Between all of my random gaming sessions on my PC, 360, and PS3 since I bought my PS3, I’ve been devoting time every once in a while to making my way through God of War: Collection, the PS3 HD remakes of the PS2 original God of War and its PS2 sequel, God of War II. I’ve finally completed them both and starting God of War III now. In any case, before I get too far into God of War III and it starts skewing my thoughts on the first two, let’s get to the review.

God of War
God of War was originally released on the PS2 back in 2005 by one of Sony’s own Santa Monica Studio. Hard to believe that its release was only five years ago, but it went on to win Game of the Year awards that year. Being a Sony owned IP, the series has become a series staple ever since then, with titles releasing on both the Sony PSP and PS3.

God of War follows the story of Kratos, a captain in the Spartan army who makes a deal with the original God of War, Ares. In return for saving his life, Kratos gives himself to Ares, and does his bidding. In his bloodlust, he was tricked by Ares into murdering his own family, and the game follows his journey of revenge to kill Ares and become the new God of War. Being based on Greek Mythology, the premise of the game features various characters, locales, and stories from Greek Mythology that have been modified a bit to shape the addition of Kratos into the world. It works wonderfully, and if it’s one thing I can say about God of War is that it’s storyline is phenomenal. The scope is huge, the cutscenes raw, and even Kratos himself is such a well designed and while angry, still quite the likeable protagonist.

Of course, the original issues I had when I played with the game back in 2005 were that the gameplay lacked the enjoyable depth that I had grown accustomed to from other competitors in the same genre, such as Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry. While I do still agree that God of War’s gameplay is not as enthraling as its Japanese competitors, its storyline is so good that it nearly makes me forget about the simplicity of its gameplay. TO be fair though, I don’t have any issues with its gameplay – the various weapons, special abilities, upgrades, etc. work fine – but it just seems to be lacking that special hook I find in Japanese games, such as Ninja Gaiden’s charge and decapitating combo system, and Devil May Cry & Bayonetta’s style system. Of course, God of War’s storyline easily dwarfs anything the Japanese seem to come up with to tell for their action/adventure games, so at least the God of War series has that major strength going for it. God of War also still destroys Dante’s Inferno – so don’t even bother with that one.

There are a couple negatives with the original God of War in the remake – one minor and one major. The minor issue I had with the remake is that the video cutscenes in this game seem to be in its native 480i or whatever form it originally was in back in 2005. It’s definitely rough on the eyes, but because it doesn’t quite affect gameplay, I’ll let it slide. The bigger issue with the game, and thankfully it happens in only a few places in the game, are its more frustrating gameplay elements: the beam balancing and the climb up the towers of spinning spikes towards the end of the game. For a game as fast-paced as God of War, to have to resort to walking slowly across balance beams (and even having to jump over moving spikes, etc.) just gets frustrating. The most frustrating though are several towers towards the end that have spinning spikes and if you mess up and get him by one, you get knocked all the way back down. It happens far more often than you expect, and this part of the game really had me cursing out loud – something that is quite rare for me. Overall though, the game still holds up quite well by today’s standards, especially after the “HD” remake.

God of War II
God of War II takes place where God of War left off, and [MINOR SPOILER AHEAD] Kratos has killed Ares and become the new God of War. Unfortunately, what fun is playing a game when you’re already a God? In any case, Zeus has some beef with Kratos and his war mongering, so he kills Kratos but as Kratos makes his way into the underworld, he is saved by the Titan Gaea. The Titans are basically are the Gods’ parents, and now that both of them have beef with Zeus, they sort of team up to bring him down. Overall, the sequel’s storyline is weaker than the original God of War’s epic scope because it feels a bit forced. In a way, the first God of War game could have basically been a one shot game with a finished storyline but the sequel drags it out a bit. The first half of the game is pretty bland, but the story picks up and finishes strong to set up a conclusion to the trilogy in epic fashion.

While the storyline of the second one isn’t quite as good as the first, a lot of enhancements have been made to the sequel’s gameplay that make the sequel not exactly inferior to the first. The two major issues with the first game – the blocky low res video cutscenes, and the frustrating balancing and spikey tower type gameplay elements were practically removed in the sequel. Maybe the technology got better when the PS2 version was originally released in 2007, and the cutscenes were able to be rendered in 480p then? Who knows – but the cutscenes in the PS3 re-release of God of War 2 are more inline with the new HD gameplay engine. It also looks like the team behind the sequel took the complaints of the frustrating balancing and spikes to heart, as they have been pretty much removed from the sequel.

The sequel also brings more interesting gameplay enhancements with the ability to swing from certain areas with Kratos’s chained blades and stop time during certain parts of the game to gain an advantage against enemies or to solve puzzles. I can’t forget the puzzles – God of War II has several of them, and to a degree, they actually are done well so that there is sometimes a nice little break from all the killing to solve certain puzzles. Often times the solution to a puzzle is something gruesome anyway, but I for one found the increase in the sequels’ puzzles not a bad thing. What’s also good is that the sequel clocks in at about 12 hours compared to the original’s 8 hours, so while the storyline is not as great, from a gameplay perspective, it’s superior to the first.

Final Thoughts
If you’ve never played one or either of these games and you’re a current PS3 owner, I definitely recommend checking this collection out. At the bargain price of $30 retail (or $60 bundled with a PS3 Dual Shock controller), it’s definitely worth owning. It took me about 20 hours to make it through both games, but with several difficulties, and various treasures to unlock, you can play the game for a lot longer if you enjoy the gameplay. Like other popular Western games, the God of War: Collection has a strong storyline, and if story is a major factor in your gameplay enjoyment, the God of War: Collection will deliver. Of course, if you’ve already played the original releases on the PS2, I can’t quite recommend them again, and it’s even difficult for me now to figure out a score for this collection based on games that were re-released. Am I reviewing the games in their original form, the quality of the re-release, or the what the experience would be like for a first time player of this HD collection? This collection certainly doesn’t have any innovation behind it, but it’s a good classic gaming collection nonetheless and worth owning for any PS3 owners that missed out on the original two games on the PS2.

Final Grade: B+

Dead Space is one of my favorite new IPs in the last couple of years, courtesy of EA’s own internal studio, Visceral Games (formally named EA Redwood Shores). The combination of action, adventure, and horror made the original Dead Space game seem closer to being a sequel to the Resident Evil games than Resident Evil 5 did. Dead Space Extraction on the Wii was also an entertaining (albeit short) horror shooter game, and it worked. I am totally a fan of Dead Space and a supporter of the studio. When I first heard that the studio behind Dead Space would be making an action/adventure game based on Dante’s Inferno, I was instantly interested. Action/adventure + horror in a hellish theme setting from the developer behind Dead Space? Sign me up! Unfortunately, it’s nowhere near what I hoped it would be. Luckily for all of you, I played through this game so you don’t have to. Read on for my review and why this game disappointed me so.

Storyline and Premise
Dante’s Inferno takes place in the Nine Circles of Hell as depicted by Dante Alighieri’s poem, the Divine Comedy. Conveniently enough, the protagonist of the game is also named Dante, so in a sense, there is some symbolism and double entendre since the game’s title is not only referring to the original poem by Dante Alighieri, but the protagonist’s own internal inferno. Or, maybe not. In any case, Dante’s Inferno revolves around our protagonist named Dante, who goes off to war as a crusader thinking that by fighting for the church, all of his sins would get absolved. He returns home to find his lover murdered and Lucifer dragging her soul into Hell. Dante follows the two to get her back, but in the process, has to come to terms with his own sins along the way as he travels through the Nine Circles of Hell. Sounds interesting right? It could be the premise to an enjoyable horror-filled game if done correctly.

The opening couple of levels are a great introduction to what the heck is going on. I was genuinely scared as I landed in the first circle of Hell and watched souls pouring out like water and falling, walls of souls that I had to climb across, etc. It was all pretty hellish, and I thought, “Hey, this is kinda cool.” Unfortunately, it only goes downhill from there, as my initial impression of the game’s premise doesn’t carry all the way through to the end. It honestly feels like the developers designed the first couple of levels and had this grand scope of what they wanted to do, but then as the project got underway they ran out of time and had to really cut corners. This makes the game feel interesting to begin with, but falls flat as you move into the mid game and by the end you really just want it to end. I seem to have less of a detector of when games fall flat than others, as I thought BioShock was brilliant from start to finish while some complain that the last couple levels of BioShock were bad. But with Dante’s Inferno, I can definitely see how it just gets derivative and bland after only the first couple of hours. After 8 hours, it finally ends, except that you get a nice “To Be Continued” screen once it’s over. What the heck? You guys really want to continue this series? Go sit on the bench with Silicon Knights and their supposed Too Human “trilogy.” And thanks guys for not letting me skip cutscenes. Really appreciated. NOT.

I’m all for a different type of protagonist than the sexy (Bayonetta), the cool (Devil May Cry), the quiet (Ninja Gaiden), or the badass (God of War) violent action/adventure star, but Dante’s Inferno’s protagonist is just pathetic. Here’s a dude that is slicing his way through the depths of hell itself, and he’s panicky and screaming like a little girl, “What must I do?! Why are these souls here?” I just wanted to slap him a few times and knock some sense into him. You’re here to get your lover back. Suck it up and keep on killing. Instead he’s ripping demons in half followed by a cutscene of the guy practically crying for his mommy. Very uncool and unlikeable. Why do I want to play the role of a scared loser? Did the developers really think this one through? Even if the protagonist and premise of the game come up a bit short, gameplay is most important for an action/adventure game, right? So let’s see if Dante’s Inferno redeems itself there.

Gameplay
The primary positive I can say about Dante’s Inferno’s gameplay is that it does have a good system for leveling up. As you fight monsters, many of them have a chance to be punished or absolved. Punishing enemies allows you to go further up the unholy skill tree, and absolving them allows you to go further up the holy skill tree. Both trees have different skillsets and unlocks, and as you kill enemies you gain neutral experience points through souls that allow you to unlock skills in either or both trees. It’s not a bad system and reminded me a little bit of Diablo’s class based skill tree. I also enjoyed the ability to pick up dozens of different relics, and the ability to level most of them up so that they would provide better bonuses. For example, at Level 1 a certain accessory may grant +10% chance of critical attacks. If you wear it enough and level it up to 3, it will give you a +30% chance to crit, etc.

However, the actual gameplay itself is lacking. This is an action/adventure game right? Then why do I feel like half of the time I’m fighting the environment rather than enemies? I’m swinging on ropes, trying to jump across falling and moving platforms, etc. I think maybe a good 25% of the game’s time is literally spent climbing on walls. And then there’s the inane puzzles that you have to go through with the block pushing and all that. In short, there’s just a little bit too much platforming in this game. And the worst part is, the fixed camera angles and frustratingly cheap deaths. Several “platforming” elements aren’t intuitive enough and you’ll just die and scream out loud, “F this! How was I supposed to know that?”  And if it’s not that it’s intuitive enough, it’s because the game doesn’t register something correctly even though you did everything you were supposed to do. I remember one level that I kept dying on over and over because I had to swing off a section and land on a platform. I hit RB just the like screen prompted me to, and I would still never make that platform and always fall into the abyss. I got very frustrated. The combination of fixed camera angle and buggy/unintuitive platforming and puzzle elements make me wonder where the action is in this game. Fortunately, for the most part, checkpoints are usually pretty close together so even when you die, you don’t start too far back. But when you play Dante’s Inferno, expect to die a lot due to what I call “cheap deaths”. Those are the worst kind since they’re basically outside of your control. Sometimes I would actually die without even understanding how I died. A cutscene would load or something and I would be dead. What?!

As for the combat itself, it’s satisfactory. You have a decent number of moves, but outside the problem of the lack of combat in this game (I’d say maybe half of the game is just platforming elements – with maybe a good chunk of that climbing walls and shimmying across ropes), the number of enemies is staggeringly low. There’s probably like 5-6 enemy types in the entire game outside the bosses, and while it was cool to see the introduction of some enemies in their respective level of Hell, it didn’t quite make sense to me to see the Lust and Gluttony monsters showing up in subsequent levels of Hell. Did the developers just decide to force us to do more platforming because they didn’t want us to fight? And what is up with the difficulty on the default difficulty level? I played through the game on the Medium difficulty and it was actually a lot tougher than normal should be for a game. I’m getting pummeled by 10 monsters in a locked room with a fixed camera angle and I can’t even fight back or heal? The game just keeps giving me one more frustration after another. And to top it all off, there’s a ton of collectibles that you have to look for as you play through the game. Please developers, stop with the collectibles to artificially lengthen your games!

The God of War Comparison
I was not a huge fan of God of War when I played through it on the PS2, but I started playing it again in the God of War Collection on my new PS3 this weekend just to start seeing how much of a clone Dante’s Inferno was to it (and if I would actually start enjoying God of War more this time around). My initial impressions of God of War is that it still can’t touch the deep gameplay design of Japanese action/adventure games, but it’s enjoyable in its own way. There’s less of an emphasis on the game’s combat engine and more on the game’s adventure aspect. And hey, I’m ok with that. But unlike Dante’s Inferno, God of War still has a good amount combat, as you fight enemies at a much higher frequency than you do in Dante’s Inferno. It’s sort of sad to feel that the original God of War on the previous console generation is still better than Dante’s Inferno. I guess the developers of Dante’s Inferno wanted to copy God of War instead of surpass it, which is disappointing in its own right. God of War’s combat is more enjoyable and intuitive, its adventure is more interesting and captivating, and even its QTE button presses can be arguably fun – and varied! Unlike God of War, I noticed that Dante’s Inferno’s QTE commands are always in the same order, whereas God of War’s actually are random so you are kept on your toes a bit.

Final Thoughts
I sound pretty harsh in my review of Dante’s Inferno, but really, it’s not the worst game I’ve played. In fact, I consider this an average game. It sounded like it could be a pretty cool premise and had well-thought out leveling mechanics. But its poor execution and mundane combat prevent the game from being even considered good. I don’t like wasting my time playing average games. I tend to buy games that are very good or excellent, so when I come across a merely average game and play through it, I get annoyed more than I need to be. After all, I’m putting aside my precious gaming time to play something like this instead of Mass Effect 2. I was practically a Visceral Games fanboy before playing this game. I thought even if the reviews were average for the title, they don’t know the studio like I do. These are the guys that made Dead Space! How could they mess up? Well, they did. So all I can say at this point is to skip out on Dante’s Inferno. I bought this game way below retail and even at my price I’m already ready to go sell it. I cannot emphasize how big of a rip off it is to buy this game for its $60 asking price.

PS3 owners – you obviously have the entire God of War trilogy on your system. It’s the best Western action/adventure series out these days, and I highly suggest you stick with that and avoid Dante’s Inferno. 360 owners – this game may be the closest you can get to experiencing God of War, but I would still say skip it. It’s a very poor substitute. Bayonetta, Devil May Cry 4, and Ninja Gaiden 2 are far superior to this game and can be found for much cheaper. And as for you, Visceral Games, I hope you learn a thing or two when you put out the inevitable sequel. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Final Grade: C

The Dante’s Inferno demo went live about a month ago, and I’ve been meaning to write up some impressions on that but haven’t had a chance to. The good thing is, now that I’ve completed Bayonetta, I was able to revisit the Dante’s Inferno demo again to see if any of my feelings on the demo have changed since playing Bayonetta. I started writing about it, but I found myself getting sidetracked from really writing completely about the demo, and instead I’ve divulged into analyzing Eastern versus Western game design. Read on for a little bit of my thoughts on the Dante’s Inferno demo, and a lot of my thoughts on Eastern versus Western game design philosophies for action/adventure games.

When I played through the Dante’s Inferno demo last month, I thought it was a pretty entertaining game and decided right then that I would get the retail version of the game at some point (but not necessarily at launch). In playing through it again this past weekend, I would have loved if the cutscenes were skippable, since I honestly didn’t need to sit through all of the storyline stuff again. To be honest, the storyline is kind of out there, but it works to provide the game with a nice “hellish” backdrop. The protagonist seems to be kind of a loser though compared to Devil May Cry’s Dante or God of War’s Kratos, but with games like this being more about the combat, I guess I can let that slide.

The combat engine in Dante’s Inferno wasn’t as polished as I would like it to be, but it is smooth. Perhaps polished is not the right word but it felt a bit simplistic and not elegant enough. It also gave me a very strong God of War-like feel. I think it’s safe to assume that when anyone talks about Dante’s Inferno, inevitable comparisons to God of War are going to be made. I personally think they look and play similarly, and to me, that’s not a good thing since I don’t think the God of War games are as amazing as the gaming industry makes it out to be.

While everyone showers every God of War game with the utmost praise, I happen to fall into a very small minority group that doesn’t think that the God of War franchise is that good. AAA series? No – more like a B-B+ series for me. And before any flames or whatever get unleashed that I’m a 360 fanboy, I’ll say that if I had the time to play games on both the 360 and PS3, I would get a PS3. There are several titles that I would love to play on the PS3, such as Valkyria Chronicles, Demon’s Souls, Ratchet & Clank, and the upcoming White Knight Chronicles, Yakuza 3 and The Last Guardian. I played through the original God of War on the Playstation 2, and while it wasn’t a bad game, it wasn’t a game that I got super enthusiastic over.

I think it honestly comes down to Eastern vs. Western game design for action/adventure titles. On the Eastern side, we have action adventure games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, and Bayonetta. On the Western side, we have God of War, Conan, and now Dante’s Inferno. It may be the old school gamer in me talking, but the Eastern action/adventure games just appeal to be more. They seem to have simpler yet more elegant game mechanics, and are just more intuitive to play. The Western action/adventure titles seem to be more focused on polygons, gore, and nudity yet the Western game worlds seem to be more bland and simple. I was surprised over the amount of nudity in the Dante’s Inferno demo, but hey, now that God of War has made nudity in gaming all the rage, might as well roll with it if you’re going to make a game similar to God of War, right?

Of course, Americans love God of War, but this whole East vs. West game design reminds me of fighting games. Think about the amount of depth and detail in Eastern fighting games versus Western fighting games. On the East side we have games like Street Fighter and Virtua Fighter, whereas on the West we have Mortal Kombat and Primal Rage. All of these franchises are successful, but when I play games like God of War and Dante’s Inferno, I find them to be enjoyable in their own way, but still do not quite hold up to Eastern action/adventure games. The shoe is on the other foot for FPS games and 3rd person shooters, so it’s not like Japanese game design is clearly better.

When I think about why Western fighting games are popular, it’s mostly due to the gore. Think about the amount of game mechanics that are in the Mortal Kombat games – it’s laughable at best. Then I think about my time playing God of War and now the Dante’s Inferno demo: enemies get downed and you are prompted to hit a button to finish them off and perform sort of a fatality. Is this why Americans love these Western action/adventure games? The button prompts to let loose the gore? Then I think about the Japanese action/adventure games, where the emphasis is more on elegance and style of combat rather than sticking your hand down an enemy’s throat to pull his head off. Devil May Cry and Bayonetta were all about gunplay, dodging and combos. Ninja Gaiden was about nimbly moving around the battlefield in order to decapitate as many enemies as possible through chaining.

I think about today how Japanese RPG games are getting poorly reviewed by Western audiences because the gameplay in these JRPGs are not evolving. They are starting to seem almost archaic in comparison to Western RPGs, with their branching dialogue options, morality paths, etc. I’ll be curious to see how Final Fantasy XIII plays when it releases stateside in the coming weeks. But while the Japanese are faulted for not evolving their RPGs, I cannot fault the Japanese for their action/adventure game design philosophies. I like these classic action/adventure game mechanics and believe them to be truly sound. It’s unfortunate these days, but the difference in design philosophies tend to be that the Japanese make better action/adventure, fighting, and platform games, while the Western make better shooters, RPGs, and multiplayer titles. Hopefully both sides learn from each other and we see benefits because of it. In the meantime, I’ll still get Dante’s Inferno, but I know that it’s not going to measure up to Bayonetta. And for Western action/adventure fans, maybe they don’t think Dante’s Inferno will be good enough to compete with God of War III either. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Last week cmfl3x and I presented you with a list of games that we felt were good value from a standpoint of being enjoyable for pretty much every type of gamer. This week we’ll share more “niche” titles – games that you can enjoy – provided you’re into the genre. Again, we want to look at games that are good value – ones that either have a lengthy/replayable single player campaign or plenty of multiplayer hours to keep you coming back while at the same time being enjoyable while being inexpensive.

While many Western reviewers put down Japanese developed games that don’t have a lot of production quality, I tend to still enjoy them. I like Japanese fighting games, RPGs, action/adventure games, and beat’em ups. I appreciate the linearity with many of them, and personally don’t mind if the graphics tend to appear closer to last gen technology than current. Because at the deepest level, what’s most important to me is gameplay. Is it ultimately fun to play? Here are games that I feel are ultimately fun to play and are good value, if you like the genre:

Fighting

Dead or Alive 4
[360: $29.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Dead or Alive 4 was the very first fighting game released on the 360. While several others have come along since then, it’s still quite a casual friendly fighter while having a strong online mode that allows for four players sharing a room at once. If you want to get into a cheap, yet accessible online fighting game, consider this game.

Virtua Fighter 5
[360: $19.99, PS3: $19.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
While Dead or Alive 4 prides itself on its online infrastructure, Virtua Fighter 5 has no competitors when it comes to single player. For the best single-player fighting game on current consoles, Virtua Fighter 5 is it. It takes about 40-50 hours to get through, as you create a player and travel through various arcades that have hundreds of different AI opponents – with some modeled after real life Virtua Fighter 5 pros. There is a ranking system, and the ability to earn money to buy accessories for your character as well. Note that while the 360 version has online, the PS3 version does not.

Realtime Strategy

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3
[360: $27.99, PC: $27.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Red Alert 3 didn’t sell well enough upon released and quickly dropped to the under $30 value price only months after release. But it’s definitely worth a shot as it has a very lengthy single player campaign consisting of 27 missions (pretty much double Halo Wars), a skirmish mode, and online play. For the least expensive, yet enjoyable RTS games on the 360, Red Alert 3 is the game to get.

Multiplayer Shooter

Shadowrun
[360: $29.99, PC: $19.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Shadowrun has a funny existence on the 360 and PC. It’s a niche RPG game with its own fan-following, but the most recent game was converted into a Counter-Strike style online only shooter that allowed players to earn money and buy weapons, tech abilities, and magical skills. It’s a great game that also supports matchmaking, but because it wasn’t the type of game that Shadowrun fans wanted to play, and it shipped at $60 with no multiplayer, reviews were scathing. But at its current bargain price, the game is a gem. Just keep in mind that the PC version requires Vista.

Japanese RPG

Blue Dragon
[360: $19.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Blue Dragon is a Japanese RPG that comes from the creator of Final Fantasy and the artist behind Dragonball and Chrono Trigger. The game is an excellent (yet very standard) Japanese RPG, but the only thing really going against it is that it has children as protagonists. This makes it difficult for some people to really get into, but if you can look past that and are interested in a Japanese RPG, Blue Dragon is a great deal.

Lost Odyssey
[360: $29.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
It’s a little bit pricier than Blue Dragon, but Lost Odyssey is arguably the best Japanese RPG game on the 360. After Blue Dragon, Mistwalker decided to develop an RPG that was more mature and accessible to Western Audiences, and this game delivers. If you were a fan of Final Fantasy games growing up and didn’t exactly enjoy fighting the cutesy monsters of Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey is perhaps the better one to pick up.

Japanese Beat em up

Samurai Warriors 2
[360: $19.99 on Amazon]
Out of all of the Warriors series that Koei has spawned on the PS2 and 360, Samurai Warriors has always been my favorite. Playing as characters based on real-life samurais and ninjas with various missions, leveling up, finding gear, etc. has always made Samurai Warriors (as well as Warriors games in general) a good bang for the buck if you don’t mind the gameplay that is repetitive for some as well as the PS2 quality graphics.

Warriors Orochi
[360: $29.99 on Amazon]
Very similar to Samurai Warriors 2, but instead of following historical missions and levels, Warriors Orochi combines the world of Samurai Warriors with Dynasty Warriors, allowing you to create teams from both while confronting a new made-up enemy. While the storyline to the game isn’t as tight or appeal as that of Samurai Warriors 2, there is appeal to being able to choose from dozens of characters in both worlds. It also has PS2 style graphics.

Bladestorm
[360: $29.95, PS3: varies on Amazon] [espionage's review]
This game is perhaps my favorite Koei game on the 360 (unless the studio finally decides to release a Romance of the Three Kingdoms game). While it’s a beat-em-up like Samurai Warriors 2 and Warriors of Orochi, it has a lot more gameplay depth as it chronicles your life as a mercenary in the 100 years war. The game features next-gen graphics and army management of over a dozen different unit types that you need to manage and utilize to capture castles and towns.

Earth Defense Force 2017
[360: $19.99 on Amazon]
Another hardcore beat-em-up (or shoot-em-up in this case) is Earth Defense Force 2017. While the graphics and gameplay may be a bit on the simple side, the concept of simply defending the Earth from giant ants, spiders, mechs, and space ships using whatever lasers and rocket launchers you can find has a lot of appeal. With over 50 levels and five different difficulties as well as co-op split-screen support, it’s a game you can play for dozens of hours.

Japanese Hardcore Action Adventure

Dead Rising
[360: $19.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
While Dead Rising is somewhat of a shorter game due to it being time based, the concept of being stuck in a mall with zombies can be enjoyed forever. On top of that, there are straight out modes that have you simply trying to survive as long as possible. The game isn’t for everyone, as it adheres very closely to linear Japanese game design and Western gamers complain about the limited save system.

Devil May Cry 4
[360: $27.99, PS3: $27.99, PC: $39.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
I didn’t think Devil May Cry 4 was such an innovative jump over its predecessor (in fact, I enjoyed Devil May Cry 3 more), but I have to say that the game is lengthy. If you enjoy the combat engine of the Devil May Cry games (flashy combo-based fighting) you’ll probably get good mileage out of this one with its various difficulties and optional Bloody Palace mode.

Ninja Gaiden II
[360: $27.99 on Amazon] [espionage's review]
Ninja Gaiden II has its fair share of detractors, but it’s my favorite action/adventure game this generation. I’ve sunk 100 hours into the game, and it doesn’t even have multiplayer. With several different weapons to learn and use as well as a lengthy campaign that has difficulty levels with differing enemies, if you want to conquer this super hard-core title you will be putting in 100 hours like I did.

The Rest

The Club
[360: $12.05, PS3: $14.97, PC: $12.69 on Amazon]
The Club is a radically different game from the normal shooter, as it combines the mechanics from racing games with shooting games. Think about how you would play a racing game – going along a track trying to get the best time on corners, etc. In The Club, you play a shooter like a racing game – running through a level, and shooting guys or killing them in a stylish enough way to give you score multipliers and extra time. The game’s longevity comes from wanting to compete for the best times/scores online, so if you’re playing it just to beat it, you probably won’t get as much out of it.

Viva Pinata & Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise
[360: $19.99 on Amazon] [360: $27.99 on Amazon]
Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise is not a sequel as so much as the original game plus a bit more of an expansion to the original game. Both are great and it’s fine to just pick up the first title if you want to save a few bucks. The concept to the game revolves around managing a garden, where the various flowers, vegetables, fruit, etc. all attract different pinata animals and those in turn attract others so the concept of the game is managing your garden in such a way that you have a thriving ecosystem. You could play these games for dozens of hours if you’re trying to accomplish everything in them.

Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts
[360: $27.99 on Amazon]
Unfortunately, this game is still sitting in shrinkwrap for me so I haven’t had a chance to really play it yet. But from what I hear, the game is a lengthy adventure and very open to choice in that it allows you to hunt for parts and to create what you’d like in order to tackle various challenges in the huge world of the game. Need to fly your vehicle and keep it in the air for several seconds? Add whatever parts necessary and embrace your LEGO childhood….

That’s quite a list espion4ge! It seems like you did a good job covering pretty much everything, but I want to include title that’s not on the 360, but PS3:

Flower
[PS3: $10 on PSN]
This is the only game on my budget list that I haven’t gotten to play but if I owned a PS3 I’d probably download this immediately. Flower is a very different type of “game”. It uses the PS3′s Sixaxis motion controls exclusively. You play as the wind, and basically “blow” around different environments. As you touch different flower petals they bloom, and you eventually populate the entire field with flowers. From everything I’ve heard, this game = amazing graphics + great use of music + interesting narrative. If I ever get a PS3 I’m definitely picking this one up.

Well that about covers it for our two-part feature on gaming on the cheap – but you know what? Games constantly drop in price all the time so maybe in a couple weeks or months, we’ll continue to see the list of cheap, yet enjoyable games continue to increase. So my advice is, if you’re strapped for cash – just wait! It’s like deciding to save money by waiting for movies to go to video instead of going to the theatre every weekend. The savings definitely add up and based on how many games are out there today, if you’re watching your budget you can still be a gamer with plenty of games to tackle.

I’ve managed to score a 50k+ Gamerscore in my years with the 360. And while that pales in comparison to the guys with 6 digit Gamerscores, it still sometimes manages to illicit some responses from players in online matches (both good and bad). But what is the point of the Gamerpoint score anyway? In this discussion topic, cmfl3x and I will discuss our thoughts on the implementation of Microsoft’s Achievement system and this new site we joined called TrueAchievements.com.

I honestly never believed in a point system for the Achievements. I actually like the PS3 Trophy system better because it makes note of the feats you achieved in a game without assigning some arbitrary value to it. The value was up to the viewer to decide: “Oh wow this guy beat the final boss of the game on the hardest difficulty? Cool. What else has he done?” Instead, the score simplifies everything into pretty much how many Achievements you’ve gotten rather than which ones you went for. While I’ve never played a game simply for its Achievements, there are obviously some people that do – ask anyone that has Avatar on their game list, for example.

Recently, this site hit the gaming blogosphere: TrueAchievements.com. What it does is check your Achievement profile, and actually give a weighted calculation based on what your score actually should be rather than the arbitrary values assigned by the developers. The true score for a particular Achievement is instead based completely around how many players have actually played the game and if they were able to get it or not. A game like Avatar, for example, where everyone that plays it gets the 1000, would still have a True Achievement score of 1000, but a more difficult game, like Devil May Cry 4, will have an actual True Achievement score of over 4000 since only a small fraction of the people that played the game manage to get all of the Achievements, making them “worth more”.

Personally, I love what the guys at True Achievements are doing. Some games only associate a 10 point value to huge fetch quests, and in the current system it feels kind of unfulfilling to put 10 hours into 10 points. At True Achievements, they will assign a more “accurate” value to the number of Gamerpoints you “should” get. Their algorithm isn’t perfect, but I think they set up the system pretty well all things considered. I highly recommend that everyone check it out (which they have, they temporarily closed registration earlier because they were getting slammed).

Overall, I think Microsoft’s regulation of the system has been a good thing: keeping Gamerscores to 1000 points and 50 achievements makes sure everything is more “standardized”. I do like having a Gamerscore over just trophies, just because it gives you a concrete thing to point at. Of course the problem now is, some people who have had the system since launch have like 200,000 Gamerpoints and people who are buying the console now have no chance to catch up. It could be cool if Microsoft had some sort of Gamerpoint average, like # of Gamerpoints divided by games played or something.

People have floated the idea of using points to accessorize Avatars or something. Or if Sony had points associated with Trophies they could have people “buy” things for Home or something. I think it’s something that could work if done the right way.

Achievements, Trophies, and all that seems to be a win/win all around and a good step forward to the gaming industry. For those that don’t care about them, it won’t necessarily change anything but for those of us that do care, it’s revolutionary. With the Achievement/Trophy system, it seems like gaming now has become more social, because we can see how other players play games and what they’ve accomplished. I remember subscribing to Nintendo Power when I was a kid and people would mail in screenshots of their high scores in video games (Cliffy B., the lead designer of Gears of War, even sent in his high score in Super Mario Bros.). Now all of that stuff isn’t really necessary since we not only have Achievements, but online Leaderboards. So for those that want to compete, it’s a great thing.

I’m a big fan of the ability to unlock new Avatar clothes or Home outfits based on certain gaming accomplishments. It seems to be the general next step in making gaming even more social. Now we don’t just have names, but we have physical characters to represent ourselves in the gaming universe. As long as you don’t have to pay for them, I’m definitely interested. Even now, I love my current Gamerpic – only unlockable if you can beat Ninja Gaiden 2 on Master Ninja mode. Imagine how cool it would be, for example, if you could unlock a Gears outfit for your avatar if you solo’ed it on Insane or something:

Unlockable clothing for Avatars adds sort of an MMORPG-style heriarchy to console games – which would work very well, in my opinion. People that play games or are good at them should be able to earn things that demonstrate their prowess in gaming. Wasn’t there like a Halo 3 recon armor that only certain players got and others wanted to buy for thousands of dollars or something?

Anyway, going back to one of the things you mention, cmfl3x, about how you don’t like that people who got an early start on the 360 would be in the 200,000 by now. It’s not too big of a deal to me and what I alluded to when I mentioned that I was more a fan of the PS3′s score-less Trophy system. The point system makes all of gaming seem like a race – with everyone subconsciously worrying about their overall score rather than the actual accomplishments themselves. I’ve never been a fan of that, but rather, support more of a more customized but less competitive approach. Taking away Achievement points for all games is obviously a very crazy idea, but let me explain it differently – perhaps with Avatar clothing, as an example.

Say Microsoft implements a system such that each Achievement you unlock was really tied to an unlockable clothing article you could earn, rather than a point score. So if you were to get all of the Gears of War 2 achievements, you could unlock all of the Gears of War armor and weapons your Avatar could wear. Say Ninja Gaiden 2 is the same way. But see the constraint is such that you only have one head. You can only wear one helmet. So that means, you can really only choose to wear the Gears of War 2 helmet or the Ninja Gaiden 2 ninja mask. Thus, people can play the games they really want to play, and for those that play more, they simply have more Avatar accessories to choose from. Instead of seeing 200,000 Achievement points on one guy to your 5,000 Achievement points, in an Achievement system that was only tied to Avatar clothing the 200,000 point guy would simply have a bigger closet and more clothes to select from. But he obviously can’t wear everything so it evens out (similar to the gun unlocks in Call of Duty 4 – more options, but not necessarily better). Say your 5,000 points only come from J-RPGs since that’s all you play. What’s wrong with that then? Why would you want Gears of War 2 clothing anyway? This makes it so there’s less competition, but still promotes individuality in my opinion.

What’s also neat is that with clothing, you’re pretty much promoting your best Achievements that you earned – something the current Achievement system does not have. And it’s not like you’re just plastering them all over your profile – the clothing hint is much more subtle. Some guy could be walking around with a gold ninja mask (maybe from beating Ninja Gaiden 2 on Master Ninja), a scientist labcoat (maybe from beating all of the Gold Medal challenges on Portal), and wearing Halo armor pants (maybe from beating Halo 3 on Legendary). It could be a totally clashing outfit, but I think the idea would be pretty cool. I guess in a way, my wish for Achievements to be tied to Avatar clothing could still be added as a feature on top of the current Achievement point system and what not. But yeah I love the idea of Achievements tied to your gamer profile, but I’m honestly not a fan of Achievement points – especially with them not being weighed accurately.

The thing with Avatars is, we hardly use them. It’s not like we are walking around in Sony’s Playstation Home. I wonder if Sony will make a trophy room for people’s individual spaces? What I like about the Avatar idea is, even though we don’t use them, we see all of our friends’ Avatars. So if I’m in the dash and I’m navigating my friends list I can see you wearing your Master Ninja Helmet and maybe my Avatar would be rocking the Katana from Halo 3. But how would we advertise our Achievements to non-friends? I know people enjoy comparing the Achievements with random strangers every once in awhile. So it would be great if Microsoft (or Sony) made a process that was a bit more streamlined.

Going back to the True Achievements website, I like how you can check out someone”s “Best Achievements.” They basically take your top 5 Achievements (according to their scoring system) and paste them on your profile. I can’t imagine it’d be too difficult for Microsoft to do something similar, just take the number of online users of a certain game and factor in the percentage of users who have gained a certain achievement to calculate a “difficulty score”. I mean, Microsoft has all the information from Live, so they could just use that and then for everybody’s profile include “Top 5 Achievements”. Then if I’m browsing my friends’ profiles I can see who’s gotten what, and we could compare that way without having to worry about points.

Unfortunately I don’t see Microsoft changing their system right now. But hopefully they will tweak it, especially taking advantage of the Avatars. Right now I don’t even feel like customizing my Avatar too much, but if I could dress him up in something that reps my gaming prowess, I think I’d have a lot of fun with it. Because even if Avatars aren’t used too much, at least I will get to see and appreciate my Avatar brandishing a gold Lancer!

I wish the friend dashboard was a lot faster to load. It takes like a whole minute before the characters are fully downloaded and I barely go to it anymore since it’s faster to just go to the Friendlist with the guide button to see what my friends are up to. But I do like seeing what everyone looks like and who they’re playing with. If only it loaded faster.

I honestly think the Avatars and clothing options could still work quite well given the current limitations. We don’t need Home to enjoy it – I think Home is more a bunch of bloat anyway because people ultimately want to play games instead of walking around and wasting time. Simply seeing how your character is dressed on the Dashboard or on websites may be adequate enough. Besides xbox.com, there’s even some sites I visit these days where if you enter your Gamertag, your Avatar is automatically populated in your profile – which really goes to show you that the idea of Avatars can still be fun without necessarily having a Home-style playground to walk around in.

The “Best Achievements” thing on the True Achievements website is a great idea. I agree with you though, that Microsoft will most likely not change anything since the current Achievement system works and no one is really complaining. One issue I have with the “Best Achievements” section of the True Achievements website though is that it’s still basing the Achievement calculation off of originally assigned point values.

For example, my top two “Best Achievements”, according to TrueAchievements.com, are Master Ninja for Ninja Gaiden 2 and beating Inferno Mode for Earth Defense Force 2017. Ninja Gaiden 2′s Master Ninja Achievement was originally assigned 100 points. Inferno Mode for EDF2017 was assigned 250 points. But the difficulty ratio for each Achievement differs dramatically – Master Ninja has a ratio of 8.94 (as of this writing), making its True Achievement value 894, while Inferno Mode has a ratio of 2.49, making its True Achievement value 746. Notice how both of the True Achievement values are pretty similar but one is a lot more difficult than the other. The Inferno Mode’s True Achievement value is close simply because it had a much larger base value.

It would have been better if the site didn’t use the base values, and instead calculated the True Achievement value for all Achievements based on how often it was earned from those that played it, and how many people played the game altogether (similar to what you suggested earlier). I don’t know the exact formulas that the website uses, but basically something that doesn’t rely on the “sometimes arbitrary” Achievement value assigned by the developers. Some developers give a 1 point score to the hardest Achievement value in their games, and even with a 100 difficulty multiplier, it’ll never show up on the “Best Achievements” table on the site. Of course, all of these calculations pique my interest due to my engineering background, so maybe it’s lost on the typical gamer that just wants to have fun or isn’t as hardcore.

It could be neat though to customize your own Gamercard to show icons of your top 5 Achievements instead of the last 5 games you played. But I guess giving too much customization to users may make Gamercards and profiles more confusing. Still, I would have loved the ability to at least hide games you don’t want to show on your Achievement list. In the most recent Dashboard update Microsoft finally allowed us to at least delete games that we had no Gamerpoints on, but we still can’t get rid of games that have some score. I’m probably in the minority about this, but there are honestly some games I would love to remove from my Gamertag. Games like Tomb Raider: Legend & Armored Core 4 – ones that I only got an Achievement or two on are now stuck on my Gamertag. I doubt I’ll play them again, so I’d rather have them off my profile altogether. But ultimately, I guess it’s not really a big deal and I’m in the minority on this.

So to summarize my thoughts on this discussion, I think this True Achievements website is going in the right direction to make Achievement scores more balanced. I would love for Microsoft to get rid of the original values of each Achievement altogether, and instead have them calculated based on a formula similar to how the True Achievements website is doing it – but of course, to not use the base values in their calculations. And giving us unlockable Avatar clothing options associated with particular Achievements would definitely make me a happy camper.

Sounds like you’ve summed it up pretty well. There are definitely games I’d want to delete too, like Doritos: Dash of Destruction! Haha. Hopefully True Achievements will end up creating a “Top 5 TrueAchievement Ratio” List. That would help take care of the base score issue. As for the dashboard loading faster, I guess that’s best left to another discussion!

cmfl3x asked me a little while back if I was looking forward to the Fallout 3 downloadable content. He seemed pretty excited about it and I felt bad telling him but no, I didn’t share in his excitement. In fact, while there are games I may fully enjoy, like Ninja Gaiden II or Fallout 3, I’ll never buy their DLC. To this day, I have not paid for downloadable content for any traditional game, and I don’t plan on ever doing so. Why? Because I don’t believe in what it stands for. Obviously if downloadable content is free, such as Burnout Paradise’s motorcycles and whatnot, or BioShock’s extra plasmids, then sure – it is always welcome. It’s when it starts getting charged for that it gets on my nerves.

I actually wrote up an entire article just knocking on it, but then felt it may come off as too much of a rant so I held off. I figure that if I could turn it into a discussion topic with cmfl3x, it’d be a little more civil.

Let’s look at what type of monster paid downloadable content has become and why I choose to avoid it.

The biggest argument for publishers/developers to charge us for downloadable content is that we get more content for our favorite games. We can explore new things and play the games even longer. Woohoo! But honestly, do I want to pay for a couple more multiplayer levels in a game and maybe a new small planet or island I can explore instead of putting all of that money towards a new game with a more complete experience? And with game publishers and developers fully embracing downloadable content, it looks like more bad than good has come out of it for us consumers. Here’s why I think so.

1. Paid DLC is rarely even a part of the main game
Games like Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Fable II are heavy single player games that have all gotten or are getting paid DLC that allows you to travel to a small island somewhere to explore a new area. That’s all great but compared to how huge the in-game worlds of these games already are to begin with, these little diversions for $10 comes up a little short compared to what we’re already used to. In Fallout 3′s $60 retail package I can explore over a hundred unique areas and now I’m being charged another $10 to explore just a single new one? And now that we’ve maxed out our characters in games like Fallout 3 and Fable II, what’s the point of even playing these new diversions? Did people really think the Mass Effect DLC was worth its price? It’s like you buy a $10 movie ticket, and then buy another $2 ticket to go watch 10 minutes of footage of the characters in the movie you like doing something completely separate from the movie where it’s not part of the plot, has no relevance, nor does it contribute anything to the movie itself.

2. Paid DLC segments the userbase for online games
Games like Halo 3, Gears of War, and Call of Duty 4 have had map packs released that cost about $10 or so for a few new maps. But did we really sit down to think how this works out? When everyone buys a game, everyone has that map. But then when DLC comes out and only a fraction of the people buy the map, those are the only people you will end up playing with if you bought the map packs. Now you have a segment of the online audience playing the core maps, and another segment playing the core maps and the DLC maps. That’s all great but it screws over friends who can/want to buy the new maps versus the ones that don’t. Everyone has to pay or no one does in order for everyone to play together. Why not just make it all free like it is on the PC?

3. Paid DLC is just a fix for developers not finishing their game
Paid DLC is an easy way out for developer strapped on time as a consequence of poor management of the project. With the advent of title updates, we already have to deal with developers skipping thorough testing because they know they can always patch our games later down the road. But now with paid DLC, they even just cut out entire levels in their games if they’re running short on time. After all, that not only gives them a nice extension on their poorly organized release, but also gives them some extra money while they’re at it. (See Tomb Raider: Underworld.)

4. Paid DLC is an easy way for developers to make an extra buck
Horse armor anyone? If you remember Oblivion’s first DLC, there was an uproar over Bethesda Softworks trying to charge a couple dollars to simply put an armor texture on your horse. That was it. While the industry has since learned from that fiasco, that hasn’t stopped their decision to release new character costumes that you can buy for a couple dollars (see Ninja Gaiden II, Dead Space). This is honestly no different than the horse armor but I guess because it is the character you are controlling, players are less prone to complain. I still think it’s a rip-off all around since it really takes an insignificant amount of time to simply add a new art texture into the game.

5. Paid DLC is an easy way for developers to hold features ransom
The best example of this is Soul Calibur IV. This game came out with Yoda exclusive to the Xbox 360 version and Darth Vader exclusive to the PS3 version. Fans were asking if there was any way to unlock the other character on their system and Namco continued to deny it. Well, just when the game dropped from popularity, Namco released a $5 DLC to allow you to unlock the other Star Wars character on your console. Great. This character could have already been included, but was intentionally withheld simply to force users to buy it later. And what about times when you see paid DLC that’s the size of less than a meg? It means the content was sitting right there on your disc already but the developers decided to lock it so you’d have to pay for it. Games like the Dance Dance Revolution Universe series and Virtua Fighter 5 are guilty of this. If that’s not the biggest slap in the face, I don’t know what is.

In summary, for the most part I think paid DLC is a terrible “evolution” in gaming. It’s a monetizing of gaming not unlike the airline industry where we now have to pay for food, pillows, blankets, check our bags, or to even pick our own seats. The problem though, is that we’ve grown to accept it. When companies that are used to giving free content to their userbase on the PC (like Epic and Valve) want to do it on the 360, Microsoft will rarely let them. It now becomes Microsoft’s decision to price stuff accordingly because if they let companies that want to give out maps for free but other companies are charging, it makes everything seem out of wack. But unlike the airline industry where we have to fly, we don’t have to buy DLC. So I will continue my lone crusade and boycott buying any and all DLC content.

Correct me if I’m wrong, cmfl3x!

Well, espion4ge, unfortunately I can’t disagree with you completely, but I do think DLC does have its strong points. I probably will get Operation: Anchorage, eventually, but I’m trying to decide whether to wait for Broken Steel, the third DLC for Fallout 3 coming in March, first. Broken Steel will raise the level cap so I can at least get experience from Operation: Anchorage.

Honestly, your reasons for hating DLC are pretty valid, so I’m not going to try to refute them here. In fact, it really annoys me too when companies use DLC to make up for not finishing development on time. I pass on those kinds of DLC. Also, the nickel and dime DLC, like the new character in Castle Crashers, or new outfits for my avatar are the kinds of things I stay away from. I’d probably say, though, that monetized DLC is here to stay (which you know), and in some ways, it’s a necessary evil.

The fact of the matter is, we live in terrible economic times, which everyone knows. Developers and publishers are losing money just like everyone else, and they need ways to sustain themselves cheaply, and DLC is an answer to that. Gaming companies have been laying people off in droves. Without extra income from DLC, who knows whether some of these developers will even still be around in a year or so? That might sound over dramatic, but I don’t think it’s that far away from reality.

Meanwhile, I think there are some legitimate ways that companies can pull off DLC and not rip off consumers. I think a good example is GTAIV’s upcoming The Lost and the Damned. Liberty City is an amazingly well put together location, and the idea of basically creating another “game” to be played in it makes sense to me. Liberty City is a game world that deserves to have another story told in it. Sure, it’s not part of the main story, but it’s basically like buying an Arcade game that takes advantage of a pre-rendered game world.

Another factor at play is, consumers want more from their games and want to go deeper into the experience. The main game in Fallout 3 dropped hints about another city called The Pitt that was overrun by ghouls. As I was playing the game, I found myself interested in seeing how the nuclear war had affected some other cities. Well, then two months later Bethesda announces that the 2nd DLC for Fallout 3 will be The Pitt! Clever in-game marketing? Obviously. But the fact is, it’s the developer’s job to make me want to buy the DLC. In this case, I think they’ve done a good job.

Ultimately, I think it’s important to realize that video games are a business. Very few companies think like Valve, who is incredible about putting out new, free content for their users. And like you said, Microsoft forces Valve to charge for content that Valve releases on the PC for free. But you could argue that even Valve has been charging for DLC with Episodes 1 and 2 of Half Life 2 (although the Orange Box made up for all of that).

I respect your decision not to buy DLC, because when it comes down to it, companies will only put out DLC if people will buy it. Unfortunately, just like things like Wii Play, people buy DLC for all sorts of reasons that aren’t really in hardcore gamers’ control. I’m sure there are people who love buying new outfits for their characters or their horses. Which means that like it or not, DLC is here to stay. As for me, I’ll let the developers convince me that their DLC is worth it, and if I think it is, then I’ll probably buy it.

A question for you, do you buy DLC for Rock Band?

Rock Band is a different case, and while I mentioned that I did have some Rock Band DLC in my original writeup, I decided to remove it when sharing my thoughts with you because I figured you would bring that point forward as at least one legitimate defense for paid DLC.

I have bought several Rock Band DLC tracks – probably about 15 or so songs. They are actually the only DLC I’ve ever bought for the 360, and I think that for the most part paid DLC in Rock Band is fine. This is because Rock Band is more about the music than the actual game. People want to sing and play instruments to songs they like, and with such a varied taste in music from one consumer to another, this is really the only possible solution.

For me, I tend to like pop rock bands from the 90s and up, so stuff like Weezer, Green Day (where is Green Day content anyway?!), Fallout Boy, All-American Rejects, etc. are my bread and butter for music games.

It would certainly be nice if all of the Rock Band DLC was free, but I understand that there’s a cost to licensing the use of the song, work needs to be done in making it playable by 4 people, etc. It’s not the same as an additional minor diversion to the main game. it’s very much a part of the main game since some people may just play the same 10 songs they bought for the life of their Rock Band game and that’s all they wanted to do. I tend to skip all the heavy metal songs in Rock Band so paid DLC is my only real option to enjoy the game how I best want to.

But what concerns me about Rock Band (and Guitar Hero) is that with how much money they’re making in DLC, the developers would intentionally withhold highly requested songs from sequels simply so they could charge for them separately later. Take for example, the 20 promised free DLC tracks with Rock Band 2 purchase. People were all excited about the songs and then we find out that no one has even heard of these songs or even the groups themselves. There could have been more well-known bands on that list of 20 songs, but they were probably held back to be charged for later. I’m just concerned that Rock Band 3, for example, may not have as good of a playlist as it should simply because the developers are intentionally withholding songs to sell later. It’s a minor issue though, since I probably get more out of a $2 song in Rock Band than a $10 island in Fable II.

Seriously, where IS Green Day!?

2 dollars for 4 instruments worth of gameplay really is a pretty good deal. What would be the absolute worst, I think, is if not only they hold back the good songs, but they start charging a premium for them. Say 3 dollars instead of 2. Especially with the way things have been going on iTunes lately, that could be a possibility, and wouldn’t be a good one.

I think ultimately you are probably right that DLC is another example of companies trying to rip us off. I wish I could have the same moral standards as you, but when it comes to being a consumer I am mostly a sucker: If they hype it and it sounds good I’ll probably buy it. I try to exact my revenge by buying games on sale. Small consolation, I know.

Since money is tighter these days, I will pick and choose what I purchase, especially for download, carefully. I’ve decided definitively to hold off on Operation: Anchorage right now. Though I would love to bust some communist heads, that level cap is a real bummer. I’m also more interested in what The Pitt and Broken Steel have to offer anyway, especially since Broken Steel supposedly extends the storyline a bit (plus fighting alongside the Brotherhood is cool).

Until then, I probably won’t even consider buying any DLC. Unless Valve comes out with some new maps for Left 4 Dead. Man, wouldn’t new maps for Left 4 Dead at least TEMPT you? What if they were like, 5 bucks? Just kidding…you should stick to your morals…maybe. [Editor's note: This discussion of Left 4 Dead DLC was before Wednesday's news that it would be free on the PC and 360.]

Left 4 Dead is a tough choice – especially if I see that PC gamers get all the stuff for free and we have to pay $10. I’ll probably pass, as once again, my morals are telling me that if I submit and pay the $10, it puts me down a slippery slope for buying DLC. Maybe I’ll just save that $10 and put it towards the PC version of the game.

I do want to go back to one point you mentioned earlier though, and that is how the current economic climate is bad so companies need to release paid DLC to help make some money to stay afloat. But if you think about it, the income from the paid DLC is only a tiny fraction of retail sales. Is it really worth it to charge for this stuff considering the good will and fanbase the companies could garner by just making the DLC free? I’m fiercely loyal to Blizzard, and am now starting to be pretty loyal to Valve too. These are companies that certainly don’t release paid DLC and thrive in today’s economy. Anything they release, I’ll buy. Don’t other companies want that level of appeal? Having such a strong fanbase that you can actually hold conventions with $100 tickets and still sell out?

In a way, this current economic climate may benefit us hardcore gamers. Being hardcore generally means we are well-versed in gaming and are serious about it. Isn’t it better if game companies die off as a result of releasing mundane games in a struggling economy since we won’t buy them? It’s during this time that the companies would have to “bring it” and release games that aren’t shovelware. If the game is good, it should sell itself right?

I remember how BioShock was almost canceled because no publisher was willing to pick up the game. They all thought it would not sell but it instead went on to become game of the year last year and sold millions. I guess this discussion is almost moving towards a discussion on whether DLC should even be charged for. And I honestly don’t think it should be. Maybe it seems harsh, but I want companies that release bad games to fail – not to extend their life by nickle and diming us. In a way, it has similarities to the banks these days asking for a bailout of taxpayers’ money for mistakes they made. It just so happens that our bailout for mediocre games these days is paid DLC. I’m not bailing out anyone!!

Yeah, I guess it all comes down to the different philosophies of different companies. Blizzard and Valve have both proven they can make boatloads of money by putting the consumer first. EA has proven it can make boatloads of money by continuously putting out sequels to mediocre games. And as you pointed out in your Mirror’s Edge review, when they tried something different they got burned financially. That’s why these companies like bailouts. Brilliant analogy, btw.

But maybe you’re right, the lower tier companies trying to nickel and dime us with DLC and cheap sequels might end up losing out and shutting down. Like, who is seriously going to buy the Prince of Persia DLC? (Actually, I don’t want to know the answer. Plus Ubisoft isn’t small, although no one is safe). As for me, I won’t mind buying DLC if it’s for a game I really love. But the funny thing about this little debate is I can’t think of a single piece of DLC that I have bought outside of Rock Band! I got all the Halo maps for free thru various machinations I think.

But yea, I can still fight for DLC at some level in principle because I will eventually purchase something for Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead and not lose too much sleep over it.

Yeah – looks like we all just have to coexist in a happy medium of some companies not charging while others do. I think that my thoughts on the matter are obviously more skewed towards being a hardcore gamer, and remember how things were “back in the day”. Maybe this generation is a bit different now, especially with the amount of casual gamers playing these days. For all we know, it could be the casual gamers that are buying most of this paid DLC. I remember how appalled I was a while back that EA was selling DLC that would just unlock features of a game in case you found it too hard. What the heck? But they are still doing it even today, with Skate 2′s paid DLC. So apparently people buy it! Maybe not you and me, but I guess it’s the same idea as people in MMORPG’s paying real money for in-game gold. The hardcore gamer would never stoop to such levels, but maybe the casual gamers are what are lining the pockets of these mediocre game developers on the 360…

I can’t remember the last time I spent one hundred hours on a single videogame. Some have been close – I spent about 80 hours on Call of Duty 4 due to its addictive multiplayer, and maybe 50 or so hours in Lost Odyssey. But I spent tons of time in those games because of the online play and natural length of an RPG. But when was the last time you spent 100 hours on a single-player only action/adventure game? I don’t think I ever have.

If I were to sum up Ninja Gaiden 2, I would say that the game succeeds in being the most hardcore and satisfying action/adventure game of this console generation, but it is slightly marred by poor design decisions and technical issues that could have been prevented.

Good:
- combat system is probably the best I’ve ever played for an action/adventure game
- excellent presentation
- carnage and gore that you makes you feel like a total badass

Bad:
- camera angle not ideal
- over-reliance on cheap projectile-based enemies for extra difficulty
- technical hiccups/glitches more prevalent than expected

Intro
To many, Ninja Gaiden (and its remake, Ninja Gaiden Black) was the pinnacle of the hardcore action-adventure game from last generation. The game scored very highly among reviewers and players alike, with the only issue people had was its difficulty. It was a game that sent many controllers flying, but the purists agree that Ninja Gaiden was never cheap. If you died or took damage, it was your own fault. It was perhaps the perfect game that really felt like what a versus fighter would play like if it became an action-adventure game.

Team Ninja, the developers behind Ninja Gaiden and Ninja Gaiden 2 (as well as the Dead or Alive games), is not without controversy though. The lead on the team, Tomonobu Itagaki, is well-known since he comes off extremely cocky and wears sunglasses all the time – he pretty much exudes the “rockstar” persona wherever he goes. He is also very vocal about how much he hates Tekken, as well as quoting that Devil May Cry’s fighting engine pales in comparison to Ninja Gaiden. Suffice to say, he is very outspoken but has always been very loyal to Microsoft with the Xbox and the Xbox 360.

Sadly, there may never be a Ninja Gaiden 3, at least, not from Tomonobu Itagaki or the core Team Ninja team. In the weeks leading up to Ninja Gaiden 2′s release, it was odd to hear Itagaki saying that the PS3 release of Ninja Gaiden Sigma (a remake of Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox) was terrible. Granted, Itagaki had nothing to do with it, but it was somewhat odd to hear an employee criticize a Tecmo colleage for making a crap game. And when asked if Itagaki would release a Ninja Gaiden 3, he declined, saying Ninja Gaiden 2 was perfect and would be his swan song.

Little did we know what was actually happening behind the scenes. At the release of Ninja Gaiden 2, Itagaki not only announced his resignation from Tecmo, but sued the company as well for back-wages that he was not paid for Dead or Alive 4. Many people thought he was just a big crybaby and it seemed fitting with his “rockstar” persona, but a few days later, pretty much the entire Team Ninja staff sued Tecmo as well for the same back-wages. With practically the entire team suing Tecmo, Tecmo stock dropped significantly and there were whispers all around that Tecmo was in some serious trouble. Japanese employees don’t sue left and right like in America, so such a lawsuit probably has a lot of merit. This may thus be the final Ninja Gaiden game ever released. Does it go out with a bang?

Bosses are plentiful throughout the game, with generally two bosses per stage.

Storyline and Premise
While the original NES Ninja Gaiden games had a great storyline told through cinematic style cutscenes (very rare on the NES), these newer iterations of Ninja Gaiden games on the Xbox and the 360 don’t have much. The female lead in Ninja Gaiden II is different from the first one on the Xbox, but it doesn’t really matter as the storyline is miniscule and its predecessor doesn’t have to even be played to enjoy this sequel.

The focus is on Ryu Hayabusa, the last of the Dragon Ninja clan, as he chases after a demon statue stolen from his clan by the Black Spider Ninja clan. As Ryu progresses through the game, he discovers that the Black Spider Ninja Clan is only a minor threat since the demon statue was stolen to pass on to demons. These demons end up as various bosses that Ryu has to fight in each level as he makes his way to the “ultimate demon boss.”

The game is a lengthy one – 14 chapters with each clocking in around 30-45 minutes. The 30-45 minutes also don’t even take into account the amount of time spent replaying every time you die. Counting retries and such, it probably seems more like about an hour per chapter, and this is just on the easiest difficulty. There are four different difficulty levels in Ninja Gaiden II: Acolyte, Warrior, Mentor, and Master Ninja. Each difficulty level increase generally marks up the price of healing items, as well as adds more enemies in various sections. For example, a boss on Acolyte level may appear by itself, but in Warrior, it may have two or three henchmen, making things more difficult.

Each weapon in Ninja Gaiden 2 has a completely different fighting style.

Gameplay Mechanics
Combat
The hallmark of Ninja Gaiden II is its combat system, one that has been refined since the previous one on the Xbox and unlike any other action/adventure game out there. While a typical ninja game would have you focusing on being more stealthy (i.e. Tenchu), Ninja Gaiden II eschews that by pretty much making you a ninja “superhero” starring in an explosive action game by pitting you against intense swarms of enemies.

First the defense: Ryu is very agile in Ninja Gaiden II, and while he spent a lot of the previous game blocking, that’s not really as much of an option in Ninja Gaiden II because the enemies throw you when you block. Instead, when you hold down the block button and move the left stick, he quickly darts in that direction. So you can find yourself darting all over the place very quickly, and it is vital to fight bosses this way. Most bosses will lunge at you to perform a combo, and you have to dart to dodge it and strike when there’s a small second opening after his attack misses. This is not unlike a traditional 3D fighter where you see open frames caused by an opponent’s missed attack.

For offense, there’s simply a weak attack and a strong attack, along with various combinations that can be performed based on the order that you attack. In addition, holding down the strong button long enough sends Ryu into a charge up motion where he can’t move or attack, but if he charges up enough he’ll have a blue vacuum (lvl 1 ultimate) surrounding him. Release the charged button and he’ll lunge at the nearest enemy, slicing away about ten times while being invincible with what is known as an “Ultimate Technique.” If Ryu charges up longer past the blue vacuum, he’ll eventually get into the red vacuum (lvl 2 ultimate), which is the strongest Ultimate Technique, hitting for about 16 hits and often times dismembering the enemy in the air at the end. Using Ultimate Techniques is the way to go in the game, as it’s practically an “instakill” on enemies but the only problem with that is that when you’re charging up and can’t move or attack, you can be knocked out of the charge by various incoming attacks.

One thing to note about enemies dying is they generally always leave behind an orb. The orb can be yellow, red, or blue. Yellow orbs are the currency in the game (allowing you to buy healing items and upgrade weapons in the game’s shop) while red refills the mana bar and blue refills the health bar. What makes the game possible to chain Ultimate Techniques is that by holding down the charge button, any orbs in the area will get drawn into Ryu. If a yellow orb is drawn in, it automatically brings him into a level 1 Ultimate Technique, while if he draws in a red or a blue one, it will give him the level 2 Ultimate immediately. Therefore, the optimal way to play the game is to kill an enemy, charge up and pull in the orb, release and kill the next enemy, charge up and get that enemy’s orb, and so on until you’ve cleared the room full of enemies. Of course, it becomes a lot more difficult when there are various enemies in the room shooting projectiles at you.

New to Ninja Gaiden II is the concept of limb dismemberment and Obliteration Techniques. Basically, any enemy that you attack carries with it a probability of one of its limbs being sliced off. If you manage to slice an enemy’s arm or leg off, they become even more dangerous, resorting to more damaging attacks because they already know they’re going to die. For example, they may jump on your back, and ram a sword through you and them, or jump on you and explode with their bomb. The way to counter this is with the new Obliteration Technique, which basically is a simple fatality you can pull in the game. Any enemy who has had a limb cut off (or in some instances, their head cut off but still walking around) is succeptable to the technique. Simply get near the enemy and hit the strong attack button. This brings Ryu into an invincible “finishing move” animation, where he’ll generally make sure the enemy is dead by doing something like cutting the legs off the enemy and then his head. It’s gruesome but totally cool at the same time.

Weapons
The great thing about the weapon system in Ninja Gaiden II (and the previous one as well) is that each weapon has its own moveset. It’s not like in some games where if you get a different weapon it simply does more damage or has longer reach but your moveset remains the same. In Ninja Gaiden II, each of the weapons has its own fighting style, with some being more effective against certain enemies than others.

The list of weapons for Ninja Gaiden II include:
- Dragon Sword
- Eclipse Scythe
- Tonfas (batons)
- Kusari-gama (chained blades)
- Falcon’s Talon (claws)
- Lunar Staff
- Vigoorian Flail (bladed nunchucks)
- Dragon’s Claw and Tiger’s Fang (dual-swords)

The Dragon Sword is still the most well-rounded weapon, but the Falcon’s Talon claws has much faster combos which are more effective for smaller, more agile enemies. The Eclipse Scythe, a massive weapon, is slow but optimal to slice into larger hulking demons that don’t get stunned as easily from Dragon Sword attacks.

Projectile Weapons & Ninpo
Besides melee weapons, Ryu has a choice of various projectile weapons and magic spells he comes across in the game. By default he starts with unlimited ninja stars, but they are generally weak and not useful. The bow seems to be the most used projectile weapon for him in the game, whether it’s to fight against bosses, shoot targets, or take on flying enemies.

The list of complete projectile weapons are:
- Shuriken
- Incendiary Shuriken
- Windmill Shuriken
- Fiend’s Bane Bow
- Gatling Spear Gun

The Shuriken, the Gatling Spear Gun (underwater use only) and the Windmill Shuriken (a large boomerange shuriken) have unlimited ammo while the Incendiary Shuriken and Bow’s arrows can either be found during play or restocked at item shops.

There are also four different magic spells that Ryu can learn, which are generally useful only for crowd control:
- Art of the Inferno
- Art of the Wind Blades
- Art of the Piercing Void
- Art of the Flame Phoenix

Once Ryu finds his first magic spell, a magic meter appears below his lifebar, which is defaulted to three blocks. Each time he casts a spell, one of the blocks is used. When enemies randomly leave behind red orbs, each red orb will fill one empty magic block up. Both the projectile weapons and the spells are actually not that powerful, and only useful once in a while. Ryu will spend most of his time killing with his melee weapons.

Karma
Karma points were introduced in Ninja Gaiden 1 on the Xbox and are still present in Ninja Gaiden II. Karma points are basically style points and used to compare “Ninja Gaiden II skill” on the leaderboards. Every time you beat a level, you are given a Karma score and asked whether you wish to upload your Karma score to Live. By doing so, you can see where you stand compared to others.

Higher Karma is achieved with high combos along with long chains of ultimate techniques. If you simply just run through the game slicing guys with no combos, your Karma score will be low. It’s neat to see videos of players with high Karma scores, because they’ll plow through enemies in a very impressive manner, often times playing quite skillfully for the most optimal scoring route.

Large weapons, like the scythe, are more effective against larger enemies like these werewolves.

Achievement System
The Achievement system in the game is pretty much perfect. There are simple progression Achievements that you get the first time you beat each of the 14 levels, but and Achievements for beating the game on any difficulty. Of course, in order to unlock the harder difficulties, you have to beat the game on the lower difficulties first. Besides the associated Achievement for beating the game on the hardest difficulty, there is also a Gamerpic reward, making many strive towards clearing the game multiple times for that elusive Gamerpic.

There are also Achievements for beating the game using only one of the eight weapons the entire game, so if you wanted all 1000 Achievement points, you would most likely have to go through the game around ten times or more – eight times for each of the different weapons and four times for each difficulty. I found this to be slightly excessive, but then again, the developers are getting you to try out each of the weapons, which at the end of the day is probably a good thing.

With the game being quite lengthy (and it doesn’t contain any artificial length due to “back tracking” like the previous game), expect players to spend nearly a hundred hours on this game to get all Achievements. That’s a serious amount of commitment for an action/adventure game, but Ninja Gaiden II is good for it. The game’s combat is so fun that I can’t imagine not enjoying multiple playthroughs.

Yes, that really is the guy’s leg you just cut off and it’s flying through the air.

Final Thoughts
While the gameplay is quite fun and challenging, it is perhaps too challenging at even the easiest difficulty. In a time where most games these days cater more towards “user friendly game experiences”, it’s somewhat refreshing to see a game like Ninja Gaiden II where it’s not only satisfying to play, but constantly challenging. It’s like you can play the easiest difficulty, which will be considered challenging, then it only gets worse from there. But once you get how to play the game, it all clicks into place and it’s beatable. You get frustrated at the game, but over time you get better. I beat the easiest difficulty and thought that was tough, but after putting in enough hours, I learned the nuances of the game and was able to even beat it on the hardest difficulty (of course, it took me about 100 hours, but I had fun all the way through).

I give the game an A-. It’s a hardcore game that is a lot of fun to play, a great length, tons of replay value, and well-thought out Achievements. It leans on the more difficult side for a game, and that can be arguably good or bad, depending on how the player is. The main issue preventing this game from being perfect is that I can’t help but feel it was somewhat hastily released, most likely because Itagaki knew he was going to quit the company right after.

It’s possible to see some glitches in the game or slowdown that should have been caught in QA such as monsters freezing, framerate dropping to a crawl in some areas, etc. Even the camera itself is a little too close to Ryu, making it hard to see who he is fighting at times because you can’t zoom out further. If the technical hiccups and camera were fixed, the game could have easily scored an A for me. The addition of an even easier difficulty than what is offered would have allowed for a broader audience, making this a serious contendor for the 360 game of the year in my book. Unfortunately, it falls a little short, which is disappointing, considering how polished and amazing the first game was. The second game is still amazing, or even more amazing in terms of combat, but it just lacks the overall polish the first one had. The game is still worth trying out though, for those of you that feel gaming has gotten too easy these days.