GT5 vs Forza 3

I guess comparing a sim racer to arcade racers is a little unfair. So here's an interesting comparison shot between 2 car sims. (Click for big)

I rest my case. Although I can't help but feel a little bad for them. GT 5 was obviously made by guys who love cars very much. Perhaps even a little too much, if the robust high-res photo mode is any indication. According to some of my friends who bought the game, there's almost an encyclopedic variety of cars from every decade. Most of them are more for novelty though and not any good at all to drive.

So why waste time including all these cars? I mean, I can sort of understand them. I love bicycles, and the riding thereof. But even though I'd love to own a 1987 Bianchi specialissima X4, I'd never want to ride one in the Giro d'Italia. I wouldn't want to ride a 91 Norco Kokanee in the Leadville 100 either. I guess I will just never understand the car-loving mentality.

Regardless, maybe if they'd spent less time meticulously modelling the interiors of a couple hundred cars, they could have spectators that don't look like this.


And now I'll shut up about this forever.

Gran Turismo 5 vs GRID and NFS: Shift

I am generally not one to go talking shit without backing it up (Wait, yes I am) so anyway here are a few videos for comparison. Make up your own mind, I am pretty sure at this point everyone knows whether they are buying it or not.

Gran Turismo 5

GRID and NFS: Shift

Sega Vs Fans : Sonic the Hedgehog

It seems after years of Sega pissing away the Sonic franchise some fans have taken it upon themselves to make there own Sonic game, and the results look pretty sweet. Now I haven't played it for myself but judging by the video the looks like a definite step in the right direction. Then again I would have said that about Sonic 4 until I played the demo.

But why take my word for it, judge for yourself.





BTW you can download the fan made game for free, here.

Modern Warfare 2 vs Battlefield 2 part 2...

Or How to Swear Like a Drunken Sailor


These two games piss me off. The ridiculous story lines, the single minded enemies, but mostly it's the multiplayer. "Why?" you say "The multiplayer's awesome!". Well, it's because they're so awesome that a handful of poor game design choices ruin, what otherwise should be, two of the greatest online multiplayer experiences ever. So instead heaping praise on all the things they get right, let's dive deep into the seedy underbelly that is : Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 vs Battlefield Bad Company 2 competitive online multiplayer edition. Phew, I hope you're not reading this aloud.



1. Why bring a gun to a knife fight?

Knives are annoying, they always have been and they always will be. It's bad enough that BC encourages players to run around like giant douche nozzles, with the allure of enemy dog tags. But for MW to make it over-powered to the point where you can charge at an enemy head on, while he's shooting at you; that's ridiculous. I can live with being knifed in the back, but when I'm pumping him full of lead he better go down.

The Fix : You can't draw your knife if you're getting hit with enemy bullets. When you get shot by an enemy your aim goes off, makes sense that you couldn't use your knife.

2. Please stop killing me with my own helicopter

The vehicles in these games can be a bitch, especially when you're not the one controlling them. At least in MW they're pretty easy to take out. You grab a rocket launcher, add in a little cold blooded, bada bing bada boom, you're done. No more killstreak. In BC there's no such luck. Vehicles are everywhere, and any idiot can pilot them. What's worse is when you actually get someone who knows what they're doing, they can completely dominate a match. This is especially true with the helicopters. Rockets need pin point accuracy, guided missiles are hard to use, and good luck hitting one of these things with a tracer dart.

The Fix : Make tracer darts travel faster. Maybe not bullet speed but close. That way helicopters will be a lot easier to hit, but you'll still need some teamwork to take one down.

3. Born to die

Re-spawning is tricky business for any game, and neither of these two get it quite right. While BC does have a great system, allowing you to spawn on other squad mates, it doesn't work if no one on your team is in a squad. And in really tough matches this can lead to some awful spawn camping.

MW on the other hand has much bigger problems. Half the time when you kill an enemy, they re-spawn him 10 feet ahead of you behind a corner, just waiting to ambush you. And the other half he's directly behind you, shooting you in the back.

The Fix : In BC force players playing alone into squads and make enemy bases off limits. In MW spawn players away from the action. Hell, large parts of the maps are never used anyway.


4. The more you know

Information is power, and on the battlefield it can be the difference between life and death. There's nothing more frustrating than looking at the wrong side of a killcam wondering what the fuck just happened. And in this regard MW really shines over BC. From enemy locations to where your being shot from, it all works within the rules that are laid out. And it works because it's consistent. BC on the other hand is a total mess. Spotting rarely works, enemies uniforms look like teammates, kill cams are useless, your health level is unclear. It just leads to a lot of WTF moments.

The Fix : Spotting, if you hit an enemy with your bullets he's spotted. It's simple, and you don't have to worry about button spamming. Also change the colour of the uniforms and add a health meter on the HUD. It's not rocket science.



5. Ping the ultimate weapon

When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter how good you are at these games, just how good of a connection you have. It's sad, cause there's really nothing you can do about it. I do have to give props to BC for adding dedicated servers but still hasn't completely resolved the issue.

The Fix : Not much I can say about this other than dedicated servers and better matchmaking based on connection.

I could probably go on forever. Unlimited shotgun range, running through claymores, indistinguishable tank mines. There are a ton of little things that make you scratch your head. Despite all this nit picking, who really comes out on top? Well both, or I should say neither. They're really two very different kind of experiences. Modern Warfare is great with friends or on you're own, but it's focused mostly on killing opponents. While Bad Company is much more strategic, you really need some friends online to properly enjoy it.

Either way, prepare to be frustrated, and love every minute of it.

Modern Warfare 2 vs Bad Company 2

Right now when it comes to tactical shooters, there are two big names everyone has probably heard of: Modern warfare and Battlefield. To anyone who doesn't play many games they probably look pretty similar. Even to somebody like myself who's played just about every shooter under the sun, you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart in some regards. After beating the singleplayer campaign and clocking a truly disgusting amount of hours in the multiplayer portions of both, I thought I'd weigh in on their pros and cons.

Which will come out on top? Who can charlie the most oscar mikes to delta? More importantly, who gives a shit? Read on to find out!


Campaign

I have to admit that I was shocked by the similarities in the overall plots of both games. Russians invading the US? EMP devices? Betrayal for little to no reason? Come on guys Tom Clancy could have eaten a bowl of alphabits and shit out a better story than this. Overall I was disappointed by both, though battlefield wins this round by a small margin. The story is the least bit coherent, which is more than you could say for MW 2. Some of the humor that made the first Bad Company unique is present, but dialed back to make room for more Bro-ments and nonsensical military jargon.

All that aside, what hurts these games the most is the pacing. You barely get done running from one killbox to the next before you're whisked away to the next exotic locale. When you're constantly being bombarded with setpieces and crazy shit it starts to lose it's appeal. What makes a roller coaster so intense? It's the feeling you get being winched to the top of that first huge drop. Like a good roller coaster, pacing needs to rise and fall to keep players on their toes.


Gameplay

Much more similar this time around. The combat in MW 2 feels a little more tactile and arcade-y while the explosions, smoke and debris give BC 2 a more visceral feel. The controls in BC 2 are vastly improved over the first and bear much more resemblance to MW 2. Partially because of the sound (especially when audio is set to War Tapes), the guns in BC 2 pack much more of a wallop.

Sadly both seem to have failed where their predecessors succeeded when it comes to gameplay variety. MW 2 tries to mix it up a bit with snowmobiles, boats and a few other additions. None of them are anywhere near as exciting as the AC 130 or sniping mission in MW 1. Bad Company 2 also loses a great deal of it's vehicle sections, which helped the first feel a little more unique.

The destructible environments in BC 2 are great fun and add a lot to the intensity of the firefights. Sadly the destruction doesn't come into play all that often. You rarely have to demolish anything to succeed. I would have liked to see them find more creative uses for it. Overall it's a tie between the 2 as they offer slightly different twists on the same core shooter mechanics.

Next round: Multiplayer!