Now Playing: FORM & Twilight Path (VR)

I purchased FORM and Twilight Path in a bundle deal, so I figured I’d review them together. They’re VR puzzle games, developed by Charm Games. In terms of tone, story and visuals they’re both very unique, but they share much in common mechanically.

Each game is pretty short – an hour or so for FORM, an hour twenty for Twilight Path – but it depends upon how quickly you solve the puzzles, or how often you take a moment to appreciate the VR environments. There’s not much immediate replay value to either game, although I’m sure I’ll play through them again in the future.

That said, they do serve as rather good VR demonstrations. Their short length, ease of progression and simple, intuitive gameplay all serve to promote both games as great ‘entry’ style VR experiences.

In FORM, you play as a scientist investigating a mysterious monolith, whereas in Twilight Path, you play as someone transported into a spirit realm who must find their way home. Both games are very impressive visually. FORM is dark and (initially) oppressive, whereas Twilight Path is bright and colourful. They’re easily two of the most immersive and visually striking VR experiences I’ve played.

Considering these are obviously not high budget games, the level of production quality in terms of visuals, sound, VA and technical stability is very impressive. By keeping the games short, the developers have been able to deliver two very well crafted VR experiences that punch above their weight in terms of development cost.

They also do a good job of keeping the puzzles varied, with no single puzzle mechanic outstaying its welcome or becoming too repetitive. The games mix things up as you progress, introducing new mechanics to keep things fresh and engaging. I do wish, however, that the puzzles had grown in complexity – there’s no real challenge to solving puzzles in either game. You never really need to take a step back and consider how to proceed, followed by that wonderful eureka! moment when you hit upon the solution.

If I had to choose between FORM and Twilight Path, I’d say I enjoyed Twilight Path more. There’s more variety to the game in terms of visuals, characters and mechanics. Whereas FORM is a more isolated experience, simply moving you from one puzzle onto the next, Twilight Path offers a more expansive, narrative based experience. There are characters with whom you interact, and a story with more direction.

Overall, I’m glad I purchased both games, but I’m also glad I got them in a bundle deal – these are games I’d certainly recommend if you have a VR system, but I’d also recommend them on sale. I know Charm Games are working on a sequel to Twilight Path and I hope that they can build upon what they’ve already achieved and deliver a more substantial VR experience, with a little more challenge and complexity.

FORM – 6/10 Twilight Path – 7/10

The Clayton Awards 2019

Game of the Year 2019 – Astral Chain

Astral Chain was an easy pick for my GOTY. It seemed to arrive at just the right moment, as I said in my review -

‘It’s a timely reminder of just how colourful, unique and crazy video games can be.’ (Full Review)

Most Disappointing Game of 2019 – Red Dead Redemption 2

And if Astral Chain was an easy pick for my GOTY, then Red Dead Redemption 2 is an easy pick for my Most Disappointing Game of 2019.

This might be something of a surprise if you’ve read my rather glowing First Impressions post, but rest assured, I’ll be explaining why I’m so disappointed by Red Dead Redemption 2 in a full review early next year. And do remember – disappointing doesn’t necessarily mean bad.

Now Playing: Devil May Cry 5

Devil May Cry 5 is the first game in the DMC series I’ve played, but I doubt it will be my last. It’s a series I’ve always wanted to try but never quite got around to. If you’ve followed my blog you’ll know I’m a fan of fast paced, third person action games so I was pretty excited to get stuck into DMC 5.

The game comes with a helpful little recap video for new players to bring them up to speed on the ongoing story and characters. And although the story of DMC 5 may not be the most important aspect, it’s a decent – if predicable – tale that helps string the missions along from one to the next. But honestly, once you’ve seen the story scenes once, you’ll likely just skip them on repeat play – aside from (maybe) that Dante dance number.

You begin the game by playing as Nero, but within a few short missions you’ll switch to playing as V. Both characters play very differently – Nero attacks directly with a sword and gun, whereas V has demonic ‘pets’ that do the fighting for him. Nero also has a mechanical arm which, as you progress, you will unlock multiple variations of, each with its own unique attack style and ultimate ability. But I must say, my initial impressions of DMC 5, based upon these two characters, were a little mixed.

 

When you begin you only have a very basic level of abilities available to you – you can’t even double jump or perform a proper dodge, for example. And Nero only has a single, sword based combo. Combat during these early missions, at least on your first run, will feel very limited. To be fair, the cost of many of your more basic skills is quite cheap, so you won’t have to grind too many ‘orbs’ in order to unlock them.

The ‘orb’ system is a point of contention that must be addressed. Pretty much every skill in the game for every character and weapon type can only be unlocked by spending red orbs at an ever increasing cost. I don’t know the total cost of all skills in the game because – even though I’ve now completed it twice – I’ve still not unlocked them all. Most, but not all. And I doubt I’ll ever grind the NINE MILLION orbs required to unlock each character’s final ‘taunt’ move.

I can understand wanting to give players a goal to strive for through repeat play, but I do feel that the cost of many of these skills is too damn high. I really shouldn’t need to play through the game 3-4 times (maybe more) to unlock everything. And like I said, it does make a good portion of your initial run feel very limited because there’s so much you haven’t yet unlocked.

And those unlocks are very important, particularly for Nero and V. Nero becomes far more fun to play once you’ve unlocked the majority of his skills. And V? Well, V does get better, but he’s still, by far, the weakest component of DMC 5. But let’s focus on Nero first, shall we?

 

Nero’s mechanical arm is what really sets him apart and I love the notion of each arm you unlock having different styles of attack. That said, when I unlocked my second arm I must have spent 5 minutes trying to figure out how to switch between them . . . before I realised that I couldn’t. This is one aspect of DMC 5 I really don’t like. I understand the intention behind this design choice – to make switching your arms a tactical choice – you can only switch by destroying your currently equipped arm which will then automatically equip the next arm you’ve ‘queued’ in your inventory.

But frankly, I prefer games that give me creative flexibility – I wanted to be able to quickly switch between arm types as and when I pleased, to switch to whatever arm felt the most appropriate for that particular moment. I don’t hate the system they have, it just feels needlessly restrictive to me – as if Nero (if you’ll excuse the pun) is fighting with one arm tied behind his back.

As for V, it’s a little strange playing as him after playing Astral Chain – a game built around a combat system in which you summon and control a ‘pet’. And maybe it’s not fair to compare them considering that V is only one part of DMC 5, whereas Astral Chain is entirely designed for that style of play. But fair or not, V is the weakest part of DMC 5. He’s just not – at least to me – all that fun to actually play as. He gets better with new skills, but during my first run through the game, I can’t say I particularly enjoyed his missions.

In fact, I was a little concerned as I progressed. Considering all the ‘overwhelmingly positive’ reviews on Steam, I wasn’t exactly loving what I was playing. Nero was fun, but felt limited, and V was . . . kinda crap, to be perfectly honest. But then I unlocked Dante and Dante is f**king amazing.

 

Dante is fantastic to play as right from the very start, before you’ve even unlocked any of his (extensive) skills. Not only is he my favourite character to play as, but in terms of the story and characters, he’s just a fun lad who you can’t help but love. And once you do unlock new skills and weapons with Dante – including a chainsaw motorcycle – he just keeps getting better and better. Hell, the entire game could have just been playing as Dante and I think I would have liked it even more because the amount of combo options Dante has, the sheer amount of attack styles and weapon types is absolutely crazy.

And that’s what I love about Dante – he’s great to play as regardless of if you’re new to the game, or a veteran of the series. He’s instantly accessible but there’s so much depth to his gameplay to master. Playing as Dante was what really turned the game from being good to great for me. It’s just a shame he doesn’t show up until about half way through.

But DMC 5 is certainly a game that you’ll enjoy more on repeat play. I know it’s a strange recommendation – it gets really good once you’ve finished the game – but it’s true. I enjoyed DMC 5 far more on my second run with all the new skills I’d unlocked.

The game has a good selection of enemy types and some enjoyable bosses, but what it really lacks is environmental variety. This is probably my primary criticism of the game and why it doesn’t get a higher score – the environments kind of suck. The early levels are pretty decent as you traverse a city amidst a demonic invasion. But roughly half way through the game, pretty much every level becomes the same – you’re traversing the interior of a ‘demonic tree’.

 

I got f**king sick of that tree, I’m not going to lie. Every mission just looked the same. Don’t get me wrong, visually speaking, DMC 5 looks great – including the levels set within the demon tree – but I really didn’t need half the game to be set there. It kind of reminded me of the Hell levels in Bayonetta 2.

They were, visually, a great change of pace, but the game knew when to kick you back to reality. DMC 5, unfortunately, doesn’t and you’re stuck traversing that bloody tree until the end of the game. I also would have liked to see Nico, Trish or Lady play more of a role within the game – they just kind of disappear half way through.

I’m suddenly realising that this review is probably sounding more negative than positive, but I’m just laying out why DMC 5 didn’t quite manage to hit that higher score for me – why, as good as it is, it ain’t no Bayonetta, baby!

Overall, Devil May Cry 5 is a great game that’s worth checking out even if, like me, you’re new to the series. And – if I can find the time – I’m certainly going to check out the earlier games in the series to see how they compare.

8/10

Now Watching: They Live

Over the years, I’ve seen most but not all of John Carpenter’s films and a couple of them – The Thing (1982) and Big Trouble in Little China (1986) – are two of my favourite films ever. But I’d never seen They Live (1988) until recently.

They Live is a science-fiction film that focuses on John Nada (Roddy Piper), a drifter who stumbles upon a global conspiracy involving alien invaders and subliminal messages. It may seem silly not wanting to spoil the plot of a film released 30 years ago, but I think They Live is best enjoyed if you go in not knowing exactly what to expect. That’s how I viewed it, at least, and I’m glad I did, so that’s why I’m going to keep this review short and light on details.

I think the film is best described as ‘short and punchy’. In an age where very movie seems to be at least 2 hours, They Live is refreshingly trim and tidy. It gets off to a deliberately slow start as we’re introduced to Nada who, despite his less than fortunate circumstances, still has faith and hope within society and the ‘system’. He’s a simple man who just wants to earn an honest wage, and if people would just give him a shot, he’ll repay them in turn.

But of course, his belief in society and the system is soon shook and crumbles as he discovers that the world isn’t quite what it appears. Nada, as our hero, is reminiscent of the blue-collar heroes of The Thing and Big Trouble – they’re just guys trying to make a buck who get caught up in something much bigger.

As I said, it’s best not to know too much going in so you can figure out what’s going on alongside Nada. And that’s when the film really picks up pace, as Nada practically bulldozes his way forward. There’s not much in the way of elaborate planning to his actions – he just reacts and lashes out at the world he has now discovered is a lie – a world he previously had faith in. There’s nothing subtle about Nada but his direct action is certainly effective.

Overall, They Live has become another Carpenter favourite for me and it’s something I’d highly recommend. With a combination of stunts and practical effects, it still looks great today. And I think more importantly, the themes it explores are just as relevant now – if not more so – than they were at release, particularly in this social media obsessed age.

If you’re a fan of science-fiction, of mystery and action – because there’s also plenty of that – then be sure to check out They Live. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

8/10

Now Playing: Resident Evil 2 Remake

With the Resident Evil and Resident Evil Zero remakes completed, it was time to jump into the more recent remake of Resident Evil 2. I played Resident Evil 2 when it released on the Dreamcast in 2000 but honestly, I’m not even sure if I finished it. I do remember parts of it, but it hasn’t stuck in my mind the same way the original has.

Then again, unlike the original, I haven’t played it in 19 years, so I guess it’s not a surprise I can’t recall it very well. Which means that this review can’t really serve as a comparison of the original versus this modern remake. I just don’t remember the original enough to judge this remake on those terms – what it’s gained, or what it might have lost during the transition.

 

What I can say though is that the Resident Evil 2 remake is a fantastic game, as enjoyable and engaging as the Resident Evil remake – perhaps, dare I say it, even more so. Set a couple of months after the first game, the action picks up in Raccoon City, now infested with zombies and other mutated nasties very eager to bite your face off. 

You can choose to play as Leon Kennedy, a rookie cop, or Claire Redfield, who has come to Raccoon City in search of her brother. Like the original game with Jill and Chris, Leon and Claire’s stories kind-of-but-not-quite run in parallel.

Both characters will progress through largely the same areas, puzzles and enemies, but each has their own unique sequence of story events, and there are some areas / gameplay sections which are only accessible to one character or the other.

 

It’s not exactly a perfect system if you want to believe that both stories are occurring simultaneously, because it doesn’t really work like that. But there is enough story, location and gameplay variation to make playing through with both characters worth your time. And when you complete the ‘A’ playthrough for each character, you’ll then unlock a ‘B’ run which mixes up various items and progression for each character to give you a familiar, but fresh experience.

Visually, the Resident Evil 2 remake is fantastic, with excellent use of lighting and shadows to create a gloomy and oppressive atmosphere. With modern controls and camera angles, Resident Evil 2 is quite a departure from the more ‘traditional’ Resident Evil and Zero remakes. It seems like nearly every area of the original has had a modern overhaul to one degree or another – the way your inventory works, for example, or the lack of ink ribbons to save – at least on difficulties below Hardcore.

 

There’s a nice progression of weapons and enemies as you go, and the infamous Mr. X really cranks up the tension whenever he appears. Your initial entry point in the police station is very reminiscent of the mansion of Resident Evil 1 – with secret passageways and various keys required in order to open new areas. And overall, I’d say Resident Evil 2 does a better job of varying up the environments as you go, although as you might expect, you’re always going to end up in an Umbrella lab beneath the surface.

I thoroughly enjoyed playing through this remake with both Leon and Claire. I don’t know if a Resident Evil 3 remake is in the works, but I hope one is, because that’s another game I played many years ago but can barely recall, and I’d love to complete the set.

If you’re a fan of the Resident Evil series then this is a must buy. And it’s not a bad place to jump in if you’re new to the series, combining the best of classic survival horror with a modern gameplay twist.

8/10

Red Dead Redemption 2: First Impressions

I was going to wait for the Steam release of Red Dead Redemption 2, but when I discovered it would require the Rockstar launcher anyway, I figured I might as well purchase it through that platform and save an extra 15 quid. I also, coincidentally, had a week off work, so I had some free time to really get stuck into it.

I guess the first thing to address is the launcher itself and any technical issues I’ve had. The launcher is . . . basic, to say the least, but I’ve not had any problems with it. No crashes, no update issues. It works. That’s all it does, but I guess that’s all it really needs to do. As for the game itself, I’ve had a couple of crashes during my first 15 or so hours of play, but no other problems.

I’ve not encountered any bugs or had any issues with any quests. In terms of performance, I’m running on mostly High settings with a few cranked up to Ultra and I’m getting a fairly stable 60FPS, with the occasional dip into the 40-50 range depending upon the scene. But given the slow paced nature of RDR2 it’s not particularly noticeable.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a prequel to the original in which you play as Arthur Morgan, a member of the Van der Linde gang. If you’ve played the original then some of these characters will already be familiar to you and you’ll also know where their path will eventually lead. It certainly gives the game something of a bitter-sweet edge to its story. 

And the story and these characters are really at the heart of RDR2. The game revolves around you and your gang. They’re your family. A wild, dysfunctional family, perhaps, but a family nonetheless. The game opens with a fairly short initial chapter that not only serves to introduce you to the basic gameplay mechanics, but also to the people with whom you’ll embark upon this journey.

And these introductions continue into Chapter 2, which is when the game really begins to open up and let you explore its impressive open world. Each early mission serves a dual purpose – to unlock new weapons, tools or gameplay systems and to let you get to know another member of your gang. These missions also expand as you progress, pushing you further and further from your camp.

It’s a clever means of progression that not only ensures you get to know each gang member in turn, but also unlock new tools and systems at a steady rate, whilst also revealing more and more of the open world.

At the time of writing, I’ve just wrapped up Chapter 2 and my gang and I have relocated to a new location in a new part of the map. I don’t believe this will be the last relocation and it’s another clever way of continually pushing you across the map throughout the course of the game. And I have to say, I really love the gang camp.

The camp can be improved over time by investing in various upgrades, some of which may be purely cosmetic, but others which offer useful gameplay benefits – such as a fast travel map, or the ability to recall your horse to camp. You can restock food and ammo, catch some sleep, have a shave or change your clothes. But the camp is more than just a rest and resupply point – if the gang is your family, then the camp is your home.

One of the things I love most about RDR2 is the contextual conversations. You can speak with other gang members within the camp and whilst there are the expected ‘stock’ replies, there’s lots of situation specific dialogue. Some will be comments about current events, or recent missions you’ve undertaken, whereas others will refer to whatever activity your currently engaged in. The gang have their own routine. They talk, argue, drink and sing amongst themselves. They don’t just ignore you if you pass by or sit down with them, but actively engage with you.

And this contextual dialogue applies to the wider world, too. You can greet and converse with everyone you encounter. You can be rude, attempt to defuse a hostile situation with words, or perhaps trigger a conflict. And NPCs will sometimes refer to recent events that you were a part of. In one case, I was approached in a saloon by an NPC who wanted to talk about a bar fight I was in a few days before. In another, an NPC who I’d helped on the road arrived in town and offered me a free item of choice from the local gunsmith.

Sure, you can argue that these things are all just cleverly disguised scripted events, but the way they’re presented in the game feels very natural and spontaneous. There’s a real emphasis on immersion in RDR2, far more than any game I’ve played in recent memory. All of the expected gameplay systems are present, but they’re disguised in such as way as to make everything feel more ‘real’.

To give a more specific example – looting bodies. In say, The Division 2, loot dropped by enemies pops up in a little virtual box from which you can loot a specific item or everything at once. It’s a fast and efficient system, but hardly realistic. But in RDR2, Arthur has to physically search each and every body. It’s a short animation, no more than a few seconds, but like so many minor aspects of RDR2, it builds a sense of realism, carefully disguising the video game systems running beneath.

And I can totally see why some players would be irritated by this. Why they’d be annoyed by having to take their time to search every dead body, or why they don’t want to have to remember to retrieve their weapons from their horse every time they dismount. I can see why some players may find these little minor systems based upon realism to be tedious and unnecessary.

But RDR2 wants to immerse you in its world and isn’t afraid to slow things down and make the player take their time. And for me, it really does work. It’s not just one single thing, but a combination of design choices, each of which build an incredibly immersive and realistic world to explore.

RDR2 isn’t afraid to take things slow, to build to the action. And the game gives you plenty to keep you busy outside of the story based missions – hunting, fishing, bounty jobs, treasure maps, robberies, ‘stranger’ side missions and all manner of random encounters throughout the world as you explore.

Okay, I should probably wrap this up so I’ve got some material left for my review. That review may be some time away because once I complete the single player side of RDR2, I also want to get stuck into the Online mode. But at the moment, I’m thoroughly enjoying RDR2. It’s a very impressive game with amazing visuals and an incredible attention to detail. It’s immersive, fun and thoughtful. If it keeps this quality up, we’ll have another strong contender for my GOTY.

Now Playing: Budget Cuts (VR)

If Arizona Sunshine was a ‘low budget Left 4 Dead’ and Pavlov VR a ‘low budget Counter-Strike’ it seems only fitting that I play Budget Cuts AKA ‘low budget Portal 2’. Okay, so that’s not entirely fair, but it’s clear that Budget Cuts has taken inspiration from the Portal series in terms of its tone, humour, style and presentation.

Budget Cuts is a stealth / puzzle game in which you must escape from your office or risk permanent ‘retirement’. The human workers, one by one, are disappearing, replaced with friendly and presumably more cost efficient robot employees. Beginning at your desk, you receive a telephone call and a fax providing you with instructions on how to escape and what tools you’ll need to do so.

You soon collect a device that lets you teleport from one location to the next by firing a targeted, but bouncy, ball of energy. You can use this tool to line up a shot, ricocheting the ball from a wall or object to go around corners or through openings in the ceiling. You don’t teleport to your destination immediately, however, as a ‘preview bubble’ appears, allowing you to peer into the local surroundings.

It’s a clever way of combining VR teleportation motion with a game mechanic. It’s always best to survey an area before you teleport, just in case there’s an angry robot waiting for you on the other side. Because whilst most of the robots you’ll encounter on your journey are affable chaps, there’s also a force of security robots with orders to shoot you on sight.

The story based campaign of Budget Cuts took me about 5 hours to complete on the Standard difficulty. In terms of overall production quality, it’s one of the best VR games I’ve played with sharp and colourful visuals, solid, well considered mechanics and some good VA. As I said, as far as tone and style goes, it’s very reminiscent of Portal 2.

Each level has a clear objective, usually involving dodging (or killing) security robots and collecting the necessary key card in order to progress to the next area. It’s a simple, but effective gameplay loop, but it’s a shame it never evolves beyond a rather basic level of complexity.

If there’s one thing I like about puzzle based games, it’s how they evolve over time, introducing new mechanics and concepts as you progress. The Portal games are a perfect example of this. Every new section introduces a new twist on old concepts as you’re forced to solves puzzles with increasingly elaborate solutions, often combining previous mechanics in new and creative ways. 

But Budget Cuts, sadly, never quite does this. It does begin to, but only when you reach the end of the game. It’s a real shame, because if Budget Cuts had offered a longer campaign with a more elaborate progression of gameplay mechanics, it really could have been considered as good as, say . . . Portal 2. The basic systems are already in place, the game just doesn’t explore them to the degree that it should.

You can choose to avoid combat, but it’s often easier to kill the security robots by tossing sharp objects at their heads. A head shot will drop one instantly, but a body or limb shot will slowly cause them to ‘bleed’ oil and they may still get their own shot off at you. That’s why it’s best not to confront them directly, but from the safety of vents or ducts, dropping or tossing knives or scissors at your foes as they pass, unsuspecting, below.

Though your combat options are limited, it does work quite well, and it’s always kind of disturbing when you hit a robot in the leg and watch them stagger about, leaking oil all over the floor before collapsing in a heap. You almost feel kind of bad about it. That said, combat can also be tricky because it involves tossing small objects – and because there’s no real sense of ‘weight’ when throwing an object in VR, it can be difficult to gauge how hard or fast to throw in order to hit your target.

When you reach the end of the game you’ll find yourself in a clever and actually kind of scary boss type encounter. I won’t spoil it, but it’s pretty neat and I kind of wish the game had more encounters like this that really force you to think and plan carefully on how to proceed.

As far as bugs and technical issues go, Budget Cuts ran perfectly smoothly. Some of the robot characters would occasionally get stuck on scenery, forever locked within a walking animation, but there wasn’t any other major glitches. My main problem was the game’s auto-save system which, on occasion, would reload me into the game but reset enemies I’d already killed prior to the save.

In one case, reloading into the game put me face to face with an angry robot who immediately shot me before I could react. It was a robot I’d killed about 5 minutes before the checkpoint save and I had to restart the level which was kind of annoying.

Beyond the campaign is an ‘Arcade’ mode offering a handful of new levels and challenges but, once again, none of them really push the stealth or puzzle mechanics to the degree that I would like and would elevate Budget Cuts from being a pretty good game, into a great one. And I guess that’s where I should leave this review.

Budget Cuts it’s one of the best VR games I’ve played and a wonderful demonstration of how VR can offer a very unique – and physical – gameplay experience. It’s incredibly immersive as you crouch in a vent or peer through a hole in a ceiling into the corridor below – you probably look like a real prat in reality but when you’re in the game, you quickly forget the real world even exists (which can be dangerous when you’re ‘throwing’ objects – I nearly broke one of my controllers hitting a bookcase).

I know a Budget Cuts 2 is due soon and it’s something I’ll certainly be keeping an eye on. If it can refine, build upon and expand the existing mechanics, whilst also introducing a few new twists of its own and a longer, more substantial campaign, I can see it being a must have VR experience. But in the meantime, Budget Cuts is worth checking out.

7/10

Now Listening: Walk The Sky

Welcome to my first and probably last music review. It’s not really my thing, but I decided to make an exception for Walk The Sky. It’s the sixth studio album by Alter Bridge who I’ve been listening to since their debut One Day Remains in 2004. Since then, they’ve released a new album like clockwork every three years.

The thing I like about Alter Bridge is how every album they’ve released has a distinct tone and style. That can be a little risky – there’s always a chance you might alienate fans of your last album who are expecting more of the same. But walking the same path typically leads to creative stagnation, and that’s something Alter Bridge have successfully avoided.

Every album feels fresh and new, and Walk The Sky continues this trend. But what’s interesting about Walk The Sky is that it also serves as a journey through their previous five albums. Tracks like Godspeed and Native Son are very evocative of One Day Remains, whilst Take the Crown would fit perfectly within The Last Hero (2016).

As the album progresses it touches base with the darker tones of ABIII (2010) and Fortress (2013) in tracks such as Indoctrination and Forever Falling. And then you have songs like The Bitter End or Tear Us Apart which are reminiscent of Blackbird (2007). But in tracks like In the Deep and the titular (kind of) Walking on the Sky, Alter Bridge deliver something we’ve not really heard before – particularly the synth style beat backing Pay No Mind.

I’ve seen some people speculate that Walk The Sky could be the last Alter Bridge album and although I certainly wouldn’t say no to another, I wouldn’t be disappointed if it was because this is one hell of a way to bow out. The final track Dying Light is one of the best songs they’ve ever produced and Walk The Sky, as a whole, is a fitting tribute and celebration of everything they’ve achieved over the last 15 years.

9/10

Now Playing: Resident Evil Zero Remake

I picked up the Resident Evil and Resident Evil Zero remakes in a recent sale. You can read my review of the Resident Evil remake here. I also picked up the Resident Evil 2 remake, but I wanted to complete both Resident Evil and Resident Evil Zero before jumping into that title.

I played the original Resident Evil Zero on its release on the GameCube in 2003, but going into this remake, I recalled very little. And now I’ve completed it again, I think I know why. Zero is a pretty decent entry in the Resident Evil series, but as much as I enjoyed playing through it, I must admit that it’s a pretty forgettable game.

Zero serves as a prequel to the original Resident Evil, set just hours before the events of that game. You play as both Rebecca Chambers of the S.T.A.R.S Bravo Team, and Billy Coen – a former soldier convicted of murder and sentenced to execution. Unlike the original Resident Evil with Jill and Chris, Rebecca and Billy aren’t split between two separate playthroughs, but are switched between as you please.

 

It’s a pretty simple, but effective system. Each character has their own inventory and you can switch items between them providing they’re in the same location. The character you’re not controlling will be handled by the AI, which you can set to attack at will or remain idle. You can also choose to operate as a Team (which means your AI partner will follow you) or Solo (they’ll hold position).

There are several puzzles and environmental obstacles that are based around this character switch mechanic, requiring you to make use of both characters in order to advance. But as fluid and clever as the system is, it also feels a little wasted because ultimately, aside from those handful of (very) simple puzzles, it doesn’t factor as heavily into the gameplay as perhaps it should.

Another big change in Zero is the lack of item boxes. This sort of makes sense considering you have two inventories on the go at once, but I can’t say it really adds or subtracts anything to the item management experience. You can drop items you don’t (yet) need and, rather than store them in an item box, you’ll typically just drop them in a safe location with a typewriter anyway.

 

I think the main reason why Zero is rather forgettable compared to the original is how small and linear it feels. I know you can argue that progression in the original is linear, but because of the size of the mansion and the two separate character experiences, it gave it a degree of flexibility and replayability.

But Zero doesn’t share the same replay value because both characters share the same story – even during moments when they’re separated and you’re forced into playing as just one of them. And rather then a single, large location to explore, Zero is split between 4-5 smaller locations, beginning on a Train before moving onto what you might call a ‘mini-mansion’ and then some other locations that I won’t spoil.

I think the problem is, as good as each of these locations are, they’re all very small and your progression through them is incredibly linear. The train you begin on – with the simple choice of going forward or back – is pretty much how the rest of the environments play out. Unlike the original game, you don’t unlock multiple locations to explore at once and can pick and choose where to go first. In Zero, you just unlock each ‘door’ in turn and keep moving forward. There’s very little sense of exploration.

 

There’s also nothing really in the game in terms of enemies or weapons that we didn’t see in the original. I guess there are evil, mutant frogs – f**k those frogs – but there’s not much else to get very excited about. The boss battles in the game are also kind of forgettable. I liked Rebecca and Billy as our heroes but the actual plot is a little half-baked and kind of silly.

Visually, Zero still looks great today. I’d say the environments look sharper and better than the Resident Evil remake. In terms of length, you’re probably looking at about 6-8 hours on your first run depending on difficulty, but like I said, this isn’t a game with a great deal of replay value. I didn’t play it multiple times when it originally released, and I won’t be playing it again now.

Overall, Resident Evil Zero is a decent entry in the Resident Evil series, but it feels too short, small, and in terms of plot – inconsequential – to really be considered an essential purchase. It’s a good game that’s worth playing through at least once if you’re a fan of the series, but I’d recommend picking it up on sale.

6/10

HTC VIVE VR: Updated Impressions

I’ve had my VIVE for quite a few weeks now so I thought it was time to give some updated impressions of the platform – and that’s really how I’ve come to see the VIVE and, I guess, VR in general – as a platform.

You might wonder if the initial ‘novelty’ factor has worn off, but I’ve not really changed my mind about VR as an experience – I still consider my VIVE to be the most exciting piece of hardware I’ve bought in years. But like I said, I don’t just view VR as a hardware component, but as a unique platform.

I think this became clear to me when I put some time into two games that weren’t originally designed for VR, but integrated VR support post-release – The Forest and No Man’s Sky. And don’t get me wrong, I think they’ve done a good job (particularly in NMS) of adapting the experience for VR.

But now I’ve put more time into other VR exclusive games, I can also see a clear difference between the games that are designed for VR from the ground up, and those that have patched in VR support. And the difference is this – games designed exclusively for VR are far more enjoyable to play than those in which VR support has been added.

In the case of The Forest and NMS, I think it’s important to note that these are two games I’ve already played significantly outside of VR and that may influence my judgement – if I’d only experienced these games as VR titles, my impressions may be different.

That said, I think it would still be obvious to me that many systems in each game simply weren’t designed with VR in mind – particularly menu navigation and text. The truth is, as impressive as both games are to jump into in VR, they’re also a chore to play. Because neither game and their mechanics were designed for VR, everything feels more awkward and slow to do.

That’s not to say that every VR title is perfectly designed for the VR experience, or that other non-VR games may not do a better job of seamlessly integrating VR – I’m just basing these impressions upon what I’ve played and that is, admittedly, still limited.

But I think anyone who has played a lot of VR would probably agree that there’s a clear difference between games designed for the platform and those that weren’t. Even free VR games like The Lab provide a far more enjoyable VR experience because they were designed for VR from the ground up – movement, visuals, scale, text, menus, inventory, sound and gameplay mechanics – all the fundamentals of game design have to be carefully reconsidered for VR.

And that’s why I see my VIVE as a platform as opposed to just a piece of additional PC hardware – because it can offer a very unique gameplay experience. I think the real problem with VR right now though, is simply that there’s not enough high profile titles available.

The indie scene for VR is going strong, but there’s a noticeable lack of high budget / high production quality AAA games in the VR space. I know Valve is supposed to be working on at least one VR game – maybe more, considering they just released their own VR hardware – and based on The Lab, I’m sure whatever they release will be of excellent VR quality.

But I guess that’s what VR is lacking right now. The hardware quality has improved, the cost – though still high – is starting to creep down, and the VR player base does appear to be slowly, but steadily increasing. But what we really need is a killer app. A game which can sell VR hardware just on its own. The market is growing and the audience is building. When that killer app does finally arrive, it’s going to be an exciting time for the VR platform going forward.

Now Playing: The Division 2

The Division 2 was disappointing. It shouldn’t have been. I knew exactly what to expect. But I still came away disappointed. I think it’s because in some ways, The Division 2 is a better game than the original, but not in the ways it really needed to be.

I’d recommend reading my review of the original and my thoughts on The Division 2 BETA to provide a little perspective for this review. Because here’s the thing – I really do like these games. I just think there’s so much wasted potential in this series that I can’t help but be disappointed.

The main problem is the story. The concept of the plot – a lawless world in the aftermath of a devastating viral outbreak – is just as compelling as it was in the original, but like the original, it’s not supported in the game by any engaging stories or characters.

The Division 2 is meant to be a sequel to the original but aside from one or two nods to the characters and plot of The Division, what happened in the original really doesn’t matter. And I doubt what happens in The Division 2 will have any real impact on the events of the inevitable Division 3.

 

That doesn’t concern me too much, however, as I like the idea of each game being set within its own location with its own characters and stories to tell. The problem that both games have, however, is the characters and stories totally fall flat.

Your character, like the original, is a mute weirdo who people talk to, but not with. You get sent on ridiculously dangerous missions without any support, kill thousands of bad guys, save the President and pretty much the entire city on your own. Despite this, you’re not even present during the final ‘celebration’ cut scene that features all of the key ‘good’ characters in the game.

What a joke. And what a waste. You think, mistakenly, that the game might do more with these key characters – the two Division agents you work with at The White House, and the leaders of two local civilian communities. You think they might play more of a role within the developing plot – but no.

Like the original game, The Division 2 just isn’t concerned with building interesting characters and stories. It’s such a damn shame, because the core gameplay of The Division is a lot of fun. The world looks fantastic. The mission locations are great. But the game never builds a compelling narrative to guide the player through its content.

 

Like the original, the story and characters exist only to prop up a shallow plot to push the player from one mission to the next. And it’s not just the ‘good’ characters who are the problem. The main bad guys are even worse. There are three gangs in the game, each with their own leader. You might think they’d be developed during the course of the game, setting up a satisfying final boss fight in each of their own strongholds – but no.

The final stronghold missions play out exactly the same as every other mission in the game and you don’t even get to fight the main boss characters at all. As a result, the game just fizzles out without any kind of bang. But I guess that’s how it has to go, right? Because like the original, it’s all about that ‘live service’ model. But no – f**k that.

There’s no reason why they couldn’t have provided a more deep and engaging story and characters building towards a more conclusive and satisfying ending. I just don’t think they cared. Maybe because . . . most people don’t care? I mean, the games are very successful, so maybe most players don’t care about the plot or characters and just want to go shooty shooty bang bang from one mission to the next.

 

And don’t get me wrong – the shooty shooty bang bang is as good here as it was in the original. But the context is lacking. The motivation is weak. The characters are practically non-existent – including your own. Maybe I shouldn’t be so annoyed about it, maybe it’s not worth it, but when the world is so well constructed, when the gameplay is so fun, I find the lack of effort and care when it comes to the story and character aspects so disappointing.

Why? I guess because, like the original, it means The Division 2 is a game I’ll forget within a week or two. There’s nothing memorable about it. I’ll be able to say ‘the environments looked nice’ and ‘I liked the combat’ but I won’t be able to say more than that because there’s nothing else worth remembering. No story. No characters. Nothing.

What a shame, because in some ways, The Division 2 does improve upon aspects of the original. You do get more of a sense that the city is changing due to your actions – you see more friendly patrols on the streets who get better armed as you progress. You see friendly supply convoys transporting goods between the control points you’ve liberated. And you see the two civilian communities expand and upgrade over time.

 

Yes, it’s all very formulaic and, unfortunately, it’s all undone at the end of the game as the world essentially ‘resets’ so you can keep going out and shooting more people. I guess just adding in new locations or missions that build upon the world that you’ve helped create would be too much to ask. Nah, let’s just reset everything and have you go out and replay the same missions and strongholds again in order to increase your ‘gear score’ so you can access and unlock the post-game content.

I mean, I can’t complain about the sheer amount of content on offer here – if you really don’t care about the world, story or characters, and just want to shoot stuff – you’re going to get plenty of bang for your buck. But if you’re like me, and the gameplay, though fun, isn’t compelling enough to keep you playing, then you really need a narrative hook – and that’s what The Division 2 is sadly lacking.

It’s fun. It’s repetitive. Every mission plays out the same. There’s no surprises here. It’s the same game, only a little better. To quote from my review of the original game – ‘It was a fairly entertaining, if mindless way to waste 30 hours of my life. But if I’m being honest, I’ll probably forget I even played it by this time next week.’

6/10