Call of Wrrarrrezzz

In preparation for the very good looking sequel out in a couple of weeks, I decided to try out the original Call of Juarez. Basically the only Western game I've ever played was the classic LucasArts FPS Outlaws, which I enjoyed immensely, so was hoping for a worthy successor. It didn't disappoint. Oh sure, it had it's problems, but it had a great story, an interesting two alternating players mechanic with each character (Ray and Billy) having different skills, some great setpieces, and a fantastic character in Reverend Ray, whose backstory will be told in the sequel/prequel Bound In Blood.

I was hoping the big problems would begin and end with Billy's "spiritual journey" Episode. A gigantic open area you can traverse on horse-back, with mountains, fields, rivers... and no enemies. Techland created this hugely impressive level to go rabbit hunting. That's it. After that you have to climb a mountain, but the massive open area plays no part in that.



Oh, and the mountain, the mountain. This now infamous section involves literally climbing a mountain, which takes ages, all in the name of getting a feather. But it's not just a linear climb, oh no, it's a goddamned maze. And just to further add irritation to this already very irritating cake, there's a eagle that you can't kill that does a very good job of knocking you off the cliff.

I hate you.

In the end though, if you manage to work out that you were actually at the top (I didn't as the eagle kept killing me within moments), grabbed the feather (didn't notice it at first for the aforementioned reason, and even then grabbing a tiny feather while being raped by a homicidal eagle is quite tricky) and made it down the mountain without dying (several quicksaves later), you find it was all for nothing but at least you can get back to shooting things again. Phew.

But unfortunately it wasn't to be the end of my troubles.

The final section of the game is filled with plotholes, conveniences, questionable gameplay choices, stupidity, and the breaking of most of the rules Techland had spent hours carefully cultivating. I don't want to list all the problems... oh, hell, yes I do!

(Some spoilers here, so if you haven't played it and are going to, don't read!)

1. The baffling removal of Ray's patented 'concentration' mode for all of two moments in the game, with no explanation given.
2. Respawning enemies for the first time, en masse. This also makes no sense as they don't have anywhere to come in from.
3. Billy being asked to put his guns down, then having to do a fistfight because his guns have apparently vanished.
4. Main villain Juarez coming back to life all of three times, and both Ray and Billy being surprised each time he does.
5. And on the third time, Billy keeps his back to Juarez for ages, allowing him to get to his feet and pull out a Crocodile Dundee-size knife from nowhere.
6. And if he had a knife all the time, why didn't he use it in the fucking fistfight?
7. How the hell did Juarez and his entire gang manage to follow Billy through some of the most irritating Tomb Raider traps ever without making a noise, and finally make it there before him?
8. How did Ray know where to go? We didn't get to play that part.
9. Some bosses who inexplicably have a health bar, including one who just runs around in circles making you chase him... and he warps, too.
10. The final moment is just a joke. After Juarez pulls that knife, without any warning you get control and have to shoot him. The first time I didn't realise what was happened and Billy died, long unskippable cutscene, the second time I tried to take out my gun and found out it was a Quick Draw moment even though this the first time the game hasn't slapped me in the face to tell me so, Billy dies again, long cutscene again, third time I do it straight away. The drama's long gone by now though.

Up until this point I was utterly loving this game. By the time this ridiculous scenario was over (and I've by no means mentioned everything that ticked me off, this is just off the top of my head) I was glad to see the back of Call of Juarez.

Nevertheless, I'm still eagerly awaiting the sequel. If there's an eagle however I may just snap the game's disc in half and have done with it.

- Chris C

And so much for June too.

A couple of posts ago I was disillusioned with the quality of May's games, while at the same time looking forward to June. Well, thanks to last-minute sneaky business tactics, those games might be no longer optional. These two games I'm about to talk about I was really excited about, as you can see if you go all the way back to my Most Wanted List. The first is Ghostbusters: The Videogame and the second is Batman: Arkham Asylum.

(This is all your fault)

This first one wasn't the first to slip but it has me the more annoyed, as the game was already done and will be released in June in the US. It's Ghostbusters, which is one of my favourite films.

Despite the film being a Sony property, Sony didn't give a shit about the game back in 2008 when Activision dropped it. It didn't give a shit when Atari picked it up and carried it on for every format except the Sony PSP. Spider-Man is a far more lucrative license that's even more closely connected to Sony (the PS3 logo is in Spider-Man's font, for example) and yet all the games based on it have always been multi-format. Sony just didn't care.

Suddenly, a month before release and just after ex-Sony head Phil Harrison arrived at Atari, they suddenly give a shit about a game based on a 25-year-old film. Ghostbusters is now PS3 and PS2 exclusive until later in the year. The PSP version comes later. And only in European territories.

I mean, huh? There are so many things here that don't make sense. Why wait until a month before release? Why only push for the PSP version now when it's too late to arrive for the timed exclusivity? Why only in PAL territories? Why are Atari claiming that Sony's support will "allow them to reach more customers in Europe" when they were doing perfectly fine without Sony's help and actually will now be reaching about 64 million less customers than they were before? Why do Sony think this will do anything but piss off Xbox, Nintendo and PC gamers, magazines, stores, and the developers?

Still, us PC gamers have the last laugh because we can import it from the US without fear of region-locking. And even with tax and international delivery rates it's still cheaper than the PS3 version

(You're a bastard too.)

Which brings me on to my second game, which I accept a lot more... providing the reasons behind it were honourable. It's Batman: Arkham Asylum, it was due to come out the same day as Ghostbusters, and once again this decision was only made a month before release (is that day cursed or something?). And unlike Ghostbusters, there's no importing as it's worldwide not coming out until "Late Summer 09". Nice of you to be specific, guys.

Once again just like Ghostbusters, the reason for this seems down to last-minute business shenanigans, with Square-Enix taking over Eidos (the game's publisher). Eidos had been really ramping up the hype (both PCZ and PSM3 have it on their latest covers, demos in stores), so I doubt they would've gone with this choice themselves.

If Eidos/Squeenix are to believed that the game was held back "to make it as perfect as possible" (I thought it was perfect already) then I don't mind too much - more development time means a better game (unless you're 3D Realms of course). On the other hand, maybe they wanted it at a more lucrative time of year... but publishers aren't driven by money, surely?

Oh well, at least I've still got Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings on the Wii.

(Sobs).

- Chris Capel

Remake It What It Is

If there's one thing across the board in the entertainment industry I cannot stand, it's remakes. It comes from my own personal desire for originality as a writer, and remakes are the absolute bane of originality (well, that and reality shows, which I also hate but are just a TV-based phenomena at least).

I don't really hate all remakes, just the ones that are unnecessary. For example, I embraced the remake of The Amityville Horror because the original was only "okay" to start with. Unfortunately that turned out to be even worse, but I accepted it as a valid basis for a remake. Friday the 13th is another that wasn't particularly good to start with. Then there are the ones that actually turned out very well, like The Fly or The Thing - although we haven't had any of them for decades. King Kong is the only recent one I can think of.

The likes of The Omen, Halloween, A Nightmare On Elm Street, Psycho, and - eek - The Wicker Man, are unnecessary as the originals are still great.

(No America! Naughty America, put that down right now!)

I also don't like the fact that remakes invariably fit into two categories - the ones that stick too close to the superior originals and make the whole thing seem pointless (The Omen, Psycho) and the ones where they change so much you wonder why they kept the name in the first place (The Day The Earth Stood Still).

America is at the forefront of this practice. When they remake their own films I get cross and slap my head at the unoriginality of Hollywood, but it's when they remake other country's films and TV programs just to make them American that I get really angry. It's bad enough that foreign films, no matter how great, seem to scare Those People In Charge Of The USA. Quarantine was an almost identical remake of [REC], just without subtitles. What's the point? But when British stuff, which is already in English, starts getting remade, then I write angry blog posts.

(You don't know how close the world got to this)

Most of them get cancelled, thankfully. Red Dwarf, Coupling, Life On Mars, Spaced, even Doctor Who (see the Paul McGann movie for reasons why) were planned. The first three were pretty much identical apart from being 'Americanised', raising more questions about the point in doing it. Coupling I loved, because the reason it got cancelled was because they kept the scripts the same and the US press attacked it for having more discussions about sex than any US show. The Office is the only one I don't mind, as that was one of the simplest ideas ever made (even the title was unoriginal).

What makes it even more interesting is that when they leave these things alone, American audiences love them. Red Dwarf, Spaced, Coupling and Doctor Who are really, really popular in the US. Same goes for films - Shaun of the Dead for instance. They couldn't care less that the cast aren't American. Clearly the US public aren't as xenophobic as those in charge make it seem.

Which brings me on to game remakes. I don't really mind them as much, as most are older games that don't really have a story. Prince of Persia, Bionic Commando, Doom 3 etc are more making a new game. Chronicles of Riddick: Assault On Dark Athena is less remake, more 2-Disc Remastered Special Edition.

In fact, the only proper, straight gaming remake I can think of is Tomb Raider Anniversary. This one illustrates the dearth of ideas for Lara Croft right now, with the poor sales of Underworld showing how bored everyone is with the character. I did buy it, but only because it was £3 at Zaavi.

Gaming remakes don't bother me, in other words. On the other hand, if Eidos Montreal are remaking Thief: The Dark Project instead of making a new game in the series there'll be hell to pay.

- Chris Capel