Recent reviews by nullPointer

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is the second chapter in the ongoing saga of the inimitable assassin Ezio Auditore.  In many ways this game dials in the scope of the story of Ezio while continuing to refine and expand upon gameplay elements present in the Assassin’s Creed series.
 
The story in Brotherhood picks up immediately where Assassins Creed 2 (henceforth referred to as AC2) left off.  I'll avoid spoilers, but if you complete AC2, and are wondering what happens next, it's worthwhile to immediately play at least the first chapter of Brotherhood while the events of AC2 are still fresh in your mind.  As I mentioned, the story in Brotherhood dials back the grandeur and epic nature of the story in AC2.  Whereas the story in AC2 takes place over the course of a 10 year timespan occurring all over Italy, Brotherhoods plays out over a comparably meagre 4 years and only in the location of Rome.  As a result Brotherhood loses some of that epic sense of scale we saw in the second game.  Assassins's Creed 2 introduced us to Ezio in a tale of loss, struggle, and ultimately redemption within a general narrative framework that (more or less) follows the traditional structure of the Heroes Journey.  For better or worse the narrative structure in Brotherhood is more or less flat; the Ezio we see at the beginning to the game is still the same old Ezio we see when the credits roll.  Admittedly it would have been a tall order for Brotherhood to raise the stakes for Ezio relative to the events in AC2.  Unfortunately this leaves the events that transpire in Brotherhood feeling a bit like an epilogue to the 'main story' occurring in AC2. 
 
In Brotherhood we once again find ourselves fighting the Borgias although these particular members of the family seemingly pop up from nowhere.  From a historical perspective it makes sense that these Borgias would have been a threat to the fictional world of Ezio, but in terms of gameplay it would have been nice to at least have some reference to these folks in AC2, so as to maintain series continuity (granted I do understand this sort of series planning doesn't often happen that far in advance).  The main Borgia from AC2 does makes an appearance in Brotherhood as well, but it’s only slightly more than a couple of cameos.  After all the time spent in AC2 tracking this man down, Ezio actually has very little to do with how that thread resolves itself.  So that’s a bit disappointing.  As it is the newly introduced Borgias wind up feeling like the "bad guys du jour".  The motivation for fighting them is provided clearly enough; it's just the enemies themselves seem to be randomly inserted into the mythos (unless you were already acquainted with the history of the Borgias in which case, yes I suppose this decision makes total sense.)
 
So let's talk about gameplay, because for the most part it is absolutely brilliant in Brotherhood.  Once again we are treated to the delightfully smooth responsiveness we saw in AC2, and maybe it's just me, but I feel like general mechanics and responsiveness have been even further improved upon here.  I didn't have nearly as many moments in which I felt Ezio jumped in completely unexpected directions.  Wall jumps are smoother and easier to execute reliably.  Not only that but the new gameplay elements introduced in Brotherhood, make the game all that much more enjoyable.  Horseback combat is the best that it’s ever been in the series, and horseback assassinations feel extremely satisfying.  The introduction of kill streaks makes standard combat even more dynamic and interesting.  The crossbow is a fantastic addition for stealth kills at a distance. And then of course there is the titular Brotherhood itself.  The 'game within the game' of building and managing a stable of Assassin's under your command is enjoyable and well executed.  Once you have a few talented assassins at your beck and call, it simultaneously introduces some game breaking elements and counterintuitively an undeniable feeling of exhilaration that comes with having a badass ninja posse at your disposal. You'd rather not deal with the gate guards in your way?  Just whistle for your homeboys to jump in with blades flashing and smoke bombs flying.  Don't feel like slugging it out with charging cavalry?  Call in an arrow storm.  The brotherhood introduces a really fun mechanic to play around with, which actually does help to further the narrative of Ezio transitioning from rank and file soldier to master assassin within the order.
 
So while there is an overwhelming amount of good involved in terms of gameplay, there's also a dash of the questionable.  This is the first game in the series to introduce the concept of 'memory synchronization'.  Essentially this means that you have to play missions in a certain way, or meet certain objectives during the mission, to reach full synchronization (read: full completion percentage).  Sometimes the full synchronization criterion makes sense.  "Kill only the main target" or "Kill your target with the hidden blade" for example.  Sure, that all sounds reasonably assassin-ish, and I can buy in to that.  But sometimes the goals feel tacked on and arbitrary at best ("Kill at least three enemy types with their own weapon ", " Kick your target"), and at worst they introduce an artificial sense of difficulty that would not exist otherwise ("Do not take damage while in the tank. " … a tank which happens to be an unresponsive heap of fetid frustration.  That's right Leonardo, if you're reading this; your tank is more worthless than a bag of farts at the bank).  While the Order of Assassin's preaches that, "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted, the game itself tells you in no uncertain terms that, "No in fact you're only permitted to accomplish this objective in one specific prescribed way".  It's not that memory synchronization is game breaking or anything, but it does take some getting used to (or potentially a lot of getting used to if you’re going for 100% completion).
 
Lastly be aware that there is a lot to do in this game.  This can be good or bad depending on how you feel about "artificially extending the experience".  So you've finished the story?  I don’t think so partner, go help Leonardo with this whole War Machine thing.  You're done with that?  Better figure out what the Cult of Romulus is up to!  Romulus is in remission?  Better go help some courtesans now!  Whoa, don't forget about those regression memories with Maria!  Have you completed any guild challenges?  Well get on it!  Don't forget to explore modern day Monteriggioni!  No wait, where are you going?!  You need to find and solve the Mystery of the Glyphs!  And on and on … Personally I don't mind this sort of thing.  AC: Brotherhood is a fun world, and it's fun to just goof around while completing some missions at the same time.  On the other hand, if you feel like the description above sounds like a grinding slog tacked on purely for the purpose of lengthening the game, well you might have a bad time in Brotherhood (unless you opt to ignore side missions completely which is also perfectly valid)
 
Overall Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood effectively expands and builds upon the Assassin's Creed universe with some really great gameplay choices.  While the story lacks some of the overarching grandeur we saw in AC2, it is still a nice expansion upon the story of Ezio and his exploits in Rome.

Richard and Alice strikes me as a hybrid mix of point & click adventure meets visual novel. Let's start out with the high points here. The story of Richard and Alice is absolutely compelling with a particular high note being the well written dialog between characters. The conversational segments in the game flow naturally and realistically. At no point did the dialog seem stilted or poorly written. This is a particularly notable feat when one considers the amount of dialog between Alice and her 5 (and a half!) year old son Barney. It's hard to write children's dialog between parent and child in such a way that it seems natural. Most novels can't get this sort of thing right, let alone the medium of video games. I think you almost have to be a parent yourself in order to effectively write this sort of dialog, and IMO Richard and Alice excels at it. Creating emotional connection between the player and the in game characters is critical to this games success, and thankfully it nails this part.

The game also presents itself as an interesting piece of sci-fi. The near future dystopia has been done to death for ages untold at this point, but Richard and Alice neatly avoids most of the typical tropes and clichés of this setting in that it never waves its world around in your face. The setting here merely serves as a backdrop for the unfolding human drama, but for the most part leaves the concrete dystopian details as part of that backdrop. It's a largely successful approach as it (rightly, IMO) assumes most players are sophisticated enough to be well versed in the rules of such a world by virtue of previous exposure in the form of other games, film, and books. It effectively tells you what you need to know of the world in order to move the plot along and leaves the rest to imagination.

The gameplay is largely successful but equally does falter in some areas. The point and click adventure elements here are fairly straight forward and rote. There are only three relatively confined areas to explore in the game (four if you're feeling exceedingly generous). Further, the level of interactivity in these areas is limited in such a way as to effectively move you from point A to point B in the story without a lot of tarrying about. If you're seeking a richly vibrant, highly interactive point & click title, Richard and Alice is not necessarily going to give you that. The world here exists as a plot device, and the interactive elements within that world are strictly limited to those that serve the plot in some way. So yes, this is a rather tightly wound narrative without the indulgence of unnecessary distractions. Having said that, Richard and Alice incorporates some interesting game mechanics in service to that world and to the general tone of the game. Much has been made of the fact that character movement feels extremely sluggish, and believe me it does, it really, really does. It's my opinion though, that this was a conscious decision on the part of the developers. The slow movement combined with the relentless sound of the snow ratchets up the tension and anxiety in the game, particularly when there are other characters in peril. It makes the world feel claustrophobic and as if it's actively working against you. It doesn't make it any less frustrating mind, but it is ultimately an effective decision.

The one other aspect of the game play that troubles me a bit is that of the multiple endings offered here. There are no less than five possible endings for Richard and Alice, which would seem to indicate the possibility of a branching story line. To be clear on this point, there are absolutely no branches along the way in this story. The ending you get is strictly based on rather arbitrary in-game choices that do not affect the narrative in progress whatsoever. So if you want to see the multiple endings, you'll play through the exact same story multiple times with the only points of differentiation being the endings themselves. It's as if you're reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book in which the only story deviation occurs in the final two pages of the book. Now to be clear the story is excellent, and IMO it does warrant at least one additional play through to pick up on the clues and hints that you may have missed the first time around. But to play through the game five times introduces a sense of drudgery and tedium, particularly when coupled with the slow character movement mentioned above. More damningly it also reduces some of the emotional wallop present in the game with each additional playthrough. Accordingly, if you're going for multiple playthroughs I'd recommend taking a suitable cool down period in betwixt.

I'd recommend this game to fans of visual novels (slightly more so than fans of adventure games), as well as to anyone who appreciates quality storytelling coupled with quality characterization in games, especially so this latter element.

If popular opinion is to be believed, Bioshock 2 is a game that suffers under the shadow of the remarkable first game in the series, which is mostly regarded as being the better of the two journeys into the depths of Rapture (that is, if one can actually classify separate journeys into the depths of madness and depravity as being somehow being “better” than one another). Some of this opinion is warranted, but in other crucial ways this game actually manages to outshine its older sibling.

Let’s talk a bit about story and setting, as I feel that these two elements define the heart of the Bioshock experience. Much like its antagonist, the first game was responsible for creating Rapture, the ugly, decrepit, and rusted out undersea dystopia. In Bioshock 2 well you’ll sure see more … of the same. The trouble with a setting like Rapture really is that it’s a bit self-contained, both literally and figuratively. It’s wonderfully detailed, and there are hundreds of stories to be told (as evidenced by the many audio diaries that reappear in this game), but it’s still a microcosm. So Bioshock 2 returns you to the same old Rapture you've seen before, to visit the same old menagerie of drug addled psychos you've set on fire before. In a lesser setting this might prove to be an issue, but that’s just it; the world of Rapture has enough texture and atmosphere that it can still stand strong even if you do have some sense of déjà vu upon your return. The weight of dread, hopelessness, and despair bears down on you every bit as much as the weight of the ocean around you, which in turn allows you to once again soak in the experience of Rapture.

In terms of story, your reaction may depend on how you feel about canon and its role in a larger story arc. Indeed there are some potential issues here in terms of overall canon. It takes some firm suspension of disbelief to swallow the premise that the Rapture we saw in the first game survived another 10 minutes after our first departure, much less another 8 years. The character of Sofia Lamb is bolted on to the canon in such a way that it begs the question, if Lamb was such a prominent figure in Rapture, why did we not hear of her in the first game? How are there still splicers down here, being that they seem to be a pretty nonfunctional self-destructive lot, and I can’t imagine that they’d be capable of reproduction (nor would I want to … ewww). So yes, there may be some issues with Bioshock 2 in terms of the overall canon of the series, but here’s the clincher, and a statement which may net me some detractors. If you can look past the minor issues above, the story in Bioshock 2 is actually better than the first game. Sorry Ken Levine, but the boys at 2K Marin may have managed to top the amazing story set forth in the original Bioshock. In the first Bioshock, one of the major premises of the game revolves around the question of, “Why am I doing this?” (And I’m hoping at least someone answered, “A man chooses, a slave obeys”). The original Bioshock is brilliant science fiction populated by a colorful rotating sideshow of psychotic freaks. But it missed a bit of the human element. In Bioshock2 you know immediately who you are (in a basic sense), what you must do, and crucially why you must do it. This opens up the opportunity for a more humanist approach to Rapture, being that the resolution of this tension allows for huge opportunities in characterization. And Bioshock 2 seizes upon that opportunity in spades. In the first game I was purely vested in the mystery itself which was great, but in this game I was actually attached to the characters as well. This manages to add some emotional heft to the story which I felt was missing a bit in the first game. (In truth this is probably helped by the fact that I myself am a parent, and the central themes of Bioshock 2 revolve heavily around what it means to be a parent … err … Daddy)

So how’s the gameplay? Well a lot like the first game, the difficulty curve here is a bit frontloaded. As you gain plasmids, tonics, and weapons upgrades the game becomes significantly easier. In some ways this is a bit unfortunate at least insofar as it would have been nice to feel that rush of badassery immediately upon stepping into the brass boots of a Big Daddy. As it is you start off a bit weak and underpowered, slowly growing into your role as a walking fortress. And that’s fine really. It wouldn’t be super-fun or challenging if you started out as the biggest badass in Rapture. Just as in the first game, Bioshock 2 really finds its groove when you start gaining power-ups to assist you in your endeavor, and it’s at this point that the gameplay absolutely shines. It’s still an absolute blast to figure out interesting and advantageous combinations of plasmids, tonics, and weapon upgrades in order to rain death upon the doomed denizens of Rapture.

There was one element of the first game that I did miss in Bioshock 2 which was the open world component. In the original Bioshock you felt the massiveness of Rapture in that you could travel from one end of the city to the other if you were so inclined. In Bioshock 2 your experience is firmly divided into a level-based structure. There are plot devices in place to help make some sense out of this particular element, but it warrants a mention. To say that the game plays on rails is an understatement, being that your conveyance between levels for half the game is in fact a train. It’s a minor thing, but I certainly would have loved to have the ability to return to previous levels for more in-depth exploration. Oddly I also found some issue with repetitive tasks in the game, which I feel is also partly related to its strictly structured levels. The way in which you’re tasked with the repetitive task(s) of rescuing a Little Sister, gathering Adam, dealing with the Little Sister, fighting Big Sister, wash, rinse, repeat … starts to feel a bit grind-y by the end of it. It also impacts the pacing of the story a bit. I think an open world setting might have relieved this issue somewhat in that it would have been nice to set my own agenda for handling the Little/Big sisters rather than being forced to handle everything in a level before moving onto the next without hope for return. Once again this is a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but one that definitely became noticeable to me. Luckily the combat allows for so much creativity and improvisation that this cycle rarely becomes a dreaded chore (despite my comments on grinding).

So there you have it. I must say that after two games of being trapped at the bottom of the ocean with the worst sort of abominations imaginable, I’m looking forward to taking my Bioshock experience to the sky in Bioshock Infinite, drifting through the clouds … with the worst sort of abominations imaginable.

At any rate I found Bioshock 2 to be an excellent game particularly suited for fans of dark science fiction and horror, as well as anyone that enjoys story driven first person shooters.

I enjoyed this game immensely. I played through the first title last year, and I enjoyed that one quite a lot as well, but every time I mentioned how much I enjoyed the first one, inevitably someone would retort, "Yes, but have you played the second one?" To be honest, I really didn't see where the second title in the series could be that much better than the first. I had seen gameplay videos and everything seemed fairly same-y. I get it now. I still stand by the first game as being an enjoyable experience, but ACII winds up being an immersive experience.

First and foremost the story in this game plays out on an epic scale. The first game was great in that it introduced the concepts integral to the series, but this game meticulously crafts those set pieces into an epic tale of revenge, redemption and growth. While Altair seemed a bit like a faceless soldier of the Assassin's Order, Ezio is a well rounded character with human strengths and flaws. Over the course of 10 years Ezio experiences ultimate loss, and absolution through the Order and through his own personal quest.

One of the things that's an amazing strength of this series is how it takes real historical people and places, and then interweaves them seamlessly into the mythology of the series. ACII is astounding in this regard. There is so much attention to detail that the entire game seems plausible, and further that you are witnessing a living breathing rendition of renaissance Italy and its colorful inhabitants.

Another aspect where the game shines is in it's attention to detail in terms of intricate conspiracies, playing out over the course of centuries. If you're a conspiracy buff, or a fan of works like The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, you will likely find plenty to enjoy here. There's just so much content to absorb regarding various political intrigues, and shady nefarious "illuminati type" groups manipulating world events behind the scenes. It's a game that rewards you for digging deeply into its sizable database of people, locations, documents, decodable glyphs and various other errata.

Naturally the the free running game play mechanics for which the series is famous for really shine here. The other core element of the gameplay is of course assassination, and it feels and plays here better than ever. For this outing Ezio sports two arm blades meaning that you can assassinate two targets simultaneously. Add to that the various new and assorted deadly gizmos at his disposal (provided to Ezio vis a vis a very famous Italian renaissance painter and inventor), and he's an extremely formidable opponent. In fact the game makes you feel like an absolute badass, regardless of whether you choose to take a stealth approach for minimum body count, or if you'd prefer hack and slash your way through the legions that oppose you (shock and awe!). You are a walking razor blade, and no one will stand in your way between you and your target. In regards to this latter point I should point out that the combat in this game has been improved significantly from that seen in the first game. Ultimately the gameplay in ACII feels natural, smooth and exhilerating.

One element Ubisoft added to this game which really shines, is that you're tasked with raiding the tombs of various famous assassins. These areas wear the Tomb Raider influence on their sleeves, but when you combine that with excellent freerunning mechanics, they are an absolute joy to play. They're basically like a puzzle based free running mini game. Awesome!

One misstep present in the first game, that also rears its head here, is that the analog controls can be very touchy at times during freerunning and climbing segments. I know I've raved about how good those sections are (and they really are), but sometimes Ezio will be in the middle of an epic freerunning line or several stories above the streets of Venice, when all of a sudden he'll freak out like an epileptic monkey on crack, and jump in a completely unexpected direction. This will often spell disaster if you're high up off the ground or chasing after a fleeing target, and it can definitely lead to some rage inducing WTF moments. All told though those moments are fleeting, and certainly didn't diminish my enjoyment of the game.

I almost forgot to mention it, but the Super Mario Bros. reference at one point was pretty much one of the highlights of the game for me. I won't spoil it, but you'll know it when you see it. There's also a random pedestrian comment you hear occasionally regarding, "a capering crusader". Ha! Classic!

All told I had a really good time with this one, and I can't wait to see where Ezio's adventures take him next in AC: Brotherhood (after a suitable cool down period of course. Too much of a good thing is still too much). My personal GOTY? Maybe!