film, this is a sure bet.
Score: 86%
[i]Socom 3[/i] is the follow-up to the most popular online PS2 game ever. The game continues on the well treaded path of its predecessors, with some new and welcomed additions. How did it work out?
On the graphics department, [i]Socom 3[/i] is rather poor. Not much improvement has been made from [i]Socom 2[/i], and to be quite honest, [i]Socom: Fireteam Bravo[/i] looks almost as good as this game, which is rather embarrassing. Framerate isn’t the best, and visibility is also pretty low. The environments are basically “interaction proof” and the levels are somewhat linear. This is extremely odd, since Fireteam Bravo excelled in these categories. The game often lags (in single player!), only when about seven (!) characters are on the screen. This is rather disappointing, as games that came out over a year before (such as [i]Metal Gear Solid 3[/i], or [i]God of War[/i]) never suffered from these problems. Effects such as fire and explosions are mediocre at best.
The sound department is quite good. The music played in the menus, is great and makes you want to kill some terrorists, just as in [i]FTB[/i]. Weapon sounds are alright, but nothing extraordinary.
The story pretty much follows the same route as [i]FTB[/i] on the PSP. You play in different locations, Morocco, Poland and Bangladesh. In each location there are different threats that the world and the USA have to deal with. Of course, the Navy Seals go in, and take care of all the baddies.
There are a few game play improvements, which I think are very welcome. For example, there are now ingame save/check points. I found it extremely annoying, and was the reason I never beat a console [i]Socom[/i] game, was that if I screwed up, I would have to start all over again, which I think is very lame. After completing an objective, you reach a checkpoint and can save there. Another new addition is vehicles. They are a pretty cool addition, as they are useful in combat and transportation alike.
AI is still clunky. You can tell your team mates this and that, but that doesn’t mean they will do it. Sometimes they will just sit around like a bunch of morons, other times they will attempt to do it.
Another thing I found odd is that [i]Socom 3[/i] was lacking of secondary and bonus objectives. While in this game there were about two or three, Fireteam Bravo had about four or five per level. The lack of these hurt the replay value of this game even more.
Of course, [i]Socom[/i] games are famous for the multiplayer aspect. Thanks to the current system Sony is using, I do not have online on my PS2, and I was not able to test it. However, according to people who have played it, it’s a really good multiplayer game.
While [i]Socom 3[/i] might not be a GOTY winner, but it is the best military/tactical shooter on the PS2 (if that is saying much). [i]Socom 3[/i] obliterates competition, such as the Ghost Recons and Rainbow Six games by Ubisoft.
While [i]Socom 3[/i] isn’t the Xbox 360 version of [i]Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter[/i], it’s still a decent game. However, unless you are planning to spend time mainly playing multiplayer, there is simply no reason to buy this game, as single player lacks replay value, and isn’t too lengthy (about 10 hours or so). I hope Zipper will do a much better job on the PS3 follow up.