Leveling Down

cmfl3x has spent more time than me on the Firefight mode so he posted his impressions on it yesterday. This leaves me with sharing my impressions on the campaign mode for all of you today.  Having gone through the game solo on Legendary, as well as grabbed all possible solo play Achievements for it, I can pretty much say I have experienced what Halo 3 ODST’s campaign fully has to offer.

Either I’m slowly getting on board with the Halo train, or the campaigns are just getting more enjoyable and better designed. Again I will reiterate that I have never been a big Halo fan, as I found the first two games’ storylines and campaigns boring. I even found Halo 3′s storyline and campaign to be somewhat bland, but decent enough to play through it. Unlike my minor enjoyment with Halo 3′s campaign, I actually enjoyed Halo 3: ODST’s campaign a lot.

The storyline for Halo 3: ODST is nothing to write home about, as it’s pretty non-sensical (the forced romance definitely had me groaning). What I do like about the storyline is that it gives the game more of a premise to play lots of varied scenarios through the  role of the non-speaking “Rookie”, an Orbital Drop Shock Trooper tasked with traveling around the deserted city of New Mombasa looking for clues on the rest of his crew. When you find a clue, it calls forth a flashback to the squad member associated with the clue and you get to engage in a “past mission” that the squad member participated in. Each squad member has a different type of expertise, resulting in varied and enjoyable missions.

The Rookie travels through New Mombasa at night, so he tends to play a bit more stealth-oriented (with the help of a “night vision”-ish mode), knocking out enemies that are sleeping or sneaking by powerful foes that are not necessary to engage. Other squad members may specialize in sniping, driving a Scorpion tank, etc., so you really get to experience a wide variety in Halo style gameplay through the playing of each squad member. To be honest, maybe it’s because I played through both Halo 3 and Halo 3 ODST on Legendary mode, but I couldn’t quite tell the difference between Master Chief and the ODST “Rookie”. Both had regenerating shields, but the “Rookie” also has a life-bar under his shield. On Legendary in either game you practically die by charging straight in anyway, whether you’re a Spartan or an ODST and thus I had a hard time noting the difference.

I enjoyed Halo 3: ODST’s campaign more than any other Halo game’s campaign. That may make me sound crazy, but the way that Halo 3: ODST’s campaign flowed from start to finish was pretty tight and varied enough that I never got bored. Its difficulty is also just right – I would say that ODST’s Legendary campaign is about as difficult as Halo 3′s campaign on Heroic. It may be personal preference, but I liked ODST’s smaller level design and more personal encounters. In Halo 3′s campaign you were simply running too long to get from one place to another and every few yards you would be thrown a dozen or so enemies to plow through in large open areas. Some complain that ODST’s campaign is short at 5-6 hours, but I enjoyed it more than Halo 3′s expansive and monotonous campaign.

For those that are just getting Halo 3 ODST for the Firefight mode and Halo 3 maps, don’t overlook the campaign. It’s certainly worth playing through, and stands tall as one of the three main pillars in the package. While you can play it co-op with 3 other buddies, I reommend playing through it solo since that really should be how the game is experienced. I can’t think of anything I’d want to change about it, except perhaps extending its length. Unfortunately, a short campaign seems to be the trend of most FPS games these days.

Bungie has long been famous for being able to create and recreate “30 seconds of fun” and has made that mantra the basis of all of the Halo games thus far. Firefight Mode, unique to the new release ODST, takes that mantra and applies it to a cooperative survival mode. It presents so many gameplay options that we decided to give it its own post. How does it stack up to previous survival modes found in Gears of War (Horde), Call of Duty (Nazi Zombies), and Left 4 Dead (Survival)?

Firefight definitely isn’t a perfect experience, but I prefer it to all 3 of the above. The basic premise: 1-4 players hold out against waves of Covenant troops until they are all dead. The major difference between Firefight and other survival modes is that everyone has a shared pool of lives and ammunition. You can’t “buy” weapons, ammo drops are relatively few and far between, and if you have a weak link, it will bring the whole team down by using up all of your lives.

Yet this is precisely why I love Firefight: you have to work together or die. That’s true for Left 4 Dead as well, but in Survival mode, things got so insane so quickly that it was tough to really have a plan. But Firefight rewards methodical teams (though aggressive teams can be successful as well). You also earn extra points by chaining kills and for kill streaks, so it pays to stay alive as long as possible and to be efficient. Sharing ammo also works very well too, it encourages a lot of team play and communication since you need to let the carbine expert know where they can pick up ammo etc.

I also like how Firefight handles progressive difficulties. Most people are familiar with the “skulls” from Halo 3 that introduce extra levels of difficulty. Firefight is broken up into three divisions: Sets, Rounds, and Waves. Each Round consists of 5 Waves and 3 Rounds make up a Set. Even though the game never ends, as far as I’m concerned every team’s goal should be to finish the 4th Set.

There is a logical progression to the addition of difficulty skulls in the game. Each Set has the same number of rounds, and each round is associated with a certain skull. Round 1 always has “Tough Luck” activated, Round 2 adds “Catch!”, and Round 3 adds the gameplay changing “Black Eye”. Round skulls reset at the beginning of each set, but after the first set, new skulls are permanently added: “Tilt” in Set 2, “Famine” in Set 3, and “Mythic” in Set 4. So by the time you reach the 3rd round of the 4th set, you will be playing with all 6 of the main Firefight skulls on: Double health enemies with bullet deflecting shields will be throwing extra grenades and dodging yours while you need to punch them to regain health as they drop weapons with limited ammo! (This is why I consider Firefight “complete” after the 4th set, plus you’ll get an achievement on heroic difficulty or above).

I find the 3rd round of any set the most fun, because “Black Eye” forces you to melee enemies to regain health. That really changes the way you have to play the game, and forces you to get your hands dirty instead of sitting back in relative safety, which I find to be a huge adrenaline rush. There are 8 different maps to play on, each with their own unique chokepoints and advantages/disadvantages for your team, and they all are pretty fun in their own right (some involve fighting Wraiths/Banshees to up the difficulty).

The biggest drawback to Firefight is that it can get pretty draining, it can take upwards of 2 hours (or more) to complete 4 sets, or you can do it in an hour if you’re efficient. I haven’t even gotten around to all 8 of the maps yet, and I’ve already put 6-7 hours into Firefight. It’s draining in a bad way - by the time you get to the 3rd or 4th set, you are exhausted and that makes you careless. I guess that makes it even more like a true survival game…but I might just be getting too old for that kind of stuff. Also, if you don’t have good teammates, the game can be a real drag, so make sure you play with people who you work well together with. Lucky for me I have a solid team!

I’ve already played this more than I played Horde and Survival combined, and in an hour or two I will knock Nazi Zombies off the list as well. We’ll talk about the single player campaign tomorrow, but as far as I’m concerned, if you like Halo gameplay in general, Firefight mode by itself will warrant purchase consideration. When your whole team is out of lives and is depending on you to take down 5 brutes by yourself to complete a set, you’ll feel like a real Orbital Drop Shock Trooper.

I fired up the demo the recently released Zombie Apocalypse this past weekend, being a pretty big zombie game fan. I’m starting to worry that zombie games are beginning to over-saturate the market, like World War II games in the past. But hey, zombies are the “in” thing for gaming right now, thanks to quirky titles such as Dead Rising to the more hardcore Resident Evil and Left 4 Dead games.

In Zombie Apocalypse, you play as one of four “survivors”, and are locked in a “room” the size of a couple screens. In this “room”, zombies come pouring in from all over, and you need to manuever yourself in such a way that you don’t get surrounded while firing your weapon at zombies or background items to destroy the zombies. It’s a very simple game: left stick moves, and right stick fires your weapon. Special weapons spawn at random on the stage, allowing you to pick up shotguns, grenade launchers, flamethrowers, etc. The zombies differ a little bit too, as some are slow, some can fire weapons, etc. I had some issues with the aiming on the right stick, as I would want to fire diagonally at times but it wouldn’t register, and the end result would be a frustrating death. But maybe that frustration is inherent to any right stick controlled shooter?

Up to four players can take on these waves of zombies, with a total of 55 waves (or days, as the game calls it). Like the other survival modes in FPS games, there’s no real goal to playing through this except for achieving a high score for the leaderboards and bragging rights. Killing several zombies in a row increases your combo chain (probably a nod to “The Club”), and clearing levels without getting hit also merits a score  bonus. After playing the three level demo, there wasn’t anything compelling me to want to play it any further since each level in the demo was really more of the same. This game may ultimately end up in the same boat as The Club, a game that has interesting scoring mechanics, but these days the general public doesn’t seem to play action games to get high scores.

One advantage that the FPS games’ survival modes have is that they use the game mechanics from the FPS game itself, allowing you to play an enjoyable mode with the sound gameplay that each FPS’s mechanics already provide. Zombie Apocalypse has little depth in gameplay design, as you’re just running around the room in two dimensions and firing your weapon. In a way, it’s almost like Geometry Wars, but under a zombie artistic finish. Some might be fine with that, but I believe Geometry Wars’ time has passed.

The timing for Zombie Apocalypse is just too late. Practically everyone has Halo 3 ODST, Gears of War 2, Left 4 Dead, or Call of Duty World at War. They’re probably enjoying one of the survivor modes from those games already – and that’s what I recommend as well. Skip over making yourself and your friends buy this and pick up one of the more complete packages of the aforementioned retail games, as they generally offer a more satisfying wealth of gameplay modes in a combat engine that’s just more fun to play. They’re a little more expensive, but if you’ve saved $10 from not buying this game, you’re already a bit closer to getting to one of bigger titles!

I’m somewhat sad to say this, but I have decided to cancel my Borderlands pre-order. After learning more about the game, I’m disappointed to discover that it is not going to be a day 1 purchase for me. I thought that this game was going to be Diablo + Fallout 3 with co-op, but it falls very short on the most important end: the Diablo part.

The reasons for its downfall?

1. Millions of randomly generated guns
Marketing and advertising are pushing this as a selling feature, but the biggest drawback that comes out of this is that there is a very minimal amount of unique, non randomly-generated items. For Diablo players, we loved finding Set Items and Unique Items – I did boss runs and planned my characters over specific item drops and loot tables. And the best thing about unique “non-generated” items is that when someone else sees you with it, they know right away you have an awesome weapon. Millions of randomly generated guns means everyone is running around with some random gun so there’s no real sense in a better item – just what you prefer. I couldn’t care less for the yellow items in Diablo with all the random modifiers. Give me something that everyone can respect and actually want!

2. FFA looting
Diablo II was released nearly 10 years ago, and the looting was free-for-all. That meant when a boss died, all the items it dropped just appeared in a pile near its corpse so everyone would inch close as it got close to dying and click whatever they could get like kids going after candy from a broken pinata. It didn’t matter if you couldn’t use the item – you knew someone who could, or you could use it for an alt, or you could trade it for an item you could use, etc. It was barbaric and there was a lot of arguments that ensued over item drops.

Since then, multiplayer action RPGs and even MMORPG’s, have dealt with FFA looting in two ways: rolling for loot in some way or another, or having the item drops from a boss only show up for each particular player. The second option meant that whatever you saw drop was yours – and no one else could see it (Diablo 3 will implement this system). Unfortunately, the developers of Borderlands are still back in the stone-ages and actually take some sadistic delight in seeing Borderlands players fight over loot. Their argument is not to play with loot-stealers, and not to worry about it at all because there are plenty of drops to go around (yeah, right…I’m sure there’s plenty of epic drops to go around -_-). What if you play as the sniper class in Borderlands though? It means you’re further away than anyone else, so the only way you’ll actually be able to get item drops is if the people you play with let you get the items. In any case, this practically closes off public online games since no one needs to really care about anyone other than themself in public matches.

3. No Trading Window
I don’t understand what Gearbox was thinking when they made this game. A number of people considering buying this game are Diablo fans who want to play a FPS-based loot game. Loot is the center of this game! So it boggles my mind why Gearbox decided to not put in a trading window in the game. This means two separate players will have to each drop an item, and then run to the other item to perform a trade. And what happens if one player tries to cheat the other by dropping something stupid? It’s a train wreck all around. In their defense, the developers stated that if it was a heavily requested feature, they would put it into the game via a patch. That’s great, but what does it mean to be heavily requested? Anyone that even is interested in a game like this would want a trade window…

What’s hard to believe that is that while Too Human was critically panned, from a functional standpoint it worked. The actual gameplay could have been better, and there could have been more unique drops instead of randomly generated crap, but at least in Too Human you could set loot distribution rules and there was a trade window. I hate to say it, but Gearbox should have actually taken notes from the way Too Human handled loot. In any case, I’m saying goodbye to my pre-order for Borderlands. Diablo III can’t come soon enough…

So Halo 3: ODST, was “dropped” at my door at 12:39 PM Tuesday. This is my second release date delivery (free for Amazon Prime members) and frankly I’m pretty impressed. Now, espion4ge and I are by no means being paid by Amazon despite professions of love in the past, though if anyone affiliated with Amazon is reading this, please feel free to pay us!

Anyway, a timeline of my Halo 3: ODST release day experience (9/22):

12:00 Midnight – I am freaking out because Amazon still hasn’t sent me a delivery confirmation, but I breathe easy when I see that for release date deliveries sometimes the tracking information comes out late.

2:37 AM – Amazon sends me a shipping confirmation (btw, this was bought entirely with funds from Amazon trade-ins)

7:03 AM – Amazon sends three e-mails filled with promotional credit ($15 for video games, $5 for MP3s)

8:46 AM – I check my e-mail and receive the previous e-mails

10:45 AM – UPS leaves package at my front door

1:30 PM – Package received. Happiness ensues.

Meanwhile, while all this was going on, Amazon dropped the price for ODST to $51.99. Was I going to be cheated out of nine dollars? Well this is what happened yesterday (9/23):

4:18 AM – Amazon sends me a promotional code for Sgt. Johnson in Firefight (pre-order bonus)

10:24 AM – Amazon sends an e-mail saying I will receive $9.00 due to their “pre-order price guarantee”

12:25 PM – My gift card account is credited with $9.00.

Talk about customer service!

Barring the somewhat mixed reviews describing the game as being too expensive for what it is for some people ($60 for a 4-5 hour campaign, a Horde mode,and 3 new multiplayer maps), Halo 3 ODST most likely still had phenomenal day 1 sales. How do I know? Just look at my online friend list the night of Halo 3 ODST’s release!

I’ve been slowly making my way through the campaign so far, and I’m actually digging it more than previous Halo campaigns. I’ve yet to figure out why besides its accessibility, but I’m sure after more time with it I’ll know. Still, I admit that I am somewhat shocked to see the “foothold” it has on the 360 community. I’ve yet to play a game where I look on my friends list and everyone online is playing the same game. The only other game that has potential to dominate my friends list on release day like Halo 3 ODST is Modern Warfare 2 - but even then, Halo seems to be a more uniting game for 360 owners than Call of Duty.

A recent poll conducted by OTX indicates that only about half of the Halo 3 ODST purchasers plan on picking up Modern Warfare 2, although I’m surprised that almost half of them are interested in Assassin’s Creed 2, a sequel to a single player game I found a tad repetitive. I guess I’ll just have to see on November 10 what happens to my friends list that night, so don’t let me down Modern Warfare fans!

This friends thing really is some good viral advertising for 360 games as well. I’m glad I’m a part of the club that is playing this game on release day, and if I didn’t have it, I would feel totally left out seeing everyone playing it last night. Here’s to hoping for some good Firefights and online multiplayer in the immediate future…

Oh, and don’t forget to download the free Halo 3 ODST Premium Theme if you haven’t already!

The Beatles’ dreamscapes are a real visual treat

The day The Beatles: Rock Band reached my door, I finished the first half of the game before my wife even got home, took her to dinner, and then finished the rest of the game (netting me the “Day Tripper” achievement in about 6 hours of real time, 3 hours of game time). That fact proves both that I am a dork and that for all intents and purposes Beatles is a pretty short game. But some of its features manage to make up a great deal of the slack left by its short playlist (44 songs in all).

First and foremost, I should state that I’m a huge Beatles fan. Even the game’s intro (which is a beautifully rendered CG imagining of the foursome) got me incredibly pumped to play the game - I wanted to jump straight into quickplay and jam to all those songs. Instead, I chose to do the responsible thing and get into story mode, which basically takes you chronologically through the Beatles history, regardless of difficulty. It’s not a big deal though, since Beatles songs are inherently pretty easy (though I have much more respect for Ringo Starr after playing his drum parts), and you can change difficulty at anytime without restarting. The story mode is kind of like a history lesson in the Beatles; for those who are more musically inclined, you can really see the evolution of the Beatles music without any direct comments on the matter. It’s as much an homage to the group as it is a game, and some of the graphical decisions Harmonix made for the backgrounds are amazing (especially after the Beatles get in the studio and get away from all the screaming girls). It’s actually pretty cool, but as I said before, it only takes about three hours.

Playing Beatles songs is actually a lot of fun, even if people don’t know the songs (which is common in this day and age, sadly), since the tunes are generally pretty simple and people can sing along. I had people over the other night and planned to only play one song to show my gamer friend, but then everyone else wanted to play so we ended up going through the “greatest hits” on the album. I even tried to explain the virtues of “I am the Walrus”, although I think it fell upon deaf ears. Since the difficulty level is generally easier people seem to enjoy themselves more since they can up the difficulty.

Really, The Beatles: Rock Band succeeds because it is so accessible. You can either get into the game because the difficulty is easier, or because you like the Beatles, or even just because you want to see all the crazy stuff that goes on in the background. Yes, there aren’t enough songs and some glaring omissions (Let it Be, Across the Universe, Help!, etc.) which will probably (hopefully) end up being DLC, and the gameplay isn’t that difficult (though the achievements are no sure bet). Harmonies are a lot of fun to sing, but only for people who are really into music. At the same time, I think Beatles Rock Band is kind of like the Wii Sports of music games, it appeals to a wide audience and is as fun to watch as it is to play. Well, maybe not AS fun, but it’s good enough. I personally really appreciate the game because it reminds me why I fell in love with the Beatles all those long years ago, and it’s given me a chance to walk around singing Beatles songs in my head eight days a week. I can’t see how any band specific games will ever hold up to the Beatles experience – just like the Beatles in the 60s, The Beatles: Rock Band ends up being larger than life in the world of music games. Good luck, Van Halen.

I think I’m starting to suffer a bit from “sequelitis”. This was very notable in Guitar Hero 5, a game I picked up and felt like it was really not that much different from the half dozen other music games I already own and have a hard time playing through it. Sure, certain features are better here and there, but the newest iteration of Guitar Hero doesn’t have enough to keep my enjoyment as high as playing earlier iterations. The Sims 3 gave me a similar feeling as well.

If you’re a fan of the series and liked the previous Sims games enough to want more functions and features available, this sequel is worth your time. It is more streamlined, open, and generally adds a bit more depth to the game. In previous iterations of the game, I was annoyed that I had to keep making friends and maintaining those friendships in order to get promoted at my job, which didn’t always make the most sense. Now in The Sims 3, your Sims go to work and you not only are able to see them at work if you want, but you can also decide how you want them to spend their day at work: goofing off, kissing up to the boss, chatting at the water cooler, or even simply working hard. All of these options have different effects, but ultimately you want your boss and your coworkers to like you in order to get promoted. Traveling from your house into “downtown” is a lot more seamless too, as it’s all on the same map so you’re encouraged to go. When groceries in the fridge are running low, or my Sims need new books to read, I just hop into a cab and head into town. For fans of the series that have not had enough, this game delivers.

Unfortunately for me, I think I have had enough. It’s still the Sims and you still need to babysit them by having them go to the toilet, shower, eat, sleep, etc. It feels like you’re playing life within life, and life in and of itself can be pretty boring for most of the time. I’m only able to play The Sims 3 in short spurts, because I simply can’t sit for hours having my Sim go to work, come home, feed him, shower, learn an ability, get entertained, and then go to sleep. Every day is practically the same and I’m not getting much more out of this game than previous iterations. Sure there’s more options to do things, but at the end of the day, I’m still playing chess to increase my logic skill - something that hasn’t changed since the first game.

Of course, I’m a very “by the book” gamer – give me objectives, an interesting story, and good gameplay mechanics and I’ll be practically eating out of your hand. The Sims 3, like previous iterations of the game, really has no objectives or story. It’s a digital dollhouse and for some people, furnishing a make-believe house is more than enough. I’ll admit that my creativity is lacking, so I’m not the most excited to be taking advantage of the more hardcore Sims features, like designing and constructing your own house, maintaining relationships with everyone in town, creating outfits, etc. And don’t get me started on paying actual money for in-game items to furnish my house! Still, it’s good for what it is, but I’ve realized that it’s no longer really for me. I need something a little more challenging and enjoyable than telling my Sim to shower and use the bathroom each night – something that hasn’t changed since the first game.

For those who have no idea what Scribblenauts is, the game has generated the most amount of hype I’ve heard this year among older DS gamers. The game revolves around hundreds of puzzles, where you are tasked with collecting a star from each level. The levels are broken up into two types: Puzzle and Adventure. In the Puzzle mode, you are placed into a stage with requirements to fulfill, such as helping a boy break a pinata, getting a cat off a roof, etc. By meeting the conditions, you are awarded a star for the level. In the Adventure mode, the star is visible on the level, but it’s tucked away in a very inconvenient to reach place so you need to decide how to physically retrieve it.

My critical eye for games generally leads me to ask, “Does this game bring new things to the table?” The second question, regardless of the answer to the first, is “Is this game polished and implemented well?” The brunt of what constitutes a good game for me always lies in the second question, but generally the first question has to be fulfilled for a game to even be considered a game of the year for me.

Scribblenauts answers my first question marvelously. The innovative feature of playing through both the Puzzle and Adventure modes is that you can write practically anything you can think of (within reason) and it will appear on screen for you to use. Get a cat off the roof? I tried various methods and they all worked, such as creating milk to attract the cat down, or creating a dog and placing it on the roof to scare the cat down. You really are limited by your imagination. Each level has a par like golf, encouraging you to create as few things as possible to get a higher score on the level. I laughed out loud when I was stuck on a level where I had to get up a steep cliff and there was a piranha located in the water right below it. I decided, “Why not try creating the Loch Ness Monster? It will kill the piranha, and then I can climb its neck up the cliff.” All did not go according to plan, as the Loch Ness Monster was created, dropped into the water, and after it killed the piranha, it bashed its head into me and killed me afterwards. I couldn’t help but laugh at not only the silliness of the situation, but my absurd thinking that this “monster” would allow me to freely climb up its neck.

Where Scribblenauts falters is in its implementation. You will definitely struggle with the controls, since the stylus is the only way to control your movement on screen. The d-pad merely controls where the camera moves on screen. If you need to jump to get somewhere, good luck. This isn’t as big a problem on the Puzzle mode, where you really just need to create items to satisfy people or deal with conditions. But in the Adventure mode, it can get downright frustrating since you don’t have the accuracy to move yourself or objects the way you want in order to get to the level’s star. Being able to create thousands of items is a very innovative feature, but not being able to handle them or the environment in an intuitive way is what really holds this game back from being a serious game of the year contender. I’ve pretty much already abandoned playing the Adventure half of the game because I can’t handle the unresponsive controls and sloppy physics engine.

cmfl3x may of course feel differently than I do about the game, but to me Scribblenauts ultimately could not deliver on its hype. I love innovation in video games, but it should not override implementation. I believe anyone who plays it will get a kick out of it the first couple hours – the innovation and charm of the game have enough to draw anyone in. The problem is the gameplay mechanics don’t hold up well enough to really help you get through the entire game, so my parting thoughts are that you should definitely try it, but not necessarily buy it. Oh, and one other thing to note – as an adult with little imagination these days, I had a hard time thinking about “unrealistic fantasy” items to create. Here I was trying to scale a cliff with a grappling hook that has wonky implementation in the game, but someone else would just create wings and fly up. So the game can be pretty difficult if your imagination isn’t what it once was. Maybe this game is really best for kids who can think of silly things such as sombrero wearing eagles?

Modern Warfare 2 is still supposed to run at 60 frames per second, which is quite impressive

The bad news first: there isn’t going to be a Modern Warfare 2 Beta. So the game is two months away and there is nothing I can do about it, but it’s close enough that the game is starting to get a lot of buzz.

I recently read Giant Bomb’s hands-on with the multiplayer, and they listed out a bunch of the new features that the game is going to have. I won’t go into them here, but I want to touch on some of the more intriguing ones.

First, for those of you who couldn’t get into Call of Duty multiplayer before because the learning curve seemed too high, Infinity Ward has further balanced out the game by introducing “death streaks”. If you die three times in a row, you can choose a perk that will (hopefully) help you survive longer the fourth time. Infinity Ward has always done an excellent job balancing the game, and I think the death streaks will definitely help out new players. Of course, I guess a skilled player could abuse it (die three times in a row, go on a 20 kill streak), but everything has its pros and cons.

What excites me even more is that you aren’t required to carry a pistol anymore. As you are taught in the game, it’s always faster to switch weapons than to reload, so why switch to a Desert Eagle when you can switch to a M16? That also means you can hold two weapons with different loadouts, like an all out attack gun and a stealthy silenced gun, which I think will really open up gameplay options in any given spawn.

Microsoft is also rolling out the red carpet for Modern Warfare 2, recently announcing a limited edition $400 MW2/360 bundle that includes the game, two wireless controllers, headset, and a whopping 250GB hard drive. It actually sounds like a pretty good deal to try to combat the PS3 price drop. Frankly, I think this is a good way to do it, though smart consumers will realize you can’t even use the second controller in Modern Warfare 2. Regardless, if you still don’t have a 360, this might be a nice way to jump in. In case you still don’t know, 11/10/09 is the date to circle on your calendars!

<insert night vision goggles sound here>