November 2009

Fairytale Fights

November 11, 2009

Reviews / Xbox 360 / by Graham Russell Make a comment! / Tweet it!

Fairytale Fights is a gorgeous game with a unique concept and delightfully demented gameplay. From there, it goes downhill.

The game, which had built up a bit of hype since E3, plays out like this: four fairy tale mainstays (Little Red Riding Hood, Snow White, the Naked Emperor and Beanstalk Jack) have had their fame taken away from them, and they’re sad. For example, the lumberjack kills the wolves, so Little Red doesn’t get her time in the limelight. This, of course, makes them mad, and has them decide to go on a psychotic killing spree to regain notoriety.

Okay, that’s not what they intended, as there’s a story, but it seems tangential to all the mindless killing that you do to progress in it.

The gameplay is your standard multiplayer beat-em-up, with lots of weapons to pick up and lots of enemies to take care of. The world looks open, but the actual traversable area isn’t any larger than in old-school titles like TMNT or Streets of Rage. There are obstacles to avoid and rivers to jump over, but it’s not really a platforming challenge as much as it is a hazard to hit enemies into. Attacks are handled with the right stick, so the control setup feels a bit like a melee Smash TV.

The game does indeed look gorgeous. The bright, lush environments combined with the simulated pools of blood really get you into the twisted mindset the game requires, and everything feels polished visually.

All of this makes for a really fun game…for an hour or so.

Fairytale Fights starts to fall apart as the story progresses. Weapons are only categorized into “stars” that indicate strength, and strong three-star weapons are easy enough to find and deal only slightly more damage than even-more-common weaker items. It’s cool that the weapons slice in ways generated by your movements, but it’s all flash and no strategy. Characters don’t level up, weapons don’t alter your attack patterns, and there aren’t any cooperative elements to the combat. Collecting money adds to a bank, and things can be built with it, but none of these things change the game experience at all.

This would have been a magnificent game had Playlogic included anything at all that helped replay value. I mean, seriously guys. Patch in some character progression or something. You’re killing me here.

As it is, it’s an interesting diversion, but it gets totally outclassed by Castle Crashers at a third of its price.

ESRB: M– Please, please, please don’t buy this for a kid.
Pros: Impressive visuals, distinct style
Cons: Lack of compelling elements

WET

November 11, 2009

Reviews / Xbox 360 / by Andrew Passafiume Make a comment! / Tweet it!

WET is an action game that follows the same tradition as the Wii exclusive House of the Dead: Overkill with a style that is reminiscent of the old Grindhouse films from the 70s. WET is almost a homage to those films, with a lead protagonist that can survive pretty much anything and the most over the top action scenes you’ll see in any game. Although the style is there, the actual gameplay may not be for everyone.

The star of the game is Rubi, who has been betrayed time and time again, but this time seeks to get her revenge once and for all. The story introduces several characters, but other than more fodder for Rubi to kill, most of them do not play an important role in the story. And the few characters are helpful to Rubi are never in the story long enough for it to make a difference. Rubi herself is not all that interesting, as she swears at any chance she gets, kills most anyone that gets in her way, and has no personality beyond that. But this game is not about the story, it’s about the action.

Speaking on a purely technical level, WET is a pretty good experience. The Grindhouse look of the game, with the film grain overlay placed over the cutscenes and actual gameplay, gives the game a distinct look and feel. There are several loading screens that are masked by small movie clips you would see during a Grindhouse showing, and they are pretty funny and unexpected at times. Although the other way the game masks loading is by showing Rubi waiting impatiently in an elevator, which gets old very fast. 

The soundtrack is amazing, and all of the songs you hear are very catchy and truly stay with you long after a specific section of the game is over. On the other hand, the voice acting is a mixed bag. Eliza Dushku provides the voice of Rubi, and does a fine job, but the rest of the cast is less than memorable. No particular actor is bad, but they all leave a lot to be desired. It all goes together with the weak script and mediocre story, but once again, it is not the main focus of the game.

The gameplay is incredibly satisfying, especially in the first few levels. This game is all about killing enemies in the craziest ways possible, and it allows Rubi to execute plenty of slow motion jumps, slides, and wall runs while taking down wave after wave of enemies. There are even sections of the game that require you to rack up a high score while trying to stop countless waves of enemies to continue coming out of different location in a room. These are called “gauntlet” areas, and you encounter them a lot in the game.

One main draw of the gameplay is the fact that Rubi has two guns, and when performing slow motion moves, she can use both to take out two different enemies. One gun automatically locks onto the nearest target, while you aim the other gun yourself to take out any other nearby target. The lock on targeting does not work sometimes though, leading to you shooting the same enemy several times before realizing it is not actually locked onto it. It seems ridiculous (and it kind of is), but it mixes things up a bit and makes this more than just another action game.

There are several moments where platforming is not only blended into the combat, but just as a way to get from point A to point B. This is where the game tends to fall a bit short, as you will find yourself falling to your death several times without really understanding why it happened. Rubi sometimes just does not grab a ledge or fails to hang onto something just when you need her too. This can be incredibly frustrating during combat, when you have five or more enemies shooting at you, quickly draining your life. 

The gameplay is solid and a lot of fun, but by the halfway point, you feel like you have seen it all before. The game tends to drag its feet at this point, leading you through some very similar looking areas and encounters. It’s a disappointing second half of the game, to say the least, but it still has plenty of fun moments scattered about. 

Overall, WET is a fun game that can be a fun despite its flaws. And although the game is short, it can still feel like it goes on a bit too long. This is definitely a solid rental for those looking to spend a mostly fun filled weekend with an enjoyable action game, but there is a lot more potential here that isn’t not fully realized. 

ESRB: Rated M for mature; for strong language, intense violence, and plenty of blood and gore

Pros: Gameplay is basic, but is overall incredibly fun and satisfying; good soundtrack; Grindhouse style works well; solid controls

Cons: Sometimes auto aim does not work; awkward platforming elements; although the game is fun, by the halfway point, the thrills begin to wear off; lame story with several weak characters

SB Asks: War games

November 11, 2009

News / by Graham Russell Make a comment! / Tweet it!

In honor of both Veterans Day and this week’s release of Modern Warfare 2, here’s what we’re wondering: what’s your personal favorite game based on war or the military?  Is it a shooter?  RTS?  Action title?  Let us know what and why! 

Gaming Unplugged: No Thanks!

November 8, 2009

Features / Unplugged / by Chris Ingersoll Make a comment! / Tweet it!

Games don’t get much simpler than No Thanks!, published by Z-Man games and designed by Thorsten Gimmler. But simple doesn’t mean a game isn’t fun, and No Thanks! will quickly earn a reputation as an enjoyable filler game after just one appearance at the game table.

The game itself consists of a deck of cards numbered from 3 to 35. Each player receives an allotment of tokens, each worth -1 point once the deck has been exhausted. The top card of the stack is turned over and each player in turn can either pass on the card by placing one of their tokens on it or accept the card (and any tokens already on it) and the points it represents. Once the card has been collected the next player turns over the top card and the process continues. Each card is worth its number in points, minus however many tokens a player has, and the lowest score wins.

That probably sounds incredibly easy, and it is. However, the game has two twists that keep things interesting. First of all, if you manage to collect a run of sequential cards, then you only score points for the lowest card in the run; for example, collecting 10, 11, 12, and 13 will only penalize you 10 points rather than a whopping 46. Most of the time it’s worth it for the other players to automatically pass you a card that fits into a run you’re constructing rather than take the often significant points attached to it, which results in “free tokens”. That is, assuming they all have tokens to use; many attempted runs have been sabotaged by the presence of a player who can’t “afford” to refuse the card that’s supposed to be coming to you. While that is an obstacle, the second twist is what makes collecting runs truly risky: at the beginning of the game, nine cards are randomly removed from the deck. Is the card you need to bridge the gap in your run one of them?

You can probably pick up No Thanks! for around ten bucks. That’s a bargain-basement price for the amount of entertainment packed in those 33 cards and plastic tokens. It will never be the “main event” of a game night, but it’s a great ice breaker, warm-up, or filler that will see play time and time again. 

Blockbusters: Big games, big hype, big sales

November 8, 2009

Features / Opinion / by Andrew Passafiume Make a comment! / Tweet it!

Usually when anyone uses the term “blockbuster” they refer to a movie that has made a lot of money at the box office; basically, a movie that people line up around the block to see. But can the same be said of video games?

Game sales are often calculated and compared to the sales of CDs and movie tickets, but is that really a fair comparison? There have been quite a few games that managed to break a few records, especially more recent releases. But are they “blockbusters”?

The two games that come to mind right away are Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV, two of the biggest video game releases of all time. They both had incredibly successful launches, and continued to sell well after their initial release months. So to define a blockbuster in this sense: it needs to have a huge launch, and it needs to continue to be successful after the first month. 

Let’s continue with the best selling game of all time: Wii Sports. Is that a gaming blockbuster? Most people consider it a simple pack-in mini-game collection that came with the Wii, not a title that is the equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster. But if it’s all about the game sales, then by all means, Wii Sports is definitely the best example of a gaming blockbuster around. 

This year, we are seeing two even bigger releases, ones that can be considered blockbusters before they are even released. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is the first, just released and considered a huge success from many game critics. It received the best review scores of any game since Grand Theft Auto IV, and it looks like it might become a huge hit this holiday among gamers. But I think this game is called a blockbuster for a very different reason: the gameplay.

Many people compare it to the film Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first in the very successful Indiana Jones series, and one that is still considered by many as one of the best action/adventure movies of all time. Uncharted 2 is similar in its plot, main character, and in the fact that it is a fast-paced action game that plays out just like a big budget film. Whether or not the game sells as well as Halo 3 or GTA, it may be considered by many as a “blockbuster” due to how the game plays and how it compares to the movies we consider blockbusters. 

So does the opinion of game critics matter when it comes to a game becoming a blockbuster? Both Halo 3 and GTA IV received a ton of praise from most, if not all, game critics. But if GTA was considered a mediocre or terrible game by the majority of the game media, and it still sold well, would it be remembered by the gaming press or even gamers? And, in that case, would it still be considered under the gaming definition of blockbuster?

The second example of an upcoming release that is bound to be a huge hit is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The game is bound to be one of the best-selling games of 2009. How will it fare with the critics? Considering the incredible reception of the first game and of developer Infinity Ward, there is no doubt it will score high. It may be safe to say this will be a gaming blockbuster, but despite the positive reviews for Uncharted 2, will it leave that PS3 exclusive in the dust?

So, is the term blockbuster defined simply by how well the game sells? Or by how it compares to Hollywood’s most successful films? Or even by how good game critics consider it? We may never know, but we will continue to see what the industry is able to turn out, and how gamers will continue to respond to these games and the trends they follow or create.   

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →