Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising Mini-Review (PC)

When this game went on sale on Steam, I decided to give it a try, it just seemed like a game I would like. Even though the game seems to have got rather poor reviews from other players and general favorable reviews from critics, I had a feeling I knew why other players were not liking this game, and I decided to take a look for myself. After playing it though it's campaign and taking it online for some coop fun, I can honestly say, I am quite glad I did not listen to player reviews.

The thing is, OF:DR is NOT your typical FPS game. Its not a run and gun fast paced shooter. It's also, get this, realistic! This is why I knew I would probably like it, because it's not yet another FPS game that's the same as just about every other FPS game. Now don't get me wrong, I love FPS games, but in today's market there is no shortage of them. The sad thing is, most of them do not contain anything unique, they are all the same game, from the Battlefields to Modern Warfare 2, they offer nothing more but new maps, weapons, and maybe a tweaked story. The games themselves are all the same. The same basic mechanics and gameplay in a new package.

This is why I tend to get more enjoyment out of games that are not "clones" and actually have original ideas, mechanics, and gameplay involved. Games such as Rainbow Six Vegas 1 and 2, ArmA 1 and 2, and even Battlefield Bad Company 2. Sure Bad Company 2 may be "just another Battlefield game", but it adds a level of depth to your gameplay with "War Tapes". If you don't know what that is, YouTube will point you in the right direction. That alone ranks the game above most of the competition.

Like I said before I love FPS games, I play quite a few of them and to toot my own horn a bit, I happen to be pretty damn good at just about all of them. However its so nice to be able to step out of the typical "unrealistic" FPS game with its same old strategies and mechanics, and take on a game that actually requires patience, real world strategies, and a different set of "skills" in order to play. One where your character has real world limitations, the game has real world mechanics, and actually adds a bit of realism to the combat.

This is Operation Flashpoint. This is NOT your typical FPS game, and if that's what your into, then your probably not going to like this game very much. Now if you have played, and liked, one of the ArmA games, then perhaps this game if more up your ally. Its similar to ArmA in many ways, just with a lower learning curve and it's a bit easier to master the controls and learn all the commands for a novice to combat simulation games. That's exactly what this game is, a combat sim, not an FPS!

Of all the negative reviews out there by other gamers, I can not help but think they simply had no idea what they were getting into, not realizing a game like this requires patience and the player to learn new game mechanics. You may have to travel over 2 kilometers to reach an objective, you have to compensate for realistic weapon ballistics, you have to actually think your way through your missions. If you try and play a game like this as if it was just another FPS, your going to have your ass handed to you on a silver platter. Then of course your not going to like it and give it a bad review. This is not the fault of the game, but the player.

To prove this point I let my oldest son (18) try a mission. He is like most typical teenage gamers, he has zero patience, and simply will not take the time to learn a new game, yet he likes and plays most of the typical FPS games out there. After just 10 minutes he was already getting frustrated with the game and when he was through with the mission, said he thought it was boring. Now mind you I had it set to "Normal" for him.

I then let his brother (16) take a crack at the same mission. He has much more patience and like me, does not only like games that fit into the same box as the games everyone around him likes, yet also like me he plays a lot of typical FPS and is pretty good at them all. He took the time to figure out the game does not play by the same rules, it has a level of realism to it, there are limitations you have to take into account. Within no time he made it through the mission and quite enjoyed the challenge and said he liked the game.

So I think a majority of the negative reviews are the fault of the player, not the game. Not being able to adapt to the fact the game is not what they are used to or they simply have no patience for a game like this.

I also seen a lot of people saying the game was full of bugs. I really have no idea where these people are getting this idea from. Sure it has a few minor bugs I noticed, but no more than any other game out there, and they do not take away from the game. Again I think people are using the bugs as a way to over exaggerate the fact they did not like the game for the aforementioned reasons. Or they are trying to play the game on a low end system. Rest assured, this game is NOT full of bugs!

Dragon Rising has a great 11 mission campaign to play through, as well as nice big arsenal of weapons to master, and vehicles to operate. If you take it online, you can coop the campaign with up to 3 of your friends or hop into massive 32 player battles. Though still a visually impressive game, the game does have lower requirements than ArmA 2, so if your on a slower dual-core (around 2.4GHz) system and a video card under the Radeon HD 4000 range but over the x1800 series, this game will still run well for you.

All in all I have to say that I really enjoy this game and suggest that you not put too much stock in all the reviews out there claiming how bad this game is. If you like combat sims, have the patience to learn the game and its mechanics, then try it for yourself. Heck, you don't even have to buy it, there is a demo available to download! So you really have nothing to loose at all.



Game On Codemasters!

Rated: 10/10

Continue reading →

ASUS M4A77TD Pro AM3 Motherboard Mini-Review

Update: This board has full 6-core CPU support for both the 1055T and 1090T Black Edition Hex-Core 45nm CPU's. BIOS version/update 2005.

I have never really been dedicated to one single motherboard brand like I am with my CPU's and video cards. I have had pretty good results from Gigabyte, MSI, ASUS, and ASRock. Though my last 3 personal builds have all been ASUS powered. So I guess ASUS has managed to sneak it's way to the top of my favorites list. My latest build is no exception.

I did quite a bit of research on what motherboard to use in my new build, I wanted one that did not cost a lot, yet had all the basic features I was looking for.

• AMD Northbridge since I use ATI video cards
• Successful core unlocking of AMD X2 and X3 CPU's results from other users
  
• Good overclocking and BIOS options
• DDR3 Support
• AM3
• 140 Watt CPU support
  
• Crossfire ready
• Good on-board audio
• Gigabit LAN
• Future hex-core CPU support
  

With those basic wants in mind I did a lot of digging and ended up settling on the ASUS M4A77TD Pro motherboard. I was able to pick it up on Newegg on an "Open Box" deal for $70, saving me money I was able to use on other hardware.

This motherboard not only meet all my needs, but had a 100% success rate on core unlocks and good overall overclocking results. The AMD770 Chipset also allows me to use AMD Overdrive to its fullest potential.

Here is a list of its overclocking features:

• Intelligent overclocking tools
• Turbo Key
• Stepless Frequency Selection
• FSB tuning from 200MHz up to 550MHz at 1MHz increment
• PCI Express frequency tuning from 100MHz up to 150MHz at 1MHz increment
• Overclocking Protection
• ASUS CPU Parameter Recall

My only concern was it was the first time I had ever ordered a product "open box". Though I did not require any of the normal hardware that comes with a new motherboard, I have more than enough on hand and drivers can all be found online, I was concerned with the board condition. In the end however, my concerns were unwarranted, it showed up in a M4A77TD box (Not the pro version), well packed, and in mint condition.

The board fit perfectly in my mid-tower case. Installation of the CPU, memory, and into my case took a total of about 15 minutes. Once I got all the other hardware installed, hooked up, and all my cables managed to promote unimpeded airflow, the board fired right up and I begin installing my OS.

Now I had read in some online reviews, such as those on Newegg, that some other users were having problems with the boards related to the memory running at a single channel. When you would try to run in dual channel, the boards would not post. I however did not have a single problem with this. The ADATA 1600G OC DDR3 I purchased worked wonderfully and is perfectly stable running overclocked at 1600.

This board, for me, does everything I ask of it and more. There is also plenty of room to upgrade if the need ever arises. Though to be honest, I don't think that need will present itself anytime soon. As it is now, with the other hardware in the build, I can play any game on the market today that I would want to and it handles my multimedia, video, and graphic editing needs.

So after over a month of hard use, gaming, and stress testing overclocks, the ASUS M47A77TD Pro is still screaming right along and working flawlessly. So I give this board a 10 out of 10 and would recommend it to anyone looking for an affordable yet powerful AMD build.

Here is a breakdown of the boards primary specifications:

• ATX Formfactor
• AMD Socket AM3 140W CPU 45nm Support
• AMD Cool 'n' Quiet™ 2.0 Technology
• AMD 770/SB710 Chipset
• 5200 MT/s Hyper-Transport™ 3.0 interface
• 4 x DIMM DDR3 1800(O.C.)/1600(O.C.)/1333/1066 (16GB Max)
• 2 x PCIe 2.0 x16 - 1 x PCIe x1 - 3 x PCI
• Realtek 8112L PCIe Gb LAN
• 1 xUltraDMA 133/100 - 5 x Serial ATA 3Gb/s Support RAID 0,1,10 - 1 x eSATA 3Gb/s ports
• VT1708S High Definition Audio 8 -Channels
  
• 12 USB 2.0 ports

A few other ASUS specific features:

• ASUS EPU-4 Engine
• ASUS Express Gate
• ASUS Turbo Key
• ASUS Q-Fan
• ASUS CrashFree BIOS 3
• ASUS EZ Flash 2
• ASUS MyLogo 2
• ASUS AI NET 2

Rated: 10/10

Continue reading →

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 PC Multiplayer Mini-Review

Steam users have now had the chance to try out the multiplayer gameplay of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (MW2) on two different occasions. An attempt no doubt to boost slacking sales to try and compete with the much more popular and better Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (BC2). So I decided to share my opinions on Modern Warfare 2 with the rest of the world for anyone who is truly bored at 3AM and feels like reading it.

I make no secret of the fact I am not a fan of Modern Warfare 2. Though MW2 just feels like a horrible squeal. I am one of those gamers who hates "me too" or "clone" games. Now by that I do not mean different developers putting out similar FPS, I mean the same darn game being re-skinned, repackaged, and sold as something new.

That's where I stand on MW2. I think the last good game in the Call of Duty series was COD4, at this point, Infinity Ward and Activision are just milking a dead cow. What makes it even more sad is the fact its working. MW2 on the consoles is a very popular title, then again, it's a game well suited for consoles. However this is not about the console version, this is about the PC version.

For a PC game, this game really does suck, are far more levels than I care to talk about. I will just cover the big ones in my book. Before I get into it though, I really did try and like this game, I played it for several hours, tried out all the modes, talked with a lot of people in-game, got accused of hacking on multiple occasions. No matter how hard I tired to like it, I am afraid, it was just not meant to be. Even the fact I had no problems slicing my way though this game with ease and a 3.0+ KD average not using ANY grenade launchers, harriers, cobra's, predators, or nukes. I still just could not stand this game.

• Highly limited and repetitive gameplay. It gets old very fast.
  

Limited player numbers. Laggy hosts. No dedicated servers. You can't tell me they forgot how to write good network code. What limitations prevent the game from having more than 12 players in a game at once? I mean come on. A good PC capable of playing this game at respectable settings has far more power to handle larger game rooms than any console. As far as the lack of dedicated servers goes that's one of the largest downfalls of this game. I mean, this is a PC, not a console. I think MW2 would have benefited a lot from dedicated servers, too bad IW did not think so. I guess they failed to notice the fact the dedicated servers is the standard for just about every good retail FPS game. Then again, this is not a good game, at least, not in its PC multiplayer aspect.

You can tell this game was not coded for the PC at all. It's network code is a joke compared to other games. I can understand coding for multiple platforms, but it sure does not look like they did that here, they just coded a console game and did a crappy job "porting" it over to the PC.

Just like CoD4:MW, MW2 has air strikes, nukes, predator missiles, and they are even more spammed and powerful than the first, what kind of crack were they smoking? You can use these puppies pretty much anywhere. In an FPS game for freaking sake, not Battlefield. It's like they tried, and failed horribly, to add Battlefield aspects to the game. The maps are far too small for such items and my god can you score easy kills over and over if you know what your doing with these things. So in this respect, it's the same as the original MW, at least in MW you can modify the server to limit or remove them. In MW2 you have no choice but to play with all the under-skilled spammers.

On the flip side, some maps are actually too big for the limited number of players you can have, yet still far too small for the aforementioned overkill strikes. On some maps you find yourself spending more time running around looking for a kill than actually getting any kills. That can get rather boring.

• Probably the most unrealistic game I have ever played.

Now the game does not claim to be realistic, so that's not really a negative point in that respect. What makes it bad is the lack of realism in a game is often made up for with game balance. Not in the case of MW2. This is something I can not really describe, you pretty much have to see it first hand to know what I am talking about. This game is far from balanced and even further from realistic.

The environments are also very static. They don't really react to the gameplay at all. This is a far cry from the Bad Company 2 engine where just about everything is reactive. MW2 being a modern top-of-the-line retail game, I honestly expected much more in this respect.

• Rated M for Mature?

This is a joke right? This game feels like it was designed by kids for kids. I mean, most of the people I actually talked to in this game were very far from "mature". Sure your going to run into that in many games, but in the short time I actually played the game, I actually felt my own IQ drop.

Other than the fact its a war based FPS, there is no reason the game should have an M rating, though I know it's for the violence aspect of the game. Either way, its very easy to see that the vast majority of the player base is far from rated "M".

This game really should have been rated "S" for sucks.

• Insanely easy compared to most other "top rated" retail FPS games.

If your a regular or experienced competitive FPS player, your going to find this game so insanely easy it's not even funny. There is no real challenge anywhere. The games very repetitive nature, map design, and over gameplay, make it very easy to master in a very short time. Hence why I get bored with it so fast I guess.

There are a ton of "unlockables" in the game, that's a plus, but it does not go far enough to keep in fun for a gamer looking for a challenge such as myself.

I mean, I topped over a 3.0 KDR in almost every single match I played and I made level 23 in just over 4 hours easy. Playing Team Deathmatch Express for the most part.

The funny part is, I was not even trying, and I was not familiar with any of the maps. I still was able to slice through this game like a hot knife through butter. So it's not like you can come back and say "You did not like it because you sucked at it!". I think an 8 year old could master this game.

Sure, I am an "experienced" FPS player, and I have a lot of years under my belt, but come on. It should not have been that easy. Facing players level 70 (with Prestige) that should have been far better and more experienced at this games mechanics and maps than me and yet I was able to top the roster in most matches I played.

• Lack of originality.

Why should I pick Modern Warfare 2 over a different game such as Bad Company 2? The simple answer, I wont. This game offers up nothing original, its a MW clone, if you have played one you have played both. Sure it has evolved and progressed since its predecessor, but not by much. The game feels stale to me. All I could think of the entire time I was playing was, "average". There is nothing spectacular about the game in the least. its just, there, and that's about it.

• On the plus side of the coin.

The games graphics on the PC are actually pretty nice if you crank it all the way up. It can be somewhat fun in short bursts or if you feel like noob farming.

Its very easy. This may be a con for me, but not for everyone. This game is well suited for "younger" players or those who are somewhat new to modern FPS games. Its also well suited for players with a nice short attention span. The reason I say that, is this game requires less "thought" than any FPS game I have ever played. I can guarantee that most of the people that play this game religiously, based on the ones I have played with, think they are a lot better than they are. If they were to step out of MW2 and enter a different game, chances are, they would get their backsides handed to them. So the games mindless easiness is a dual edged blade.

The game really does not require that much power to run. It barely used 2 threads of my CPU and never once did it even peg either near 100%. My FPS averaged in the 190 range no matter the map or situation with it all maxed out at 1600x900. The lowest I seen was 138FPS and the max was about 280.

Closing:

If you in the market for a good retail FPS, then I would stay away from Modern Warfare 2 and go spend your money on Bad Company 2. BC2 has come a long way since I did my "First Impression" review. Sure the game still has its share of issues, but when you stand it up next to MW2, it blows it out of the water without even trying.

Heck, you could even check out one of the free to play MMOFPS out there before wasting money on this junk pile.

There is no way I would ever pay $50+ for this game. Even free I really can't stand having it infect my PC with its presence. Bad Company 2 is a much better choice if your looking for a good retail FPS. MW2 should be left to console players because its the poster child of fail on the PC in my opinion.

To me, MW2 left a gaping festering hole in the COD legacy for me. MW2 seems like such a cheap clone of the original that they tried to make better and failed. They either need to let the series die or completely start over and make a new game. One that actually brings some originality to the battlefield. Something that will make it stand out. Bad Company 2 has killer maps, better environments, War Tapes, and they are coming a long way on the items I complained about in my original review. Even though BC2 has fewer game modes and unlockables than MW2, they are still a lot better then MW2.

Now with Medal of Honor coming out this fall, I really think this series is going to go out with a dud, when it should have been a bang. Lets just hope I am wrong.

I really did do my best to give this game a chance to change my mind. I played and played hoping to find some saving grace. The entire time all I really did was make notes about how it fell short when I compared it to other games I have played or do play. Upon the end of Steam's free weekend deal, I instantly removed it from my system, for good.

Now I can see how some people may really like it, especially younger players or those far more used to console games. However, when you put this game in the hands of a hardcore old school gamer who has played just about every FPS released since 1993, and is looking for a game that will actually challenge him and make him want more, it does not impress at all and falls very short of the mark.

I did rate it a 4 out of 10, and not a flat zero, for 2 main reasons. The Spec Ops with Coop is actually a lot more fun than the multiplayer in my opinion. To stand Spec Ops alone, I would rate it about a 7 out of 10, if it was not for the fact the rest of game falling so short for me. The other reason is even though I really did not like this game, there were a very few times I actually had some fun while playing. The problem was these times were short lived and very limited. It simply could not keep me from getting bored out of my mind.

Rated: 4/10

Continue reading →

F.E.A.R. Project Origin Mini-Review

Being a huge fan of F.E.A.R. (First Encounter Assault Recon), and horror based shooters and and games in general, I was really looking forward to playing F.E.A.R. 2 Project Origin. The reality of it though was I simply never got around to it up until about 2 months ago. I just did not have the time. Playing too many different games at once. Once I did play F.E.A.R. 2 though, I was quite upset with myself for letting it fall between the cracks. Something I will not let happen to F.E.A.R. 3 once it's released.

F.E.A.R. broke a lot of new ground and was simply a beautiful game to play and to look it. It was one of the few horror games I placed on the same pedestal as Doom, my all time favorite horror FPS game series. It actually felt like you were playing a movie. All you had to do was put on your headphones, crank them up, turn off the lights, and play! I must have played through F.E.A.R. a good half a dozen times since it was released. I also had a good deal of fun in its multiplayer.

F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin is simply a wonderful sequel and one that takes its story to a whole new level. It's more immersive, has more of a scare factor, impressive visuals and graphics that take of advantage of today's more powerful computers, and the gameplay is just fantastic. Once I started playing I did not want to stop.

Now I am not going to go too much into the story of the game since I don't want to ruin it for those who may not have played it yet. What I will say is kudos to Monolith and WB Interactive for a great story that have some awesome twists and turns and an ending that, I must say, I was not expecting.

This game is best enjoyed the same way as any good horror game or movie, alone in the dark, with the volume cranked up. This game has a very immersive environment, feels like a Hollywood action horror film, and has more "scary" moments that the original. Your going to run into Alma a lot more, and she is going to get a lot closer to you. Your also going to run into more supernatural activity that will pose more of a threat to you than it did in the original, and with the games updated engine, it looks very impressive. The new engine being the Lithtech Jupiter EX with modified Havoc Physics.

This game is a must for any fan of the series or fan of horror shooters in general. Even if you never played the original F.E.A.R. you can still get the idea of the story, and if you get lost, you can always just Google it. heh

This game actually has relatively low requirements considering what it puts out. Only listing a Pentium 4 2.8GHz or equivalent CPU, 1GB of RAM, and 256MB GeForce 6800 or Radeon X700 as the minimum needed to play. To be honest though, the game is a 1000x time better when it's played on a modern dual+ core system with a HD 4000 series video card or equivalent video card, and at least 2GB of RAM. That way you can crank it all up to max and really enjoy the game as it was intended.

I actually did record some of my gameplay and threw it all together in a video. It's nothing special, just a lot of gameplay. However, there are SPOILERS in the video so considered yourself WARNED. Do not watch this video if you do not wish to see any spoilers. It does contain the ending of the game!

• http://www.own3d.tv/video/25126/

The video would be embedded here in the blog entry, but at the moment, own3D seems to be having issues with their player and off-site streaming. As soon as it's corrected, I will embed the HQ video here.

Anyway, this is a fantastic game in just about every aspect, and one that will have me playing it again I am sure in anticipation of F.E.A.R. 3!



Rated: 10/10

Continue reading →

Medal of Honor 2010 Beta Multiplayer First Impression Mini-Review

I came home to find an e-mail saying that I was accepted into the Beta of Medal of Honor. I must say, it was a pleasant surprise. So after many many hours of non-stop playing, I have come to a few conclusions, so I decided a mini "First Impression" review was in order.

Medal of Honor 2010 is made by the same people who make the incredible Battlefield Bad Company 2, DICE. So I must admit I had high expectations for this game. I am pleased to say, it really did not disappoint.

MoH is not Bad Company 2, it was not intended to be, and I am glad they did not try and make it like BC2. MoH is a lot more like Modern Warfare 2, only 100X better, especially since MW2 sucks so bad. In a nut shell, everything Modern Warfare got wrong, Medal of Honor got right. This game blows Mw2 out of the water in just about every respect.

Medal of Honor is a pretty fast paced game on maps that are the perfect size and it easily fulfills the needs of any hardcore FPS gamer. The gameplay feels very smooth and the game has a low learning curve if your already an FPS player.

How does it run?

On my system, this game runs like a dream, averaging 100+ FPS stable at all times, easy. On all high/max settings, 1600x900. 100% frame lag free from what I could tell.

Hit registration seems OK, for a beta. There are times when you get killed "around a corner", but that's a pretty common problem in many FPS games, even BC2. So I really can't hold that against it. You also have to take into account other players latency issues and such. I have dumped multiple rounds into someones face, blood flying, only to have them make it through unharmed and knife me.

The Toys!

The weapons are quite powerful and accurate once you get them mastered. You can unlock different weapons, sights, barrels, and ammunition types for your 3 classes. Assault, Spec Ops, and Sniper. In the beta you seem to be very limited on how much you can unlock.

You get kill streak bonus's you can call upon such as a Mortar Strike, UAV, or Air Strike. Similar to MW2 in availability only, they are not even close to MW2 in how they work, you can't spam the map with them and they do not wipe everyone out. It's 100X more balanced than MW2 could ever dream. Like I said, it's like they learned a lot from MW2's failures.

The one thing I have noticed in the beta is explosive weapons seem to be pretty weak. Had Grenades, the noob tube, RPG's, Rockets, all of them. I am not sure if this is how they are supposed to be or its a bug, to me, it feels like a bug. In order to score a kill with these weapons, you pretty much have to either hit your enemy directly, right at their feet, or hope they have low HP.

The Sniper Rifles in the beta are beastly. You can pretty much run and gun like as assault class as they are configured at the moment. Very easy to use for any nub with any sort of FPS experience. They feel very overpowered, but they are still quite fun, I am sure they will change by the time the game goes retail.

On the flip side of the coin, your assault rifles can easily be used to snipe as well, it almost feels like there is no bullet drop or randomization at all. Then again, most of the battles are in semi-close quarters. It makes the battle feel quite, even, no matter what weapons you use.

The shotguns are a blast as well. Devastating up close and still pretty mean at moderate range. I am able to clear out an entire building of 3 or 4 enemies with relative ease in most cases if I rush in with a shotty and they don't all see me at once. haha

How does it look?

From a graphic standpoint, the game looks great, again it's better than MW2. The environments are not as reactive like in Bad Company 2, but they are more reactive than in MW2. It's easy to see what can and cant be destroyed.

The Vehicles and mounted weapons!

There are gun emplacements in some locations as well as small Bradly style vehicles on some maps, though not many. Such as objective based maps, where you have to capture a set of bases and push the enemy team back. There are no vehicles on the team deathmatch maps.

The Maps and Modes






In the beta, there seem to be 2 maps, each with a different mode, available to play. Both seem very well designed and are quite fun. 24 players per server.

The first map is Helmand Valley and the game mode is "Combat Mission". The idea here is to either take a set of objectives or defend them, depending on what side your on. If your the attackers, you have to try and push the enemy back at take each objective, until you have driven them back to the final one and taken it. If your a defender, it's pretty simple, stop them and tick away the attackers lives to win.

The second, and my favorite so far, is Kabul City Ruins and the mode is Team Assault (aka Team Deathmatch). Pretty much the same as any other Team Deathmatch, kill more of them, score more points than they do, and win. I like the spawn setup in this mode, its not set so one team can just camp one side of the map, your spawn location changes depending on what section of the map your team is in control of at that moment in time. It does well in keeping the action flowing.

The Negative. =(

Hacks already!?!? My god these sad loosers sure don't waste any time. Sadly I ran into a two already. One player by the name of "phooka" was blatantly using a "wall hack" (sometimes known as "chams") to see where everyone was and a wonderful little no-spread hack as well. I had to go look it up to make sure these hacks even existed when I seen them the first time. You can imagine my dismay when I found a few sites looking for people to test their hacks in beta. Makes you want to smack the crap out of them idiots does it not? Oh well, haha.

You really cant hold this against the game, its only in beta, and hacks are a fact of online life. Not to mention, I have only see 2 people outright using hacks in the 15+ hours I played so far. That's not bad at all.

Player lag or server? That is the question the preoccupies my mind. Normally, I would place the blame on kids and people who play a game thinking they have a good enough internet connection or PC to play it, even though they don't. In this case, I am not so sure, it is a beta after all. It could just be that. Though expect people to tank entire clips and to drop dead out of the blue every so often. Nothing new to online FPS. Not to mention I have ran across "SA" players in the beta, playing on the North American servers. That's never a good sign and even worse for "lag". heh

Before you happen to guess what kinda of connection I am on, its 30Mbps down and 15Mbps up, with an average latency from 40-60 from New York, to Dallas, to Los Angeles. 30's to Chicago and St.Louis. So yeah, its not me. lol

Conclusions.

What I like about the game is the fact it fills a niche that MW2 was not able to do. I love my Bad Company 2 and I still prefer that style of game over that of Medal of Honor, but I have to say, MoH easily fulfills my fast paced, non-battlefield style, gaming desires I get from time to time. Enough so that I will be picking this game up that's for sure.

The beta is wonderful, and I am having a lot of fun in it. One major plus, in-game chat is disabled in beta! If only it could stay disabled. lol

Anyway, I easily rate this game a 8 out of 10. The only reason it don't get a higher score is the fact it is still in it's beta stage at the moment. A lot can change from now until the game goes retail. Also, I still like Battlefield style games better.

On a side note, I am going to brag a little. Now, I am pretty damn good at just about any FPS I play, enough to hold my own against anyone and finish on top in many cases. I have discovered my main reason for playing MoH Beta at the moment. I will drop anyone, anywhere, anytime, with the shotguns. >:)

They are all I have been using for the past 3 days, in a nut shell, I dominate. I even dominate others using the shotguns. So if you happen across my path, watch out, no matter how good you think you are...chances are...I will still dominate you. haha

OK, done bragging and having fun now. To some video! :P

Here is a small video of me running around a team deathmatch map, exploring. This was the first time I played on this map and mode. What is now my favorite. It will give you an idea of what the gameplay is like. There is nothing special about the video, its not edited in any way, just raw footage. Rendered in 720P.

This video is the same map, different class and weapons. Having fun with those shotguns. Still raw gameplay but I cut out all the running around and focused on the action more. Still all filmed in one single match. I also rendered it in 1080P this time around.

Both videos recorded with Fraps. Half Size. At 60FPS.

Continue reading →

Crysis 2 PC Mini-Review and Impressions

Since I was one of those who had Crysis 2 on pre-order via Steam, I could not wait until 9am CST Wednesday March 22nd, the time the game became available for me to download through Steam. A day later, after completing the single player campaign on "Veteran" mode, in about 7 hours, while broadcasting a live stream of my session. I can honestly say the game was well worth the money and the wait.

Like I said, I decided to make my first play through the game a little more challenging by playing it on Veteran mode, and it took me about 7 hours from start to finish. It was challenging, but still easily doable and a lot of fun. Since I was also broadcasting my gaming session live via X-Fire and LiveStream, I was not really exploring all the paths you can take or areas of the game, so I missed a large number of the games "collectibles". That's not a problem since, in my opinion, it gives the single player campaign more replay value. I intend on playing through it another time or two to collect all the items available.

The Story

Well, I can sit here and type out a few boring paragraphs about the games story, or I can just give you a couple videos that will do the job a lot better. Not to mention be far more entertaining.

This first one is the official "Crysis 2 Story Trailer".

This next one is the games introduction sequence that I recorded and uploaded shortly after I got it downloaded and installed. So you can get an idea of how the story starts out.

I really liked the story and the direction they took it. Without giving away any spoilers, I can say that it's left open for more games in the series, something I hope to see in the coming years. Any fan of the series or Sci-fi stories will like this one.

The Gameplay

Well, it's Crysis, it's what you expect and more. Lots of weapons to pick up and modify with different attachments throughout the game. Great melee and stealth attacks, including the ability to kill with a silenced pistol and remain cloaked. New attack methods such as "Air Stomp", "Power Kick" obstacles like cars onto or into an enemy, and power sliding under barriers and pumping the enemy full of lead. You can pull off combination's of such moves for some great kills. There is also a nice cover system where you can peek over barriers and around corners to fire at your enemy.

You can also purchase enhancements for your Nanosuit with points "harvested" from enemy kills that augment your different powers and have any one of them active at any given time in each of four categories. It's a lot of fun and adds a new level to the gameplay.

The Graphics

For a game that was cross-platform developed, they look pretty damn good on the PC in high-resolution and at the "Extreme" setting. I am not a an of cross-platform development when it impacts quality on the PC for the sake of inferior console hardware. No console can dream of doing what a nice high-end gaming PC can and I like to see games that actually take advantage of modern PC gaming hardware. I am a PC gamer for a reason. I like the power and I expect my games to use it. Crysis 2 does not push my system anywhere near it's limit, but it still pumps out good looking graphics. However I had to see for myself how it compared to a console.

So I went out and rented a copy of Crysis 2 for the 360 and did a side by side comparison between the two versions. The 360 version does look very nice, on the PC, it's comparable to the games "High" settings.

However, once you set the graphic quality on the PC version to "Very High", you can notice where the console hardware falls short. Once you push the setting to "Extreme", it's very obvious the PC version looks a lot better than the console versions at high resolutions. Though the game does not use DirectX 11, supposedly there will be a patch that will add DirectX 11 features and support. However you can see DX10.1 features being used in some aspects of the graphics.

So it's nice to see that Crysis 2 is not a pure "console port". However it does suffer from cross-platform development in the fact you have no control over any specific graphic settings, such as AA, AF, texture quality, shadows, post processing effects, and all the rest. You have the ability to adjust your resolution, v-sync, and one of three quality presets (High, Very High, Extreme), that's about it. A disappointment from the perspective of a PC gamer and fan of the game series that used to be well known for its graphic power and customization. Something that should be standard on all good PC games.

Beyond that the game looks great when you run it on "Extreme" and at 1080p resolutions. It's also has 3D display capability if you have hardware to support it. Though I seriously hope that if they continue the series, they stop making concessions for inferior console hardware and give the PC gamers a version that can actually take advantage of the far superior PC hardware available.

How does it run?

On my system, the game ran great, averaging about 70-125 FPS easy and across the board, with dips down into the high 50's while broadcasting my live stream in maximum quality and running the game at all maximum settings. Those dips into the high 50's very short lived and unnoticeable save for the fact I had my FPS being displayed via X-Fire.

My system specifications are listed on my Strider's Gaming Rig Specs and Benchmarks page as well as on the right column of this page near the top.

Multiplayer

Just like the Demo, the MP on Crysis 2 is fantastic and a sheer blast to play. It takes the best elements of the single player gameplay we all have come to love about Crysis and brings them to a great multiplayer experience. I am not sure what else to say about the multiplayer aspect of the game, perhaps this calls for a few good videos again?








Closing Thoughts

This is a great game and well worth the price tag in my opinion. The single player campaign takes about 6 to 7 hours to complete, if your not rushing through it and including a couple breaks, but that's not including locating and acquiring all the collectibles in the game. So the campaign has good replay-ability and will not leave you feeling like you were sold short. There are 4 different difficulty modes, multiple path options, and a lot of different ways to achieve the objectives, I love the "Tactical" mode, and I think you will too.

The multiplayer experience is a blast and very unique. I also don't see it dying anytime soon since there is already DLC on the horizon. There are a lot of "gratifying" ways to take down your enemies in MP, a must for any online gamer looking for a good time.

If you got the extra money to drop on the game, I say go for it, it's well worth it and that's not something you can say about many games these days.

I give it an easy 8/10. Docking two points for the cross-platform development and lack of individual graphic setting customizations like I talked about earlier.

Continue reading →