Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime cuts an imposing figure. Forum denizens are routinely shocked by the adulation this man receives, but if you have ever seen him, it isn't especially shocking. He seems to project beyond himself, exerting a kind of Reggie Field that dogs and many birds find unpleasant. Hearing a man speak with this much drive and confidence about an imaginary plumber is sort of enthralling.
It sounds like he's looking for an assistant - but even if you meet the considerable requirements, you should know that you're up against some fairly tough competition.
I've played the Crackdown demo several times now, in single and co-op mode, and I am startled and almost dismayed to admit that I like it. I might even like it a lot. Between Saint's Row and the Genuine Article, I was starting to wonder what purpose exactly was being served by Crackdown. When it was announced that the game would be sold with a Halo 3 invite packed in, my estimation of the title immediately dropped below sea level. What kind of filth must this game be, I thought, to require such naked bribery?
The Grand Theft Auto games have mastered context, with well-drawn characters and powerfully directed scenes, but their basic gameplay lacks punch. Crackdown is exactly the opposite: the world they have presented is a cliche, and not the lavish, beloved cliche of a Rockstar title. It's just a place for you to blow shit up. On the other hand, the gameplay itself is much, much more satisfying - it's an Action RPG that also believes itself to be a Platformer which is set in a Sandbox environment, and I'm surprised it works as well as it does.
Without some pesky narrative to be concerned with, developer Realtime Worlds is able to stick two players in this world without having to contend with some of the headaches that make co-op such a nightmare feature to implement. My time there tells me it's been a fair trade, with plenty of synergy opportunities to be had while each player is building their own monstrous, irresponsible supercop.
I made the mistake of letting the demo reel run when Brenna was in the room, and she was not impressed with the level of depravity on display. I chose to come clean. I told her that I had kicked an old man with my bionic leg, then I picked him up and used him to beat another old man, and then I threw them both in the ocean where they would be sure to die. This did not improve things. She told me that the only time you should even touch an old man is to comfort him when he is talking about his feelings. I was not previously aware of this clause.
The demo has been available for just over a week, and I assume this is still so. This means that you are free to verify my findings independently, in the best, true spirit of scientific inquiry.
(CW)TB out.
The demo they just put on Live is pretty short, and it is set in Mexico, a venue that was already questionable when they plowed it up again for Rainbow Six: Vegas. R6:V's cover implementation was a revelation, and I think we were also hoping to see GRAW graduate to something a little more fluid - but what do you do? R6 doesn't have the natural terrain, and it doesn't have the reconnaissance features and other field ordnance options. People are already wondering what separates these two franchises nowadays, and I could provide a comprehensive analysis, but as much as it might rile the hardcore I think standardizing some elements of the interface could be great for both games.
If you were underwhelmed by the demo, the recent "Look And Feel" video might cheer you up - it shows the game to much greater advantage than today's brief playable. Like most Ubisoft franchises GRAW has settled into Annual Release status, but the face-lift provided is not insignificant - the demo is simply too familiar to communicate it well.
I'm wondering which (if any) of these new treats will get any play in the competitive and cooperative modes. The reason I ask is that it is now the norm for Ubi shooters to utilize different assets (and often a different team) to execute the multiplayer, and in the first GRAW particularly the cover gameplay was almost completely excised. In addition, the visuals took a marked step down. I mean, we still played it every night, and then purchased the expansion, but the disparity is real. Will the new Mule be a fixture in multi? Will I be able to look through the drone directly? Will I be able to give rich, context-specific commands to squadmates - just as I can in single-player? I enjoyed GRAW, but I think I could like it a lot more if it were less schizophrenic in its implementation.
(CW)TB
So, yes, I do like it, but there's something I don't understand.
You've got this big, open-world game that runs well and has a unique look. Against all odds, you've managed to carve out a multidisciplinary gameplay niche and make it work. What's more, your game is now indelibly tied to one of The West's most potent action franchises. So why does your entire interface look like a first-pass prototype?
I have to say that red flags are raised whenever I see that default Xbox system font in a retail game. You'll know what I mean if you see it. Talk to Nate over at Blambot, for fuck's sake.
The font is just the beginning of it - every time data is communicated to the player it's done in a lackadaisical, lifeless fashion that looks like it must be the example code they ship with the Goddamn devkit. It looks cheap, and it is cheap, only it's not, because this thing costs sixty fucking dollars. I'm not going to deprive myself of otherwise solid entertainment because of it, but this is nonsense.
(CW)TB
