Uncharted is so screwed!

WTF?!

http://kotaku.com/5698269/mark-wahlberg-will-be-nathan-drake-deniro-could-be-drakes-dad

Max Payne was probably the worst movie I watched in the last two years (my wife even fell asleep during the first act). When you think of Mark Wahlberg, "likeable" and "funny" are not the first adjectives that come to your mind.

I have nothing else to say about this. I'm depressed.

The Call of Duty school of writing

Call of Duty: Black Ops was released last week. Many streets here in Frankfurt are filled with ads showing a guy with two guns, one of them called Sally. I'm not going to play it yet because I don't have too much money right now and the UK release is a bit overpriced, so I'll have to wait until it's cheaper. But I realized that I never played Treyarch's 2006 game Call of Duty III because then I was only a PC gamer and this was a console exclusive. So now it's a good time for me to catch up...



A few days ago, Jeffrey Yohalem (an Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood writer) said in a Spanish interview that "the game mechanics are always more important than the script". Then, amazingly, he mentioned Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time as the main influence for his work. But as Ben Croshaw cleverly observed, PoP: TSoT is one of the best games ever made and is miles beyond its sequels even when the second and the third game have substantially better combat and overall gameplay. Why is that? Because TSoT has an amazing script.

So I've been playing for a couple of days the infamous Call of Duty III, who earned Treyarch the unfair reputation for doing the "bad" Call of Duty games. It has -*sigh*- decent mechanics, but no script whatsoever. Just "go there and shoot the bad guys" all the time, with the odd vehicle section here and there for a change of pace.

I guess after making this game somebody realized that they needed scripts for the Call of Duty games to make them less boring. So, starting with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, it looks like they decided that they had to blow our minds. I mean, literally. So then it was like this (total SPOILERS follow):


CALL OF DUTY 4: MODERN WARFARE:


"At the beginning of the game, you go in a car with the bad guys, they take you to a main villain and he shoots you in the head."


"So, how can we top that?"


"Then you go in a helicopter with the good guys, you run away from the same main villain, and then he... er, he throws an atomic bomb on you."


"That's so f***ing cool! After this, nobody will want to play a Medal of Honor game ever again..."



WORLD AT WAR:

"So, you've seen Call of Duty 4... Any ideas?"

"Nazi zombies?"





MODERN WARFARE 2:

"They really loved the atomic bomb bit. Now, give me something really shocking."

"You go and... shoot civilians with the bad guys, but then they shoot you in the head."


"That's so clever. And so original! So, how can we top that?"


"Er... Well, the good guy is... a main villain... and he shoots you... and then he pours gasoline on you..."


"You are a f***ing genius! We have GOTY material in our hands!"



BLACK OPS:


"So we have to top Modern Warfare or we are dead... Ideas?"


"Well, you go and shoot Fidel Castro in the head."


(Silence.)


"Only that... it wasn't him."


"That's... genius! Amazing! Modern Warfare, you are so screwed after this! So, how can we top that?"


"Well, after that, you... shoot... Kennedy."


(Silence.)


"Only that... well, you don't really shoot him. But they make you think that you shot him."


"Polish those Oscars! I mean, maybe there are no video game Oscars, but we're all going to be rich!"





So, here's the Call of Duty school of writing. Here's a good lesson for game designers all around the globe.

Kane & Lynch 2 - Dog Days

The first Kane & Lynch game was a barely acceptable 3rd person shooter which was harmed by its relentless grimness. The story tried so hard to be dark that it didn't even make sense. Why did Kane endure Lynch's non-stop unreliability? I can only think of one reason: because both their names are in the title, so they must work together. But Lynch was directly responsible for most of the bad things that happened to Kane in this game. To add insult to injury, the player was forced to choose between a bad ending and a worse ending. This was like a lesson in how to punish the player.

Curiously enough, the second Kane & Lynch kind of "fixes" those problems: the story follows none of those endings (Kane still has his daughter and Lynch's friendship). Also, Lynch is now directly responsible for his misfortune after a big single mistake (OK, or maybe two...), and Kane and Lynch stick together by plausible reasons (so they can make an arms deal and then escape). The story is straightforward and is concentrated in a short period of time.

The biggest change from the previous game is in the mechanics: Kane & Lynch 2 is a typical current-gen cover shooter, and never strays from that formula. Thankfully, the game is intense and just long enough so it never gets really boring. The levels are well done and varied in their sameness. If you think about it, you are playing in the usual settings you can see in any other game ("office", "street", "warehouse"), but here they looks different... and appropriate. All's happening in Shanghai, which is amazingly rendered here, putting Army of Two: The 40th Day to shame.

But the most original feature in the game is the "cellphone camera" effect. The whole game looks as if we were watching a badly made video of the events. This effect is really unique, and the thing is, it just works. Combined with great acting and level design, the results are terrific.

For some stretches of the game, you really feel you are playing something special... but then you remember that you are playing just another cover shooter. I couldn't pinpoint what keeps this from being a classic... Probably the lack of polish in certain aspects (the multiplayer modes just didn't work in my PC... though maybe it's just that nobody in the world is playing this game), or the unlikeability of the characters (even if they've come a long way since the first Kane & Lynch). Certainly, Uncharted this ain't.

Honestly, I don't know if I should recommend this game to you... I loved it, but I'm aware that it's not a game for everybody. If you like gritty cover shooters, you may like this. Oh, and it's a great co-op game.

Xbox exclusivity?

Now we know why Microsoft is charging you more for your Xbox Live subscription (if you live in North America or the UK):

Now in 2002, it was strictly multiplayer gaming. Now we get those Call of Duty map packs before anybody else does. We’ve got Gears and Halo, of course, as exclusives. We continue to get exclusives on the service as well. And we’ve gone from 400,000 members in our first year to 25 million.

Well, if I were an Xbox player, I wouldn't think "oh, I love these games but I don't want anyone else to play them". That would be selfish and stupid. But Microsoft is paying millions to developers so they don't sell PS3 versions. Do Xbox players get any real benefit from this? No. Microsoft does.

Also, an Xbox player has Gears of War and Halo. Microsoft could easily release Halo for PS3, but they don't want to, because it's all about strengthening the Xbox brand and hurting the competition. Does that benefit Xbox players at all? No. That's only good for Microsoft.

If Microsoft is the one reaping the benefits, why should the players pay for all that exclusivity nonsense? Are you kidding me?