The Wolf Among Us (Episode 1: Faith) Review

Hello readers, it's been a while since I did a review but that's because I haven't really bought or played anything really review-worthy is current months until the January PSN sale rolled around and I picked up a season pass for The Wolf Among Us because it was cheap and I've been told many times that Telltale Games' The Walking Dead was one of the best games ever.

Like The Walking Dead, Telltale has created another choice-driven point-and-click adventure game based on pre-existing material for The Wolf Among Us, specifically, the Fables comic book series written by Bill Willingham and published by DC Comics Vertigo imprint. The story takes place in the Fables universe some time after an unspecified event that forces various characters from famous fairy tales and stories, collectively referred to as "Fables", from their original homeland to New York City where they've set up a sanctuary in the form of Fabletown, a second home to the Fables that is hidden from the "mundane" world by various forms of magic. You play as Sheriff Bigby Wolf, formerly known as the Big Bad Wolf from Little Red Riding Hood as well as the Three Little Pigs, tasked with protecting the Fables and investigating any crimes related to the Fabletown community. Equally feared and hated by the Fable population, Bigby is nevertheless a competent detective trying to do his best as sheriff.  The first thing you notice when the game starts playing is the crisp and gorgeous art design. Although the graphics are a little inconsistent especially when it comes to the environment with some areas detailed gorgeously while others look a little lacklustre, the game has a beautiful comic book look and feel to it. The character design is especially outstanding although the characters seem to share very little aesthetic similarity with their comic book counterparts. Particularly Bigby, who is a lot less ferocious and bestial than his comic book appearance. Snow White is also very different from what she looks like in the comics with the key distinction being she looks less weary and bitter at the world. Understandable as The Wolf Among Us takes place before the comics. Perhaps the events of the game contribute to her future world-weariness and cynicism.  Gameplay-wise, The Wolf Among Us is more akin to a point-and-click adventure with the odd quick-time event than a real fully interactive game. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, it's just how the game works. And at least from my point of view, it's pretty effective. It gives you some degree of choice in how you respond to people and that has consequences in the future as highlighted by the notifications saying something along the lines of "She'll remember that" or "Toad noticed what you said". The game is fascinating, particularly the premise, but my main issue is that choices don't have full weight, at least in the short term. I ran through the game a few times choosing different verbal responses and sometimes even choosing not to say anything and the outcome was almost always the same. I get that the game is ramping up to the finale like a television series but it feels really linear and forcing you down a chosen path. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with that aside from the fact that the game is sold on the basis of choice and to me, it feels like choice is an illusion.  In other words, the game is pretty interesting and has me sold on the next episode but I'm wary of whether Telltale will be able to deliver the impact that my fellow gamers have told me they were able to achieve in The Walking Dead. Furthermore, the interesting premise is what keeps this game interesting for me and the credit should partially be given to Bill Willingham, who created Fables which is something I definitely recommend people start reading. In conclusion, give this game a play but perhaps temper expectations until the final episode, I suspect it might not deliver the impact that people expect but that's just me.

Bioshock Infinite (PS3) Review

"Bring us the girl and wipe away the debt."

Bioshock Infinite (2013) is the third instalment of the critically-acclaimed Bioshock first-person shooter series, developed by Irrational Games and published by 2K Games, a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive. While not directly related to Bioshock or Bioshock 2, Bioshock Infinite does borrow a lot of gameplay and thematic elements from the previous two games. Before I start the review proper, I should point out that the game has been out for a while and as a result, I'm not going to shy away from spoilers, so be warned for those who haven't actually played the game. Realistically, this is less of a review and more of a one-sided discussion on the game since it's been out for a while and has been the topic of some heated discussion, particularly surrounding the plot. Nevertheless, there will be coverage on the major aspects usually covered in reviews albeit with a little more emphasis on plot rather than gameplay or aesthetics.


Breathtaking. In my mind, that is the only word that can properly sum up my first impression of the game as I stepped through the doors into Columbia proper after a bizarre opening sequence involving a rowboat, a lighthouse, a rocket, a near drowning disguised as a baptism and some really quirky (even ironic) worshipping of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Ben Franklin as religious figures by the suspiciously whitewashed and almost overzealous pilgrims. By the time you get to the raffle where everything goes wrong for poor old Booker DeWitt, you realise that there's something not quite right about Columbia, especially if you go around collecting Voxophones and viewing Kinetoscopes (for background knowledge and trophies, of course). Hiding beneath the beautiful visage of a floating paradise is something deeply wrong with the city, a fact confirmed when the prize you get for winning a raffle is to have the first throw of a baseball-stoning (how quintessentially American) of an interracial couple. 
The plot from there expands into a multi-tiered and multi-layered work of art that encompasses a bloody civil war between two equally ruthless belligerents, a simple yet elegant examination of multiple universes and a character-driven experience that follows the growth of both Elizabeth and Booker, all wrapped up in themes of American exceptionalism taken to its most extreme conclusion, racism, religious extremism, blind idealism and a meta-commentary on choice and freedom in video games. This game, I cannot stress enough, is brilliant in its take on storytelling and taking on the most controversial of issues that pervades both modern and past society. What starts off as a seemingly quirky journey to start a long escort mission instead becomes an immersive and entertaining experience that really makes the player think about the issues presented by the game.  At first, on the surface of it, the game revolves around an ex-Pinkerton hired to rescue a mysterious girl trapped in a huge monument to Columbia and to bring her to New York in order to pay his debts accrued by gambling. As the plot progresses though, the plot thickens with the addition of an ongoing and bloody civil war between the Founders (the racist defenders of Columbia's whiteness) and the Vox Populi (a group that has noble values of achieving equality at first but quickly degenerates into anarchism and committing violence for violence's sake). The plot is made more complex by the inclusion of time travel, the manipulation of the space-time continuum and travel between alternate universes. Along the way, we see Elizabeth's rapid growth following her freedom from captivity as she engages with the world around her, moving from a (literally) wide-eyed idealist to a more practical realist that understands the world is not particularly nice or kind, having spent time with Booker but still keeping that sense of innocence and general upbeat attitude that helps to temper Booker's deep cynicism and loathing of the world. 
The storytelling medium used by the game ditches the traditional cutscene expositions but instead uses dialogue and the occasional taking away of the ability to move from Booker to advance the plot (sort of like a cutscene, but you're in character) while voxophones and kinetoscopes provide the bulk of background on Columbia's past and present. This is the kind of storytelling that I think should be in all games. A subtle form of exposition and narrative that allows the player to explore further if they wish to learn more about the game's universe goes a long way in making Infinite one of the best games ever made. The emotional core of the story is also not as heavy-handed as most other story-driven games, with players allowed to develop their own feelings and emotions regarding the whole situation as well as the characters rather than being manipulated from the start to feel a certain way as the developers' dictate it. Emotional manipulation is not necessarily a bad thing but I quite dislike heavy-handed techniques designed to evoke a specific response because I feel it's a little dishonest and quite frankly, I don't like it when people try to pull my strings. Luckily, Bioshock: Infinite isn't too heavy with emotional manipulation except maybe in one or two instances where it's really needed to hammer home a point, such as in the ending where Booker gives little Anna DeWitt away. 
Most of the reality-bending space-time continuum manipulation makes sense, except for one niggling detail that kept bugging me. When travelling through the various tears to get the Vox Populi their weapons, how did Elizabeth and Booker know they were headed into the correct tear? I suppose that could be explained away by trial and error, whereby they just headed into whatever tear was available but if that were the case, it seems awfully convenient for the tears to lead specifically where they wanted it to. Then again, Elizabeth does argue that it is a form of wish fulfillment on her end but like I said earlier, it's a little too deus ex machina for my liking. 
In terms of gameplay, Infinite has its fair share of exciting moments and ridiculously awesome features (like the ability to combine vigors that might possess an enemy then use him as a mobile bomb) but overall, the gameplay does get a little repetitive by the end. Go here, kill a bunch of people, activate a lever or button, kill another bunch of people, explore for weapons, salts and ammo (something I found myself doing quite a lot in 1999 mode) and kill more people! The shooting mechanics are exactly the same as the shooting mechanics in any other first person shooter just punctuated by the addition of vigors which are arguably just a unique take on the secondary weapons/grenades/equipment prevalent in other shooters. While the skylines are a much-touted and extremely fun feature, they don't feature as much as they were advertised and combat on the skylines are much easier than you might think since holding down the aim button has the reticle locking on to the nearest enemy. This is a nifty anti-frustration feature but it feels like a break from immersion especially when you have aim assist off, like I usually do when playing shooters.
Outside of the violence committed by Booker, the game allows you to explore a bit of Columbia as you go along, an especially useful tactic if you're playing the oft-cursed 1999 Mode where every little thing you find goes a long way to helping you survive. As mentioned previously, exploration grants you voxophones and kinetoscopes that help to expand on the story and really fleshes out the universe inhabited by our protagonists. Going back to the topic of 1999 Mode, I'm unsure as to why people have been complaining that it is frustratingly hard. It's a fairly mediocre difficulty and the checkpoints are plentiful, so, any death you suffer or money you lost can be regained by simply using checkpoints rather than letting yourself be "saved". If you explore and pick up every damned thing that shines, then you'll be in good stead. Actually, that's what I love about this game and The Last of Us, my obsession with collecting things and looking everywhere to get them is really rewarded when in other games it just seems like I have a compulsion for hoarding.
Aesthetically speaking, this game is beyond beautiful and the graphics are just superb. However, there are some issues with texture lag whereby the texture takes way too long to load and everything looks really washed out and blurry. I suspect this has to do with a lack of sizeable install which means most of the game is run off the Blu-Ray rather than from an installed file. Other than that though, everything looks fantastic and has this really cool arty yet cartoony yet serious look to it. 
Conclusion: Bioshock Infinite is a rare breed indeed, a game where both style and substance are equally triumphant. Columbia is beautiful to behold even as it descends into darkness and destruction while the plot is as elegantly simple as it is wonderfully complex. Tied to the plot is the wonderful characterisation and character development undergone by the two leads who are by far the two of the most interesting and three-dimensional characters I've ever come across in a video game. The gameplay isn't too much of a deviation from standard shooters but the inclusion of vigors, gear and a selection of interesting enemies makes it one of the more unique shooters in an over-saturated genre. A strong contender for game of the year and definitely one that will go into the history books.

Book Review: 'The White Tiger' by Aravind Adiga

'The White Tiger' is Adiga's debut novel set in a modern but polarised India, written in first person as Balram Halwai, who is aptly described at the back of the book as 'servant, philosopher, entrepreneur, murderer'. The book has reached critical acclaim since its debut in 2008 and won the very significant Man Booker prize in the same year. It is the fourth debut novel ever to win the prize.

This review will by no means be a critical literary review. I hold no qualifications to criticise anything but my own subjective interpretation of this body of work. But perhaps that is what ultimately qualifies me to review it. I am its intended audience. And so it will be done with utmost bias. Objectivity is never a selling point for any art form, and it certainly shall not be present at all in the next few hundred words.

What first intrigued me about this book was not its contents, but its achievements. Winning the international (well, Commonwealth) Man Booker prize is no easy task and I admit, that is how it first caught my eye off the bookshelves. The author is the second youngest person at 33 to be awarded the prize and what more, for his debut novel. With that alone in mind I turned its pages eagerly, trying to isolate a single brilliant characteristic that must have brought it to global attention (as I do with most prize winning novels). I was both thrilled and disappointed by the last chapter.

'The White Tiger' has a clear, definite story to tell. This gives it an edge in its structure; the author knows exactly when and where to reveal bits of information that takes you up and down a roller-coaster ride of narrative. From Balram's precious and impoverished childhood to his days as a lower servant and his ascension to a higher servant, every phase of his life is built specifically to outline different messages and crescendoes to the climax of his journey in Delhi. For the most part, there is only character development for one person, the most important person, Balram himself, who from the first page is noticeably different from the majority of the book. We see him narrate with detail his own metamorphosis through the social and political changes in India, with great insight into the 'darkness' - the poor, marginalised lower caste devoid of rights. Yet, he breathes so much life into these people that you do not feel sorry for them. They live in their own world, on the same planet but in different realities. The story is all about the transcension from one world to the next and does so with satire, contrast and wit. Having been to India myself and to some of the locations in the book, I imagined these scenes with clarity and understood the truth behind its settings. But I could have never emphatised with it on my own and that is exactly what the novel puts you through.

The novel's quality lies in its use of realism to convey its message. It is real not in a microscopic sense but in a big picture this is how the world works for this person and that person. I imagine the piece would lose some of its value if it were read by anyone living in a similar situation in India, particularly the lower castes (if they could read) as its 'shock value' would be rendered redundant, though its message is strong. I will not say that all lives in India are different or the same, but the character documents the one less travelled and compares it almost excessively with its polar opposite, making as though there are only two sides to a war, trying to create diversity through differentiation. The book is on the verge of complexity, but it never strays away from the simple -simple truths, simple facts, simple people. This is probably what prevents it from a sense of timelessness, it is notable but it needs more weight.

One of the things that irritated me at first was its language and its form (Balram is writing letters to the Chinese Prime Minister). I understand that every story needs a platform to launch but this was somewhat unreal and detrimental to when he delves into the realness of his life. I had gotten past the fact that a seemingly uneducated man was writing a structured english letter to a foreign Prime Minister, where in canon, he must have only started really learning to write english in his late 20's. But Fiction is Fiction and if you don't notice, it will not bother you. The author is no Vladimir Nobokov but his writing style is consistent and easily decypherable. Simplicity becomes a metaphor in itself in context of the character and works well.

My main disappointments are in the lack of character development outside the narrator, the slightly condescending, simplistic tone and lack of creativity with the language. Its merits are in its well thought-out narrative structure, underlying political and social values and its honesty in presenting issues.

Overall, I can see why the novel has won the prize. It is well above droves of fiction but still missing a rounded quality that would help make it more memorable. I will not give it a number but it ranks above 'The Perks of being a Wallflower' but below 'Life of Pie'.

Lord of the Rings: War in the North (PS3) Review

“With his far reaching right hand Sauron might have done great evil in the North. Yet all that has been averted because a handful of heroes stood in his path…” - Gandalf the White, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.

Lord of the Rings: War in the North (2011) is a third-person RPG developed by Snowblind Studios and published by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, a subsidiary of Warner Bros., who owns the rights to, you guessed it, the Lord of the Rings franchise. This is mostly unrelated to the game itself but, it is rather hilarious, to me at least, that the only blurb on the cover is from Zoo Magazine, a lad's mag. Maybe it's just me but that doesn't inspire much confidence in the quality of the game. Nevertheless, we shall press on!

The best word I can come up with to describe this game is "adequate". The story is adequate to keep you entertained on your journey but doesn't quite grab you like the movies or books. The gameplay is adequate in terms of variety and combat. The music is adequate in stirring some semblance of emotions without getting you too invested into the adventure. The voice-acting is adequately entertaining with no real stand-out performances from its cast. The threadbare RPG elements are barely adequate to classify this game as a RPG. The AI though, is atrocious, we'll get into that later.
Let's start off discussing the story. Basically, War in the North's entire premise can be summed up by that short quote from Return of the King. In fact, those words opening this review are the very first thing you see in the opening sequence for the game. Sauron's "far reaching right hand" refers to his lieutenant, Agandaûr, a man who has fallen under the sway of the Dark Lord of Mordor and seeks to spread his master's influence in the Northern lands of Middle-Earth. Standing in his way are "a handful of heroes"; namely, Andriel, the Loremaster of Rivendell, Eradan, the Dúnedain Ranger, and Farin, Champion of Erebor. The story thus follows our intrepid heroes on their quest to bring down Agandaûr in order to prevent Sauron from establishing a foothold in the North. Along the way, they travel to far-flung places all over the Northern lands, make new friends, murder thousands of enemies and have a rocking good time chasing down the Dark Lord's right hand. 
In my opinion, the most unfortunate part about War in the North is that it had so much potential, seeing as it draws on one of the most brilliant and detailed stories in the history of fantasy novels and movies. Unfortunately, the story ends up being a boring pastiche of various locales throughout the North of Middle-Earth and barely-tied together missions where the main narrative thrust exists only in cutscenes between levels and mostly between missions. The side-quests are barely fleshed-out and mostly involve collecting items for various NPCs throughout the game with little to no explanation as to how things turn out after you successfully complete them. Outside of the campaign, there are two challenge maps where stanzas of poems are provided at each round until you finish but there's no real explanation or tie-in with the rest of the game. 
The storyline itself is easily forgettable with the only real memorable part, for me at least, being the one time you meet the Fellowship of the Ring and Bilbo at Rivendell. Only because it's the Fellowship and Bilbo. Other than the very special cameo from the Fellowship, most of the characters in the game are mostly one-dimensional with no real stand-outs or character development for that matter. The three characters you can choose from (with the other two being AI characters that follow you around or two friends if you have any willing to play with you) occasionally spout out a funny one-liner in combat but other than that, they come across as completely boring and perhaps a little too steadfast in their mission. Their resolve to defeat Agandaûr and distract Sauron's forces from the Fellowship is admirable but doesn't make for great character development, especially since we learn nothing of their pasts either. In fact, other than their voices, gender and races, they are pretty much interchangeable. 
Speaking of voices, the voice-acting in this game isn't bad but it isn't good either. The usually spectacular Nolan North is the only recognisable name in the main cast and does a fair job but is not as awe-inspiring like in his other meatier roles. The rest of the cast barely have personalities and come across as fairly one-dimensional, although I suspect it has more to do with the script than the quality of the actors. Again, this detracts from the experience as it makes it difficult to connect with characters on a deeper level as they come across as superficial. The dialogue between characters is also extremely dry as the options given have no moral consequences and merely results in additional information gleaned, some of the time. Most of the time, it's just two sides of the same coin, you end up talking about the same things albeit worded slightly differently.
While the story and characterisation comes across poorly, what War in the North does do well, and very well indeed, is combat. Fighting is visceral and often involves brutally killing enemies, decapitating them, severing their limbs and more often than not, sending their guts flying everywhere. Combat primarily involves melee with the option of ranged combat if one prefers keeping their distance from enemies. When you first start off fighting orcs and other vile creatures, the gory and bloody combat is extremely entertaining, demonstrating the finer details of melee combat on a humanoid body. As the game goes on though, even this fresh take on fighting gets a little stale as you repetitively chop through thousands of enemies without much consideration. 
On the RPG front, there are special abilities you can execute but they cost you Power, which is represented by a blue bar that drains as you use special abilities. When you kill enough baddies and level up, you can invest points in Will (increasing the amount of Power you have and allowing you to wear higher-level amulets and rings), Stamina (increasing the amount of health you have, speeding up health regeneration and allowing you to wear better armour), Strength (increases your melee damage) and Dexterity (increases your ranged damage). The equipment you use tends to only have minor aesthetic and statistical differences, forcing you to visit a blacksmith every so often after too many uses. 
The skill trees are interesting to an extent but there's not much to keep you entertained after getting your core skills and improving them to a ridiculous level. Class-wise, there's Eradan the Ranger who is probably supposed to serve as the team's sniper but really can be used as a melee class as well. Farin the Champion is definitely designed for close-quarters combat and is basically a tank who absorbs as much damage as he dishes. Andriel the Loremaster is the healer, with spells to heal and shield her comrades from enemy projectiles. While each class seems to have a specialty they should stick to, players can easily throw those notions away by investing in a way that makes the character a better fighter when they should be focussing on ranged attacks or vice versa. I suppose that provides a sense of freedom but it sort of detracts from having established characters with different specialities. 
Speaking of the characters, the AI is utterly, utterly atrocious. This game is brilliantly designed for co-op but alone, it can be a nightmare since the AI you get saddled with fail to be of any use whatsoever since they charge into hordes of enemies regardless of what commands you give them. The sad part is, there are only two commands, Attack or Defend. Regardless of which you choose, they run headlong into battle and do little to actually help you when you're in trouble. If you want to enjoy this game, I suggest getting your friends to tag along. With two buddies, this game can be serious fun. Sure, it's a little boring and it gets a little repetitive but friends make everything better. Plus, it is satisfying when you have three players working together in a team and slaying enemies left, right and centre like a trio of badasses.
Not the glitches though. They can't fix those for you. In fact, they might actually exacerbate the various glitches this game suffers from. Glitches include falling off the map randomly, save files being corrupted and preventing you from continuing the storyline, magically dying and being resurrected and some issues with the animation such as enemies being stuck in rocks and terrain or standing frozen after being slain in combat.
Conclusion: Lord of the Rings: War in the North is one of those decidedly average games that are fun and should be experienced but perhaps as a rent or bought from a bargain bin. It could have been a great game but unfortunately, it is not.
Total Score = 67/100

Call of Duty: Black Ops II (PS3) Multiplayer Review

Competitive Multiplayer


Gameplay
Controller-wise, Black Ops II sets the industry standard for shooters due to how smooth, intuitive and precise the controls are. Unlike many games in the same genre, input lag seems to be completely non-existent, at least for the copy I played. Now, moving on to the fun stuff. A great gameplay feature that returns from Black Ops is the ability to dolphin-dive, which is visually pleasing because it looks cool when someone else does it and also provides the player a means of getting low quickly in order to avoid enemy fire. Another fun use for diving is combining it with Theatre mode to do cool montages using dive kills or to make your own short little action movie which wouldn't be complete without a slow-motion dive!

Bringing it back to actual competitive gameplay though, Black Ops II comes across as a very casual shooter, a game that almost anyone can pick up and play without prior experience. In my opinion, this simplicity and ability to appeal to such a wide audience serves as the game's biggest strength and its biggest weakness. The beauty of the Call of Duty series is that anyone can play the game regardless of their skill level. It is something that you can just pop in at the end of a hard day at work to relieve some stress because it doesn't require you to think, just to play. Unfortunately, the fact that you don't really need to think also represents the game's biggest weakness as gameplay becomes deeply monotonous in the sense that it becomes a competition of speed and reflexes rather than a battle of wits. You don't have to think tactically if you want to win in Black Ops II, you just need to be able to play at the highest sensitivity, react quickly to any movement and fire indiscriminately at the enemy before he/she can fire at you. And therein lies the rub, there is little room for tactics or strategy in Black Ops II. While other games do not necessarily require you to be very good to succeed, Black Ops II is a whole different ballpark where teamwork rarely matters and where the strength of the individual players on a team matter more than unit cohesion. Don't get me wrong, you can play as a team and do quite well but ultimately, it's the quick-drawing and fast-firing players that will succeed.

While dexterity and great reflexes tend to be the prime determinants of success in Black Ops II, it does not mean that there is no room for teamwork or tactical gameplay. To the contrary, there are many opportunities where unit cohesion or a strategic mind can give you an edge over enemy opponents. For example, in objective-based game modes, teams that can communicate and work together well will almost always have an edge over a team composed of lone-wolf players. However, the likelihood of ending up on a team where everyone is willing to work together rather than just playing like it's every man for himself ranges from very low to nil. The only real way to find a good enough team that you can work well with is to form your own team from friends or being a part of a clan. Then again, this is no real guarantee because of the various issues with party matchmaking which usually sees one or two members removed from your party and put into the other team. Similarly, one can play tactically by constantly moving, flanking the enemy and taking the less beaten path to outmanoeuvre the enemy but most plans you attempt to execute get thrown right out the window the moment you engage in a firefight with a player with faster reflexes and a better weapon.

To clarify, I'm not saying that the game is bad because it focuses on the individual more than the team, rather, I'm trying to elucidate the idea that this makes gameplay extremely narrow and repetitive where every match and every firefight boils down to two things, how fast you can move the right analog stick and how fast you can pull the trigger. Black Ops II's focus on the individual is not necessarily a bad thing though, seeing as it does provide players the opportunity to play the game how they like through the various customisation options present in the game. The one thing that I've always loved about the Call of Duty series is the ludicrously deep level of customisation available since Modern Warfare. In the past, this customisation system was given the unimaginative names of Create-a-Class and Create-a-Class 2.0. Treyarch has now changed the name of this system to the similarly dreary Pick Ten. Don't let the completely boring and uninspired name fool you though, the Pick Ten system can be barrels of fun, for someone who enjoys customising weapons and equipment to give it that personal touch. This new system works by giving each custom class a maximum of ten allocation points whereby each element costs one allocation point. An element, in this case, can refer to primary weapons, secondary weapons, attachments, perks, grenades and Wildcards. I know what you're thinking, "What the heck is a Wildcard?" Well, let me explain. A Wildcard is an element that allows the player to further modify other elements allowing an extra attachment for the primary weapon or allowing a primary weapon to be used in the secondary weapon slot or allowing an additional perk from one of the three perk tiers. The catch is that usually, you'll have to forgo at least two allocation points you could have used in order to play the Wildcard and attach the extra element (based on whichever Wildcard you chose) to the class.

While I do love the ludicrously deep level of customisation afforded by the Pick Ten system, there is this sense that it is ultimately pointless because the gunplay is so balanced-out that whatever you do to modify your weapon feels like it has little effect other than aesthetics and minimal contribution to recoil, hipfire accuracy or other such elements. Let me clarify, I'm not complaining about the gunplay itself. It's fantastic and extremely well-implemented, probably a lot better than the previous games. The problem I have is with the guns themselves and the things that Pick Ten let's you do to them. Every gun feels almost the same without attachments and when you do add attachments or pick perks that affect them, then the effects on them are roughly the same. Other than the way the guns look and sound, they feel a lot like the same gun. This is good in one sense as there aren't very obvious overpowered weapons or overpowered combinations that you see every "pro" running with but at the same time, it detracts from the sense of freedom and creativity that has become intertwined with the Call of Duty series.

Speaking of things that have become so ingrained with Call of Duty, killstreaks return in Black Ops II in the slightly revamped form of scorestreaks. Instead of rewarding awesome offensive and defensive capabilities through maintaining an extremely long murder spree, the system now revolves around players earning awards by achieving a certain amount of points through actions that provide you with a score such as kills, assists and capturing objectives while that player is alive. When a player dies, the score is reset and players have to start from scratch. Most of the scorestreaks are generally insignificant as they are killstreaks that return from previous games (e.g. RC-XD, UAV, Counter-UAV, Care Package, K9 unit and EMP) or are futurised versions of previously featured killstreaks (e.g. the Lightning Strike replacing the Air Strike, the Hellstorm replacing the Predator, the Orbital VSAT replacing the SR-71 Blackbird, the Escort Drone replacing the AH-6 Overwatch, the Lodestar replacing the AC-130 and the VTOL Warship replacing Chopper Gunner). There are a few new and interesting rewards that incorporate existing and in-development technology such as the Guardian (loosely based on the Active Denial System), the Dragonfire (a militarised take on commercial quadrotors), the A.G.R (an autonomous unmanned ground combat vehicle) and Swarm (a pack of hunter-killer drones probably based off autonomous drone technology currently being developed).  Personally, I like the scorestreak system a lot more than the killstreak system because I'm not an uber-1337 MLG player who is able to sustain 25-kill killstreaks. Aside from benefiting my general lack of skill, the scorestreak is also a great step forward for the series because it rewards players that play the objective as well as rewarding those excellent players that are able to cut down the enemy team with ease.

In terms of game modes, we're given the classic buffet of first-person shooter staples including a hearty serving of deathmatches (i.e. Team Deathmatch, Free-for-All), a smorgasbord of objective-based gameplay (i.e. Kill Confirmed, Domination, Demolition, Capture the Flag, Headquarters, Search and Destroy) and a delightful dessert menu in the form of returning Wager Matches (Gun Game, Sticks and Stones, One in the Chamber, Sharpshooter) albeit with XP rewarded instead of the now-scrapped CoD points. Combat Training also returns with a slightly larger range of gameplay options in the form of Bootcamp (mixed teams of players and bots taking on each other), Objective (only unlocked at level 10, basically the same as bootcamp except with objectives) and Bot Stomp (much like the original Combat Training from Black Ops except without any rewards). The only new game mode, if you can call it that, is Hardpoint which is basically just a moving version of King of the Hill.

Presentation
Apparently, the game runs in the magical 60 frames per second that graphics whiz-kids consider to be the pinnacle of graphical effects. Personally, I don't really see any difference between a game with 60 frames per second and a game with 30 frames per second. Black Ops II is definitely more colourful than its predecessors, in the sense that it has a blend of colours rather than just 50 shades of brown. Like I mentioned in the single-player section of the review, there's a lot of shoddy copy-paste looking jobs in terms of textures but it ultimately does look pretty good. On a side note, I cannot comprehend how the developers can forget to animate/render rounds in fresh magazines (to be fair, they do animate/render rounds into SOME magazines but very few of the magazines are actually loaded). It makes me look like I'm shooting a gun with no ammunition and that makes me feel stupid. Considering that the multiplayer factions represent uber-badass special forces commandos, it makes them look even more stupid for not loading ammunition into their magazines.

The sound is a little hit and miss with the score carried over from the campaign being a highpoint and everything else being a low point. Guns sound generic and bullets striking different surfaces give off the same sound regardless of the material of the surfaces you've fired on. The weapons don't sound like they should at all, in fact, they sound a lot quieter than their real-life counterparts (except the fictional weapons, of course, since they have no real-life counterparts).

Zombies


Without a doubt, my favourite part of any Treyarch-made Call of Duty game (at least from World at War onwards) will have to be Zombies. From its humble beginnings as a fun little distraction where you and/or three other players defended a building from unlimited waves of Nazi Zombies, the Zombies game mode has become a full-fledged part of the series that has travelled far and wide (even to the Moon!) as well as adding a fantastic backstory that players can learn about if they pay attention and find all the easter eggs Treyarch have hidden in the maps.

Gameplay
As with the campaign and competitive multiplayer aspects of Black Ops II, the controls are fantastically well designed and generally brilliantly thought-out. In terms of controls, there's no difference that I can think of from previous games. On the subject of actual gameplay though, many things have changed since the earliest version of Zombies from World at War. For one, as well as the basic Survival game mode present in all maps since Nacht der Untoten, the game contains two new modes called TranZit and Grief. TranZit is in many ways similar to Survival albeit with the added ability for players to travel between different parts of the map known as Green Run. Players can travel between locations either on foot (not recommended due to demon babies and the general zombie population) or by bus (recommended but be sure to bring lots of ammunition and planks to beat off the attacking zombies and fixing whatever holes that the zombies climb through). Grief is a nifty new game mode where two teams of players (CDC and CIA) are vying for victory but are unable to directly hurt each other. To win, at least one member of a team must survive while the other team is decimated by the veritable horde of zombies both teams must face. While teams cannot hurt each other, they can "grief" the other team by tossing grenades to down them or throwing a special power-up (like Boomer Bile from Left 4 Dead 2) that attracts zombies.

When it comes down to battling the hordes of the undead, there's not much different from previous incarnations of the series. You shoot zombies (aiming at the head to cause maximum damage), board up windows, get better weapons and perks, run around to find the mystery box and generally survive. Also, you get a lot of red on you. Not sure if you can go to the Winchester, but you definitely spend a lot of time getting red on you. The series continues the narrative in the background in lieu of an overt storyline. If you want to learn more about the story, you have to really dig deep, pay attention to the dialogue and discover the easter eggs. Unfortunately, there are a lot of easter eggs. I haven't found any of them personally but I have been told by others and through watching YouTube videos with them. TranZit mixes things up in letting you move around between various locations and providing even more doors/obstacles that you can waste your hard-earned money/experience points on! The fantastic thing about TranZit is that it alleviates (to a certain extent) the boredom that sets in from getting to ridiculously high rounds and running around the same area to kite zombies then kill them. By providing players the ability to change locations, the game forces them to develop new tactics and approach the situation in a different way to stay alive, providing far more hours of gameplay. Grief is an interesting new approach to Zombies and competitive multiplayer in general providing an outlet for players' mischief, allowing them to carry out some creative and imaginative forms of mayhem since they cannot actually hurt enemy players. To be honest, I've only played three or four games of Grief and I've had quite a lot of fun but I suspect the game can be quite frustrating when playing it often, especially since the map becomes a grenade fest around any player that gets downed.

The main criticism I have for Zombies is that there's no tutorial or explanation regarding the new mechanics of the game. Seasoned Zombies players who've gone through the various DLC maps probably know their way around but I've always really only played vanilla Zombies and only understand the mechanics of Survival. I'm sure there are other players like me who were initially confused in TranZit by the bus and why it wouldn't work. In addition to that, the new crafting system is confusing as well and has no real explanation regarding how it works. Arguably, it's to make the game more challenging since providing a blueprint probably kills the point but I missed the crafting table entirely when I first played through a match and only found about it through a friend I was playing with. Keeping on with that criticism is the problem of finding parts, I for one have no clue whatsoever what parts can be used to make what. Admittedly, one could go on the internet to find this out but I like playing games without additional help in order to provide more of a challenge, which means I'll be bumbling around like a moron trying to figure things out while trying to navigate around a zombie apocalypse. As well as that, Survival once again suffers from the same problem of getting extremely boring and repetitive in the later rounds as you kite zombies and lead a rotting flesh train while periodically shooting at them to stay alive. The characters for Black Ops II Zombies also don't strike a chord with me and I'm not a particularly big fan of their voice work. I'd much rather play as Tank, Nikolai, Takeo or Richtofen and listen to their fantastically voiced dialogue recorded by industry legends Steven Blum, Fred Tatasciore, Tom Kane and Nolan North respectively.

Presentation
Much like the other two components of the game, Zombies looks good enough but is showing the signs of age coming with using a fairly old engine that's only been given minor updates and upgrades over the years. The colour scheme is dark and foreboding, adding to a nice foreboding atmosphere. In addition to that, the sound design is brilliant, using a combination of eerie sounds and creepy music to make even the most stoic gamer squirm a little bit in his/her seat.

Conclusion
Black Ops II offers a robust selection of multiplayer that should keep most standard variations of gamers entertained for a long time. However, some players may feel that the game is all too familiar and get a dreary sense of "been there, done that" which can detract from overall enjoyment of the game.

Pros:
Classic fast-paced Call of Duty gameplay.
Pick Ten allows for insane class customisation.
Fantastic controls.
Scorestreaks now reward you for playing the objective instead of being a mass murderer.
Incredible weapon balancing.
Zombies is bigger and better than ever.

Cons:
A majority of textures, weapons and sounds copy-pasted from previous games.
Gameplay can become stale incredibly fast.
No teamwork, too much emphasis on one-man army style gameplay.
Tactics? What tactics?
The IW engine showing its age.
No innovation despite ridiculous marketing campaign calling the game revolutionary.
Community is still mostly whiny tweens complaining about lag and yelling obscenities.

Multiplayer Score = 38/50

Total Score = 73/100

Call of Duty: Black Ops II Campaign Review (PS3)

"You can't kill me!"

Call of Duty: Black Ops II (2012) is the highly anticipated sequel to Call of Duty: Black Ops (2010) and ninth overall game in the Call of Duty series following Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (2011). The quote I used to open this review may be recognised as a memorable quote from Sergeant Frank Woods, a main character from both Black Ops and Black Ops II but I really intended it as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the juggernaut that is Call of Duty. Yes, once again, my review is late but as with Warfighter, I wanted to put the game through its paces. Plus, with the new features of nonlinearity and multiple endings, I had to go through multiple play-throughs to be able to write a comprehensive and factual review. 

SPOILER WARNING: There will be spoilers ahead.

Campaign

Story

Black Ops II takes place in two distinct time frames, one set between 1986 to 1989 in the dying days of the first Cold War, and the other set during a new Cold War taking place in 2025. The game follows David "Section" Mason during the 2025 timeframe and occasionally time jumps to the 1980s where you primarily play as his father, Alex Mason. Apart from their familial relations, the two timeframes are connected by a Nicaraguan narco-terrorist named Raul Menendez, first encountered by Papa Mason and later serving as the antagonist to Mason 2.0. The 1980s portion of the game charts his rise to power while providing the backdrop for his actions and motivations in taking down the United States and China as well as his obsession with making Section and Woods suffer. Fast forward to 2025 and Menendez is the head of Cordis Die, a worldwide political movement seemingly inspired by the Occupy movement (and completely unaware that they are just pawns for a completely different objective, much like the Occupy movement).

Partly written by David S. Goyer of The Dark Knight fame, Black Ops II tells a fairly compelling story regarding families and revenge that spans across two Cold Wars. However the campaign does suffer at several points due to some questionable plot points and an over-reliance on action movie clichés. The main gripe I had with the story was with the inattention to continuity. While the last Black Ops hinted that Mason, Hudson and Weaver were being hunted by the CIA for going rogue, Black Ops II shows Mason and Hudson happily working with the same organisation that tried to kill them. In addition to that, there is no mention of Weaver or whatever happened to him. Furthermore, within the continuity of the game itself without considering other games within the universe, there is also a distinct lack of explanation of where Alex Mason has been for thirty years if players chose not to kill him in a particular mission. While it does make sense to withhold the fact that he survived that encounter for a stronger effect during the reveal, the writers should have at least explained during that scene or in another post-credits scene what he had been doing up to that moment. Nor is there a clear explanation as to how Mason, Woods and Zhao survive their time in the Afghan desert following their betrayal. 

Overall, the plot rests on shaky propositions at various points in the game but that can be forgiven since most books, movies and games require an extremely specific series of events for the plot to progress. However, there are a few points that I wanted to raise as they kept nagging at me as I played through the game. 

First of all, there was no explanation as to how Menendez built up such a sizeable fortune to be able to afford secret manufacturing facilities, the ability to purchase schematics for what should be classified military material and managing to build up an army that can basically take on the Chinese and Americans without any sign of exhaustion. I know that for convenience sake, the writers just made Menendez a billionaire/trillionaire but it'd be nice if they provided some explanation to his wealth. Furthermore, at no point does the game actually explain how the Celerium device works. Is it a supercomputer capable of hacking military networks? Is it a hard drive that contains a virus capable of infecting the system? The closest we get to an explanation is the scientician that claims that is has more processing power than the combined power of the US military network. Then again, at various points of the game, it is referenced as the Celerium worm. How does a worm have processing power? Are they the same thing or are they different components? I must say, I'm terribly confused about the whole thing. 

Third of all, there's the issue of Chloe "Karma" Lynch being the only person in a world of approximately 7 billion people (a rough estimation of the global population in 2025) that knows how to stop the Celerium device/worm. Sure, it's to make the situation more tense and place an emphasis on the possibility of multiple endings based on the player's decisions and actions throughout the game, but still, it's a little far-fetched. I'm probably being pedantic with this query but what was with Mullah Rahmaan, the leader of the Mujahideen forces, being secretly allied with Menendez? It does help to make Menendez seem more influential but realistically, an Afghan freedom fighter like Mullah Rahmaan would probably not ally with a communist sympathiser like Menendez considering the communists put Afghanistan in that whole mess to begin with. Lastly, I'd like to point out that the protagonists of the game have got to be the worst operatives in the history of special operations. If they don't get their cover blown by walking into traps, they run into situations gun blazing when they could easily sidestep the enemy or take them out slowly and methodically. Then, there's the glaring example of Woods and Mason, two highly trained and highly experienced operators, handing their prisoner a pistol (with magazine removed to taunt him) without doing a brass check to see if there was one more round in the chamber. Needless to say, it comes back to bite them in the arse, rightly so in fact. 

If disbelief is suspended however, Black Ops II gives a fairly compelling story, possibly the best in the series so far (which isn't saying much though). The characters, although representing the stereotypical action hero badasses on the American side and representing the typical maniacal villain that has serious issues with dealing with grief, are very well fleshed-out and represent a major step forward for Call of Duty. The voice acting, however, is more of a hit and miss. To be applauded are Kamar de los Reyes as Raul Menendez and James C. Burns as Frank Woods who totally deserve recognition for their brilliant work in bringing their characters to life. Rich McDonald, Michael Rooker and Tony Todd were neither excellent nor terrible as they brought fairly standard performances as Commander David Mason, Mike Harper and Admiral Tommy Briggs respectively. On the other hand, Sam Worthington as Alex Mason and Michael Keaton as Jason Hudson gave substandard performances for actors of their calibre. Worthington sounded like he honestly couldn't be bothered about the whole thing and didn't even try to disguise his broad Australian accent for what is by all accounts an American character. The change in voice actor from Ed Harris to Michael Keaton was a step-down in my opinion since Hudson sounded and acted a lot younger than he was in the previous game. Furthermore, in moments of intense emotional narrative, Keaton came across as over-acting or under-acting, failing to deliver the subtlety or strength required in the particular situation. 

Gameplay

Despite my general loathing of the Call of Duty series from Modern Warfare 2 onwards, I'd be hard-pressed to deny that the gameplay has always been fantastic. All the games in the series feel like an interactive action movie, reminiscent of most of Michael Bay's works. Black Ops II is no different with its excessive explosions, frantic firefights and series-standard setpieces. As usual, the controls are tight and intuitive, letting gamers jump straight into the battle with no need for tutorials or reading the manual. Most other elements of the gameplay are also reminiscent of previous Call of Duty games, with the guns sounding just a little too similar to each other, copy and paste jobs of a lot of weapons and scenery, recoil being virtually non-existent and the same basic variety of missions. There are some new takes on old elements like the inclusion of drones as a replacement of airstrikes, artillery and tanks which do add to the fun of the game. 

However, there are some new features in the form of a load-out screen, branching storylines and the brand-spanking new Strikeforce mode. Now, I'm going to be honest, I love load-out screens. Especially when I'm allowed to customise my weapons before going on a mission. It makes me feel more like an individual, in that I can create my own version of a weapon and play the game my way. While Black Ops II does allow you to customise your weapons and perks, unfortunately, the gameplay forces you to engage enemies head-on, which sort of kills the point of giving you the choice of a stealth-optimised load-out. Arguably, there are some missions that feature stealth but these are few and far in between and really, there's no freedom for players to get through a mission on their terms. On the topic of freedom, a welcome change to the series is the introduction of branching storylines which does make the game feel less like a corridor duck shoot and really give the player a sense that whatever they do has an impact on the game. Unfortunately though, the freedom the game gives you only comes along once in a while and only major points in the game have a tangible effect on the outcome of the game. The writers and developers did write and program in minor events that can be changed but these have no real effect other than maybe a trophy/achievement or two. While I do welcome the inclusion of branching storylines as a means of providing a sense of freedom and choice to the gamer, the effect is diluted by the fact that the rest of the game plays out almost exactly the same. In my opinion, a better way to incorporate choice into a game would be a holistic approach where every little thing creates a ripple effect that changes the environment as you go along. For reference, I'm talking about a system implementing freedom and choice similar to the one used by Deus Ex: Human Revolution. 

On the other side of the spectrum, Strikeforce mode is a very unwelcome addition to the series due to how shockingly bad the controls and friendly AI are. On the harder difficulties, I literally could not beat  the missions without jumping in and taking over one of the soldiers or drones as they would stand around and get shot instead of doing anything useful when ordering them to cover an area or capture an objective. Couple that with the fact that the controls when in the Overwatch screen (RTS) are really counter-intuitive and barely covered in the tutorial section, Strikeforce mode comes across as a needlessly tacked on feature so the marketing department could claim that the game is innovative. Yes, Treyarch should be applauded for their decision to branch the series out and add a new element of gameplay but when it's implemented as terribly as Strikeforce mode is, they should have left it out or taken the time out to fix it.

Keeping on the topic of bad things in the game, the enemy AI in Black Ops II is ridiculously simplistic with enemy combatants standing out in the open or strafing rather than finding cover. Ratcheting the difficulty up does little to alleviate the simplicity of the AI as the harder difficulties only feature the same AI albeit with much better aim. At one point in the game, I saw one of the Yemeni security forces shooting at and killing his teammate who I was attempting to melee. While it was hilarious at the time, it is symptomatic of the poor artificial intelligence programmed into the game. Friendly AI is slightly better in that they actually attempt to take cover but they spend most of their time missing targets, leaving you the burden of killing hundreds of unimportant and trivial henchmen in your quest to bring down Raul Menendez. Then, there's the vehicles sections which I thought were poorly thought-out, poorly handled and ultimately a gimmick. The horse-riding section wasn't too shabby but the lack of clear borders meant I kept running out of the battlefield and dying, the driving section in Pakistan was such a confusing mess that I didn't even know where I was going and how I actually finished the mission and finally, the flying section was almost impossible because the controls were so heavy that running into buildings became a normal occurrence and the borders were once again undefined, leading to a lot of unnecessary death apparently caused by leaving the combat zone.

Graphics

Um, yeah, graphics. They're nice, I guess? Lots of big and important sites tell me that Black Ops II runs at 60 frames per second and apparently that's very good. Honestly though, I don't get the current obsession that gamers have with graphics. What difference does it make if it were running at 48 frames per second or 30 frames per second? Sure, the rendering won't be as smooth and the visuals might be less defined but what makes a game isn't just the graphics, it's a combination of narrative, plot, gameplay etc. That said though, Black Ops II does look quite good, my only complaint being that it feels very been there, done that because of a lot of re-used textures and designs literally copy-pasted from the previous Black Ops. According to a quick internet-search, it's because they've been using updated versions of basically the same engine since Call of Duty 2. That's some mighty poor effort. Yes, using the same engine has let them master the game and gain that awe-inspiring 60 fps, but as a muti-billion dollar franchise, don't you think some of that money could be used to really innovate and maybe build a new engine? Or at least conduct massive update and improvement program?

Another thing that did irk me, graphics-wise was the horse animation in the Afghanistan mission where my horse would, on occasion, disappear into the ground or be magically floating a few centimetres from the ground. It's probably because the horse was clipped to a certain height and the developers forgot to compensate for the rugged terrain. I mean, it's a guaranteed billion-dollar game, take some time out to fix the little things. Continuing with little things, in the very first mission, when I have Woods leaning on me, I realised when I started shaking my right analog stick a lot, that Woods didn't actually have a body, he was just a torso and a head. Look, I know this is pedanticism, but couldn't the guys at Treyarch invest just that little bit of time just to build a full body. I mean sure, it's extra work but  if you're going to copy-paste stuff in, maybe put in some effort elsewhere. 

Although I am no fan of the electronic music genre, I do quite like the Black Ops II soundtrack because it is just such a good score as well as being incredibly well-suited to the setting and gameplay. Jack Wall demonstrates his musical genius as usual and Trent Reznor does a stellar job composing the main theme as well. The excellent blend of fast-paced action and emotionality reflected in the score really accentuate the experience of playing the game and I recommend people who don't even want to play the game to give it a listen.

Conclusion:

Black Ops II is Call of Duty at its absolute best and worst. While it takes steps to innovate and invigorate the stale gameplay through numerous good and bad additions, it is ultimately the same action-movie thrillride we've all come to expect. A case of one step forward and two steps back. 

Pros:

Interesting plot.

Branching storylines.

Fantastic voice-acting by James C. Burns and Kamar de los Reyes.

Excellent gameplay.

Brilliant music.

An attempt to improve the series.

Cons:

Many plotholes caused by incompetent protagonists.

Lacklustre voice-acting by everyone else.

Strikeforce mode.

Boring old cliches and action-movie stalwarts.

Lack of effort by the developers exemplified by the copy and paste of way too many things from weapons to textures.

Terrible AI.

Campaign Score = 35/50

Medal of Honor: Warfighter Campaign Review (PS3)

"For Mother ... and for Rabbit." 

Medal of Honor: Warfighter (2012) is the sequel to Medal of Honor (2010), a modern reboot of the classic World War II Medal of Honor franchise. As a massive fan of the franchise, it's safe to say that Warfighter was one of my most anticipated  games of the year. Admittedly, the game has been out for a while now and this review is a little late to the party but certain circumstances have prevented me from acquiring the game until about a week ago. When I did get my hands on the game though, I can assure you that I put it through its paces and thoroughly tested both the campaign and the multiplayer.

For ease of reading and because I feel like it, I'm going to split the review up into campaign and multiplayer, with this post dedicated to the campaign while the next post will be devoted to multiplayer. Ready? Alright, ladies, time to deploy. 

  

Campaign

Story

The campaign of Medal of Honor: Warfighter primarily follows the exploits of a group of Navy SEALs with the overarching plot device being an explosive chemical substance known as PETN. The SEALs travel all across the world in an effort to stop a shadowy organisation led by an elusive leader  known as The Cleric (basically, a thinly-veiled reference to al-Qaeda and Osama bin-Laden) from being able to use the PETN. While the plot itself is a work of fiction, many of the individual missions are "ripped from the headlines", in that they are representations of real-world events. Warfighter sees the return of some familiar faces like Preacher (one of the player-characters), Mother, Voodoo and Dusty from the previous game while adding new ones like Stump (another player-character), Dingo and Tick.

In my opinion, the storyline for Warfighter is fairly well put-together and coherent if a little unbelievable. My main gripe is the chronological flashback structure of the first few missions which is not exactly confusing but seems ultimately pointless. I understand the flashback narrative as a plot device in that it attempts to create a sense of intrigue and mystery regarding the shadowy organisation behind the movement of the PETN. However, the story would probably flow a bit better and be a bit easier to understand (for the less attentive gamer) if they made the events in chronological order.

The main strength of the story, though, lies in the humanistic portrayal of the Tier 1 Operators, particularly Preacher and his interactions with his wife and child. This aspect of the story is played to devastating effect, in the sense that it shatters the illusion of these men as supersoldiers and reminds us that they are human too. As well as the relationship between Preacher and his family, the game explores the relationship between the SEALs themselves. Through the banter and little snippets of conversation between the SEALs during the cutscenes, we get to see the camaraderie and sense of fellowship shared by operators, reinforcing the idea that operators are at the end of the day, only human. Yet, at the same time, I find it extremely difficult to relate to the characters of Warfighter. Sure, the characters crack jokes and make smart quips about their line of work, but in the end, I wouldn't call them likeable. While Danger Close does succeed in humanising the warriors, there is still this sense that I'm on the outside looking in. This isn't necessarily bad as the main approach they seem to be taking with the series is telling the story of these operators. However, this is problematic with the player-characters as Danger Close tries to flesh Preacher out but is somehow always silent during gameplay and really only speaks quiet infrequently during cutscenes. This could be excused by Preacher's mannerisms with other characters which indicates that he is a quiet person. However, this cannot account for Stump's characterisation as he seems like a bit of a joker when he speaks with the rest of his teammates, yet, he is strangely quiet during gameplay even during breaks between combat. Understandably, the game is short and there is little time for character development and the genre isn't conducive to great characterisation, but it'd be nice if Danger Close took out the time to flesh out the player-characters a little bit more to make the game that much more believable and authentic, as they set out to do.

On a thematic level, Warfighter is ambitious in that the developers strived to make the game as realistic as possible (barring the occasional setpiece along the way) during actual gameplay while focusing on the human aspect during some cutscenes. The result is a sort of hybrid narrative with the gameplay representing what operators do while the cutscenes featuring Preacher's relationship with his family representing the consequences of what operators do.

Gameplay

Starting with the controller-side of gameplay, controls are extremely tight, intuitive and well thought-out. An interesting feature returning from Medal of Honor (2010) is the lean mechanic which is extremely useful on the harder levels. It also gives a sense of realistic movemement and fluidity when compared to other similar titles. Basically, the lean mechanic in Warfighter gives you the opportunity to limit your exposure to fire while engaging the enemy. It's absurd to think that well-trained military personnel would stick their entire body out from cover to open fire on the enemy before moving back into cover like in some more popular first-person shooters (ahem, ahem).

Combat, while featuring the run-of-the-mill shoot and scoot structure, is extremely intense on every level. The main reason for this is the intelligent enemy AI that presents quite a challenge to the player. These aren't your average bad guys who run into your line of fire and wait out in the open for you to pick them off. The enemies in this game use full advantage of the lean mechanic and stubbornly stick to cover to make your job that much harder. While the micro-destructability provided by the Frostbite 2 engine does allow you to chip away at their cover, by the time you manage to get a shot at them, these guys will have moved to better cover. As well as that, enemies operate as a cohesive unit rather than as individuals. They provide cover fire and suppression so that their comrades can move forward or flank you. However, the opposite could be said of your teammates. Your teammates, are quite simply retarded. In one level of the campaign, I left my controller on the table and watched the friendly AI try to clear the map of enemies and they failed disastrously. They would miss when shooting at enemies standing literally in front of them, shoot at non-existent targets, throw grenades at walls right in front of them and rather hilariously, shoot at whatever part of the environment that was their cover. This can be extremely frustrating on harder difficulties as the tons of enemies you seek to dispatch are pin-point accurate and can kill you in about three shots. It would be nice if I could depend on my teammates to take out at least a few enemies so that the missions wouldn't be so tedious.

An excellent break from combat (and your terrible teammates) is derived from the driving levels and sequences in various points of the campaign. The full driving levels are really fun and the little boat driving sequence near the end of one of the levels is simply exhilarating despite its length. The driving level in Dubai is a gem as it involves a very interesting and very ingenious stealth sequence that I thought also tied in very well with the narrative of that particular mission. The first driving sequence is no slouch either as you engage in a frantic chase of an enemy combatant through the busy streets of Karachi, Pakistan.

Presentation
In terms of graphics, there are some, I guess. Honestly, I'm not a technical wizard who can figure out how many frames per second or what the resolution is. From my amateur viewpoint though, the game looks fantastic. The cutscenes are rendered in extremely realistic and high quality animation where the characters look almost life-like, it's scary. The graphics within the game are good but not spectacular given the capabilities of the Frostbite 2 engine. Weapons look fantastic and add to the pseudo-realistic nature of the game.

The soundtrack, once again scored by Ramin Djawadi and featuring more of Linkin Park, is as good if not better than the soundtrack of the last game. What struck me the most about the music was how much it was a throwback to Medal of Honor (2010) while still maintaining a sense of originality about it. Personally, it seemed like the music reflected Warfighter quite well in that it relates to and draws from the last game while moving in its own direction for the future. As well as that, the music conveys a sense of emotionality that accentuates the game while still standing out as a great score. It's not music that takes the spotlight away from the subject but rather matches it extremely well while still being good enough to be recognised as good music outside the game.

Conclusion
Despite some bugs and the slightly mind-boggling narrative, I thoroughly enjoyed Warfighter's campaign to the extent that I'm still playing it now on the higher difficulties. To sum it up, I'll give a SparkNotes version of my review for those who have limited attention spans.

Pros:
Ambitious plot.
Great gameplay.
Excellent enemy AI.
Beautiful graphics in cutscenes.
Fantastic music.

Cons:
Confusing flashback structure in the first few missions.
Unrelatable characters.
Stupid friendly AI.
Game doesn't seem to utilise the full power of Frostbite 2.

Campaign Score: 30/50