Three Reviews
When I moved back to the States four months ago, I was eager for the release of three major video games, next-generation entertainment products that would let me exploit the New World on behalf of a colonial power, lead my people from the Stone Age to the Space Age, or pick up an M16 to fight for God and country in the Middle East or China. Here are my thumbnail reviews:
"Age of Empires III" was the title I was most looking forward to, yet it turned out to be the most disappointing. Jaw-dropping graphics and detailed animations couldn't make up for core gameplay mechanics that have been basically the same since the original game. The addition of the "home city" was a nice twist, but doesn't really change the underlying fact that you still send out your little villagers to mine gold, chop down trees, gather food, and build lots of structures. Also, the single player game is incredibly hard, and I repeatedly found myself wiped off the map before I could even master the basic game skills. C+.
"Civilization IV", on the other hand, is a fantastic example of how to take an existing concept and refresh it so it seems entirely new. You can play as one of more than a dozen civilizations, each with different attributes that incline you to progress down a certain path of development. The graphics are very good, but not near the caliber of "Age of Empires III". That doesn't matter, though, as the presentation is just top-notch. One totally cool touch is the ability to zoom out until you can view the entire planet, a la Google Earth, rotating slowly on its axis. It's a small thing but very rewarding. I played "Civ IV" every night for a couple hours -- no small committment when you've just moved into a new home from overseas with a wife and 4-year-old kid. It took 12 hours to go through a campaign that was conducted on a "small" world with only four other civilizations. I am eager to try it out on a "large" world. It gets an A. But one thing has gotten in the way:
"Battlefield 2". This game simply excels in every way and has been one of the most addicting games I've ever played. Since getting it about two months ago I really haven't played anything else, not even "Civ IV" or "Halo 2". The graphics are simply stunning. With my new Kick-Ass Computer I've been able to play with almost all the settings on "high", with extraordinary results. Several times I've just had to stop and admire the scenery, such as when as a sniper I climbed a hill and had a view of a shrub-covered valley lit by a setting sun. But such visual feasts are just one part of a visceral experience that is frentic, exhilarating and at times terrifying.
The first time you spawn in a game online, you will be pretty convinced that you are in an actual warzone. Bullets nick the walls around you, artillery explodes around the corner, and armored vehicles rumble past kicking up dust. And then you die. And die. And die again. Dying becomes a very familiar routine in "BF2". There are single-player missions, but the real fun is against other humans online. Most of these humans are much better than you. They will kill you frequently and in embarrassing ways, such as with defibrilator shock paddles.
But eventually you get better. You learn the maps -- about half a dozen in urban Middle Eastern settings and half a dozen in more open-spaced Chinese surroundings. You learn to run for cover when the helicopters come. You learn that tank battles are determined by who gets the first shot off. You learn how to play for kills and how to play for points (you can play different kinds of specialists and you get points for doing what they are supposed to do, i.e., heal people if you're a medic, deliver ammo if you're support, fix vehicles if you're an engineer).
I suppose I have two minor quibbles with the game. First, the online setup makes no differentiation between veteran and novice players. This was probably done to more closely mimic actual battlefield conditions where you have seasoned vets mixed in with green recruits. Still, it is frustruating to get mowed down so frequently in the early going by some guy who's already logged 100 hours of playtime. It would be nice to at least have the option of playing with folks of a similar level, like the matchmaking system in "Halo 2". Secondly, it is too hard to score unlocks. You can unlock one weapon each time you win a promotion, starting with your second promotion. This means that in two months, I have unlocked exactly two weapons. And those unlockable weapons do provide a distinct advantage over the default kit, so it further widens the gap between vets and newcomers. Regardless, the game is a solid A.
I can't recommoned "Battlefield 2" enough to those who like war games or first-person shooters. And if you're in to real-time strategy, "Civilization IV" is an amazing pick. I still suspect that "Age of Empires III" holds some promise, but with two other incredible timewasters already in hand, I just can't be bothered to keep trying.
"Age of Empires III" was the title I was most looking forward to, yet it turned out to be the most disappointing. Jaw-dropping graphics and detailed animations couldn't make up for core gameplay mechanics that have been basically the same since the original game. The addition of the "home city" was a nice twist, but doesn't really change the underlying fact that you still send out your little villagers to mine gold, chop down trees, gather food, and build lots of structures. Also, the single player game is incredibly hard, and I repeatedly found myself wiped off the map before I could even master the basic game skills. C+.
"Civilization IV", on the other hand, is a fantastic example of how to take an existing concept and refresh it so it seems entirely new. You can play as one of more than a dozen civilizations, each with different attributes that incline you to progress down a certain path of development. The graphics are very good, but not near the caliber of "Age of Empires III". That doesn't matter, though, as the presentation is just top-notch. One totally cool touch is the ability to zoom out until you can view the entire planet, a la Google Earth, rotating slowly on its axis. It's a small thing but very rewarding. I played "Civ IV" every night for a couple hours -- no small committment when you've just moved into a new home from overseas with a wife and 4-year-old kid. It took 12 hours to go through a campaign that was conducted on a "small" world with only four other civilizations. I am eager to try it out on a "large" world. It gets an A. But one thing has gotten in the way:
"Battlefield 2". This game simply excels in every way and has been one of the most addicting games I've ever played. Since getting it about two months ago I really haven't played anything else, not even "Civ IV" or "Halo 2". The graphics are simply stunning. With my new Kick-Ass Computer I've been able to play with almost all the settings on "high", with extraordinary results. Several times I've just had to stop and admire the scenery, such as when as a sniper I climbed a hill and had a view of a shrub-covered valley lit by a setting sun. But such visual feasts are just one part of a visceral experience that is frentic, exhilarating and at times terrifying.
The first time you spawn in a game online, you will be pretty convinced that you are in an actual warzone. Bullets nick the walls around you, artillery explodes around the corner, and armored vehicles rumble past kicking up dust. And then you die. And die. And die again. Dying becomes a very familiar routine in "BF2". There are single-player missions, but the real fun is against other humans online. Most of these humans are much better than you. They will kill you frequently and in embarrassing ways, such as with defibrilator shock paddles.
But eventually you get better. You learn the maps -- about half a dozen in urban Middle Eastern settings and half a dozen in more open-spaced Chinese surroundings. You learn to run for cover when the helicopters come. You learn that tank battles are determined by who gets the first shot off. You learn how to play for kills and how to play for points (you can play different kinds of specialists and you get points for doing what they are supposed to do, i.e., heal people if you're a medic, deliver ammo if you're support, fix vehicles if you're an engineer).
I suppose I have two minor quibbles with the game. First, the online setup makes no differentiation between veteran and novice players. This was probably done to more closely mimic actual battlefield conditions where you have seasoned vets mixed in with green recruits. Still, it is frustruating to get mowed down so frequently in the early going by some guy who's already logged 100 hours of playtime. It would be nice to at least have the option of playing with folks of a similar level, like the matchmaking system in "Halo 2". Secondly, it is too hard to score unlocks. You can unlock one weapon each time you win a promotion, starting with your second promotion. This means that in two months, I have unlocked exactly two weapons. And those unlockable weapons do provide a distinct advantage over the default kit, so it further widens the gap between vets and newcomers. Regardless, the game is a solid A.
I can't recommoned "Battlefield 2" enough to those who like war games or first-person shooters. And if you're in to real-time strategy, "Civilization IV" is an amazing pick. I still suspect that "Age of Empires III" holds some promise, but with two other incredible timewasters already in hand, I just can't be bothered to keep trying.
<< Home