Here’s a quick way to know you’re old in regards to the world of video games:

You know what a “Vectrex” is and you’ve actually bid on one on Ebay.

Well, yours truly IS old, and HAS bid on a Vectrex, and thankfully I didn’t end up winning one, because that would have been horrible.

That’s because the “retro, vector-style graphics” of a Vectrex (and now, Stick ‘Em Up) are awful, brightly colored stick like figures and shapes.

Look, I know that Stick ‘Em Up is a cheap indie game, but in 2010 not even the stoniest stoner gamer should put up with these kinds of graphics. Especially after being spoiled in recent years with the likes of Modern Warfare and say, Heavy Rain. (Oooh that Madison. SO hot!)

OK, so “retro, vector-style graphics” aside, is Stick ‘Em Up at least fun to play?

Well, um… no.

If this is a quality indie game, count me out. (In the game’s defense, it currently has a 3.5 star rating.) See, not only are the visuals “retro” but so is gameplay. Stick ‘em up is basically running and shooting your way through each level (there’s 12! At 3.99, that’s just .33 cents a level! W00T!) until you reach the end and move on to the next one.

Yup.

That’s it.

Just your run of the mill, “run n’ gun” platform shooter, with ancient 2d graphics.

I mean, I knew going in that this game wasn’t going to be the next BioShock, but when you’re lacking in every other basic gaming department, I’d figure the developers could have at least strung together SOME lame plot.

The thing about most of the quality “retro style” games, is that they took a concept from the past, and improved on what made the original work.

An obvious example of a game that got this concept right, is Geometry Wars. Unfortunately, Stick ‘Em Up looks and feels like some kid’s first programming project. Now, I realize that’s a bit harsh, but what can I say?

I want to play a kid’s first programming project about as much as I want to be an English teacher being forced to read some slacker teen’s attempt at literature.

Stick ‘Em Up, also offers co-op and local multiplayer, but I’ll be honest here — I didn’t try either while I gave this game a go, due to the fact that anyone I pinged didn’t want to play the game, and nobody was willing to come over to my apartment to play me. I don’t blame them.

In closing, Stick ‘em up is a steaming pile that’s too short, with horrendous a.i., iffy controls (have I mentioned you can’t even duck?!) and annoying, “vector-style graphics” that torture your retinas after about ten minutes.

About the only upside that this game has, is that the “helicopter” (and I use that term loosely) that you get to pilot, sort of looks like the Death Star with rotors.

If that’s enough to make you want to part with 240 MS points, you’re a better (or richer!) person than I am.

It’s hard to exploit a sport that requires both the body and the mind.  Athletes try steroids and rig the game, but hopefully, and I can’t verify this, the officials on the inside find and prevent further use and even expel them from their respected sports with justice.  A video game is a bit trickier.  You can call playing the Wii using your mind and body to play a game, but for the X-box 360 and games like Gears of War, or Halo, or any competitive action shooter, all of the skill the player possesses is in the fingertips and head of the player.  Hence, it’s not very rare to characterize the best gamer with being in the worst shape.

There are huge differences between Football and Call of Duty, obviously.  The audience for Football sits passively on the couch living in the moment on screen.  CoD is different in that the audience for the game participates in the content.  Apart from not using the body, the gamer uses an incredibly rich repertoire of strategies and skills in their mind within the context of the game causing a huge separation between the best and the worst, much like any other sport.  But, where it’s more difficult to exploit a physical sport, it’s very easy to exploit a virtual one.

Look at Gears of War.  A game pumped up by it’s religious following and dedication to a gritty, blocky, world of grey and blood created by Cliff Blezinski and touted for it’s awesome multi-player, a mode the developers didn’t even think to spend a boat load of time on for the first installment, is the perfect example of exploitation.  Initially, the online world for GoW was new and fresh and everyone was trying to use the skills they’d learned while playing through the campaign in an online mode of a few maps and game types.  But, as the community grew to encompass more people, it also allowed itself to become exploited to the extent that I can’t even turn the game on and have any desire to play it.

People always act like the things that take place in a video game don’t have anything to do with real life events and don’t do anything but make gamers zombies hungry for virtual blood.  Contrarily, a few months into my dedicated run with GoW, I began to lose my drive to play and compete with like-minded individuals and it thoroughly affected my motivation to play any shooter.  Whenever the gamer feels cheated, they honestly feel cheated.  They aren’t hiding their emotion because they’re afraid of becoming embarrassed nor are they living in a dream world where they don’t understand the definition of the word cheated.  I feel the same amount of pain when someone molests a game I enjoy as much as I feel the same amount of pain when someone cuts my change short or has me pick up the tab without knowing it.

The exploitation in GoW goes like this:  4v4, primary weapon Lancer, secondary weapon Shotgun.  Four players spawn and everyone sprints for the best weapons on the map, or the best place to find combat.  One (or all four) player(s) on one team decides that a more effective way to battle their opponents is to hold A, sprint across the map, and run directly into the enemy while they post up on walls and try to strategize.  The enemy, unknowingly because in a real battle no ballsy individual is going to run through an open battlefield with their head down and legitimately expect to survive, is immediately blasted into pieces with the quick flick of the right trigger from the sprinting player and then they repeat the same formula.  Sprint directly at them, R-trigger, sprint towards the next enemy.  Repeat.  It sets the match up so that no matter what weapon you use, you won’t be able to do anything good unless you use the same strategy or if you and your team use explosives and play from a bunker.

Why is this exploitation?  If you can’t tell from my description, the player is using a move in the game but taking the move out of context and bastardizing it so that they achieve the most amount of kills next to their name so that they can win.  They aren’t playing to have fun, they are playing to win.  These same people are the people who never swallow their pride and accept that someone has gotten the best of them.  They look for an out so that they can never accept defeat, but these people live in a fictional world where they get everything they want or everything they can out of something without considering any other option other than self gain.  The fact that this exists within the context of a video game means that it probably transcends into the gamers actual life.  The factors that contribute to this could be many, but the overall point is that physiological habits exhibit themselves through video games which help illuminate the type of player playing the game, as well as how a virtual world can be taken advantage of.  These same people are everywhere, and with video games, they are destroying communities that could flourish as a form of entertainment, communication, and expression.

These issues should be fixed by the development team within the lifespan of the game.  X-box live is a treat for any developer dealing with exploitation and complaints from its community.  However, with GoW 2, I still find the same amount of exploitation.  Not to say that the gamer using a bulldog shotgun technique is necessarily a bad thing, it becomes exploitation when the most effective combat move has a tough time being pulled off due to the utilization of one technique over and over by an enemy player.  It eliminates strategy, and forces gamers to refrain from public games due to the simple yet effective tactics on repeat.  It’s like listening to the Jonas Brothers.  Simple, yet effective.  Exploitation.  Should something like this be perpetuated?

Argument for yes:  Money.  Make a game where people will buy it without looking at anything else and it prints money.  Argument for no:  Considering video games are an outlet of self expression and represent the thought patterns of the gamer, taking advantage of a seemingly untouchable medium fragments the population of people playing the game from those who A.) Fight fire with fire or B.) Only play when they know who they’re playing with or C.) Stop playing completely due to many other games that have eradicated this problem or D.) Abandon video games and focus on more productive hobbies like model airplane construction.

If we can notice the differences between a game printed for money and a game printed for something else, gamers can hopefully take control of their content by opting not to buy a game with a history of exploitation without evolution.  They can instead buy games made for gamers, by gamers.  People who understand that balance and fairness are key to propelling a competitive video game into greatness are the development teams worth keeping an eye out for.  The money will follow if the product can prove itself as balanced and fair.  You probably aren’t surprised that I only play one First-person shooter on a regular basis.  But I’m not an exception to the rule; I find the game I like and the game that doesn’t have problems like blatant exploitation, and put money and energy into it, like everyone should.  Examples:  Call of Duty, (1,2,MW, MW2), Blizzard (WC,SC,WoW,Diablo).

LOS ANGELES — Bethesda Softworks’ Brink is an immersive action shooter that blends single-player, co-op, and multiplayer into a video game experience that finally blurs the line between the single player offline experience and the often rabid online shooter world.

The game is under development by Splash Damage, the studio behind the Enemy Territory games.

Brink has RPG elements that require you to build up your player from the clothing and gear he wears to the missions he decides to go on, to which side of a civil war he chooses to fight for.

You’re on a man made city called Ark — a complex of hundreds of islands seen as the last visage of hope for humanity. It was originally one of those “Bio-Dome” green habitats until Earth’s oceans started to rise, making the Ark a refuge instead of a paradise. After 25 uneasy years, the residents of the Ark reached their breaking point. War breaks out.

The game has beautifully stylized visual elements and scenery. It also has an interesting control scheme with a “smart button” that lets you target a ledge or point on the map that your character will vault, leap, climb or fall to automatically. The game understands where you’re trying to go and interacts with the environment around you.

The game is set for a Spring 2010 release, and it wasn’t playable at E3 this year. Though, the demo we were shown looks wonderful.

Blast did get to sit down with the game’s Creative Director, Splash Damage’s Richard Ham. Ham is a powerful name in video games. He invented Syphon Filter and just finished a stint with Microsoft working on Fable II. Ham told us there’s a message behind Brink and other types of post-apocalyptic games, as video game developers, like movie directors and television producers, engage in social commentary with their mediums.

BLAST: What do you hope to add to this project? What’s your vision for Brink?

Richard Ham: When I actually went in to interview with Splash Damage I was actually a little bit nervous thinking “gosh I don’t really have a lot of multiplayer shooter experience.” I mean Syphon 2 had a little bit of a deathmatch game, and that was kind of nice. Fable has a little bit but not very much, and Paul (Wedgwood), the owner, said “that’s perfect. That’s exactly what we want because I’ve got a whole team full of guys who have been doing nothing for the last decade but make kick ass multiplayer shooters and that’s what they’ll continue to do.”

But now that they’re moving over to console, they really do want to kind of bridge a gap, and what I tend to think we’re actually going to accomplish here bringing all this together is with Brink I tend to think it’s almost a gateway drug in that players like me who traditionally don’t play a lot of online shooters — I mean, I love Call of Duty. I play them all, but I get to the end of the story, and then I shelve it, and I never go online because “that’s a dangerous place” it’s a nasty place and it’s a real shame, because for all these years I’ve been missing out on these great experiences. So a big, big push for Brink is creating a great multiplayer experience, but then making it open and accessible so players who would have thought twice about going online actually have a reason to and will find that “wow we’ve really been missing out.”

BLAST What design elements did you immediately want to bring to Brink?

RH: Probably the number one thing for me, the biggest thing that I wanted to push, was the notion of having dynamic objectives. It’s actually something I did a long time ago going back to Syphon Filter 1. You’re going through a mission and all of a sudden “oh a new objective will happen,” based on the preset storyline of the game and of the level you’re in.

We’re going the complete opposite way in that every mission you’re going to go on has a clear set of objectives you are to go through and pretty much plays by the book. …

But your personal story is radically different depending on what class you’re playing, what body type you have, what type of player you are, what level you’re at. Because in the game there’s this kind of invisible commander running the whole show, running your team, who knows what’s going on, knows who’s doing what and can basically give out orders, optional orders, to everybody.

We will bribe you as a player to do these things. “We need somebody to turn into an engineer to repair the crane. First guy that does it, 300 experience points.” That’s the equivalent of killing 30 guys. Why would you not do it? We’ll do it just to get you to change, just to try. Even if you don’t make it, we’ll reward you.

That’s a really big push. All these dynamic objectives are coming up. It’s one of the reasons I think it’s an accessible game. A first person shooter online is a pretty hardcore place. You go in there; everybody’s been playing for days and months, and they know every square inch of that level and you’re like “I don’t know what to do.”

The worst experience I ever had playing an online shooter was the first time I played a capture the flag match, and I got the flag, and I was like “What do I do? Where do I go? Everyone wants to kill me. My team wants to kill me. This is terrible!” You want to kill yourself just to drop the damn thing. You’re completely helpless. In Brink, at any given time there’s always a lot of missions you can take. You can be on the front line where all the hardcore guys are, whooping it up. If that’s not going to work for you, look at that objective wheel that comes up. There’s always going to be lots of options, whether it takes you behind enemy lines to do some sneaking around, whether it’s all about rescuing civilians, capturing enemy command posts.

BLAST: There are a lot of shooters and a lot of online multiplayer shooters. There have also been a lot of lofty multiplayer games — M.A.G. for instance. What specifically about Brink do you feel will turn on players?

RH: Well there’s a standard answer, but the big one is that mission inside a mission. But there’s other things too. Splash Damage, you go back to the Enemy Territory Games, it was the first online shooter that actually had experience points and leveling up, even before Battlefield. So, they’ve been doing this for a long time, and it’s now kind of become en vogue. With Call of Duty’s perks, people go “oh wow this is really exciting.” Killzone has a really deep system. Resistance had one as well. But these guys have been doing it for a long time.

We’re all big fans of MMOs back at the office. I think players when they finally see all the RPG options that are available so they can really customize themselves and create the perfect guy for them that’s going to be really refreshing.

The entire storyline of Brink is the outbreak of the civil war on this remote man made island, kind of the last refuge of humanity — or so they think — it’s a civil war and there are two sides. The important thing is you choose up front whether you fight on the side of “the man” of security, keep the peace or do you go on the other side and play as Resistance. The important thing is on your side, you’re clearly in the right. When you get to that mission on the other side of the fence, it’s a completely different story and there’s a completely different set of things going on. That’s a really key element in the game is this kind of two sides of the same coin and you don’t know the whole thing until you’ve seen it all.

BLAST: The post-apocalyptic genre has exploded recently. Do you see parallels to modern society with these games?

RH: We’re actually trying to use this platform to actually say something. I’ll be honest; I turned 40 this year. I’ve been doing this for 15 years, and I’m getting to the point where I actually want to say something. I don’t just want this to be about cheap thrills, and I know it has to be. It has to be fun, but when you look at the setting and what’s going on with the two sides, I’ll be honest we’re definitely trying to put parallels into whats going on in our world today, particularly Palestine and Israel.

You look at that situation, and it seems completely intractable. If you look at it from one side or the other, well everything’s entirely justified or justifiable. It’s been in a stalemate forever. We can use a setting like this, because obviously nobody wants to play a shooter set in modern day Palestine. Nobody would want that.

It’s like Star Trek back in the 60s. “Well we can’ really do anything about race relations on network television, so let’s paint a guy with half his face white and half his face black and have him have an internal struggle.” It was a way for them to actually do stuff, and that’s kind of what we’re trying to do as well.

The setting really just kind of comes out of that naturally.

If you’re reading this review, you’re already quite familiar with Matt Hazard. You might know him by a different name–Bill Rizer, Duke Nukem, or even Jack Carver, perhaps–but the substance is the same. The star of Eat Lead is a composite of every major video game action hero of the last quarter century: a muscle-bound, armor-laden agent of destruction who’s never found a crook or a catchphrase that he isn’t capable of beating to death.

We may have learned to overlook the inherent absurdity of these over-the-top troopers, but developer Vicious Cycle still views their adventures as fertile territory for satire. Enter Matt Hazard, an 8-bit 80s relic who’s fallen on hard times since his brand became diluted with kart racers and non-violent ‚ water-gun shooters in the 21^st century. Hazard signed a lifetime contract with “Marathon Software” at the height of his popularity, but now that the has-been hero no longer stars in popular titles, he represents something of a liability for the company.

The only way to void the contract is to kill Hazard in-game, and evil CEO Wallace “Wally” Wellesley (voiced by Neil Patrick Harris), who remains scarred from his childhood inability to beat Hazard’s 2D side-scrollers, sets out to do just that. He lures Hazard with the prospect of a next-gen outing, only to attempt to kill him at the end of the first level and install a dim-witted narcissist named “Sting Sniperscope” in his place. Hazard’s having none of it, and with the help of a renegade programmer, he’ll fight his way through an array of environments from his previous games, seeking to make Wellesley pay for his treachery.

I’ve devoted this much time to the game’s backstory because it deserves to be commended. Vicious Cycle formulated a fantastic premise for a game, and developed the idea to the fullest extent possible. This is no flimsy scenario fabricated merely as an excuse to shoot bad guys; it’s a fleshed-out alternate reality. By the time the credits roll, you’ll come close to believing that you’ve been aware of Matt Hazard’s exploits not only for the 6-8 hours it takes to complete Eat Lead, but throughout your entire experience as a gamer. This curious effect stems from the fact that the game’s levels and cutscenes are peppered with references, both verbal and visual, to Hazard’s earlier outings, most of them inspired by easily identifiable games you know and love.

Eat Lead seizes every possible opportunity for humor; a litany of memorable moments, coupled with an impressive attention to detail, combine to form a complete comedic package. An intentionally bland rock soundtrack evokes memories of the game’s generic forebears, transitioning to themed motifs at suitable junctures. The jokes can come from anywhere: they’re buried within the menu screen (one message actually defines the word “tip,” rather than providing one), the “objectives” text that scrolls across the screen at the beginning of levels, and the text on the bulletin boards within the levels themselves. The game lampoons long elevator rides designed to hide loading points, exploding barrels, text-heavy RPG’s, and a number of other gaming staples. One sequence forces you to stand at a sniper rifle emplacement reminiscent of the Silent Scope arcade game, rather than toting around the portable version

Throughout the game, you’ll encounter a dizzying array of characters, ostensibly drawn from the extensive Matt Hazard archives. The levels themselves are fairly unexceptional carbon copies of the warehouses, factories, restaurants, and ships you’ve fought through a hundred times before, albeit with some nods to particular games and subject matter. Populate those levels with hooded Russian troopers, cowboys, zombies, space marines, and pixellated, paper-thin pseudo-Nazis straight out of Wolfenstein 3D, however, and you have something special. Fighting zombies and Russians simultaneously (on a tennis court, no less) is an experience you’ll remember for some time. Each enemy model spawns in a unique manner; for example, the cowboys push their way through saloon doors which materialize in mid-air. Each class of adversaries wields its own type of weaponry, from the standard to the futuristic and exotic. You can pick up and use anything they drop, which makes for a fair fight under any circumstances; ammunition can be scarce, so you’ll find yourself switching weapons often. You’ll also encounter several memorable leading characters from Hazard’s past, including a wizard with Shatner-esque diction, a Mario look-alike, and best of all, the “Master Chef,” who bears a striking resemblance to a certain cybernetically enhanced supersoldier.

I expected the jokes to dry up as the game wore on, but Matt Hazard’s brand of humor proves surprisingly sustainable, most likely thanks to the award-winning writing of in-house scribe Dave Ellis. Publisher D3′s promotional materials trumpet Ellis’ influence over the finished product, eliciting a warm glow deep within my English major’s heart. In addition to Harris, D3 enlisted Will Arnett (who voices Hazard) to deliver his lines, exhibiting a laudable commitment to storytelling, an art often neglected in the “shooter” genre.

You’ve probably sensed that there’s a “but” on its way; it’ll be pulling into this station presently. Ellis is quoted in D3′s reviewer packet as saying the following:

“We set out to make a solid shooter first and foremost. If you don’t make the game fun and competitive in a gameplay sense, nobody will play long enough to experience the story.”

Let’s get this out of the way up front: I don’t play RTS games. I know what you’re thinking: “Hold on a second, author of these Halo Wars demo hands-on impressions, Halo Wars is an RTS, and if you’re writing this article, you must’ve played it! Gotcha!” All right, so you got me-I did play this one. But I still wouldn’t know a Zerg rush from a royal flush (poker is another game I tend to avoid).

Though the battle-hardened RTS gamers among you may question my suitability for this assignment, I’d like to contend that my inexperience makes me the perfect man for the job; after all, as a Halo-playing console gamer, I’m the target audience. If I could be turned-well, I wouldn’t be a powerful ally. But my conversion would bode well for the game’s chances of succeeding on a platform which has represented a formidable proving ground for RTS games in the past.

After downloading the 1.4 GB demo and navigating past an extremely prominent seizure warning (does Ensemble know something I don’t?), I found myself gazing at the soothing blue tones of a Halo menu screen, as remixed monks (or monk impersonators) chanted with abandon. Because I’m the methodical sort (and an RTS n00b), I made a beeline for the tutorial option, which was divided into “basic” and “advanced” sections. The former provided instruction in, well, the basics: unit selection, movement, and attacking. The latter forced me into the deep end, introducing me to the harvesting, “expo,” and research mechanics which normally send me running for the nearest shooter, platformer, or RPG.

Halo Wars’ controls are fairly intuitive. The left joystick controls the camera; leave the cursor centered on one of your units, and the camera will move along with it. Individual units can be selected with the A button, and the left bumper selects all units. The X button is context-sensitive, and can be used to mark destinations, attack enemy units, and salvage supplies from conveniently situated crates (where would gamers be without them?), depending on the cursor’s location. Y controls special attacks-grenades for foot soldiers, a “ram” attack for warthogs, and the like. If “preserve your own base long enough to destroy the enemy’s, and occasionally blow up other stuff,” proves too complicated an assignment for you to recall, you can press the Back button at any time to call up your objectives. “Leader powers,” accessible via the D-pad, allow you to call upon the UNSC flagship, “Spirit of Fire,” for an orbital bombardment. D-Pad commands also allow you to jump quickly to the opposition base, or to your army’s leader.

The game’s streamlined control scheme is designed for ease of use, and, given the limitations of the Xbox 360 controller, it mostly delivers the goods. However, I did have a few complaints. Even with the rather generous radius surrounding each actionable item, I experienced occasional difficulties in selecting the objects I meant to select; unfortunately, if you intend to attack an enemy unit, and miss by a millimeter, you’ll send your unsuspecting, unprepared proxies directly into the line of fire. Path-finding didn’t seem to be an issue, except for one instance, when I ordered a contingent of Locusts to obliterate a legion of Marines, only to watch them concentrate their fire on a rocky outcropping between the two.

Rather than mapping the zoom level to a button, Halo Wars consigns this setting to the start menu, making it difficult to gain a different perspective in the heat of battle. At the default setting, camera movement is somewhat jerky, but its scroll speed and “stickiness” can also be adjusted in the menu.

Despite Ensemble’s lofty claims about Halo Wars’ handling, I don’t believe that it measures up to the precision of the traditional mouse-and-keyboard arrangement. The absence of a click-and-drag feature (which somehow made its way into Mech Platoon on the GBA) limits the player’s ability to divvy up his or her forces. Although the right trigger enables sub-selections (a feature which the tutorial fails to mention), I found myself most often using employing either one unit, or all of them. The lack of an option to build units without placing the cursor on a base, or to have newly constructed units join the fray automatically, rather than loitering outside of the barracks, also hurts the game’s flow.

Upon entering a level, you’ll find yourself situated near a base, or a likely location for base construction. A few button presses later, you’ll have a large central building, multiple supply pads, a reactor, and a barracks, all airlifted from orbit or assembled from scratch-the United Nations Space Command doesn’t believe in getting estimates and hiring contractors. Selecting new units, buildings, and technologies is accomplished through a circular menu system, which seems quite natural after a brief adjustment period. The Covenant base features a radically different design aesthetic, as one might expect, but functions in much the same way.

The main campaign takes place 20 years before the “Halo event,” and pits human and Covenant forces against each other on the surface of Harvest. A lengthy opening cinematic sets the scene, providing a glimpse of the carnage which the conflict has already engendered, as well as a new AI hologram, Serena, who has Cortana beaten handily in the looks department. The demo’s two playable missions, which provide roughly half an hour of gameplay, charge you with rounding up scattered survivors in an effort to retake a vanquished base. After the conclusion of each level, a mission summary recaps your performance, awarding a medal based upon your completion time, damage accrued, and havoc wrought. More detailed statistics offer information tailored toward helping you identify weaknesses in your game, not unlike Halo 3′s post-match summaries.

The demo also includes a skirmish mode, limited to a one-player showdown (with deathmatch mode locked) against an AI opponent on the “Chasms” map. You probably won’t want to play it more than once.

Visually, the game shines-packed with detail, the landscape of Harvest looks just like a Halo environment should. Bases bustle with activity, featuring flashing lights and hovering transports, and the exteriors of damaged buildings and units convincingly reflect their conditions. Warthogs move just like warthogs, which only served to remind me how much more I’d prefer to drive one than control one from afar. Weapons sound like they should, and the orchestral score picks up at all the right times, though the voice work is somewhat lackluster.

The Halo Wars demo may have made me pine for a lengthy Halo 3 session, but it also heightened my previously feeble sense of anticipation for the game’s March 3^rd release. Ensemble’s parting effort appears on track to deliver an experience over which RTS veterans and console shooter fans can bond, which should add to the popular franchise’s already impressive legacy.

Edit: Thanks to JadedTarget and Jason for throwing a rookie a bone in the comments below. Also, thanks to William, who emailed me with the news that holding A and moving the left joystick around controls the click-and-drag function I was pining for. The moral of this story is: don’t believe anything I say when I’m talking about an RTS game. With those concerns addressed, though, I’m certainly feeling more optimistic about the Halo Wars experience. I just hope there’s a more detailed tutorial in the final build, or one humdinger of a manual.

Like the six “Metal Slug” games SNK Playmore released prior to this one, the seventh entry in the series is a bullet-filled explosion festival that is sure to please fans of the series. The gameplay is reminiscent of past Slug games, with plenty of enemies, powerful weapons, POWs to rescue, and amazing visual style, especially for a handheld title. Is there enough to warrant a purchase though, given you can pick up six similar titles (“Metal Slug Anthology”) together for roughly the same price?

There is not much to complain about when it comes to “Metal Slug 7.” Yes, the campaign is short, but you could say the same about other Slug games (and side-scrolling frenetic shooters in general) so it isn’t a surprise. The one area where you could win some points in the case against the title is in the lack of multiplayer modes, as in, the game lacks any. Part of the glory of Metal Slug has been co-op, especially with the number of foes on screen and the difficulty levels available, so not even having that option available is a negative that cuts into its value.

Besides this though, there is not much to complain about. The game has brilliant visuals that match up with anything SNK Playmore has done with the series in the past, despite its place on such a tiny screen. The characters and enemies have always been well animated, and that’s no different on the DS. The art style also retains its excellence, with giant bosses and vehicles that animate fluidly and beautifully.

The campaign mode may be short, but for those obsessed with collecting everything, there is plenty to do, as you need to save all of the prisoners of war successfully or beat through the game without using a continue in order to earn the highest scores possible. This, along with the “Combat School”, which is a game mode that gives you a specific task in a level (such as a minimum number of missed shots) gives the title plenty of replay value, in spite of its short length.

Most importantly, you will want to collect as many of the POWs as you can, or achieve new high scores, because the gameplay is excellent. Metal Slug has consistently been one of the better options in its genre since its inception 12 years ago, and this new entry in the series just adds to that rich history. If you were on the fence about whether or not Metal Slug 7 was worth it, ask yourself: How great is it to be able to carry a Metal Slug worthy of the series’ name with you anywhere you go, with the ability to blast through well-designed levels and enemies whenever you get the urge?

In 1982 Greg Kuperberg and Orion Software put out Paratrooper, an EGA action shooter game on the brand new IBM-PC that put you in a gunner’s turret as helicopters and parachuting soldiers invaded. Before that, in 1981, Mark Allen released Sabotage for the Apple II. They were early examples if a twist on a convention concept: shoot everything to get points, but shooting costs points.

Ten years later, Night Raid was released with a shareware version by Argo Games and Software Creations in 1992 to little fanfare.

In Night Raid, commonly confused as Nite Raid for its DOS 8-character folder abbreviation, which I acquired in the 90s on a plain white 3.5″ floppy put out by Software for Everyone, a company that made their living by repackaging shareware, charging the legally allowed “copying and disk fee.”

The game has good graphics and sound for its time. It’s an addictive style too — you can shoot as many shells as you want, but the real object of the game is to rack up a high score. You get you get two points for shooting paratroopers, five for large, slow airplanes, 10 for smaller, faster planes, and 10 points for shooting down deadly smart bombs. It costs one point for each shell costs you a point, and you will get down to zero quite fast if you’re not quiet.

Of course, if you just want to blow off some steam, go ahead and blast the bejesus out of everything and keep firing those shells … boom, boom, boom, boom.

If one criticism is to be levied against Night Raid, it’s that the shareware is so short, only a handful of levels that takes up about 10 minutes of your gaming day to finish.

The registered version gets progressively harder, with more troopers, planes, and bombs engaging your hapless little bunker.

There is something to be said for the graphics, too. If you shoot the troopers parachute, he waves his arms as he plummets to the ground. During level intermissions, you get entertained by asides like pizza deliveries. For a game that three guys put together, it’s pretty detailed.

This game boasted over a megabyte of 256 color graphics, music, AND two-channel audio.

Ye Olde System Requirements:

• VGA Graphics Card
• 286 or better
• AdLib/SB/SS support
• 386 recommended

Download the readme file

Ignition Entertainment sent us the latest screens and the new trailer for Metal Slug 7, a new guns-blazing scrolling shooter coming out in November for Nintendo DS.

The gameplay in 7 should be familiar to fans of the series and the shoot-’em up genre. You move around and blast the heck out of everything else that moves. This title looks to be a fun, addictive addition to your holiday gift list.

The vertical scrolling shooter is a great, classic arcade genre.

In 1992, Epic MegaGames released this almost forgettable little EGA game called Overkill. You, the pilot, are tasked with destroying all the evil alien forces that captured six otherwise peaceful planets, enslaving the populations along the way. Destroy them.

Overkill was developed by Tech-Noir Productions and Ste Cork, and it was the first vertical shooter released by Epic (oh there would be others…). It had some period features including joystick support and MIDI music but was technologically unimpressive. Other games of the time — Commander Keen, the original Duke Nukem I and II — had far superior graphics.

The game gave the player shields/life energy, a contrast to other “one hit you’re dead” scrollers of the time and earlier. You could also collect power ups and boost your fuel, shields and weapons.

This game was a bitch to extract originally. I bought the shareware in the 90s on 3.5″ floppy at one of The Christmas Tree Shops on Cape Cod — one of many bribes from my mother for one of many excursions to the stores, which are basically the perfect visage of an adolescent male hell.

Anyway, do you know how hard it is to pull something off a floppy these days? They’re gone, baby, gone.

Come to find out, Overkill was released into the freeware realm on July 23 by Ste Cork. Now the whole world can have it.

Download the registered version of Overkill free from Blast Magazine. You will need DOSBox.

Click here for Blast’s other review.

On February, 12 2007, Variety reported that Lions Gate Studios had purchased the movie rights to Eidos’ upcoming shooter; “Kane and Lynch: Dead Men.” The deal — the first time a game has ever been optioned before its release — should prove to be a smart choice by Lions Gate as Dead Men’s story is fast paced, and intriguing, just like a Hollywood blockbuster.

Unfortunately, as an interactive experience Dead Men is more of a mixed bag. Sure, there’s some solid action, but the title is so fundamentally flawed that it’s hard to even enjoy the game’s brightest spots.

At the start of Dead Men, we find our two heroes (in the loosest sense of the word), Kane and Lynch en route to Death row. When things are at their bleakest, a mysterious outfit known only as The 7 interrupts the trip. We learn that Kane is a former member of The 7, and owes them a hefty amount. They give Kane an ultimatum, return the loot or they off his wife and daughter. They have Lynch, a pill-popping, psychopath, keep tabs on him.

Without spoiling anything, Dead Men features twists, turns and some of the best character development seen in this console generation. What it also features is some of the most mature content ever.

Right from the start you’ll kill police officers, drop f-bombs and shoot innocent hostages with no remorse or recoil. In the past, some games have featured these same actions, but they’ve come off almost as cheap, shock tactics. This is not an issue in Dead Men. It would feel awkward if these two anti-heroes didn’t do these things, and the mature content gives it almost an edgy independent movie feel. (Tarantino?)

Aiding in that feeling is the game’s pitch perfect presentation. Minus a few camera glitches, the action unfolds very cinematically, with little to no interruption. Rather than interrupt the title’s flow with cut-scene after cut-scene, most of the story takes place in game (save for the traditional post-level cut-scenes). Kane and Lynch argue, and nitpick at each other, almost like a murderous odd-couple.

Sadly, Dead Men falters in almost every other aspect. When initially announced, Eidos promised that gamers would be able to choose their own style of play — whether it be old school run and gun or commanding Kane, Lynch and the squad of miscreants you encounter throughout the game similar to the style of the Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six franchises. Unfortunately, the squad-based controls seem rather useless, and besides a few key moments in the game where you are almost forced to use them, you’ll more than likely forget that they’re even in the game. Sure, it’s nice to have your guys cover certain exits, or attack a group of enemies, but it just becomes more of a hassle when you’re constantly running over to heal them, and you end up doing the work you sent them to do as a result of the horrible AI.

Luckily, the enemy AI is just as bad, and most enemies jump right out of their cover — seemingly happy to let your bullets hit them.

The cover system is another major disappointment. 90 percent of Dead Men is gun fights, and as a result the game’s faulty cover system makes it much more frustrating than it should be, and you’ll be stuck crossing your fingers hoping one of your squad members is close enough to give you an adrenaline shot and boost your health. Unlike the intuitive cover system of games like Gears of War, Dead Man requires no button presses to go into cover — as your character will find cover automatically when in close enough proximity to a wall, counter etc. While this may sound easier, far too frequently, you’ll be sticking to surfaces you don’t want to, causing yourself to become vulnerable to incoming fire, rather than being able to pick your best point in the aforementioned games.

Perhaps what bugs me the most about Dead Men is its problems with cheap gameplay. In many shooter games, the opening levels are used to set-up the game’s basics and rules, allowing players to seamlessly build upon them in the later levels. This seems nearly impossible when those rules are broken quickly after they’re established. Take for instance the level early on just after escaping from a bank where you must shoot cop cars trailing your getaway van from the back. Throwing grenades underneath the cars will sometimes do them in, but others it will merely result in an acme like cloud of dust billowing up around the car. It must also be noted that it’s in levels like this that it becomes apparent that the backgrounds and NPC’s (non-playing characters) have literally no personality. Case in point, the same level mentioned above, while shooting at the cop cars makes them swerve, other people on the road, just keep driving along, unaware of the bullets flying around, even when they’re the target!

Dead Men’s visuals are like the rest of the title: some are great, and some are just plain old horrible. Wide-shots, like that of downtown Tokyo as seen repelling down the side of a high rise are nothing short of breathtaking. But shots up close, especially player models, are downright bad — reminiscent of many games from the early part of this generation.

The developers must be commended on Dead Men’s online mode: Fragile Alliance. Rather than bank on the tried and true Deathmatch mode, Fragile Alliance uses the squad based gameplay to create an original and compelling experience. One team plays as bank robbers, while the other as cops. You can guess what each team’s objectives are, but what makes Fragile Alliance truly unique is that anyone on the team controlling the bank robbers can choose to risk it all, and screw over their teammates, taking the loot for themselves.

I’m sure Kane and Lynch: Dead Men will make a great movie, but as a game — it’s a forgettable and lackluster run-of-the-mill shooter with some deep, fundamental problems. If you’re looking for a distraction from some of last year’s AAA titles, it might be worth it to give the title a rent, it may take some of the frustration out.

Quick hits:

Publisher: Eidos
Developer: Io Interactive
Platform: Xbox 360 (reviewed), Playstation 3, PC
Genre: Action, Third-person shooter
Players: 1-2 (local) up to 8 online,

Playability: 3 out of 5 stars
Learning Curve: 3 out of 5 stars
Sound: 4 out of 5 stars
Graphics: 2.5 out of 5 stars
Overall: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Click here for Blast’s other review.

Kane and Lynch: Dead Men is a very solid game with an excellent story, good graphics and original multiplayer. It’s also easy to learn the controls and basics.

The game’s storyline puts you in the position of one of two men, Kane, the former mercenary, or Lynch who is a drug-up psychopath babysitting Kane. The two men go through various stages of heists and committing other kinds of crimes. They interact so realistically; it’s one of the strongest points int he game.

Not only during cut scenes, but during the actual gameplay you can see the two men showing their pleasure or displeasure towards each other and the current heist. The storyline is even better in cooperative mode with a friend, where one of you takes the role of Kane, and the other, Lynch.

The controls are easy to master. The game is a third-person shooter in which you use the Left Trigger to aim, and the Right Trigger to shoot. You are able to use the other buttons to control people that are helping you.

The graphics, while not the most impressive thing to hit the Xbox 360, are well-done. Each area is well-detailed and nice to look at. The people are well designed and so are the structures — interior and exterior.

Xbox Live multiplayer might be the best part of the game. It allows you and seven other companions to go on heists. You start by picking up jewelry and cash, trying to raise your total worth before the escape. However, players have the option of being a team player, or getting greedy and killing you for all of your loot.

The killed player gets respawned as a guard or police officer, and the killer will be marked as a traitor. Your former companions will come gunning for both of you.

Dead Men is the perfect way to fix that action-game craving. It’s not at all perfect, but there’s real “edge of your seat” action, exciting multiplayer, and a story that will suck you right in. It’s a definite rental, and if you aren’t turned off by the crude language, drug references, and bloody violence (F-bombs EVERYWHERE), this is one of those games you just buy by default.

Quick hits:

Publisher: Eidos
Developer: Io Interactive
Platform: Xbox 360 (reviewed), Playstation 3, PC
Genre: Action, Third-person shooter
Players: 1-2 (local) up to 8 online,

Playability: 4 out of 5 stars
Learning Curve: 4.5 out of 5 stars
Sound: 4 out of 5 stars
Graphics: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Overall: 4 out of 5 stars