Resident Evil 6 Review

These two look familiar...

Zombies, zombies, & even more zombies! This is just only a fraction of what the latest iteration of the “Resident Evil” franchise throws at you in an attempt to separate you from the undead.

“Resident Evil 6” is by far the most ambitious of the whole series. Sporting not one, not two, but four different campaigns to play through, each with their own style

The question is though, with four different campaigns, is it enough content to make the game a great one?
The answer is a yes and no. The game has a lot of content to play with, but by the time you complete two of the three campaigns, you find the third stretches on and your only goal is to finish the third as quick as you can to unlock the fourth story.


That’s the only bad part of the story mode. The story itself is seen through the eyes of Leon, Chris & newcomer Jake. Leon’s story is a nod to classic “RE” games with a more horror feel to it.

Spooky!

Dark environments, few herbs, and even fewer bullets all the while there are tons of zombies trying to feast on you. Chris's story has more of an “RE5” vibe. Its straight shoot'em-up against a new type of enemy called the J'avo who can mutate any lost limbs in to new weapons.

Sadly though, this is the one story that lacks a little compared to the rest. It’s largely due to the focus on shooting but it’s still good enough to play through.

Jake's is a mix-up of both Leon’s & Chris's. Since he is Wesker’s son, there is a focus on melee combat which is easily the best melee combat in the series. His story revolves around him and Sherry being chased around the globe by Neo-Umbrella.

Ada's story is just a kind of behind the scenes to the other three characters, but it is one of the most enjoyable thanks largely to the stealth and her trusty grapple gun. Each character has a fraction of the story and playing all clears up the whole picture.

The gameplay is still reminiscent of the “RE4” and “RE5” style but with some tweaks. Players can now dodge to all sides of their own accord without needing a quick-time-event. This comes in handy now that enemies run, jump, and shoot at you in every level.

On that note QTEs are back and now there a more of them. There is almost one for everything which is nice, but can make you feel flustered having to to push them or dodge every couple of seconds.

Another addition is that the inventory system has been simplified to be able to switch to any weapon or item on the fly. Generally, everything has been streamlined to deal with fast paced action that leaves little time to just sift through your items.

Partners are now invincible and smarter than in previous games. They will actually avoid danger and come to your aid when you need it. Capcom has listened to the fans criticism after the fiasco known as Sheva. Overall the gameplay is good enough to keep you enticed throughout the game.

The graphics look okay considering they’re still running on the same engine as “RE5”. Characters do look a bit more detailed than its predecessor. At times it has kind of a glossy feel which may not mix with the zombie ooze fest, but overall it’s not too bad on the eyes.

Ada looks prepped for some serious action.

 The soundtrack is perfectly in tune with game. It helps add tension when you hear an unwound piano being slammed as you’re being overpowered by the hordes. It also varies from character to character. Leon’s has more horror type instruments playing while Jake & Chris have heavy drums and orchestra melodies to go with the action. Ada has a kind of cat-sleuth vibe to it with soft melodies. With all the differences. The music still manages to hit the right note at the right time.

All in all, “Resident Evil 6” is a good game, not the great game we were hoping for but a good game none the less. Despite the, at times, lackluster story and streamlined gun-battle segments, It is still worthy of the price tag. That’s why I have to give “Resident Evil 6” a 7/10. Now "get the hell out of here!!" (That's the most overused line in the game.)

Hands on Injustice: Gods Among Us

Soloman Grundy was born on a Monday, smashed Flash on a Tuesday...

After playing more than seven rounds of "Injustice: Gods Among Us" at this year's Penny Arcade Expo, and sneaking in a few more after that (much to the booth staff's displeasure), I am actually impressed and excited for this game.

I was skeptical at first when seeing "Injustice: Gods Among Us" at E3 this year. There wasn't enough information present there for me, and I might have missed the hands-on demo on the E3 show floor, so there's also that.

For those of you who are fans of  "Dead or Alive," you're going to love the environmental attacks and stage shifts that are at your disposal in "Injustice." We watched as Flash and Cyborg, recently announced as a playable character by the way, battled it out in the Batcave

Now, Bruce Wayne has a lot of toys, one of them being the Batmobile. Thank goodness he puts a giant red button on one of his computers that fires missiles out of it, which really helped Flash get out of the stage's corner after Cyborg boxed him in.

That's right, you can use the Batmobile in your fights.

Cyborg wasn't having any of that, though, and punched the Flash so hard he fell all the way down to where the Batboat docks in the underwater portion of the cave. On his way down he hit pipes, rocks and all manner of obstacles that really took a chunk away from his health. The fight raged on and hanging electrical wires proved fatal for Flash as he was knocked into them frequently by Cyborg's uppercuts.

We were shown demos like this at least every hour, and I personally liked the one they did with Superman and Nightwing, who also a newly-announced character. Catwoman has also joined the roster recently, so there's at least three girls for you to kick  superbutt with.

When I actually got to play the game though, I had to try out Superman and just see how powerful he was.

Now, the controls are extremely similar to that of "Mortal Kombat," so if you're a fan of that franchise or familiar at all with their combos, then you're in like Flynn with this game.

I got to fight a few battles against Wonder Woman, and it was pretty intense to say the least. My opponent and I duked it out in the Fortress of Solitude and I got beat pretty soundly in the first round by Wonder Woman's lasso and sword. Once I figured out how to use Superman's heat vision, I kept the other player at a distance, then rushed them.

Gut shot!

The Fortress has its own quirks and interactive items to fight with, like Superman's Kryptonian spaceship. And when I say interact with, I mean that Superman picked it up and smacked Wonder Woman across the face with it. It was kind of brutal.

Combat is different for each character.

Superman and Wonder Woman are slow and plodding tanks, but they're able to rush effectively since both of them are actually floating above the ground rather than running.

Batman and Nightwing are ranged attackers that can mix it up at close range.

Flash can actually speed up and slow down the entire game so that he can work in some fast combo attacks.

People seemed to be having trouble playing with Harley Quinn as she was slow but powerful. Solomon Grundy was also kind of the same and people tended to stick with the powered folks more.

Cyborg was the one that I really didn't see people play with all that much.

Of course, there has to be finishing movies right? No killing moves, but damn there are some painful looking things there. Each character has a small meter at their side of the screen, like in the newest "Mortal Kombat" where you power up their common attacks, or charge it to do a super attack.

Flash's finishing move involves him runnning around the world to charge up a punch that knocks his opponent into the air. He then speeds behind them and promptly knocks them back to Earth hard.

Superman knocks his foe into space, then smacks them back to the ground like a meteor.

Wonder Woman calls in some Amazons that trap the enemy so she can wail on him mercilessly. So on and so forth.

Something I found rather cool (a stylistic and mechanical choice on the part of the developers) was that there is no round announcer and no stoppage in the fight. Each fighter has two health bars, and when one is reduced to their last health bar, there is a sound or a hit that signifies that the fight has moved to the second half.

Now, the other fighter could still have both of their health bars, but it just shows that the wounded one is on their last legs. Also, there's custom dialogue for each combatant and their specific opponent.

The representatives from Warner Bros. said they wanted the fights to feel like blockbuster movie battles, without the feel of a fighting game. I think they did a pretty good job, actually.

The game is fun. Real fun. Will it capture your attention for hours at a time? Maybe. There's apparently a story to the game, too, so we'll see what that's all about when more details come out.

As for more characters, there were a lot of empty spots left in the character selection screen when we played. Someone in the crowd asked about Aquaman, and the company rep said, "We cannot comment on whether or not Aquaman will be in the game."

That means yes, in my opinion. I just want to stab someone with his trident.

The closest thing to a trident so far is Nightwing's electric staff.

Hands on Dishonored

Bang bang slice!

After one and a half hours in line, I finally got to play it. Worth it? Yes. Was it everything I hoped? Probably not.

Bethesda's "Dishonored" is a fascinating game with beautiful set pieces, stunning graphics and interesting game mechanics that will have you wanting more and more. Unfortunately, it is a little frustrating to play if you're just shoved into the game with so many abilities and skills you have no idea where to begin.


That might have been Bethesda's greatest fault with all of last week's Penny Arcade Expo. The game looks solid, there's no denying it. However, "Dishonored" is not a game that you can just dive in and play right away.

Think of all of the other games that this company creates.

Would you drop a friend of yours into Whiterun, past all of the tutorials, with full inventory and several dragon shouts and tell them to have at "Skyrim?" No, because the game is too complex. Neither would you shove someone into New Vegas and tell them where Ceaser's Legion was, the NCR, and Mr. House and just say "Good luck!" for "Fallout." That's just not how you  show off a game.

In the demo, I was tasked with kidnapping a doctor in a particularly slummed-out area of town near the water. Guards aplenty, I had to use my wits and insane amount of powers to get to the doctor, incapacitate him and then escape with him over my shoulder.

Seriously, that's what they had us play.

Luckily for Bethesda, the game was pretty fun to play. There is an item and power wheel that you can bring up to make your immediate inventory more personalized or fit the situation at hand. You have a crossbow and a pistol for silent or loud, attention-grabbing attacks. The sword is also useful and you can perform some nifty finishing moves. In your off-hand you have the ranged weapon or some sort of spell. From teleportation to possession to time stopping, there's a lot of variety. Bethesda was even showing a video of men being swarmed by rats who ate them alive. Gruesome, but cool.

She doesn't get paid enough to let stuff like this slide.

People will be alerted to your presence, so you might have to hide bodies instead of just leaving them out in the open. Loud noises attract attention, and even innocent bystanders will give your position away to guards. I had killed several men in a warehouse-type area, and when I moved to some upper rooms, there was a cleaning woman who screamed when she saw me and a guard came running, pistol and sword in hand.

I also had a variety of ways to sneak, climb and fight my way into the target location. It was actually cool to kind of go back and see, "Oh, I can do it that way next time," or "Dude! I didn't even think I could do that!"

Your character is able to jump and double jump to get to those hard-to-reach places, and there is some ability to scale buildings and walls. It kind of reminded me of "Mirror's Edge" without the free running and more Mario jumping. Think of the game as controlling like "Bioshock," combat like "Fallout" or an "Elder Scrolls" title, with the ambiance and stealth of "Assassin's Creed."

The character animations, set pieces and overall world as a whole are mesmerizingly interesting. It has the field of a sort of Elizabethan-steampunk England and is something we've never really seen before. If you have, however, forgive me for not being as thorough a gamer as you. The only thing I can equate it to looking like is "Fable 3."

There's all sorts of interesting folk lounging about in "Dishonored."

My biggest gripe with "Dishonored" was that it was actually pretty hard to control. I have a feeling this would play better on the PC with the smoothness of mouse movement rather than dual-analogue sticks. Bethesda's games always seem to be made more for a PC rather than a console when it comes down to it anyways.

I recommend the game based on my time playing the demo - despite my frustrations. I can't guarantee the rest of the game will be executed well, however. Wait for some reviews to come in and then we'll try and give you the most comprehensive look we can before the game launches Oct. 9.

Hands on Tomb Raider

Lara Croft's got a bow, your argument is invalid.

I was pretty excited that I was actually going to be able to play "Tomb Raider" at the Penny Arcade Expo last week after having seen it at E3 earlier in the summer. Of course, I was also intrigued to see just what part of the demo would be available after the outrage of the near-rape scene that took center stage during E3. For those of you concerned, it was not a part of the demo that I played and therefore it was solely a gameplay experience, so I'll focus on that.

Square Enix allowed us to play as young Lara Croft just after surviving a horrific crash. She's lost, cold, tired, hurt and stranded on an island. I had to traverse the perilous cliffs and find shelter from the tropical rains that were now slowly but surely coming down. Lara had to climb and jump in the new platforming style that has become so prevalent in adventure games like "Uncharted." In fact, it was almost exactly like playing "Uncharted."

After building a fire, Lara went to an uneasy sleep. Waking up to a clear sky, I set out as Lara to get some food. That meant I had to get  a weapon. After exploring the wilderness a bit, I came across a small hut. On the tree, hanging upside down right outside the door, was a rotting corpse with a bow slung around it. That was my ticket to getting an arrow in some of those wild deer I had scared on our way there.

Lara climbed, reached out to grasp the branch holding up the bow-slung body and promptly fell to the ground with the corpse. But, I got the bow. It took me a few tries but I finally bagged an animal. Unfortunately, Lara wasn't as comfortable with skinning an animal as much as John Marston from "Red Dead Redemption" and it took her some time to work up the nerve to do it.

Getting back to the campfire, I got to cook the meat and level up. I put some points in Lara's archery skills so that she could retrieve more arrows from her kills. I figured we'd be shooting a lot of those wild animals.

Unfortunately, the demo ended there.

That is some nasty rain.

So really the game is like "Uncharted." Honestly, that's what I took away from it. What I saw in the demo at E3 and from playing it now, I can't lie and say that it isn't eerily similar.

Does this make me sad? Of course it does. Then again, there's not much more you can do with Lara Croft since she was Nathan Drake even before he was. I suppose it's more accurate to say that Lara hasn't changed and never will, but it would still be nice to see something new done.

As for something new, the leveling up seems pretty interesting if a little unnecessary. I'm not sure we'll be roaming the wilds of this island so much that we'll need to have a personalized way of playing with Lara rather than just a gradual shift in her tools and skills that happens in games like "The Legend of Zelda" and "Assassin's Creed."

She looks pretty mad, doesn't she?

Of course, Lara herself has changed a little too. She's younger, more uncertain and she's definitely out of her element. Personally, I think this is really great because I've always wondered what Lara was like before she became the Tomb Raider.

This trial by fire definitely puts some steel in her character and back story. Since the games have previously never really had a linear story, starting from the beginning doesn't seem like a stretch as much as it would with any other franchise.

There's a lot here and a lot of potential in this game, but I'm not certain that a younger Lara with some customization of skills will be enough to reinvigorate a franchise that was never particularly groundbreaking. This isn't to say that Lara isn't a cornerstone of gaming history, more that the "Tomb Raider" franchise is not something that needs to be anything more than it was. Perhaps it would be more suited to an HD re-release than an entire franchise overhaul. Only time can tell, but we're looking forward to the game come out March 5 of next year.

Hands on ZombiU

Aim for the head!

Ubisoft’s Wii U title that has been passed around and casually looked at by press and gamers is something of a mystery. At this year’s E3, I was able to watch some people play a mode of the game where a single player fought hordes of zombies that came in waves as they held a point down. What I got to experience first hand at the Penny Arcade Expo this weekend was an entirely different story.

Jumping into the shoes of a survivor, I had to escape Buckingham Palace and survive the zombie hordes within. Inside, I had to scrounge for ammo to go with my handgun and the Royal Guard carbine that I had looted off the ground. The people at the demo booth told me that the game relies heavily on survival and tactical instincts, making you really conserve your ammo and get down and dirty with the zombies if you have to.

That made sense as I only had eight rounds for my pistol and three rounds for my carbine. But what I did have was an unlimited supply of skull bashings thanks to my handy-dandy cricket bat. Very “Shaun of the Dead” if you ask me. And like Shaun, I aimed for the head and cracked a few zombies in the skull a few times to make sure they were good and double-dead.

That's pretty much how it looks when you play the game.

The game’s menu is on the Wii U gamepad, so instead of having to press pause, you just look down and slide the inventory in to view, and the game on the screen pauses while you rummage through your pack to figure out what you want to use or discard. Now, this is a really interesting use of the gamepad and I actually liked it. What was hard was that the mini-map was down there as well, and having to look at my hands while also running on the screen was a little difficult. Especially when little red blips show up on it to tell you where zombies are and you don’t immediately look at the controller to see if there’s danger. It’s going to take a lot for gamers to get used to that on Nintendo’s new system.

The graphics were good. They were passable for current-gen systems but nothing too impressive for a next-gen machine. I suppose that’s actually a compliment for a Nintendo console as they’ve never been the most graphically-intensive machines on the market. Often times, if you crack a shot off at a zombie’s head, you might actually give them a real close haircut and expose their brain.

Zombie John!

Something fun was that when I actually died in the demo, I was put in the place of another survivor and I actually encountered my past-self in game as a zombie. When I killed that version of me, I could loot myself and get all of my previous items back. That kind of reminded me of the old "Diablo II" mechanic where you could loot your corpse. Something fun they were doing at the booth was also allowing you to use the camera on the Wii U to zombify yourself and I was told that you could even put zombie-you in "ZombiU."

All in all I think that “ZombiU” might present an interesting experience for a title on the Wii U. The game isn’t anything new, but it utilizes enough of the technology available in the system for it to be somewhat interesting to people who pick it up for the first time. I’m equating it to “Red Steel.” Hopefully it is much more refined and well executed than the other Ubisoft flop. Keep your eyes out for this game to come out Dec. 31.

Rely on your squad

It's tough being a squad leader, isn't it? What with having to make sure your team doesn't suffer critical damage, ordering them around and fighting enemies things tend to get a little hairy. What doesn't help is if your squad is as dumb as a sack of Deku nuts.

Squad-based gameplay has taken some leaps and bounds in the last few years, and some tragic and hilarious crashes. Everyone remembers games like "S.W.A.T." and the original "Rainbow Six" that had artificial intelligence that was just okay. Then there are games like "Skyrim," in which your companion character's battle tactics are sometimes the subject of horrific ridicule. Oh, Lydia, will people ever forgive you?

Then there are games like "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier" that really surprise you with how good the squad is and actually make you excited when utilizing their abilities. When the squad actually does what it's told and you can rely on them, you tend to enjoy the mechanic rather than loathe it.

What is the key to this, though? Why is "Ghost Recon: FS" so much better with squad AI than "Mass Effect?" Perhaps it is the design and purpose of the squad itself.

In games like "Halo," "Mass Effect" and even "Dragon Age: Origins," your squad is meant to supplement your playstyle and abilities. Instead, your marines end up getting in front of you or holding better weapons. Or Morrigan will stand her ground in front of a horde of Darkspawn rather than run or cast a large AoE spell. And let's not forget Liara just sort of sitting there instead of tossing her biotic powers willy-nilly at Geth to help even out the playing field.

Luckily, in "Mass Effect" and "Dragon Age," you're able to pause the game and tell your squad where to go and to do certain things to avoid outright death. Frankly, telling them what to do actually makes them more effective in the first place, and one wonders why they're AI controlled at all.

Sometimes it's almost like they're just there to model their outfits.

Unfortunately, in games like "Halo" and "Call of Duty," you're left shouting "Why are you shooting at that guy two stories up and in cover and not the three people standing right in the middle of the road?!"

Games like "Ghost Recon: FS" make you weep with joy when you have AI that can lay down effective suppressing fire or actually take out an enemy that you tell it to. The big difference is that these AI characters are actually meant to be played by other human beings rather than just be a squad for the sake of being a squad.

Games like "Dungeon Siege III" prove this, too. Alone, with a single AI companion, you are able to go through the game rather easily with an AI character that can do the most area damage (rather than picking one that you feel will do precise damage) and wound everything enough for you to make kills quickly. Replace the AI character with three other human players and the team becomes an unstoppable cadre of magic, swords and guns. Honestly, it's something to try if you haven't played that game with other people. Again, these AI characters are made to be played by other people.

If "Dragon Age" had a cooperative campaign that allowed for online players to outfit and level the teammates accordingly to fit their playstyles or the style of the team, the game could be much more difficult but exceedingly more fun. Put in the dialogue system from "Star Wars: The Old Republic" and you've got yourself a game of the year.

"Halo: Reach" worked well enough when you play the co-op campaign, but other than that it feels like you're the only one fighting the enemy and the friendly AI is along for the ride. "Gears of War" co-op is also really fun to play and can be even more enjoyable than the competitive multiplayer (more enjoyable if you ask me).

When thinking about putting co-op in your game, don't think about doing it just because you've got a squad in your game and you want to capitalize on multiplayer madness. If a player can outfit and command the AI enough to where she's playing all four members of her team, then maybe you should think about implementing a co-op system to make it less challenging for them and promote teamwork. Maybe even give the players rewards for doing so. Whatever you do, for the love of Kratos, make the AI smart enough that they don't run four miles down a hill to attack a dragon you've been trying to avoid because you're too weak. Please, stop it Lydia. I love you, but stop it.

Probably one of the best and most challenging multiplayer experiences to date.

All together now: a look at micromanagement gameplay

A lot of games have you taking control of dozens - or possibly hundreds - of units at a time tasking you with overseeing them all like some omnipotent being from on high. Being able to move from one part of the map to another, then back to where you were to ensure your squad is not destroyed while you tell your peons to collect more gold has been a standard gametype and gameplay mechanic for years on the PC. Some might say that it has been used well enough on consoles with games like "Starcraft" and "Lord of the Rings: War of the Ring."

In "Pikmin 3" you'll get to choose specific areas in which to launch your Pikmin.

Few remember "Pikmin," though. One of the flagship titles of the now ancient Nintendo GameCube, it was quite possibly one of the most innovative and impressive titles to ever be a console launch title. The sequel, which was released in 2004, marked the last time we would see any of the adorable little plant-like creatures jumping on top of larger animals in a mass of color to overpower and destroy. No more would we get the pleasure of watching their flowers bloom to show their strength level, and gone were the days of enjoyable item collecting with the quirky little aliens.

Yet at E3 2012 the world was given a chance to once again return to the strange planet that fostered these adorable creatures.

In the eight years since "Pikmin 2" there haven't been many other games like it. The only one that springs to mind out of sheer similarity and startling hilarity has to be "Overlord" and it's own sequel. The game had players commanding minions of different color and ability and having them parade behind you until you thrust them upon unwitting settlers or elves in a cacophony of fire and Cockney accents.

The idea of commanding squads like this into battle is - as I said before - nothing new, but what is still fairly new is the idea of commanding them on the field of battle alongside your soldiers. Over the shoulder views can only grant you so much of a perspective as there still is no real danger to yourself. Squad-based combat systems like the ones used in "Star Wars: Republic Commando" and "Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway" are closer to what "Pikmin" and "Overlord" achieve, though.

How many of you actually remember "Overlord?"

What I'm talking about is the idea of being in command of larger groups (20+ individuals) while still having to worry about your own safety and fighting the enemy with them.

"Overlord" allowed you to upgrade your magic and weapons so that you would truly feel like an all-powerful badass surrounded by scores of equally frightening critters. "Pikmin" was more toned down, but focused heavily on the strategic use of the Pikmin themselves whilst also protecting yourself from mortal danger.

In one word: Presence. That's what these games developed for the player, and that is sometimes what a game is lacking. The player often doesn't feel a part of the world, and there's no sense of danger or consequence when micromanaging. Just take the viewpoints as an example: over the top, distant, looking down on the action. "Pikmin" and "Overlord" put you toe-to-toe with monsters like other third-person role-playing games, but also gave you a ground perspective of the work you were having done. It's also a level of realism and survival that you normally don't see in a real-time strategy game.

Being present and aware of your surroundings while making sure something is collected. Constantly on the alert for what may lurk around the next corner, or what may even be stalking you at that very moment. That's good gameplay.

With "Pikmin 3" coming out for the Wii U, there's no doubt that the Vault will be taking a crack at it and seeing just how well Nintendo has perfected this style of gameplay.

When making your own games, don't forget about presence, and whether or not it matters to the gamer. See what you can do to make them feel invested in the environment instead of just the enemies and the goal. Make them fear for their safety as the character instead of knowing that if they just hide behind some rubble they'll be okay.

How much more dangerous and intense would any of the "Call of Duty" games be if you actually had to command the troops around you while fighting? What about leading troops into battle in "Skyrim?" Think about it.

Star Wars: The Old Republic goes free-to-play

Well, it's official. The LucasArts massively-multiplayer online giant "Star Wars: The Old Republic" is now making its way to the consumer friendly model of free-to-play.

Is this a surprise? Yes and no. Partly because of the interview that the Vault did this past San Diego Comic Con with someone very in the loop about the company's goings on. Another reason this is such a surprise is that "SW:TOR" had one of the most successful launches of any MMO, rivaling that of "World of Warcraft."

But it's not the first game to go free-to-play within a year of launching. "DC Universe: Online" went that way around half a year and "Lord of the Rings Online" did the same at around the same time in its life span.

Maybe it's because they always make you go to Tatooine...

Strangely enough, "World of Warcraft" remains with its high subscription rate and large player population despite the general feeling of indifference from fans at the new "Mists of Pandaria" expansion coming. "WoW" has some of its game free-to-play, up to the first twenty levels actually, but the other sixty are for subscribers only.

Not to mention that "Wow" has lived longer than any other MMO - save for some of the first ones like "Everquest." Of its generation, "World of Warcraft" is the lone survivor with no major graphical overhauls and strictly gameplay and story updates only.

With Azeroth still going strong, why would the Lucas universe need to go free-to-play?

For starters, the game has dropped below one million subscribers. This could be due to several factors compounding one another. Many players have spoken out about the lack of endgame content once the max level is reached, while others declare that the game itself is just not original enough for them, copying other games user interfacess and methods of gameplay. Some say that the game just isn't "Star Wars" enough for them and it just doesn't grab their attention.

MMO gamers will always complain about the lack of endgame content. That's just a rule. Like the "Call of Duty" multiplayer aces who mope about the lack of more multipalyer content and maps or the RPG enthusiasts who gripe about the inability to play past the end of the game. It is inevitable that someone will complain about it.

The game itself has not been out for a year and already there is an outcry about not enough to do. There have only been three updates so far, all of which you can read about in our previous article, but most have dealt with gameplay issues and the need for smoother gameplay. Of course there have been missions and flashpoints added for players to enjoy at max level, but really there hasn't been enough time for there to be any endgame content released.

I bet my life that people complained about the same thing for "WoW," and they have been around for some ungodly amount of time despite it.

Honestly, if Bioware and LucasArts didn't do the patches and updates that they have done, someone would complain that the game hasn't been improved since launch. The point is, there's just no pleasing everyone when it comes to MMOs.

Originality does seem to be lacking in the game industry, but one place people can't be picky is in the MMO realm. There has been a proven and time-tested gameplay style that has endured for decades now, and for people to say that the gameplay is not original enough for them is a little absurd.

Taking the "WoW" gameplay style was smart for Bioware and LucasArts because if they had spent time investing in a unique gameplay system, they probably would have lost more subscribers just on the unfamiliarity of players alone. Using a well-known gameplay style and mechanics was their way of ensuring that the game would be accessible to current gamers in the market.

Honestly, I'm glad it's on-rails. I would have no idea how to fly this thing.

Then there were those who complained that the on-rails space combat system was too lame for them.

Again, the game had just been released and while those missions become repetitive and mind-numbing at some point, there is no reason why they can't be improved over time, and to assume they won't be is a little absurd on gamers' part this early in the game.

As for the game not being "Star Wars" enough for some people, there really is no fighting this. As a "Star Wars" fan myself, I actually enjoyed this fresh and new locale to play in that wasn't part of Galactic Civil War of the original trilogy or the Clone Wars from the prequel trilogy.

Taking on a large gap in Star Wars history, one with plenty of Jedi, Sith and regular people fighting each other, was probably the smartest thing to do for the developers. There would be people who complained they couldn't be Jedi or Sith if they didn't do a time period where this was possible. And then there would be people complaining about wanting to be something other than those two classes and they would be unhappy too. Since the prequels were released, there has been absolutely nothing that anybody at LucasArts and Lucas Film can do to make people happy with anything "Star Wars related" aside from "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic."

I don't care if the game is good or not, I really want a holocommunicator.

While no one can turn back the tide now on the model changing, I think this is a very important example of the current market to look at and examine. Is this is a sign that gamers don't have patience anymore to wait for things to get better and progress? That they want immediate gratification for their concerns and displeasure?

Possibly.

This mindset hurts MMOs the most as their entire model is built off of the marathon idea, not the sprint. There are so many people who rush to finish a game and get on to the next one, that the idea of waiting a game out for the long haul might seem silly.

This could have to do with anything from interest in the game to the financial constraints of the player. Not everyone is able to afford a subscription to an MMO these days, and if someone was to get into a game like that, they have to be convinced it's worth the money.

Does this mean that game companies aren't giving us games with staying power that catch our interest?

That is entirely possible, but with a "Star Wars" game there is such a large fan base that it is almost guaranteed there will be a lot of people buying it. Clearly, that doesn't mean they'll stick with it.

As Bioware and LucasArts prepare for the shift to free-to-play, gamers and aspiring developerss alike should take this as a lesson and really take a good hard look at the industry, and just what exactly is causing a once-successful game model of subscription-based gaming become obsolete and unsustainable.

Who's Watching the WatchDogs? We are.

Want information about "WatchDogs?" Get in line. Ubisoft is being as tight-lipped and shady about their new title as their protagonist Aiden Pearce. Looking like a modern version of comic-book characters The Question or Rorschach, Pearce seems to be a surveillance and technology nut. Motives? Unknown. Objective? Unknown. What everyone does know is what Mr. Pearce can do with his smartphone and a telescoping nightstick. God help you if he gets his hands on a gun too. How do we know this? Well, Ubisoft showed a rather impressive demo of the game at E3 this year and talk hasn't stopped since then. Check it out.

The first thing everyone wanted to know was just what system that game was running on. The graphics are stellar. From the rain glistening off the buildings, to the wind blowing clothes around and even the lighting. It's reminiscent of the graphical magic of "Red Dead Redemption."

Character animations look remarkably smooth as well. The conversation between Aiden and his companion was like watching two actors hash it out on set. Combat animations are glorious. From the shooting, to the sliding over car hoods and rescuing innocent bystanders. Of course, it's entirely possible that the entire thing was scripted for purposes of the demo to the public, so one has to assume it won't be that awesome during gameplay. Regardless, it still looks about ten levels of awesome.

Very classy, Aiden.

Aiden seems to only need one tool for this entire game, his smartphone, which he pulls out just as much as an antsy teenager at the mall waiting for a text from a crush. No one suspects the dude in a trench coat looking at his phone. Apparently everyone should now because using just his phone Aiden can stop traffic, disrupt telecommunications, hack into phone conversations, background check individuals in any environment and I'd be surprised if he didn't have "Angry Birds" and a wicked-awesome HD camera on that thing too.

Preying on our dependence on technology is a stroke of genius and honestly scarily realistic. Aiden's tools are simple, of course a multi-purposed hacking tool that can do all of the above might be a tough thing to find. He doesn't seem to need a gun unless his opponents have them.

The question remains, though: Just who is Aiden Pearce.

When the Vault talked with Adam Sessler at E3, he was very excited about "WatchDogs" and what it could mean for the industry. However, he brought up a good point. Are all of Aiden's tools and abilities going to be used as gimmicks and become old fast, or will they be crucial tools that can be used at the player's discretion? Worse, will they only be available when the game allows them to be used? The answer will dramatically change how the game is played and how fun the game itself will be.

After only seeing the demo, no one is quite sure how open-ended the game will be or how many tools Aiden will be able to use to escape those following him, and how much you'll be able to play as his pursuers. At the end of the demo, the audience was able to see Aiden running from the police through another person's eyes. Who is this person? Will we get to play as him? How often? So many questions, and not enough answers. Maybe that's how Ubisoft wants it.

Keeping with their apparent theme of sci-fi thrillers like "Assassin's Creed" and "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier," "WatchDogs" will fit in nicely with Ubisoft's line-up.

I will never trust anyone on the street with their phone out again.