Video Game Assessment: Dungeon Siege III (2011)

Yet another Obsidian directed video game comes out, and yet again I became incredibly excited for it. In general I've loved all of Obsidian Entertainment's games. That's true. I've never played Neverwinter Nights 2, but I have played all the rest. Two of their games are among my favorites of all time in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords and Fallout: New Vegas, so Dungeon Siege III had quite some shoes to fill. Now, I'm not going to say that this is the best put together game in the world, and I'm not going to blindly like it without taking the time to really have an in depth look at it, so I played through the whole game. I completed it completely with one character. And this is my assessment of the game.

Altogether, this game is my least favorite of the Obsidian Entertainment name, but that by no means makes it bad. Two of the games are among my favorite ones of all time, which is quite a feat, one I've never played, and I liked Alpha Protocol quite a bit. To my Burn Notice addled mind, Alpha Protocol worked in so many ways despite the obvious cuts and unfinished ideas.

The first thing that I have to mention is that I played single player. I have the feeling the game would be better to play with someone else. So, I'm putting that out there. If it is more fun, or works better with someone else playing it with me, I'll put out another review saying it, but as of now, this is my impression of the game.

The game altogether does seem well put together. It has a finished feeling that half of Obsidian's games that I've played don't really have. It doesn't feel rushed or pushed out the door, which both are always good things. The characters are decent, with one that outshines the rest, but I'll get to that. The music is good, reminiscent of the Fable games. Hell, most of the game is eerily reminiscent to the Fable series. And I like the Fable games too, although I do think that this one has much more to offer. The story is there, simple as it might be. The characters are strongly written, and the combat is mostly very fun.

There are negatives though. The gameplay never really became old for me...but it could have if the game were longer. Dungeon Siege III is not a very long game. It took me somewhere around twenty hours to finish the entire game. That's short for an RPG even if it is a dungeon crawling, hack-and-slash, action RPG. So, the shortness of the game certainly stood out to me. The RPG elements were decent though, and the decision were interesting and difficult at times, with Obsidian's quality writing apparent in almost every line.

The game starts off slowly, deliberately, and does eventually hit a good climax. The story is strong, despite everything, and I found it interesting all the way through despite its single-mindedness. The characters are mostly... well, I did not find all of the player characters (and companions) to be ridiculously interesting. I played as Lucas and he was neat, kind of the obvious lead character sort of person. The hero with a sword on the box cover, so yeah... But both of the female characters seemed a little less interesting. Maybe it was their voice acting, especially the Archon (kind of a fire elemental ancient thing) Anjali was particularly notable for, in my opinion, not having the best voice acting available. Then again, maybe that's what they meant to do, but to me it came off as not great. Katarina, the other female, was a little more interesting, but I never used her because she constantly died. Her AI seemed to be less intelligent than the other two companions. I didn't have any real complaints about her besides that. Well, besides that she's very obvious fanservice... Reinhart though, the last companion I acquired, was my main man throughout the time I had him in my party. I really liked him and his snarky intelligent nonsense rambling. If I play the game again, I'm playing as him.

The gameplay was surprisingly good, really visceral at times, and somewhat challenging at times as well. I would get frustrated with it at times because I just want to be good at video games, but it took me a while to master the gameplay, and I kind of like that. By the end of the game I could defeat anything, but there was a learning curve and it took about half of the game to maybe two-thirds of the game to really figure out what I had to do in terms of combat. I thought it worked well and I was really pleasantly surprised with it. Dungeon crawling games built on sidequests are not exactly my favorite style of game, but this one stood out to me as having only good sidequests, no filler, and moving along well despite no real fast travel system.

The thing I really need to praise this game on are the visuals. In this day of grand visual quality coming from video games, the visuals of this one really stood out. I loved, absolutely loved, the Causeways, the roads between the world that exist in a ruined world. They appealed to me so much and I thought they were awesome. But the different towns are also incredibly well put together, as are the automatons that are featured fairly heavily and some of the enemies. The game does have a style to it, and I really liked it. It made me smile at times besides the fact that I never smile, so that was cool.

Altogether, this was a good game with a ton of potential. I think most of that potential was realized, but admittedly other parts seemed to be a bit of a slap in the face. The game is short, but at the end of the game they show enemies that they could have put in the game for me to face, like dragons or other wars, and I just wanted to play more and fight dragons. Why show me dragons when I can't fight the dragons? It's teasing me needlessly. So, the game loses some points because I hate being teased.

Out of the last three games I've played in Uncharted 3, LotR: War in the North, and Dungeon Siege III, this is probably my least favorite of the three, but the one that I see with the most potential even in regards to the Uncharted series, which while a powerhouse of a series, quality all the way around, does not have that fantasy element that one can play with and tweak all over the place. I just think that there is room for improvements in this game and this series and I hope that Square Enix will be intelligent enough to put the next game in this franchise in the hands of Obsidian yet again.

Anyway, I did enjoy the game. It was fairly fun, kind of short, but not terrible certainly. So, I'm going to recommend it. Wow, I was not expecting to like this game, I'm not going to lie. And three games in a row, all games that I've given mostly positive reviews for. This is bad. I need to rip something apart soon. I think it's time to watch a bad movie next...

Video Game Assessment: Fallout: New Vegas (2010)

Okay, yes, I am a fan of the Fallout video game series. I love the post-apocalyptic wasteland scenario, as I'm sure many of my fellow male specimens do. It has a certain very neat feeling to it. There's something about wandering around, surviving, and shooting things that makes men feel like they're in their element. Very interesting. Even some of my friends who are the least-likely-to-survive-the-apocalypse kind of people, still tend to be very much for an apocalyptic wasteland. Interesting, methinks.

Anyway, Fallout: New Vegas is the follow-up video game to Bethesda's behemoth of a game Fallout 3, but does it surpass it, or is it merely more of the same? Well, I'll tell you.

I actually really loved this game and I didn't love Fallout 3. That should automatically make you think that this game is a better game... well, not so fast, partner. You're getting ahead of yourself making conclusions like that.

I think that Fallout 3 has many flaws. I didn't mention this in my review of Fallout 3, because I really did want to focus on the horror aspects of the game in that review, but to review Fallout: New Vegas, one must really understand Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is a huge game, with a ton of sidequests and main quests and everything. It has a ton of weapons and enemies... but it only has about two or three different environments not including the DLC. It either has the DC Wasteland or the DC ruins. There are very few other kinds of environments other than Rivet City, and the underground and broken down subway tunnels. The environments have no variability, and that's not a good thing. Fallout: New Vegas on the other hand, has a ton of environments. It goes from New Vegas itself to wasteland, to mountains, to forests, all the way to small settlements and canyons. There are a variety of enemies in all these environments, many more than Fallout 3 supported, and the enemies in this game can be frustratingly hard, unlike Fallout 3, where no enemy really posed a threat past a certain point.

Fallout: New Vegas has the added threat of not really having a ton of ammo or healing packs (called stimpacks in the game) just lying around. It makes the game really hard when there are no easy ways to shoot guns or heal, and I found myself focusing more and more on unarmed or melee weapons as I forged on in the game, simply because of the scarcity of ammo. Fallout 3 had tons of ammo and stimpacks. I never had any problem with that at all. So, Fallout: New Vegas is a much more difficult game.

Now, I'm going to talk about characters. Fallout: New Vegas has some stunning and interesting characters. It really fleshes out companion characters and gives them their own quests and stories and such, whereas Fallout 3 had very little characterizations outside of Vault 101, where the main character came from. I had trouble becoming immersed in the game because the characters didn't feel real. They had no personality, no real emotions and it really took away from the game itself.

Then there's the plot. Fallout 3 had this plot about bringing clean water to the DC Wasteland. They needed clean water because most of the water was heavily irradiated. It was an interesting plot, but the sidequests really had nothing to do with the main plot. Honestly the entire game felt like two very different games. First there was a very serious main plot storyline, and then there were sidequests that were silly and kind of ridiculous. It was jarring. Fallout: New Vegas really fixed that issue by making most of the quests tie into the main plot, and it works really well. I actually liked the plot of Fallout: New Vegas which was simply to choose what to do with New Vegas, if it should be independent, under the leadership of who was in charge before the game started, under the leadership of the big "country" the NCR (New California Republic) to the west, or if it should be given over to Caesar's Legion (a large group of raiders styling themselves after Ancient Rome) from the east. It makes the game interesting because almost all of the sidequests deal with the main plot, and it really immerses the player into the game. It's pretty awesome is what I'm really saying.

I loved Fallout: New Vegas, but I do want to say another thing very quickly. The developer of this game is Obsidian Entertainment, by far my favorite video game developer. They also made Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (which happens to be my favorite video game OF ALL TIME), and Alpha Protocol (which I reviewed and also really liked). I have a hard time disliking Obsidian's video games... so, I might be a little biased here... I hope not. I really did enjoy the game. I had a lot of fun. It isn't necessarily a better game than Fallout 3, but I really do like it. It's nowhere near as long, but the tighter story is kind of nice compared to the behemoth of Fallout 3.

Anyway, if you have the time and a love of video games, go and check out Fallout: New Vegas. I doubt you'll be disappointed.

Post Script: One more thing: the game is pretty buggy right now. I mean, I ran into some very strange glitches all around. They'll probably be fixed soon, but until then, it really shouldn't be played with those glitches in the game.

Video Game Assessment: Alpha Protocol (2010)

Alpha Protocol, developed by Obsidian Entertainment and produced by Sega, is an excellent example of a beautifully crafted RPG. I've actually found it quite funny how many bad reviews this game has gotten from seemingly "respectable" sources, mostly because the people reviewing games are complete and utter morons who only want to shoot things and play games like Halo or Gears of War rather than an intelligent game that redesigns how people look at games.

Now, I can just say it right here: I hate Halo. I hate everything about it. I hate its smug face and its stupid gameplay, and most of all, I really dislike people who think it's just about the best thing there ever was. I love intelligent stories. I love playing a game that says something, that can change depending upon what I do, or at least a game that makes me think.

Alpha Protocol is that kind of game. It is a thoughtful ride. When I say thoughtful I mean, full of thought. The developers thought of everything, from characters commenting on what clothing your character, Michael Thorton, wears, to how you play out ever mission, to how you interact with characters. Everything changes depending on how you play the game. As one of the blurbs for this game points out "YOUR WEAPON IS CHOICE!" and it really is.

What I find most refreshing about this game is its attention to detail and how it does things differently than even most RPGs. The comparisons between this game and the Mass Effect series (especially the second Mass Effect)are pretty straightforward. Both are over the shoulder third person shooters. Both use "choice" as a selling point, both have a large cast of interesting characters, both have "hubs" and mission debriefings and multiple choices for where and what to do next. My only comment on all of that is that Alpha Protocol does almost every one of those things better than Mass Effect 2 to the point where Alpha Protocol is a much more solid game despite the reviews.

Now, you may accuse me of being a Mass Effect hater, but that is actually not true. I love the Mass Effect games. The first one had a compelling story even if the gameplay and RPG elements were suspect, and the second one has solid gameplay and a decent story, even when the RPG elements were awful. Both games had incredibly good characters as well. And I enjoyed both game immensely.

So, that being said, when I say Alpha Protocol is comparable to the Mass Effect series (and the second game especially), I mean it as a compliment. And I mean it as even more of a compliment when I say that Alpha Protocol is equal or greater than Mass Effect 2 as a wonderful experience.

Well, let me explain Alpha Protocol then without raising too many spoilers. The game is hailed as "THE ESPIONAGE RPG", and I think the point the developers tried to make there is that this is one of the few, if not the only, espionage RPG even made. And being made by Obsidian Entertainment known for their wonderful take on Star Wars in Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords and Nerverwinter Nights 2, as well as the upcoming Fallout: New Vegas, it's a game that comes off as one of the best quality games around.

If you know anything about games and Star Wars and Obsidian, you'll know that KotOR II: TSL, was about seventy-five percent finished or thereabouts at release because of LucasArts trying to rush out the game by Christmas. That being said, and I'll go on record with this, KotOR II: TSL is my FAVORITE VIDEO GAME OF ALL TIME. And that had terrible reveiws by some people because the game WAS UNFINISHED. And yet, an unfinished game is my favorite of all time even compared to actual finished games that just can't hold my interest for long enough for me to care.

My point is that because of Obsidian's wonderful work on my favorite game of all time, I was excited for Alpha Protocol hoping it would be every bit as compelling as KotOR II: TSL. And you know what? It's not quite at the favorite level of video games, but it is awesome and fun, and I've enjoyed it immensely.

Obsidian knows how to make a quality game with excellent dialogue and characters. And they do it so well that playing any other game just makes that other game seem shallow and uninteresting.

So, now, instead of talking about other games, I'm going to get down to talking about Alpha Protocol. You are Michael Thorton, a man with a multiple choice past who is chosen for a secret government agency that's working on dealing with the fallout from a missile launch on a plane in the Middle East. Thorton needs to find the evidence to see who is responsible for American missiles getting into the hands of terrorists. Along the way he meets a ton of interesting characters, ranging from the sweet, professional girl who is always on Mike's headset, to the suave snake CEO of Halbech, to the German cougar, to the psychopath who really likes dry cleaning fluid.

I just have to mention how good the characters are. Steven Heck, a character met in Taipei, and the man who really has a thing for dry cleaning fluid, is one of the most interesting characters in the game. Everything he says is absolutely hilarious and it's hard not to like him even though he is an absolute psychopath. SIE, the German cougar, and I don't mean large cat, gets another honorable mention for humming "Flight of the Valkyries" during one of your missions. I burst out laughing when she did that and I just couldn't stop. I was so impressed by the developers to be able to come up with everything.

The enemies in the game are sometimes hard to distinguish. Each character has motives for doing what they're doing and nobody is one-dimensional. No character is "evil" even though some can be degrees of ruthless, psychopathic, righteously angry, or crazy in the head. You can align with any of the characters and I'm pretty sure almost every character can die (or at least get very hurt) over the course of the game.

The gameplay is perfectly fine. It reminds me a lot of Mass Effect except it's a little bit less flashy than Mass Effect, and much more based upon stealth, being a spy game and all.

The voice work and music is sometimes particularly memorable and other times not so much. More of a hit or miss than anything else. Some characters are beautifully done, like Steven Heck, SIE, Mina, Marburg, Leland, Albatross, and arguably Sis (who has no voice actor at all), whereas some of the other voice work is just not as good... especially the Chinese accents in the Taipei missions. Anyway, this game is excellent, easily one of the best games I've played recently (along with Deadly Premonition, which was also very good but in a very different way), I am going to keep this game around with me for a long time, and I'm going to play it again and again. It's not a long game after all, probably only 15 hours long or so. And it's so much fun. I can't stress that enough.

So, if you get a chance, pick this game up and play it. It's one of the few game I've played that actually deserves a sequel or DLC or something. This game is too good not to have more added to it. But that's what I said about KotOR II: TSL, and what did I get from that? No KotOR III, that's what.