When you're playing a video game based on a movie, you have to make comparisons. Not in the "Is one better than the other?" sense, of course, since they're fundamentally incomparable media.

But I do believe that a video game should be thematically and narratively consistent with the film on which it's based; it should extend (or at least retell) the movie's fiction in a way that naturally fits; and, most of all, it should be respectful of its source material. You know how when you go camping you're supposed to leave your campground cleaner than when you left it? I think that's a good idea for video games based on movies as well.

By that standard, "Godfather II" is an abysmal failure. To be sure, the film sets a high bar: It's one of the all-time greats of American cinema, dealing with family, loyalty, betrayal, morality, and, of course, the American Dream (kind of like "Grand Theft Auto IV," except better).

But the game? As I wrote in my recently posted review, it's pretty much all downhill from the start when the developers at EA Redwood Shores decide to try and follow the plot of the film while shoehorning in a new Corleone family don controlled by the player:

Achieving this requires an almost epic rewrite, however. At the beginning of the game, Michael decides to lay low for awhile and make the player’s character, Dominic, don (perhaps just as well, since EA doesn’t have the rights to Al Pacino’s voice or likeness). With the flashbacks to Robert DeNiro’s young Vito entirely erased, “Godfather II” works its way through some of the highlights of Michael’s story, such as the attempted murder of Frankie Pentangeli and Sen. Pat Geary’s rude awakening in a brothel, with Dominic awkwardly grafted onto events.

The plot increasingly strays from the movie, culminating in a ridiculous sequence where Dominic tries to single-handedly assassinate Fidel Castro and fight his way out of Havana. By that point, it’s clear EA isn’t paying homage to a great American film so much as abusing its legacy for a game that could and should stand on its own.

To EA, apparently, "The Godfather Part II" is not a great American film that deserves respect. It's a brand that can be slapped onto a half-finished mafia game.

"Godfather II's" flaws are many, and mostly of the type that scream the publisher simply ran out of interest (or marketing research) to fund it to completion: Sub-par graphics, repetitive missions, a nearly empty "open world" (there's literally nobody in the airport; apparently all 20 people who live in this version of New York City are afraid to fly).

 But there's one key feature of the game that almost makes up for all those problems:

[T]he sequel adds what it calls the “Don’s View,” a three-dimensional map on which Dominic can send Corleone goons to take over rackets or defend their own from attacks. The “Don’s View” is a truly impressive interface, allowing players to manage the family, call in favors and scan sizable maps without ever feeling overwhelmed. It accomplishes this not only through clear visuals and well-laid-out controls, but also aural cues. Soft moans and the cocking of a pistol, for instance, help to indicate whether one is looking at a business involved in adult entertainment or gun running.

"The Don's View" should have been the core innovation behind a great mafia game. Instead, it's the only impressive feature in what's otherwise an interactive middle finger to Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo.

"Wheelman" has had a long and not-so-smooth history, to say the least. It started production at Midway's Australia studio, only to moved to Newcastle in the UK, where it was then re-started a third time when the publisher decided to do all its development in Unreal Engine.

Then there's the film tie-in. Three years ago, I wrote an article in Variety about Midway's deal with Paramount's MTV Films label to simultaneously develop a "Wheelman" film. The plan back then was to release the game and film, both of which would star Vin Diesel, simultaneously in late 2007. MTV was going to produce the game's soundtrack, sell in-game advertising, and provide significant marketing support.

Three years, numerous delays, and one bankruptcy later, "Wheelman" is finally out. MTV has nothing to do with the project anymore and Midway has handed off publishing rights to Ubisoft in exchange for some badly needed cash.

After all that, perhaps it's no surprise that "Wheelman" feels, well, a couple of years too late. As I wrote in my review, "What might have seemed like competent copying a couple of years ago pales next to 2008's 'Burnout: Paradise' and 'Grand Theft Auto IV.' 'Wheelman' offers a few spectacular racing mechanics, but otherwise fails to meet the mark of those top-shelf inspirations."

Put even more simply, if you're going to so blatantly be influenced by rip off other games, you've got to be at least as good as them.    

That being said, some of the driving action is really fun. Bashing nearby cars with a flick of the right thumbstick; slowing down time to shoot everyone around you (the racing equivalent of bullet time); and even "airjacking" a nearby vehicle by jumping from roof to roof. It all works and it's all good fun, especially when the developers mix things up a bit by putting Diesel's character in a semi truck or sending the race into a narrow pedestrian walkway or through a building.

If the game were limited to its dozens of side missions in which players engage in various types of races to earn badges, it would at least be a consistent, smooth ride. Add in multi-player with all those features and it might have been great.

But perhaps because of the presence of a movie star with his name above the title -- when was the last time that happened in a video game? -- there's a confusing, half-assed, cliched story involving an undercover cop, gangs, and other "GTA" wanna-be material.

"The result of attempting both," I wrote in my review, "is extreme tonal conflict. It's difficult to take anything Milo says or does seriously when he's been jumping from roof to roof in cars speeding more than 100 miles per hour."

Full review: Wheelman

Sometimes, video games based on kids' movies turn their source material into a fun and dynamic package that outdoes gamers' extremely modest expectations and provide a solid experience that can stand on its own. Think "Lego Star Wars," for instance, or "Kung Fu Panda," or Cartoon Networks' "Fusion Fall."

But too often, they return to a pathetic mean. That's what Variety critics Tom Chick found with Activision's latest Dreamworks adaptation, "Monsters vs. Aliens":

There's nothing here that hasn't been done better in numerous other games. When the "God of War"-style button-pressing sequences, in which players just occasionally press buttons while watching a cutscene borrowed from the film, appear, it's clear the developers have run out of ideas.

To its credit, "Monsters vs. Aliens" moves quickly. Though there's not much variety (it's probably not a good idea to have one of the characters regularly comment on how repetitive the game is), and it's chopped into short alternating segments that might distract a child from noticing he or she is essentially replaying the same bits, but with a slightly different background.

The game does make a nod toward replayability, Tom notes, but not in a very good way. Players can earn unlockables via a "DNA strand" that, well, doesn't actually resemble DNA at all (way to educate the youngsters!).

And there are opportunities to replay a level via a "director's commentary," that's actually the same gameplay, but alternate jokes coming out of the characters' mouths. Given that Tom says the jokes weren't too good the first time around, I would hold out high hopes for that. And, really, since when is the "director" of a video game the person who comes up with alternate dialogue? That analogy doesn't even work for films, let alone games.

Full review: Monsters vs. Aliens

Variety reviewer Chris Dahlen ends his excellent review of "Guitar Hero: Metallica" with an unanswered question that lies at the heart of the career mode:

Who am I? Why do I exist? "Guitar Hero: Metallica's" career mode just doesn't know. Sometimes you're Metallica itself -- but you don't rise to the top. You're already and always are stars.

The rest of the time you're an intro band -- called, none too cleverly, 'Tallica Jr. -- seizing the shot to open for their heroes by playing tracks related to or inspired by the titular band.

Two incongrous parts, in other words, with nothing more in common than the fact that they share a virtual digital stage.

Metaphysical befuddlement aside, "Guitar Hero: Metallica" is really solid, Chris argues. There's a good mix of tracks and difficultly levels and it's well made, giving casual or hard core "Metallica" fans exactly the musical experience they'll want:

"Metallica's" material is perfect for a title aimed at players of all skill levels: the songs selected are melodic and accessible, yet technically challenging. Amateurs can hum along to "Enter Sandman," while expert skin-slappers can woodshed the drum part on "Battery." The disc includes fewer, albeit longer, tracks than the main "Guitar Hero" titles, and metalheads are the key demographic, with classics by Thin Lizzy and Bob Seger straying the farthest from headbanging territory.

But even players who would have preferred a "Guitar Hero: Shawn Colvin" will find the gameplay rewarding, as the set-list boasts a good mix of shredders and ballads, portentous rests and finger-breaking solos.

Perhaps the question ultimately is: Isn't all that enough? Does "Guitar Hero: Metallica" really need a coherent narrative? Because they sure haven't figured out how to do it, but otherwise they've got a great game.

Full review: Guitar Hero: Metallic

I'm definitely a fan of games that limit their scope and fulfill all of their ambitions as expertly as possible. It's much better than games that do too many things half-assed. But no matter how good the execution, there's such a thing as too limited a scope, particularly given current business realities.

Case in point: "Wanted: Weapons of Fate." Universal definitely impressed me with its first self-published AAA title. It's almost impeccably executed. The studio took a risk waiting seven months after the movie's release, and three months after the DVD, in order to get the game to a high quality bar, but it was worth it, as I wrote in my recently posted review:

But with a full priced 360/PS3 title, gamers can reasonably expect they'll have a lot to do with these awesome mechanics. That's where "Weapons of Fate" fails. The single player campaign takes about five hours to complete. That's it. Unless you're really compelled by harder difficulty settings or the option to play through the game as a different character from the movie, the game is over. There's no multi-player, even though the bending bullets and slo-mo shooting could have made for a fantastic twist on the standard online deathmatches (tough to execute, I'm sure; but nonetheless it feels like a glaring omission).

In today's market, putting out "Wanted" with so little content seems like a crazy choice by Universal. "Weapons of Fate" screams rent it or buy it used (no surprise, then, that it topped Gamefly's rental charts for this week). Games rely on selling a certain number of new, full-priced copies to turn a profit. But players have too many options to skip that step if a title isn't compelling enough to justify buying it at $60. And there's simply no reasin in the world to buy and keep "Weapons of Fate." Helll, there are plenty of downloadable titles for $10 or $20 with substantially more gameplay.

Which means, I suspect, "Wanted: Weapons of Fate" will be played and enjoyed by many, but still not do much for Universal's bottom line. The best case scenario might be taking the mechanics of "Weapons of Fate" and expanding them into a sequel with ambitions high enough to justify a $60 disc.

Full review: Wanted: Weapons of Fate

Sometimes limitations are an artist's best friend.

Case in point: "Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars." It's a great DS game -- I'd put it in competition with "The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass" as the best game every for the system. But it's also a great "Grand Theft Auto" game. Definitely better than the recent expansion pack "Lost and Damned" and even a bit better than "Grand Theft Auto IV."

Why? It's a lot less indulgent than either of those games. Rockstar clearly put a lot of work into what works on the DS -- not just in terms of the controls, the processing power, and the graphical and audio limitations, but also the way most people play Nintendo's portable console in short bursts. The missions are tight, the controls are clean -- moreso than ever thanks to the touch screen -- and the violence is over-the-top fun in the best traditions of the series.

Sure, the physics, the graphics, and the gunfights that spread across multiple levels of multiple buildings are impressive and occasionally astounding in "GTA IV." But they're less exuberant and more visceral -- the game is a tragedy and the action always has that tinge to it. It's too intense and too involved to ever be pure fun.

But that approach wouldn't work on the DS. You can't make action that big, involving and intense on an underpowered portable device. Rockstar wisely realized that and designed its new game accordingly. Here's how I describe the gameplay in my recently posted review of "Chinatown Wars":

"GTA" games work best when the characters and themes match the action -- That's why "GTA IV" was so good and "Lost and Damned" wasn't quite up to par. In "Chinatown Wars," Rockstar nails the writing, crafting a tale that's as irreverent as the gameplay:

The basic narrative formula is incredibly familiar to "GTA" veterans -- a foreigner arrives in Liberty City and quickly finds himself caught up in a gang war, doing jobs for unsavory and amusing characters while on a personal quest. But Hong Kong native Huang Lee is not ridden with pathos like "GTA IV" protag Niko Bellic. He's a smart ass who doesn't take anything or anyone he finds in Liberty City too seriously.

Rockstar has great fun with that attitude, using Lee to mock many of the clichés one might expect in a game called "Chinatown Wars." When his uncle talks about the family honor being "besmirched," Lee responds with a laugh, reminding him that it's "2009, not 1403." Rockstar's trademark portrayal of the culturally respected as corrupt and hypocritical plays out in genuinely funny ways, with old Chinese men spouting lines like, "I know a proverb about that once, but I forgot it."

Finally, while it hardly falls into the purview of a critical review, you have to give Rockstar the credit it always earns: With a big main story, dozens of side quests, and entire drug-dealing economy, local and wi-fi multi-player, and easy replay of every mission, the game is simply massive. Probably the biggest ever on the DS (save perhaps for, again, "Zelda: Phantom Hourglass"). In a down economy, Rockstar continues to give players some of the best value for their entertainment dollar.

Full review: Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars

"Resident Evil 4" was one of, if not the, first games I played when I was getting back into gaming in 2004 and 2005 (after a late high school-through-early-20s hiatus) that utterly blew me away and demonstrated how far the medium had progressed since I last saw it. So I was super excited about "Resident Evil 5," if a bit wary based on what I initially saw.

And now that I've played it? The phrase that comes to mind is "How the mighty have fallen." Or, as I put it in my Variety review that recently posted:

Sometimes a revered veteran falls behind the times. The highly anticipated "Resident Evil 5" offers few terrifying moments or new ideas, mixing tired features from the series' previous incarnations with poorly implemented ones borrowed from modern games, all set against a backdrop with disturbing racial overtones.

It's certainly not a disaster. The production values are excellent and there are a few unique touches, most notably the use of the bright African sun in the early levels to amplify the horror in a way I've never seen. Instead of feeling anxious in the dark, I felt exposed in the light (At least until the game abandoned that idea and moved into a bunch of generic caves and sci-fi backdrops).

I'll be honest: Overall, I wasn't just disappointed in "Resident Evil 5." I actively disliked it. If I hadn't been reviewing it, I would have stopped playing after a few hours. I think my review lays out my reasons pretty well. But for those who like lists, here they are one by one:

 -"Resident Evil 5" is not scary. At all. I know that the series moved away from the horror and towards action with "RE 4," but there's still a pretense of horror here. The first header in the briefing book Capcom provided is "The horror continues" and the back of the box screams "You don't have to face the fear alone." Most notably, the game keeps many of the allegedly scary tropes from past incarnations: Tentacles exploding out of infected natives' heads; blood dripping from the ceiling; boss battles with giant slimy monsters. And in case you can't tell it's supposed to be scary, you can push a button to "investigate" and get eerie observations from Chris Redfield like "Looks like it was torn apart by animals. Not a good way to go." (That's my snarky way of saying that Capcom needs to show and not tell.)

It's 2009. Horror today is defined by the psycho-sexual gore of "Saw" and the unpredictable terror of "Left 4 Dead." The "Resident Evil" series either needs to catch up with some new scary ideas or just give up on the horror concept entirely.

2. It's is a mediocre, derivative action game. The lack of scares would be somewhat acceptable if "Resident Evil 5" were a great action game. But it's not. Playing "RE 5" is, in many ways, a montage of action video game cliches from the past few years:

Imagine how annoyed fans we would all be if Hollywood took our favorite video games and turned them into movies by simply remaking existing films and inserting the games' characters and settings.

Yet that's exactly what we tolerate, again and again, the other way around when games adapt movies. The latest example is "Watchmen," for which the creative process appeared to consist of answering the question: "Into what existing game genre can we just drop some characters from the movie and comic?"

The answer, of course, is a brawler, and so we get "Watchmen: The End is Nigh," which might better be called "Bad WatchDudes" or "Who Watches the Double Dragon?" (If they wanted to give the game a title in the form of a horrible pun, that is)

That might be fine, if you were dealing with a property that's all about kicking ass and taking names, with a somewhat ironic take to make up for the fact that the gameplay is so very retro. It does help that brawler games were popular in the '80s, when "Watchmen" came out, but the comic and movie are decidedly not ironic.

As I wrote in my review for Variety, "The End is Nigh" turns a "dense and cerebral comics classic into a distressingly shallow videogame in which there's nothing for players to do but beat the living crap out of everyone they see."

Sure, there's some excuse in that the game takes place in the '70s when playable characters Rorsach and Nite Owl were kicking ass as crimefighting partners, but it's still "Watchmen." There should be something to do besides take down literally every single person you encounter (isn't there a single innnocent citizen walking around New York?). But that's literally all you do for six chapters, culminating in a lame boss fight where you have to take out a guy wearing body armor, which means it takes several dozen punches, kicks, and crowbars to the head to knock him out.

There is a plot that attempts to be "Watchmen"-esque, but it's just as old fashioned as the brawling in the sense that it's not connected at all to the gameplay. To make matters worse, it's not even connected to the characters. Rorsach and Nite Owl are just clueless pawns in somebody else's conspiracy, a conspiracy pretty thoroughly described in the comic, meaning anyone who read it won't be very surprised to see what happens.

The result, unsurprisingly, is that it's hard to build up much motivation to engage in 20 year-old gameplay with no connection to the story.

That being said, players who just want a brawler will appreciate that it's well made. The animations are fluid and detailed, the controls are responsive (if a bit too easy for hard core players), and the graphics are out outstanding, especially for a $20 downloadable title.

But I couldn't escape the same feeling I had while playing "Quantum of Solace," which basically just took "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" and slapped James Bond and some scenes from the movie into it. Of course we have to be respectful of the fact that we're unlikely to get the most originality out of movie-based games, since they're always made on tight schedules (although allegedly "Watchmen" was made downloadable to help ameliorate that problem). But if you're going to turn a movie (or any source material) into a video game, I really feel strongly that you need an idea that respects the spirit of the source material. Not just an existing genre and set of mechanics that you can justify, somehow, using for the movie's purposes.

Full review: Watchmen: The End is Nigh

Is it possible to admire a game tremendously and still be disappointed by it?

It seems to me that's starting to be the question about “Grand Theft Auto.” I wasn’t on board with that view for “GTA IV” -- It made my top ten list for 2008. And that was, to be honest, before I had fully finished the story. I did a few weeks ago, and while I think it drags early in the third act and the final scene is really hokey, the penultimate mission, where players have to make a major moral choice, was incredibly compelling and brought together many underlying strands of the game nicely.

But three writers I respect, Variety’s three freelance videogame critics – Leigh Alexander, Tom Chick and Chris Dahlen – listed it as one of their most “overrated” or “disappointing” games of the year. Tom described it succinctly as, “One of the most amazing realizations of a real-world-ish place and one of my favorite games this year. Also the setting for a poorly told story and uninspired gameplay…” Leigh added that it’s “In many ways… the wildest and most poignant video game ever made -- but in most ways, it's over-weighted, illogical and emotionally manipulative…”

I thought they were all off base on “GTA IV.” But I find their viewpoint making more sense to me on “The Lost and Damned,” the new downloadable “GTA IV” episode, which I just reviewed for Variety.

As far as DLC goes, Rockstar has taken it to a new level. This isn’t extra content – it’s an entirely new game, complete with characters, a story, vehicles, challenges, and multi-player modes. It even fixes one of the most annoying parts about “GTA IV” (more on that in my next post) and adds some dead on new music (“Highway Star” in a game about a motorcycle gang? Hell yes.) And it’s not just quantity. Much of it is quality. The characters are well written, the cut scene animation is significantly better than in “GTA IV,” and some of the multi-player modes are really clever. All that for a $20 digital download? I’ve seen less for $60 on a disc. Rockstar, you have officially impressed me.

BUT… “The Lost and Damned” also has major problems, as I noted in my review. In particular, it’s a structural mess. Not only because the story is poorly paced and has a hugely unsatisfying finale, though it is and it does. Even more because the missions, most of which are remarkably similar to the ones in “GTA IV,” don’t fit this game.

Or rather, they don’t fit this character. Niko Bellic is, let’s be blunt, a sociopath. His ability to emphathise is minimal and his willingness to kill anyone and everyone is practically limitless. But that was the point of the character and the game actually addresses the consequences of his action at the end. So it works.

Johnny Klebitz, vice president of motorcycle gang “The Lost” is not a sociopath. He is specifically set up as a rational guy, in contrast to hothead gang president Billy Grey, recently out of jail, who’s eager to start turf wars, steal drugs, and other nasty stuff. Which is why, by the second act of the game, when Johnny is engaging is very Niko-esque missions that involve gratuitous mass murder, sometimes of police, just to make some money or help a friend or avoid blackmail, it made me cringe. It’s the wrong character for the missions. Or the wrong missions for the character.

It’s all summed up, really, in the finale. (I won’t reveal the exact details since the game has only been out for two days <sorry, Brainy Gamer>, but those of you who want to be totally surprised should consider this a spoiler warning). The game has blatantly been building toward a final confrontation. And because it’s heavily influenced by Western movies (not just in themes; even the fonts have a Western motif), I was expecting a dramatic showdown. The “GTA” equivalent of ten paces at sundown.

Instead, it’s an over-the-top, gratuitous orgy of violence that involves killing dozens (maybe hundreds?) of innocent security officers who are just doing their job. It’s unrealistic, doesn’t fit the character, and isn’t a satisfying end to the story, structurally or thematically. Everything that’s mature and sophisticated and interesting about “GTA” thrown out the window in favor of everything that moralistic critics unfairly say defines the series.

As always, I’m glad I don’t have to actually give a recommendation in my Variety reviews. Because if you like “GTA IV” gameplay, it’s an amazing value. If you want proof that DLC can be much more than a mere expansion pack, this is it. But if you’re looking for a well designed merging of story and gameplay, “The Lost and Damned” doesn’t deliver.

Full review: “Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned"

Though it has literally hundreds of little casual games on its websites, Cartoon Network was late making its big splash in online gaming the way Disney has with "ToonTown," "Pirates of the Caribbean Online," "Pixie Hollow," and Nickelodeon has with "Neopets" and "Nicktropolis." But the cable network has finally launched its piece de resistance for its target audience of young boys and Variety critic Leigh Alexander, who knows something about young boys (I couldn't help it; Sorry Leigh!), says in her review they're the first big media company to do a true MMO (not a virtual world) for kids. She calls it "a 'World of Warcraft'-lite game that's the first [online game from a kids' cable network] to approach the quality, playability and potential for mass appeal of its older-skewing brethren."

 Leigh's particularly impressed by the action, the smooth learning curve, and the way the game brings together many disparate Cartoon Network shows with a unique visual style:

She also likes the sizable amount of free content the game offers. Though there are plenty of reasons to pay, this isn't one of those scams designed to make kids miserable who can't get Mom or Dad to cough up the credit card.

Though the controls and navigation leave a bit to be desired, Leigh's only real complain comes in the second "M" in "MMO." Cartoon Network apparently played it so safe protecting kids from predators, or saying bad words to each other, that there's no strong opportunity or reason to play together, or even talk and make friends.

Full review: FusionFall

 There are plenty of surface problems with EA's new "Lord of the Rings: Conquest" that make it a badly executed game: the visuals are mediocre; characters spawn out of thin air right in front of you; gameplay is repetitive and sometimes tedious; on-screen directions are sometimes unclear; and so on and so on.

But the real problem with the game is a conceptual one. "Lord of the Rings," whether in book form or movie, is an epic fantasy. That's really it's defining trait. It's three books that are 600,000 words long in total taking place in an entire land with numerous regions, species, and landmarks. The characters are big (some physically, some just personality wise), the themes are big, the story is huge, the battles are massive.

And then you have "Lord of the Rings: Conquest." Choose one of four different character types and relive the books/films' greatest battles via small missions that feature as many as several dozen enemies on screen at a time (or up to 16 in multi-player) and no sense of what's going on around you. Notice a problem? Here's what I wrote in my review:

There are some cool moments, like the first time you control an ent (giant trees) or balrog (big stone monster) and the beginning of the "evil" campaign when you have to stop Frodo from throwing the one ring into Mount Doom (that's one of the very few levels in which you actually understand the larger point of your goals). But they're fleeting.

Other allegedly exciting moments, like controlling the "Rings" heroes like Aragorn and Gandalf, aren't, since they are simply new models of the same characters you've played before (Gandalf's a really powerful mage, Legolas is a really powerful archer, etc.), with not very good sound alike actors imitating the film stars.

So yes, it's not a very well executed game. But more importantly, it's not a misguided approach to a really great property.

Full review: Lord of the Rings: Conquest

We interrupt this top ten games of 2008 countdown for our final videogame review of the year in Variety: The Tale of Despereaux.

As loyal readers and videogame business nerds (mostly the same, I hope) know, Atari is distributing this game after the demise of Brash. But the origin of the game is a bit more complicated. While Brash funded and oversaw production of the PC, PS2 and Wii SKUs (as well as a 360 SKU that disappeared), licensor Universal Studios was actually overseeing the DS version. Wanna bet which version was pretty good and which sucked?

The answer is obvious, I suppose. Poor, poor Brash. Here's what our critic Chris Dahlen had to say in today's Daily Variety:

The DS version... is a straightforward platformer with elements as old as the first “Super Mario.” Players jump, scurry up walls, swing on nails and solve simple puzzles. The graphics are surprisingly good for Nintendo’s handheld system, with lovingly illustrated levels including the mazelike chutes from the kitchen to the coalmine-like castle dungeon. The rat’s coliseum, where two rather clever boss battles take place, rewards combatants with a colorful three-dimensional backdrop and silhouetted rodents who jeer from the stands...

By contrast, the Wii version proves that there’s nothing as irritating as a platformer that doesn’t quite work. The look and idea are very similar: Despereaux has to navigate one level after another by scaling giant books, jumping from candle to candle or hitching a ride on a moving cup. While the mouse-eye perspective should make the world engaging, the environments lack atmosphere, even in the dankest, most sewage-swamped depths of a dungeon. Poor visibility and dark colors occasionally obscure the path even in well-lit areas, and the camera frequently looks the wrong way or loses track of Despereaux altogether.

It looks like the last game to see a release that was produced entirely under Brash's watch won't exactly bolster the company's reputation. Though there's still a good chance some of the games in the works for next year which will probably see the light of day ("Night at the Museum 2," "Saw") will at least show Brash can start developing a good game.

As for Universal, its new videogame publishing initiative -- which reps the studio's first entry into the space since it sold Universal Interactive to Vivendi nearly a decade ago -- is off to a solid start, critically speaking, at least. After the film's soft opening (due in part to the weather, but oh well), commerical prospects for the game might not be so great.

Full review: The Tale of Despereaux videogame

Can a videogame be compelling even if it's not challenging?

I come down on the "yes" side of things with my review of Ubisoft's new revamp of "Prince of Persia." It's not like there's a shortage of challenging games out there, after all. "Prince of Persia" offers something different: drop dead gorgeous visuals, an absolutely perfect camera, spare but engrossing sound design, and a wide variety of easily implemented acrobatic moves, all of which combine for a relaxing, meditative experience. As I wrote in my review:

Normally, a shortage of player control is a debilitating flaw in an interactive medium, but when the experience is as drop-dead gorgeous and consistently exhilarating as Ubisoft's revamp of the 20-year-old "Prince of Persia" franchise, it's easy to overlook. One of the most visually stunning videogames ever made, it melds a hand-painted look with spare sound design and haunting music to create an aesthetically consistent work that's meditative but rarely boring.

While the combat is too non-strategic and repetitive and the relationship between the Prince and his partner Elika is downright annoying (the writers seem to be going for a Hepburn and Tracy dynamic, but the result is more Heidi and Spencer). But the entire experience was worth it to me purely just to drool at what's on screen. We've seen cel shading before, but never with design with such realistic and detailed designs, not to mention top-notch hi-def renderings. The Prince's acrobatic moves are impressive enough, but the vistas revealed when walking to the edge of a tower, or simply swinging around a corner, are truly stunning. "Particularly breathtaking," I noted in the review, "are a battle against a flame-engulfed monster who provides the only light in the room, as well as a final boss fight shot with an ultra-wide lens in black-and-white."

I was also engrossed, much to my surprise, in the game's epilogue. After a fairly generic story (king unleashes an evil god who takes over the land; princess has to set things right), the emotional depth expands infinitely by "tying together the narrative, aesthetics and gameplay in an epilogue that gives the completed experience a new level of meaning."

Other elements are intriguing, particularly the role that Elika plays in the game (more on her in an upcoming post). But my most important fact is that I was almost never bored, even when I was just pushing a button every two or three seconds to keep the prince moving through a long acrobatic sequence, or watching him and Elika soar through the air off a "power plate."

There's one question I'm glad I don't have to answer though: Is this breathtaking, meditative but short experience worth $60? That's a tough one. "Prince of Persia" is great in so many ways, but it's really not that much game for players with a budget.

Full review: Prince of Persia

We've been kinda tough -- not undeservedly, of course -- on some recent Disney videogame releases, but there's a turnabout of sorts from a somewhat surprising outlet: the new "Club Penguin" game for the DS.

It's the first major spin-off Disney has done for the uber-popular kids virtual world since purchasing it last year in a deal worth up to $700 million. As Variety critic Chris Dahlen reports, it's a fun collection of mini-games and mysteries that fits smoothly into the "Club Penguin" landscape:

"Club Penguin's" simple cartoony style loses little in the move to the smallscreen. The island's layout remains essentially the same, but players now explore it from a first-person perspective -- which makes it easier to comb each space for hidden coins and clues.

The missions challenge players with object-manipulation puzzles, simple decoding tasks and plain old hunting and rummaging for clues. Any kid who reads well, follows directions and doesn't mind scouring the island once in a while for new leads should have no trouble. Unfortunately, the gameplay will occasionally frustrate their best efforts: A lack of negative feedback can make it difficult to figure out why penguins don't always move where the player points, for instance, and some design mistakes in the final action sequence makes it difficult to trigger the right action and complete the game.

There's also a smart, if rather simple, tie-in to the virtual world. Kids can't import their "Club Penguin" character to the DS, which would probably be the ultimate tie-in, but coins earned on the new game can be transferred to the virtual world, and content like newsletters and polls from "Club Penguin" can be downloaded onto the DS. Which is probably a smart move by Disney to ensure that "Elite Penguin Force" will only reinforce kids' online "Club Penguin" interest/addiction, rather than replace it.

Full review: Club Penguin: Elite Penguin Force

There's no denying "Lips" has style. Microsoft's attempt to draw more casual players to the Xbox 360 with a "Singstar" competitor features hefty, glowing, motion sensive mics and visuals, easy jump-in co-op, a clean iPod-esque interface, and visuals that range from musicvideos to trippy ambient designs.

But as Variety critic Leigh Alexander notes, it's rather shallow, with a poor selection of songs and an import function that's just plain broken:

"Lips" eschews timeless karaoke favorites in favor of an odd blend so dispersed across genres that each player's taste is likely to find only a couple of desirables out of a list of 40 titles that run the gamut from A-Ha's "Take on Me" through perplexing, ultra-current one-hit-wonders like Sara Bareilles' "Love Song."  The box promises more songs available via download, but there aren't many just yet, and no must-haves, which looks grim for "Lips" when you contrast it with "SingStar," which has such a massive song library that Sony had to build a separate, iTunes-esque online store to house them all.

"Lips" promised to make up for that shortcoming through an innovative feature that lets players import songs from an iPod or other MP3 player, tone down the singer's voice and "freestyle" to the music even if the lyric data isn't available. But the feature barely functions. Not only does it require the music player to be attached to the console at all times (as opposed to actually transferring files), but this reviewer couldn't get a single song from the iPod to work in "Lips," even though the game was able to recognize them and add them to the track list.

Leigh also notes that while "Lips" works easily as a party game (assuming you like music on the disc), there's really no challenge for anyone used to crooning in "Rock Band" or "Guitar Hero: World Tour." Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but may limit the appeal a bit. Especially since those two games work just as well for parties with non-gamers as for the hardcore types alone at 3AM with nobody they have to worry about waking.

Full review: Lips

Blizzard's new "World of Warcraft" expansion "Wrath of the Lich King" manages to provide experienced players with grand, polished, compelling new content they'll love, while also giving new players good stuff they can enjoy without grinding for hours, reports Variety critic Gus Mastrapa (who kindly and ably pinch hit for us as a "WoW" specialist).

"The Death Knight’s versatility as a damage dealer, armored bruiser, magic user and necromancer will make it quite popular, especially to veteran players who have tried and tired of all the other classes," he says, pointing to the new class that lies at the heart of the expansion.

The content isn't quite as varied as last year's expansion "The Burning Crusade," but "Lich King" makes up for that through sheer grandeur. "Areas feel more sprawling and quests frequently allow players to take to the air atop dragons, airships and player-controlled fighter planes," he notes. "The landscape appears more organic than in the past and new graphical flourishes like real-time shadows add emotional resonance."

As a "Warcraft" virgin, however, I was most intersted in, and impressed by, Gus's description of how the game manages to satisfy the 11 million-plus existing players, while still opening things up for millions more to get addicted:

In the game’s early days, most “World of Warcraft” players experienced major plot points from the periphery only, toiling in obscurity while hardcore devotees earned the glory, witnessed the coolest content and reaped the greatest rewards. “Wrath of the Lich King” continues a recent trend away from that elitism, letting the average punter cross paths with the story’s major players and writing them into several run-ins with Arthas himself as they explore Northrend...

The hardcore, however, are still amply served. An entire new zone, Wintergrasp, is dedicated to massive player-vs.-player battles involving new siege weapons like catapults, steampunk tanks and player-piloted flying machines. Endgame dungeons like the floating necropolis of Naxxramas challenge 10- and 25-player teams with intricate, drawn-out boss battles.

Suffice it to say, it's no surprise "Lich King" sold 2.8 million units its first day and it looks like the "Warcraft" addiction express won't be slowing down soon if Blizzard keeps up this level of quality.

Full review: Wrath of the Lich King

What impressed me most about "Left 4 Dead," which I reviewed in today's Daily Variety, isn't necessarily what it did so well, but what it didn't do. Too many games try to do everything. Thus we've got the mawkish, cliche-ridden, and utterly unnecessary story in "Gears of War 2." Or the tediously long campaign in "Halo 3" when most of us just want to get to the multi-player. Or the uninspired, tacked-on multi-player in "Fracture," a game without enough originality to even support 1/10 of its campaign.

In "Left 4 Dead," it's obvious that most of the work went into the co-op multiplayer. The result is brilliant, compelling, and virtually flawless, the biggest leap forward in multi-player since "Doom" or "Quake." From the menus to the interface to the enemy A.I. to the level design, the entire game makes strategic cooperation both simple and necessary and punishes selfishiness. I particularly love that you can see what fellow players are carrying, either in the HUD or on their persons. No hiding that first aid pack when I'm low on health, jerkface. (For a bit more on why the co-op works so great, check out my earlier post about why four people is the perfect number)

But what about the story? Doesn't "Left 4 Dead" need a single-player mode to set everything up? Hell no. That's not to say the game doesn't have a framework. Players don't just want to be dropped into a generic world with generic enemies to shoot.

"Left 4 Dead's" solution is to find a familiar genre that perfectly fits the co-op gameplay and embraces it. So it's a zombie movie, full of stock characters, settings, and visual/musical details. We all immediately get it. We know these characters, we know where they are, and we know what they want. As a result, "Left 4 Dead" doesn't waste its resources attempting to build an original plot or single-player experience that matches the quality of the co-op. It just drops us into the cliches and gets going with what it does best.

The formula is simple: Successfully innovate in a few key areas and simplify everything else in ways that compliment those features. Too many games try to do too much and the result is that while I'm imprssed by the attempt, the failures stand out and the overall game is hurt by the dissonance. It's no mistake that "Left 4 Dead" and "Boom Blox," two games with little in common, are my favorites of 2008 so far. They're not perfect in every way imaginable. Not even close. But the know what they do right, they know what's not important, and as overall works, they're both perfectly harmonious.

Full review: Left 4 Dead

Seems Disney has an unfortunate trend with videogames based on its animated features this year: Adaptations that completely miss the spirit and tone of their source material.

First came THQ's "Wall-E," which as I wrote back in June, was basically a short collection of videogame cliches that didn't remotely resemble the quirky and romantic film. Now comes "Bolt," Disney Interactive's adaptation of its sibling studio's pic. Variety critic Tom Chick found it similarly wanting, noting that a movie about a super-powered dog who discovers he's not so super and has to discover the value of his normal self has become a game in which the titular pooch is always super-powered and questions nothing:

Rather than taking on the admittedly difficult challenge of addressing the movie's story of a dog who discovers his life as a superhero is just a show, the game embraces that show, sending Bolt on a globe-hopping adventure in which he can shoot laser beams from his eyes, rip through steel with his jaws, and blast bad guys with a supersonic bark. It's like making a "Superman" videogame in which Kal-El never leaves Krypton.

Game is also missing some of the best characters from the movie who kids will likely expect to see. The overeager hamster in a ball only makes a cameo, while the wisecracking trio of pigeons aren't around at all. Because he's on a TV show in which he's merely a pet for owner Penny (the game's other playable character), Bolt doesn't even talk. That seems sure to disappoint tykes. And really, how hard would it have been the give the hamster in a ball a playable level? Sounds to me like it's begging for some "Katamari"-style rolling.

Full review: Bolt

I highly recommend reading this Guardian post about how videogame reviewers need to value originality a bit more and not focus so much on a checklist of familiar and more quantifiable criteria. I also recommend Leigh's SexyVideogameLand post that pointed me to it. I'm sure one of the reasons I like it is that it somewhat mirrors a recent argument I made here on this blog, though less succinctly and probably less persuasively.

That being said, I think the Guardian's Keith Stuart is dead wrong to use "Mirror's Edge" as his example. There's a game that has one innovative idea (first-person parkour), but it's a fundamentally bad idea that, no matter how well its implemented, just doesn't work very well. Furthermore, it doesn't take into account the many areas in which "Mirror's Edge" not only doesn't innovate, but takes steps backwards, like the generic story and repetitive, under-detailed visual design. But I've made this argument in my review of the game and besides, it doesn't invalidate Stuart's argument.

The bigger point is that I would welcome and love passionate debates about a game like "Mirror's Edge." It's new and exciting and has critics moving in wildly divergent directions and that's an awesome thing. So I think it's bad innovation and Stuart think it's great. Let's make our claims on our reviews, hash it out on our blogs, and invite readers to further the discussion in the comments or on their blogs. That's exactly what I said I wanted in my post from last month and get the feeling it's the kind of thing Stuart would welcome to.

What I think we both dislike is the cowardly critic, the one who focuses on the details and refuses to engage with the big picture ideas of the game. That can lead this kind of idiotic statement from IGN's review of the game, which Stuart highlighted:

The ideas are there for a very cool experience, and I truly hope that a sequel is spawned, but this first attempt falls just a bit short.

On the one hand, it's kind of a dismal acceptance of reality -- we all know there probably will be a sequel and EA/Dice probably will address specific issues. But that's hardly the most interesting thing about "Mirror's Edge," love it or hate it. This game made some very high level choices and those are what reviewers should be engaging.

Contrary to some of the hostile e-mails I got about my review of "LittleBigPlanet" (jeez, imagine if I had given that game an actually bad review), I think disagreement about innovative games is an awesome thing. I can't really recommend that people buy "Mirror's Edge," but based on the fact that some very smart people disagree with me about it, I'd definitely recommend reading more and thinking about it. And if you've played it and have an opinion, joining the discussion. There's probably a lot more to say about it than, ohhh, "Call of Duty: World at War" or "Rock Band 2."

Side note: Leigh also has an awesome piece on Kotaku today about the vast middle ground of people who play games, but dont engage with videogame "culture," such as it is. Perhaps they're Richard Nixon's "silent majority" in the videogame world. I don't actually have anything insightful to add to Leigh's comments (at least for now). I just advise that you read it.

Want a solidly crafted "Tomb Raider" game that does most things right, gets a few annoying things wrong, and doesn't really push any boundaries? According to Variety critic Leigh Alexander, "Underworld" is the game for you.

In other words, it captures most of the qualities that have made for good "Tomb Raider" games in the past, and has been missing in the many not-so-good ones:

As Lara investigates diverse settings including caves, jungles and ruins, the world around her acts as a subtle puzzle. The player must navigate her across dizzying heights, precarious ledges, and just-made-it leaps. Although it’s old hat for cucumber-cool Lara, awesome visuals married to tight design make it appropriately thrilling for the couch jockey.

There's only one new feature that really caught Leigh's attention: the ability to tweak everything from Lara Croft's health relative to her enemies to how much ammo she has to how easily she can avoid being grabbed. That level of precise adjustment is unusual, and a nice touch to open the game up to all sorts of players.

But there's also the problems so many "Tomb Raider" games have had that this one can't solve: lame combat; an opaque and pointless story; a camera that, as Leigh writes, "keeps getting wedged between the wall and [Lara's] butt."

My favorite part of the review, though, is Leigh's brief exploration of a larger issue in the world of "Tomb Raider" games that really does bear further exploration:

Even veteran players may find themselves faced with a vexing question as this ninth series entry hits the market: “What does Lara Croft do, exactly?” Contrary to the title, she doesn’t seem to spend much time in tombs. Whatever her work entails, it’s brought her an enormous mansion, a fancy boat, and no shortage of Bond-like gadgets, all of which she uses to launch her latest escapade into ancient ruins, undersea caverns, deserted temples and the like.

Full review: Tomb Raider: Underworld

I'll admit that when I first heard about "Ultimate Band" earlier this year (writing about it here) and also when I tried it at E3, I thought it might be a smart idea. Disney most certainly doesn't have a chance of beating MTV and Activision at the peripheral game (a lesson Konami is learning the hard way with "Rock Revolution"), so why not use the Wii-mote for some air guitar/drums (thus keeping the price down dramatically) and target the visual design, soundtrack, etc. at the tween demo that the makers of "High School Musical" and "Hannah Montana" know so well?

Sounded good, but it turns out to be a major letdown, according to Variety critic "Chris Dahlen." It's "a convoluted, inconsistent and inauthentic experience," he writes, "that emulates a phony lip-synching boy band more than a real rock experience." Um, ouch. He then adds a little more detail:

The guitar and bass parts are plagued by distractions like hand claps, whammy motions and windmill strums that are barely tied to the music or even the actions onscreen... [T]he singer... doesn't even get a microphone. Retitled the "frontman," he or she is struck triggering poses and leading the crowd in a wave. Kids who want to sing along for fun don't even get the lyrics. The guitarist and bassist each have three completely different workarounds for the lack of a fretboard, but they often get convoluted, forcing players to use arbitrary button combinations to fret the notes, all while strumming the air.

Kids will inevitably end up fighting to play the drums, which are the only instrument to offer remotely believable gameplay. Downward and sideways motions to hit the pads have a reasonably close relationship to an actual performance, though even the drummer is still saddled with intrusive spins and claps.

Sounds like rather than serving as a low cost alternative for kids who can't get their hands on "Rock Band" or "Guitar Hero" yet, it'll just remind them how much they wish they could be playing those games instead.

Full review: Ultimate Band

"Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe" is now officially my guilty pleasure. Not "guilty" because it's bad for you, but because I'm not really sue if it's how "good" of a game it is. It has its share or problems, as well as awesome features, but there's also something to be said when reviewing a game that it effectively provides short bursts of fun to anyone who think its cool to see Green Lantern conjuring a giant hammer to kick Jax's ass, or Superman and Sub-Zero battling to see who can freeze the other quicker.

But of course as a reviewer I have to recognize that not everyone gets a thrill out of seeing this kind of thing. Just like if I were a movie reviewer, I'd have to remember that Data's death in "Star Trek: Nemesis" won't have quite as much meaning for most people as it did for me (though I still maintain it's the most underrated "Trek" movie, but anyway...).

So, with all that in mind, I tried to convey in my review (which runs in tomorrow's Daily Variety) that "Mortal Kombat vs DC" is a solidly executed fighting game that's accessible to pretty much anyone. The kind of person who has been to Comic-Con, or wants to go, will get a much bigger kick out of all the awesome fighting moves they've never seen DC heroes pull before. People who don't think Wonder Woman lassoing Sonya Blade is all that exciting are more likely to be bothered by faults like underdetailed backgrounds, horrible voice acting, clunky menus, similar character designs (Why is Flash is just as jacked as Superman?), and the fact that new features like "Klose Kombat" rely more on luck than skill.

As I wrote in my review:

Forget depth, sophistication or anything remotely resembling logic: "Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe" takes gamers back to the days of cheesy arcade fighting with bravado, style and an unironic sense of fun. Pitting warriors from the "Mortal Kombat" franchise against DC Comics heroes and villains is a high-concept idea that some will find ridiculous and others brilliant. But thanks to solid execution and extremely accessible, if somewhat unpolished, gameplay, it could be the holiday hit struggling publisher Midway desperately needs.

But here's a simpler way to put it: If the the title of the game defines Midway's goal, it succeeded in achieving that goal, if not quite with flying colors. It's not exactly the most ambitious goal artistically, but as I've been proving to myself with all the time I've spent playing it since I finished my review, there's nothing wrong with that.

(As indicated in the review excerpt, I also think "MK vs DC" could become a very popular Christmas present, given the T rating, the easily understandable title, and the simple gameplay. Midway could sure use the it.)

Full review: Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe

I'm starting to notice a pattern in recent Activision action game releases. First I reviewed "Quantum of Solace" and found it to be a decent action game, but almost directly ripped off of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare," with basically just new set pieces and a few gameplay adjustments. Now Variety critic Tom Chick has reviewed "Call of Duty: World at War" and says it's pretty much the same thing.

It's obviously no coincidence both games were developed by Treyarch and both made using the "Call of Duty 4" engine. But lots of games use the same engine and don't look and play almost exactly the same. As Tom wrote to introduce his review:

The fifth entry in Activision's annual "Call of Duty" military franchise may return to its World War II roots and come from a different developer, but virtually everything that's good about it stems directly from last year's "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare." The impressive graphics, compelling multiplayer and even the basic gunplay in "World at War" are all iterations of "CoD 4," minus that game's character, urgency and relevance. The result is a forgettable, mostly middling shooter that will sell decently, but fall far short of "Modern Warfare's" boffo 10 million-plus units.

Usually as an editor I don't like a review of a new game to reference an older one so much, but in the case of "World at War" it seemed eminently justifable. The multi-player in particular, Tom notes, is almost a note-for-note rip-off from "CoD 4" with only cosmetic changes (packs of guard dogs instead of air strikes, etc.) Of course, multi-player in "Modern Warfare" was (and still is) so good that it's still the best part of "World at War." And as Tom notes, there are a few other cool touches, like a fantastic airplane sequence and the fire effects (though I'm with Tom in doubting that German soldiers really used flamethrowers to defend the Reichstag).

If you're going to copy, you should of course copy from the best, which is why both these games are still pretty good. But given that neither "Quantum of Solace" nor "World at War" have particularly innovative or compelling campaigns, and that the online multi-player community for "Modern Warfare" is still going strong, I think most gamers will have to ask, "Why bother?"

Full review: Call of Duty: World at War

As a reviewer, I really want to reward originality. But when it's as badly implemented as "Mirror's Edge," I just can't do it.

Let's cut to the chase: "Mirror's Edge" is fundamentally misconceived. As I wrote in my review in today's Daily Variety, a first-person Parkour game doesn't work, because when you're running and jumping at high speeds, you need perspective. Sure, there's a bit more visceral thrill from seeing the world as Faith would, but that's outweighed 100 times over by how hard it is to figure out the correct path to get to that next primary colored object that stands out against the oppressive white. Add in cops who shoot at you from every direction and getting through any area often requires dying over and over again until you've memorized the correct path. If I wasn't reviewing the game, I would have given up out of sheer annoyance within an hour.

"Mirror's Edge" is also a major bore visually. Which is a surprise, because at first glance, the almost blinding lighting effects are impressive. But cool effects don't make for good design. The fact is that whenever you get close to anything, or go inside, it's immediately apparent that "Mirror's Edge" is almost completely devoid of detail. Even the video screens allegedly showing the news just cycle through a handful of generic images. Assets like air conditioners, pipes, and vents that Faith crawls through or climbs are used over and over. I didn't expect something as vibrant as Liberty City, but I did think that the oppressive future in this game would have at least a little character.

The world of "Mirror's Edge" is also extremely constrained. It looks explorable, but the developers at Dice use everything from barbed wire fences to heigh differentials in buildings to stacks of boxes to make it impossible to diverge from the chosen path at all (save for a few minor detours). To a certain extent that makes sense, since "Mirror's Edge" is about speed and agility, not exploration. But as a dissident courier, you would always be looking for ways to avoid detection. It's just not believable that when Faith is being followed by a helicopter full of police with guns, her solution is to run faster to her final destination.

I have some other small concerns, like the generic story and bad voice acting, but I'd be willing to forgive those for a game that's clearly trying to do something different. And there still is some fun to be had: The time trials can become addictive, especially when you download some the "ghosts" of friends or the best players from around the world to compete against. It's then that you realize "Mirror's Edge" actually works best when it's boiled down to a simple racing game on foot.

Full review: Mirror's Edge

With GameCock getting acquired by Southpeak Interactive last month, it's no surprise that the formerly independent publisher's games aren't exactly getting a high profile release.

Nonetheless, myth-based shooter "Legendary" has come out and, according to Variety critic Chris Dahlen, it's a very mixed bag:

“Legendary” has the heart of a great monster mash-up: It throws together mythical beasts that span the globe, from the Greek griffon to Jewish golems to Slavic pixies, and marries them to a cornball story about the rediscovery of Pandora’s Box. Though it brings gusto, wit and a sharp eye for horror cliches, “Legendary” is still at its core a clunky, mediocre first-person shooter that’s likely to vanish under the mountain of topnotch actioners shipping this month.

Apparently the game is full of stuff like this: "No sooner does an innocent civilian or a gung-ho soldier greet Deckard than a giant tentacle sweeps them away — or a bus lands on their head." As Chris writes, it's "schlocky haunted house logic," but it's hard to deny that kind of thing has its gut level appeal when it makes you gasp.

Full review: Legendary

It was right around the 10th time I screamed "I f*cking hate Franklin!" into my headset that I realized "Gears of War 2's" "submission" is my favorite online multi-player mode ever. It's capture-the-flag, except the flag is a guy, with a gun, powered by awesome artificial intelligence. Franklin was the name of our flag the first time I played "submission" and I got so goddamned mad every time I had an opening to grab him, but he shot me dead. But I kept coming back for more, and more. Franklin was my white wale.

As I wrote in my review in today's Daily Variety, "Submission" captures everything that's great about "Gears of War 2": The creativity, the emphasis on team-based strategy, and the brilliant A.I. Along with the addictive survival-horror mode "horde," "Gears 2" the best online multi-player I've ever seen (though I haven't played "Resistance 2" yet, so that "I've ever seen" is key). One caveat though, and it's an important one: This game is seriously violent. Here's a simple test: Does hearing the word "chainsodomy" disgust you, or intrigue you? If it's the former, "Halo 3" may be more up your alley.

Sounds like "Gears of War 2" is in the running for game of the year. But then there's the campaign. Level design wise, it's pretty good. It's much longer than in the first "Gears," with sharp (though still dismally grey) graphics and plenty of emphasis on using the game's key cover and active re-loading mechanisms. It's all a little better than the first one and there are some nice new tweaks, like indicators that show up as you make progress toward an achievement. But fundamentally it's more of the same. Which isn't bad thing, but also isn't inspiring.

Then there's the story. Dear God, the story. All the pre-release hype and commercials like this one promised that the plot would be more comprehensible and central than in the first and that's true. But they really shouldn't have bothered. Because, to be blunt, the writing is awful. It's cliched, mawkish, and bombastic to the point where I could never get through a cutscene without cringing in embarassment. A few highlights:

-The eager new member of Delta Squad who drops his gun when he first shows up and the other guys nickname "rook" (short for rookie). Want to take a bet on what happens to him? If you can't figure it out, you've never seen a movie before.

-The new guy named Dizzy who wears a cowboy hat, screams everything he says, and basically makes Yosemite Sam look like a subtle portrait of Texan culture. (Why are there Texans on Sera? Let's not even go there)

-Dominic staring wistfully at a crumpled picture of him and his wife, who has been captured by the Locust. See, "Gears of War 2" has emotion. Dominic cares about somebody. See? See???

-Every single word that comes out of Cole Train's jive talking mouth. I know he was in the first one, but I'm still not over it. Let's just say that if historians play videogames, this week won't be seen as quite the major step forward for African-Americans as many of us are thinking.

-The cut scene leading into the first major mission that gives a whole new meaning to the word "bombastic," particularly when the human government's chairman (is this a community government? anyway...) gives his speech. Here's a sample: "This is teh day we ensure the survival of our species. My fellow Gears, go forth and fight for the hope of humanity!"

-Someone dies and these are the last words out of his mouth: "Tell my brother... my ma... that I love 'em and... and..." And no, I didn't put in "ma" to make it seem more hokey. That's exactly what it said in the subtitles.

You get the idea. But it brings up an important point. If you're not going to put the energy, time and money into quality writing, why bother? As important as I think narrative is in videogames, it's better to keep it simple than do it badly. In all honesty, the 10 second introduction to "New Super Mario Bros." (Bowser kidnaps Peach; Mario goes after them) is far superior to the probably hour-plus of story we get in "Gears 2." And the thing is, I bet most players would be happier if this game just had a 10 second introduction that basically consisted of this: "The Locust are invading again. Stop them!"

For more on why "Gears of War 2" is a very good game, but not quite great thanks to the writing, check out my full review:

Variety Review: Gears of War 2

Variety critic Tom Chick is of two minds about "Resistance 2." The multi-player modes are "massive, deep and accessible," he writes in his review. But the solo campaign? "For those who play alone, 'Resistance 2' is simply a bad shooter."

Fundamentally, it seems Sony hasn't quite gotten the "Gears" or "Halo" size action franchise it wants. Tom calls the story "a confused amalgam of alien invasion, alternate history and zombie motifs" and the level design "relentlessly linear and contrived, stocked with cheap 'gotcha!' deaths to pad playing time." The visuals? "[L]argely disappointing and occasionally downright lazy, such as an alien base that seems to have been created out of leftover artwork from 'Halo.'"

But that 60 person multi-player? "The connections are smooth, the servers are always busy, and the gameplay is accessible for rookies." And Tom says online co-op is the best part: "On each map, a series of objectives is dynamically generated by the game to keep teams on task: Disarm a bomb, for instance, then clear a room of monsters, then press a switch. Or do the same tasks in reverse order. It's all simple and mostly mindless, but because it's shuffled up and randomly fitted together, it doesn't feel like the grind it actually is."

You can read Tom Chick's full review of "Resistance 2" right here.

I'm guessing The Cut Scene's audience doesn't include many 7 year-old girls who love the Disney Fairies, but it probably does include a lot of people interested in the Walt Disney Company.

Which is why you might be interested to know that Disney's new virtual world for Tinkerbell and her fairy pals, "Pixie Hollow," is pretty damned good. According to Variety critic Leigh Alexander:

Given the existing popularity of the brand, Disney could have easily slapped together low-budget graphics and a feeble, ad-festooned web interface, put the "Fairies" label on it and still made megabucks. Instead, the colorful and engaging "Pixie Hollow" online play space, with its lush floral fantasy backdrop and sonorous orchestral background music, puts to shame its much more overtly opportunistic competition. In a climate where virtual worlds are widely viewed as another hot brand extension tactic, "Pixie Hollow" can fly on its own two wings.

Disney, of course, has been investing heavily in virtual words, from buying "Club Penguin" to building "Pirates of the Caribbean Online," (more an MMO, but still) "Pixie Hollow" and soon, one based on the Pixar movie "Cars." (If "Pixie Hollow" is Disney's online hangout for girls, it looks like "Cars" will be the one for boys).

We found "Pirates Online" to have some major technical problems at launch (though I personally haven't planed it in the past year. But it looks like Disney put a lot of care into "Pixie Hollow." I think one could question whether it's good in the big picture for kids to have another online hangout that teaches to love a corporate brand, ask for Mom and Dad's credit card, and spend tons of time earning in-game items. But there's no question they're better off doing so in a virtual world that's well built and safe, which "Pixie Hollow" is.

You can read Leigh's entire review here.

Sorry for the lack of posting. Between the Beatles and EA layoffs and a major story that I hope we'll be posting tonight, it's been another day of total insanity. But meanwhile, check out our two most revent reviews:

-"When the team behind "Fallout 3" created a vision of Washington, D.C., following nuclear holocaust, it didn't just wreck the buildings, it twisted the American Dream itself," writes Variety critic Chris Dahlen, who says it's likely to be one of the year's biggest hits. "This long-awaited new installment in the cult franchise from publisher-developer Bethesda Softworks continues in the spirit of its predecessors by giving players a massive post-apocalyptic world to explore, exploit and try to save, while shrewdly integrating classic themes like patriotism, tribalism and mankind's capacity to destroy itself...

"In 'Fallout 3, the American Dream is a charred blueprint survivors are struggling to follow. But hope never dies, and the final stretch of the story includes a Strangelovian display of national power that's spectacular, ironic and heartfelt. The player leaves thinking America might just survive this war, right in time to start some new ones."

To give you an idea of how passionate Chris's review is, even our non-videogame playing copy editor told me that reading this made him want to get a console. Read Chris's entire review right here.

-Given how similar the two games are, the only real question about "Guitar Hero: World Tour" is, "Is it better than Rock Band?" It's pretty much a draw, according to my review: "While 'World Tour' beats 'Rock Band' with an innovative music creation and sharing system and a more realistic drum kit, it lags behind in subpar animation and the racket those drums make...

"'Guitar Hero: World Tour's' major innovation is that it brings the rock experience into a studio. The game has a powerful and well-designed music-creation mode where players can compose their own songs by jamming or by using a software program called GHMix to alter tunes note by note. Just as in the real world, jamming is more fun, particularly with the huge variety of effects and instrument types built in. Producing anything worth sharing with the world, of course, is quite hard and GHMix, while useful, is awkward compared with computer programs like Garage Band.

"Players can share their compositions with others via the GHTunes community, through which songs can be uploaded, downloaded, and rated. It's a fantastic idea, though the popular tracks have thus far leaned more toward remixes of the 'Super Mario' and 'Legend of Zelda' theme songs than anything original. Truly talented composers will inevitably be spending their time with real instruments and mixing software."

Hopefully "World Tour" composers will do better than Nintendo theme songs. But for now, that's what's topping the charts. And seriously, those drums are loud. If I want to play "World Tour" at night without waking my wife, I've got to use the "Rock Band 2" drums. Though it is cool how "World Tour" automatically adjusts to a drum set with four pads instead of five.

You can read the whole review here.

Usually I like to write an individual post linking to and expounding upon every videogame review we run in Variety. But this week has just been too exhausting. I've had to finish playing three very substantial games and write reviews of them, edit five other game reviews, report and write two big and one small-ish piece news stories, report and write a feature piece for weekly variety and start work on a news story that's coming next week, and on and on with details you don't care about. I've also had to deal with the logistic of and reaction to Variety's videogame reviews getting added to Metacritic, which is a nice accomplishment for us, I think.

The point being, this is the craziest week of the year if you are a journalist who covers videogames (or a fan who loves playing them), which is why overall posting here has been light and I haven't been able to expound on all of our reviews. So for now, with the week over (but more work left for me to do), I'll just leave you with a brief summary of all of our reviews from this week, in reverse chronological order (I posted a few of these earlier this week, loyal readers will notice):

-High School Musical 3: Senior Year Dance: Leigh Alexander (who gets kudos for being an adult and not only playing this game, but reviewing it with an open mind), says the core gameplay mechanic isn't dancing so much as flailing the Wii-mote and occassionally smacking yourself with the cord that connects it to the nunchuk. But she says kids will like mixing and matching "HSM" characters to perform songs in combinations that never existed in the films, plus the ability to creat their own Wildcat who they can insert in the game. (Leigh sees a lot of 12 year-old girls having virtual versions of themselves performing love duets with Zac Efron)

-Spider-Man: Web of Shadows: The latest annual web slinger game from Activision has "sharper graphics, improved combat and a decidedly darker tone," says Tom Chick, but also "a shaky story and poorly implemented moral choice system."

-Wii Music: I thought everybody was supposed to be able to have fun expressing themselves musically in this game. But when I played "Wii Music" with three friends (all with at least some gaming experience), all we created was a cacophonous racket and a strong desire to start playing "Mario Kart." There is some decent single player training, but it's not nearly as fun as "Guitar Hero," "Rock Band," or, ummm, real life music lessons. I also should give a shout out to my friend Geoff Berkshire, the film editor at Metromix LA, for giving me the inspiration for this line in the review: "Playing the Monkees' 'Daydream Believer' to the sounds of a dog barking, cheerleader screaming and a sitar strumming makes 'Wii Music' feel like something out of a David Lynch movie."

-Far Cry 2: Chris Dahlen, in his first review for Variety, calls this action sequel "stunningly beautiful and morrally harrowing," but "plodding in its execution."

Fable 2: "No interactive world has ever felt quite so alive," says I. "Deep, accessible and endlessly adaptive, it's a boundary-pushing experience." That's a fancy way of saying that I had a blast saving the world while handling a wife and two kids in one town, a husband in another, visiting prostitutes in a third, handling a blackmail attempt from someone who found out about my bisexual bigamy, notching two divorces but moving on with my life, killing shopkeepers in dark alleys when I wanted to buy out their stores cheap, and being the best dog owner who ever lived in the land of Albion. Now I can't wait to have some time to go back and save enough to buy that castle.

Midnight Club: Los Angeles: "Detailed beyond most players' interests," writes Leigh, "the game still manages to be broadly accessible thanks to simple controls, a smooth mission structure, and jaw-droppingly stunning graphics." Apparently the multi-player is good too. Capture-the-flag in a racing game sounds pretty cool.

Rock Revolution: "Overly complex where it should be simple and soulless where it should be rich," says Leigh. Specifically, all the new stuff in the interface is kind of confusing, the soundstrack is weak, and "the too-small drum pads are difficult to hit, and players are more likely to whack themselves and the pads' plastic edges more often than they hit the note." Ouch.

LittleBigPlanet: I describe it as "an exercise is anti-immersion, attracting even the most casual player to its irresistibly adorable cartoon world, then slowly pulling back the facade until they're left with a blank canvas." This is the one review I did manage to post about, so if you're interested in my thoughts on how the old fashioned videogame business model isn't a good fit for "LittleBigPlanet," click here.

Apologies for my absence since early last week. Many of you probably know that this is one of, it not the, busiest weeks of the year for videogame reviews, so I've been absolutely buried with writing and editing reviews, as well a tracking down a big story that I think you'll all find really interesting when it's done in a few days, plus other assorted things.

I have a few really good (I think) forthcoming posts that I hope to start writing by tomorrow. Meanwhile, rather than fall endlessly behind, here are links and very short summaries to some of our recent reviews in Variety. I'd call particular attention to "Fable 2," which has a very good shot to be my favorite game of 2008:

Fable 2: "No interactive world has ever felt quite so alive," says Variety's pretentious twit of a videogame blogger. "Deep, accessible and endlessly adaptive, it's a boundary-pushing experience."

Far Cry 2: Chris Dahlen, in his first review for Variety, calls this action sequel "stunningly beautiful and morrally harrowing," but "plodding in its execution."

Midnight Club: Los Angeles: "Detailed beyond most players' interests," writes Leigh Alexander, "the game still manages to be broadly accessible thanks to simple controls, a smooth mission structure, and jaw-droppingly stunning graphics."

LittleBigPlanet: Above referenced pretentious twit describes it as "[A]n exercise is anti-immersion, attracting even the most casual player to its irresistibly adorable cartoon world, then slowly pulling back the facade until they're left with a blank canvas."

Rock Revolution: "Overly complex where it should be simple and soulless where it should be rich," says Leigh.

Variety film critic Justin Chang calls the new "Max Payne" movie starring Mark Wahlberg "Stylishly made, armed to the teeth and ludicrous in the extreme." Justin, who's not a gamer but is very sympathetic to geek culture (he wrote my absolute favorite review anywhere of "The Dark Knight" this summer), describes the movie's implementation of the game's signature bullet time as "a hail of bullets that whoosh across the screen in delirious slow-motion," though he later adds, "needless to say, it’s not nearly as much fun as actually playing the game."

The plot? Justin describes it as an "increasingly risible story involving tattooed corpses, Norse mythology, demonic hallucinations and perhaps the weirdest cinematic reference yet to the 'war on terror." That doesn't mean he hates it though: "Before it derails with a climax that seems to have borrowed a few scenes from the 'The Incredible Hulk,' 'Max Payne' strives valiantly to imbue its hoary vigilante-thriller cliches and police-procedural tropes with authentic grit and emotion."

Justin's not too impressed with Mark Wahlberg's portrayal of one of gamers' favorite anti-heroes, saying that the man formerly known as Marky Mark gives a "guarded performance, which (somewhat surprisingly, given the subtle shadings of personality the actor displayed in “Shooter”) fails to make Max Payne the character much of an improvement on Max Payne the avatar."

The entire review's right here.

"Dead Space" is one of those games that make me glad we don't score our reviews at Variety (for those who want to skip ahead, my review is here). On the one hand, it's remarkably well made: There are no poorly designed levels or technical glitches; the combat is solid; the audio design is brilliant; the graphics are good; the zero-g sequences are spectacular. On the other hand, the game is frustratingly unoriginal, drawing so heavily on other sci-fi/horror/action influences (especially, of course, "Aliens") and repeating itself over and over through busywork tasks that there's just not much there there. From the story to the characters to the action to the creatures, you've seen almost all of it before or in the first hour of the game.

It's an admirable attempt by EA to start a new franchise and enter a new genre, but it's a somewhat disappointingly conservative attempt. There's very little in the way of a bold creative vision from developer EA Redwood Shores. It feels more like... well, a big publisher that's trying to move into a new genre and boot up fresh IP while taking as few risks as possible.

Of course, ripping off "Aliens" and sprinkling in everything from "Half-Life 2" to "Bioshock" to "Metroid" is hardly a bad thing. Those are great sources to draw on. "Dead Space" does it well, which is why I can hardly say it's a bad game.

The problem is that it's a horror game and I was scared very infrequently, especially after I played for a couple of hours and figured out the obvious pattern for exactly when an enemy would show up (when you enter a big open room, turn a corner, or solve a puzzle and can see an exit in the distance, for instance).
To the extent I was scared, it was more because of the excellent audio design than the dimly lit corridors and the dozen or so H.R. Giger-esque creature designs that repeat over and over.

There's also something weirdly contradictory about a protagonist whose face you never see and who never talks in a carefully written story (imagine "Aliens" if Ripley was a bland nobody). Good drama starts with good characters and Isaac Clarke is, essentially, a cipher. It may help immerse players in the horror, but it's bizarre and sometimes flatly ridiculous in moments that are supposed to be terrifying or emotional when Isaac just stands there, silent, as if he's a robot.

So, if you're looking for an easy answer as to whether you should buy it, I'm not your guy (and Variety, in general, is probably not your publication). But if you're looking for a good analysis of the game and an argument for what works and what doesn't, hopefully my review provides some value. Here's an excerpt:

If James Cameron had a dollar for every "Aliens" reference in a videogame over the past 20 years, he could have bought a new Prius. Now, after "Dead Space," he'll be able to cover the budget of "Avatar." Electronic Arts' new sci-fi/horror/action game mixes huge helpings of the genre-defining 1986 movie with ingredients from games like "Bioshock," "Half-Life 2" and "Metroid" into a mix that often impresses but rarely surprises. More gory than frightening, more technically adept than substantive, "Dead Space" will find a healthy crossover aud between gamers and horror fans, but won't leave them with a single new idea to ponder besides the release date of the inevitable sequel.

And you can read the whole thing here.

Also of interest to Dead Space fans: Here's Variety's review of "Dead Space: Downfall," the tie-in animated DVD movie.

Update: Win a copy of "Dead Space: Downfall." Info here.

As promised yesterday, we've got a pair of "Dead Space" reviews for Variety readers, starting with the animated direct-to-DVD movie "Dead Space: Downfall," from Anchor Bay. It's essentially an introductory story to the game, telling the tale of the Ishimura up to the moment Isaac Clarke arrives (for true "Dead Space" fanatics, it actually bridges the comic books and game).

I asked one of Variety's film critics, Peter Debruge, to review the movie. He's not a gamer, though he's also not averse to games. His take? It's an all-out gorefest that fans of horror movie and the game might enjoy, but there's not much for anyone else to latch onto:

From the technique side, "Downfall" ain't half bad as small-screen animation goes, with the Film Roman team applying a macho "Venture Bros." style to the futuristic material. That said, it's hard to imagine non-gamers finding much to enjoy in watching the systematic wipeout of the Ishimura crew, which ends precisely when the game starts. Instead of treating this depressing no-one-left-standing story with the heroic-sacrifice bombast of "300" or "The Alamo," director Chuck Patton seems to have made "Downfall" if only to highlight all the ghastly ways humans can die.

Then again, this is a videogame tie-in. And while it's disconcertingly gory, Peter also says it's a step above many of its competitors, even ones with much bigger budgets and a theatrical release:

There's something fundamentally upsetting about a toon that expects audiences to cheer each time one of its human characters meets a grisly fate, although you've got to hand it to the "Downfall" team for the sheer variety of nasty ends they imagine. Likewise, the team deserves credit for the level of detail they've spent defining this world, making for an infinitely more satisfying experience than such retro-fitted vidgame adaptations as "Alone in the Dark" or "Doom."

You can read the entire review right here. And my review of the videogame is here.

I'm sure lots of you are very interested in reading and talking about Dead Space and thinking about buying it this week. You probably also know that EA is doing a multi-media assault for the game that includes comic books, Webisodes, and a direct-to-DVD movie.

As such, Variety will be taking a multi-pronged approach to our review. Tomorrow we'll feature my review of the game and film critic Peter Debruge's review of the movie, "Dead Space: Downfall," which tells the story right up to the moment the game starts.

I think it's a cool approach to take. Hopefull you'll all find it interesting. Look for the pair tomorrow. I'll link and expand upon my thoughts here on the blog, of course.

Last year's "Spectrobes" was the first attempt by the burgeoning Disney Interactive Studios to create an original intellectual proprerty. It was pretty clearly a "Pokemon" rip-off, but it still came out well and shipped (not sold) over 1 million units, which is good for a DS-only title.

Inevitably, any publisher looking to establish new IP will greenlight a sequel to a game unless it flat out bombs. Thus we have "Spectrobes: Beyond the Portals," which Variety reviewer Tom Chick says "improves the original game considerably by adding better combat, sharper graphics and deeper online features."

This is a game primarily for kids who love collecting and trading and such, but Tom says the the improved RPG combat, which emphasizes direct control of the creatures, is a complex enough system that it will even appeal to some RPG fans. He also notes that the game emphasizes feeding and taking care of the Spectrobes, giving a game aimed primarily at boys "an almost maternal aspect."

Just as interesting beyond the gameplay, though, is how tightly it's integrated with the new DGamer system, which is essentially a mix of Facebook and Xbox Live that connects Disney kids' videogames and Disney.com. You create an avatar, show off trophies, make friends, etc. There's no real social network for gamers under 12 and Disney, which already has a big chunk of kids' media online, wants to take hold of it and connect everyone playing "Spectrobes" and "Prince Caspian" and "Club Penguin" and "Fairies Online" into one big happy and advertised-to family.

Here's an excerpt from Tom's review

Battles in the first “Spectrobes” were a clunky process of scooting Rallen around an enemy flanked by two of his revived creatures and hoping for the best. But fights here are split into two types, each emphasizing more direct control. During exploration, Rallen uses weapons to take out monsters spit out by tornadoes. Once inside the tornados, the spectrobes take over in pairs, which gives the creatures more personality. Some are toe-to-toe bruisers, some are nimble and some are stand-off ranged attackers. It’s a much more exciting way of playing out combat, and it gives the various spectrobes plenty of character. It’s also a complex enough battle system that “Spectrobes: Beyond the Portals” will appeal to some adult RPG fans.

And you can read the whole thing right here.

If you've read much about "Fracture" or played the demo, it's not hard to see what the game's major fault is: It bassicaly has one great idea -- weapons that can raise or lower the terrain -- and nothing else. It's an uninspired, derivative sci-fi shooter that doesn't do anything wrong technically speaking, but doesn't have anything you haven't seen before in the gameplay. You shoot hundreds of anonymous, kinda stupid enemies in bland settings over and over and over until you're done. It would have been a better experience to offer "Fracture's" entrencher weapon as DLC for "Gears of War" or "Halo." Which is exactly the fear I and, I'm guessing, many others had in seeing a game marketed so heavily on a single concept.

There is one thing that surprised me, though. I didn't expect great writing, but "Fracture's" script is truly godawful. It's a terribly hacky, underdeveloped, and cliched sci-fi morality (and I use the word generously) tale. The United States splits in two and one side believes in cybernetics and the other genetic engineering -- it's the kind of sci-fi story a high schooler might come up with. Actually, my more exact thought as a member of the entertainment industry is it's the kind of idea that would end up on the defunct Query Letters I Love blog for terrible ideas sent unsolicited to producers.

Not to belabor the point, but really, what can you say about a game in which the protagonist is named "Jet Brody?" Even by the standards of LucasFilm, the company that brought us Jar Jar Binks and atomic bomb-proof refrigerators, that's bad. (On the other hand, LucasArts just brought us the best written videogame of the year in "The Force Unleashed," so we know they can do better.)

And the dialogue? It's full of zingers like "Is this a bad time to request a transfer?" and "So he's a genius with advanced weapon systems and a grudge. This'll end well." However the real howler (minor spoiler alert) comes at the end of act 2 when Jet finally rescues the mysterious woman who has been begging him telepathically to rescue her (very original idea; nothing like that in "Halo" at all).

"You're telepathic?" he asks her. "Don't be silly, nobody is telepathic," she replies. "Some animals like dolphins or bats can communicate sub-sonically. The Pacificans have been conducting experiments to do the same thing with humans."

(Quotes aren't exact since I had to take notes quickly.)

Regular readers know I'm a big proponent of improved storytelling that's better integrated with gameplay. But scripts like "Fracture" make me think that some games would be better off just going without a plot and trying to make some good levels.

But other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Not all that bad. Terrain deformation is compelling for a while before you get used to it. Technically, "Fracture" works and looks great. If you skip all the cut scenes and ignore your character's name, you'll find a competent shooter with level design that's mostly average and only occasionally bad.

Here's an excerpt from my review that is running in today's Daily Variety:

"Fracture" is a feature in search of a videogame. LucasFilm division LucasArts’ latest attempt to establish a new intellectual property beyond Star Wars and Indiana Jones takes one compelling innovation -- weapons that can raise or lower the terrain -- and plugs it into a standard "Halo-esque" sci-fi shooter with no other original ideas. Add an embarrassing script that feels like it was pulled from the bottom of a studio's slush pile and the result is a game that’s merely competent -- and has little chance of succeeding against the holiday season’s big action games or establishing the franchise LucasArts desires.

And you can read the whole thing here.

Late October is turning out to be an incredibly rich few weeks in the videogame world. I now have in my possession review copies of (what look to be) three of the most exciting games of the year: "LittleBigPlanet," "Dead Space" and "Fable II."(Not to mention "Fallout 3," which I haven't received yet.)

Like most such review copies, all three came with information about the game, tips for reviewers to make sure they don't get stuck and see all the best stuff, etc. But "Fable II" comes with something more unusual -- A letter from Peter Molyneux with a specific request for reviewers:

I have a favour to ask you -- we build this game not only to appeal to gamers like yourself, but to appeal to anybody. So please, please, please, please, pleae find somebody who doesn't play games, watch them play it and see how their world turns out, because I think it's only when you see those differences that the unique experiences comes through.

It's a good suggestion. Then again, I think it's a good suggestion for most games, at least if you're writing for a publication like Variety where a good number of our readers are not avid gamers. On the other hand, I think reviewers (at least for non-core publications) should be able to analyze how a more casual player would experience the game. It's kind of part of the job. And while I sometimes do and probably will in the case of "Fable II" get a casual player to try it out, I can't realistically ask them to play it for 10 or 20 hours in order to "see how their world turns out."

Molyneux also devotes two paragraphs to explaining how great online co-op is going to be, but how we won't be able to review that until after the game comes out, perhaps in the first week, via the promised Xbox Live update. Which brings up an interesting question: Should reviewers wait until online co-op is enabled to run their reviews? Or run a review with the caveat that an important feature isn't yet working? I'm actually not sure of the answer. On the one hand, it seems like readers would be well served by a review that includes an analysis of one of the game's key features. On the other hand, reviews (at least online) can be updated just like games and wouldn't readers be well served by a review that's available when the game comes out, perhaps with an update when that feature is added, rather than having to wait a week or even longer to get a review?

On a related note, I've played most of the campaign of "Fracture" and am ready to review it, but I'm going to wait to see if I can find anybody online to play with tomorrow in multi-player. I haven't been able to find any of my fellow reviewers (or anyone else who has the game) so far. Not to give too much away, but the multi-player would really have to wow me for "Fracture" to get more than an "enhhh" after what I've seen of the campaign.

Update: There's some confusion in the comments here and elsewhere, so let me be clear: Molyneux did not ask anyone to hold their review until after online co-op is added. He just explained that online co-op would be launching via an update soon after launch. I asked the question whether we should wait for that to write a review. The request that he made of reviewers is that we watch a non-experienced gamer play "Fable 2."

Wow. Two of our strongest reviews of the year have come in the same week. First there was "Silent Hill: Homecoming" and now we have another in "de Blob," which Variety critic Tom Chick calls "a wonderfully simple, infectiously enthusiastic joyride." I've edited a good number of review by Tom and trust me, he doesn't get that enthusiastic very often.

For those who don't know, "de Blob" started as a project by nine students in Amsterdam to present their city's urban renewal. After it showed at festivals and won awards, THQ picked it up and decided to turn it into a full-fledged Wii release. Little independent project getting adapted by a bit company sounds like a bad recipe, but it appears THQ and developer Blue Tongue pulled it off. Tom was entranced by the wildly creative visuals, the "cooly fluid" soundtrack that adds "aural color" to the experience, and the level design that can be finished quickly but makes it easy to get lost (in a good way). And how often do you see a sentence like this in a videogame review? " It's so visually and musically rich that watching is nearly as captivating as playing." We don't need online multi-player here.

But I think the sentence that really convinced me I have to play this game (as soon as I have a break from all the titles I'm reviewing and check out "Silent Hill: Homecoming" on Leigh Alexander's endorsement) is this one, which was like an arrow stuck in this gamer's heart: "The only thing remotely like it is the madcap Japanese videogame series 'Katamari Damacy.'"

With so many huge AAA shooters and sequels coming out this fall, though, can "de Blob" find an audience? Or at least become the cult hit it apparently deserves to be? That's the big question, I'm thinking, and the challenge for THQ.

Here's an full excerpt from Tom's review:

"de Blob's" gameplay is akin to giving an artist a blank canvas. Players roll a gelatinous blob that picks up paint and splashes it around colorless city streets. There's a satisfying sense of havoc and beauty as the monochrome backdrop comes alive in brilliant reds, yellows, purples, and more (the inclusion of brown was the only unwise choice). As the city transforms, stray paint is splashed and trailed all over the place, making it look like the art studio of some mad genius trafficking in primary colors. In addition to newly lurid buildings, trees, cars and billboards, even the sad grey citizens become dancing, cheering, candy-colored pips. The only thing remotely like it is the madcap Japanese videogame series "Katamari Damacy."

And you can read the whole thing right here.

One bit of news in this Kotaku interview with the person who I assume is Ari Arad (it says Avi, but then it says he's 33 and that his father is Avi, so I assume the interviewee is actually producer and former Marvel movie chief Avi Arad's son Ari, who works for him): That his company is producing a movie based on Sony's PS3 game "Uncharted."

Variety has written in the past that Avi Arad Productions is working on "Everquest" (already set up at Sony Pictures, "300" scribe Michael Gordon writing a script), "Lost Planet" (to be distributed by Warner Bros., David Hayter currently writing a script) and "Mass Effect" (no studio yet). But the Kotaku story also mentions "Uncharted: Drake's Fortune," which I didn't know Arad has also optioned. No info on any talent or studio being attached. But there's one more project in the burgeoning Arad videogame-to-movie slate.

GameDaily also has an interview with Stuart Beattie, who wrote the first draft of the "Gears of War" script for New Line, about the spec script he wrote for "Halo." However, since it hasn't been approved by Microsoft, let alone set up with a producer or studio, it's currently nothing more than a fan's dream, albeit a talented and well connected fan.

When I was editing Leigh Alexander's review of "Silent Hill: Homecoming," (which ran in today's Daily Variety), I cut out this paragraph for space, but noted that it was pretty interesting:

Real purists may still dislike the increased combat, and the critical trade press is likely to fault the gameplay's distinctive format. Then again, gamers have always hated Silent Hill's combat, and mainstream reviewers have never "gotten it" - but Silent Hill: Homecoming is sure to be recognized by true fans as a proper franchise heir that, in many ways, is the best yet.

Boy was she right. About the first part at least. I can't say what "true fans" will think. But GamePro wrote "though Homecoming boasts some genuinely intense moments of dread, its equally distressing gameplay flaws will take a big bite out of your enjoyment" and gave it three stars out of five; IGN called it " a major letdown for a title with such a great horror pedigree" and scored it 6.7 (which regular readers of that site know is about as low as they go for a major release); Crispy Gamer concluded that it has "some genuinely frustrating moments; Painfully obscure puzzles; Depressing as all hell" and recommended that readers "fry it" (as opposed to "try it" or "buy it"). Some others were a little kinder (1UP gave it a B), but the reactions seemed to range from bad to decent. Whereas Leigh thought it was, well, to put it in her words, "A true heir, lovingly crafted with the same psychological intensity as its predescessors while improving on their weak combat controls."

For those who want more insight on why Variety critic Leigh Alexander is so much more passionately positive about this game than most other critics, here's an excerpt from her review:

"Homecoming" follows in the series' tradition of casting an emotionally unsettled protagonist into a disturbing wasteland that suggests allegories to the personal Hell in his mind. Developer Double Helix's steepest challenge -- and therefore its greatest achievement -- is the game's thematic consistency, drawing identifiable relationships to the four previous "Silent Hill" console titles and even the regrettable (if visually correct) film -- though fans will be glad to know it doesn't take very many cues from the latter.

And you can read the whole thing here.

Leigh also wrote a long and heartfelt post on her SexyVideogameLand blog about how critics react to games like this. It's well worth reading. I actually have some thoughts in response that I'll be posting here soon.

At first mention, having RPG expert Bioware take on Sonic the Hedgehog, traditionally known for ultra fast paced racing, seems like a very odd choice. Turns out that playing "Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood" doesn't make the whole idea any less odd.

Variety critic Leigh Alexander calls "Sonic Chronicles" "surprisingly fun and competent," but notes that it's just "not the shot of adrenaline the franchise needs to return to its former glory. It's basically RPG-lite, she explains, with the cheesy story and solid mechanics that one would expect from a merging of "Sonic" and Bioware. There's also a fun use of "Elite Beat Agent" like timed touch screen taps to add a little more excitement to turn-based battles.

Still, there's no escaping the fact that turn-based combat and deep story are not Sonic's best traits. Nor that we've been waiting a very long time for a great "Sonic" game that's still speed. And we're still waiting.

Here's an excerpt from Leigh's review:

Aside from the exploration, the core gameplay is very much RPG-lite: Arrange members of party for optimum advantage, level them up through battles, and teach them signature techniques that exploit enemy weaknesses. Result is a nicely balanced game that’s engaging but not too demanding, accessible while still challenging, and colorful without being ridiculous.

And you can read the whole thing here.

If you're mounting a challenge to the most (financially, at least) successful videogame of all time, you need at least one big innovation to stand out. EA and Mythic Entertainment's "Warhammer Online" has that, according to Variety reviewer Tom Chick, in the form of easy and pervasive social elements, As Tom writes:

In most MMOs, these "player vs. player" activities tend to be the stuff of the endgame, accessible only to those who have spent literally hundreds of hours leveling up their characters and winning powerful magic items. They tend to require an intimate understanding of the gameplay mechanics and class balance, and often a regular group of dedicated players. But in "Warhammer Online," it's a pervasive part of the gameplay, slickly built to be accessible and constant, whether a player logs on for five, 15, or 50 hours a week.

There are plenty of solo missions, but many are designed to throw players into the fighting or cooperative missions where players join forces against computer-controlled enemies. In either case, it's easy to join via an "open group" panel, which shows nearby gatherings that aren't yet full. This is a much more inviting way for players to help each other than the typical MMO system of having to find a group by typing into the chat channel esoteric acronyms like "WH14 LFG T2 Bos".

The other thing a major new MMO has to do is draw in new players and turn the into addicts. After all, if you want people to pay $15 per month indefinitely, your game has to basically be like crack to them. According to Tom, that's exactly where "Warhammer Online" slips up:

Instead of quests moving players along a single track of advancement, there are multiple ways to advance on multiple progress bars. There are influence, renown, masteries, morale, tactics, chapters, tiers, SCs, PQs, RvR, and BOs. It's easy enough to puzzle out eventually, and it'll prove particularly gratifying to long-time MMO players eager to sink their teeth into a meaty new game. But the steep learning curve will alienate some people who would more easily take to "Warcraft."

You can read Variety's entire review of "Warhammer Onine" right here.

My review of "Lego Batman" just got published, and I just haven't got many negative things to say. If you like Lego games, if you like Batman, and/or if you're under 13 or so, it works. Big time.

My problem with "Lego Indiana Jones" was that the property was so ill suited for the format. It didn't work as "cute" and there just weren't many interesting characters and settings to see made out of toy bricks.

"Lego Batman" is the exact opposite, which is exactly why it works so well. Gotham City is literally teeming with fun characters, gadgets, vehicles, etc., and you get to play with them all and be amused a their Lego interpretation. Especially the rogue's gallery. There are 15 different Batman villains here, from the ultra-famous (Joker, Catwoman, Penguin) to the obscure known by geeks only (Mad Hatter, Clayface). And the very cool part is that you get to play them all. By giving the villains their own playable levels, "Lego Batman" essentially doubles the content in previous Lego games.

But still, the formula is the formula. If you're tired of button mashing combat and simple puzzles, you'll get bored with "Lego Batman." But if you like that formula, it's done better than ever here. And if you're 10 (the real intended audience, I'd wager), you'll love it.

One detail that didn't wasn't exactly worth of inclusion in my review: Sexy most definitely doesn't translate in Lego form. I never knew Poison Ivy and Catwoman could be so unalluring as when they are made out of blocks. When Catwoman kisses Batman, I was basically thinking "Man, you could do much better."

Also, if you're a fan of Danny Elfman's music from Tim Burton's two Batman movies, be warned: The music is used so repetitively here, and in such an adorable context, that his score may stop seeming original and moody and become annoying and comical. That's what happened to me. Please, Traveller's Tales, start expanding your musical scores.

Here's an excerpt of my review:

Making a game like this work depends on a wealth of characters and settings that can amuse and entertain with their Lego brick interpretations. With more than a dozen colorful villains like the Joker, Penguin, Catwoman and Mr. Freeze, as well as allies Robin, Alfred and Batgirl to go along with a Batmobile, Batplane, and Batcycle, the source material feels endless. This decidedly non-gritty interpretation of Gotham City is more compatible than "Indiana Jones" and even "Star Wars" with a simple plot for tykes, though the original script lacks the charm of seeing classic movie scenes re-interpreted in Lego form.

And you can read the whole thing here.

The train wreck appeal of Fox's "Hell's Kitchen" is seeing a bunch of total incompetents fail and fail and fail some more and get cursed out by a belligerent British celebrity chef.

That wouldn't quite work in a videogame, since nobody wants to live a train wreck. But Ubisoft and developer Ludia seems to have found a decent way to make it work in the "Hell's Kitchen" videogame, which our reviewer Leigh Alexander calls "an unoriginal but competent restaurant management simulator that's crazier and more fun than it has any right to be."

Leigh finds that the restaurant simulation stuff -- keep your ingredients cooking, your guests happy, etc. -- all work fine, with the added bonus of having to keep Chef Ramsay from exploding in anger. Since it's a videogame and you want to win, though, Leigh notes that this is "a moderately gentler Ramsay who's much more willing to dish out the praise." Though when you screw up, he starts uttering plenty of words that have to be bleeped in a T-rated game.

In the world of generally crappy TV-to-videogame adaptations (remember Ubisoft's "Lost: Via Domus?" If not, I envy you), this one sounds like it's simple, but fairly authentic and perfectly playable for even a casual gamer.

You can read Leigh's entire review right here.

DIsney Interactive Studios has been on an acquisition tear the past few years. This year, those developer acquisitions are bearing fruit as the publisher, previously known mainly for cheap handheld adaptations of properties like "Hannah Montana" and "Kim Possible" (hey, they make money) has moved into new genres and original (or at least not owned by Disney) properties. It started in February with "Turok" and now we've got "Pure," the first game from UK-based racing game studio Black Rock (formerly Climax), which Disney bought in 2006.

Variety reviewer Brian Crecente is fairly impressed, calling it "a slick, physics-defying racer that makes up for its lack of substance by hitting all the right notes on style." Basically, it's gorgeous looking, it allows for a lot of customization without insisting on it, and there are lots of killer tricks you can do with your ATV. I'm actually most impressed by this point Brian makes:

Well-executed tricks provide "boost" that can be used for speed bursts and to perform even more complex stunts. The need to balance the use of boost for both purposes gives "Pure" a strategic level that helps to set it apart from other racing games.

Integrating speed and showing off so that a smart balance of both is necessary is much smarter game design than just putting them into a single game as separate elements (now go fast! now do a trick!).

So while racing games haven't exactly been revolutionized, it looks like "Pure," like "Turok," is a solid starting point for Disney in a new genre.

You can read Brian's entire review of "Pure" here.

PS I actually did some of the motion capture for the stunts. But don't tell anyone.

There are times while playing "The Force Unleashed" that I literally banged my controller on the couch and wrote in my notebook "BAD LEVEL DESIGN!!!" out of sheer frustration. But luckily for LucasArts, and more importantly us gamers, there were way more moments when I wrote things like "Slicing through an At-At is AWESOME" or was too busy watching the compelling drama and kick ass action on screen to even write anything.

I've seen the negative comments. Some, like the inconsistent, sometimes just plain bad level design, I agree with. That sequence where you bring down the star destroyer is the first time I have ever realized that a videogame isn't just giving me bad instructions, it's giving me wrong instructions. It's not some obscure glitch that may be hard to replicate (of which "Force Unleashed" has a few, but not a lot). It's right there on the screen. How it got through QA is mind boggling.

But at its best, "The Force Unleashed" is like "God of War" with a lightsaber. Even if you're just a modest "Star Wars" geek like me, I don't see how you don't love that. All the force powers we've seen only briefly in the movies, like lightning bolts, throwing stuff with your mind, and tossing a lightsaber, are finally utilized for their best potential -- destroying waves of storm troopers, bringing down At-AtsAT-STs and Rancors, and taking on fellow Jedi in epic set pieces that put the hand-to-hand combat in the movies to shame. The best one is against a silent Jedi master whose name starts with Darth but doesn't end with Vader (What's that? He's dead long before "The Force Unleashed" takes places? Don't worry, LucasArts came up with a very clever and believable way to revive him).

Plus -- and here's a real shocker given the last three "Star Wars" movies and the general state of videogame writing -- it's a well done story. Not exactly Oscar-worthy, but it very nicely fills in an important bit of "Star Wars" lore between episodes three and four by showing how the Rebel Alliance was founded. In the process, the game puts the combat into a compelling context where I actually cared what was going to happen next. Plus there's a satisfyingly tragic undertone given that (and I'm not giving much away here if you have a basic sense of logic) we all know Darth Vader doesn't have an apprentice in the original "Star Wars."

As well acted via motion capture and brilliantly animated as the cut scenes are, though, I'm surprised more people weren't annoyed like I was by the lack of integration of story into actual gameplay. Case in point: Since when can Jedi's gain new powers by collecting orbs? That's a lazy old videogame cliche just inserted in here. Surely there's a smarter way to let the Apprentice gain new powers in a way that fits into the story and general "Star Wars" lore.

But enough summary. If you're interested in my full review, it just posted online and will be in tomorrow's Daily Variety. Go read it already, please.

Playing "Spore" reminds me a bit of the Bush presidency -- it starts off fine but gets worse and worse as it goes along until you eventually realize you're stuck in something that's no good at all and questioning your judgment that led you to start the damned thing in the first place.

Character creator? Awesomely intuitive, giving even the most non-artistic people the tools to create something that's functional and feels like it's unique and came right out of their imagination. Finding other people's creations as you wander around your primordial ooze / continent / planet / galaxy? Very cool, especially since the uniqueness of everything you find gives you the feeling of exploration and discovery that the game is meant to provoke. You really are finding new forms of life for the first time.

But the gameplay... Oh lord, the gameplay. It starts off derivative (the cell stage is remarkably similar to "flOw") and then becomes both derivative and dull. The tribe and civilization stages are mediocre versions of "Civilization" and other RTS games, while the final stage, space, is just a terrible sandbox/strategy game with only a few things to do and constant interruptions (space raiders stealing your spice!) whenever you do find something interesting.

Fundamentally, inserting all this structured gameplay just feels like a big mistake. The creature creator is a purely artistic exercise with no restrictions. So why not make the game a much looser, free form experience with mechanics for evolution built in that players can take advantage of if/when they are ready? I know it's easier for me to say than anybody to do, but goal-free (or goal-lite) gameplay certainly worked well for "The Sims" and "SimCity," so I don't see why it couldn't work in "Spore." Instead, you've got five very structued games with very shallow mechanics and very little freedom in how you play.

Sure, to take one example, you can conquer other nations in the civilization stage through military, economic, or religious means, but the only difference is whether your vehicles are toting guns, goods to trade, or weird projections that apparently are supposed to represent deities and and are effective in converting unhappy people to your faith. For anyone who's interested in how real processes of evolution, be they biological or cultural, take place, it's ridiculously shallow and sometimes even insulting (especially that religion part. yeesh.).

For more, you can read my official Variety review. Here's an excerpt:

No game could truly capture the intricacies of evolution, of course, but "Spore" rarely comes close. In the creature stage, players can mix and match parts at multiple points, rather than watching their species evolve in a natural way. Whether one is trading, attacking, or converting other nations, the focus in the civilization stage is on taking over the world, not on how a society becomes intensely devout or jingoistic and what the ramifications are.

And the whole thing is here.

Usually there's not a correlation between over-the-top publicity stunts and really awesome games, but "Mercenaries 2" has pulled off both really nicely.

Before I get to why it's such a great game, a little on the publicity stunt. Friday morning, EA "took over" a gas station in the middle of L.A. and gave out free gas, pumped by real mercenaries (played by real actors). With gas around $4 per gallon, it's no surprise there was a line literally around the block. Some people at least knew it was a publicity stunt for a new game, some had no idea. But either way there were a few hundred people who got a schpiel for the game while their free gas was pumped, not to mention a good amount of media attention.

And while it was a ridiculous media stunt, at least it made sense for the game, which is about mercenaries in the oil-rich nation of Venezuela. And besides the random actors dressed up in military fatigues, there were even three decked out like the three main characters of the game. The one decked out like Chris Jacobs (right) was the most in character, barking out orders between puffing on his cigar and even having his crew of mercs do jumping jacks and push ups. Highly amusing.

So they've got the publicity thing down pretty good. But how is the game? "Wildly entertaining," says Variety reviewer Leigh Alexander.

In one of the best reviews Variety has given all year, certainly our best since "Boom Blox," Leigh says "Mercenaries 2" expertly captures the cinematic vibe of a Michael Bay-style action blockbuster, balances its open world so players have lots of choices but never feel lost, is very accessible, and offers tons of kick-ass options for blowing sh*t up. As she writes:

As players gun down enemy factions, collect cash and attempt to recruit mercenaries from other factions, they’ll find the fun is in collecting weapons like machine guns and rocket launchers and jumping in any car, truck, tank or helicopter they find. Developer Pandemic Studios has created a completely destructible environment where almost everything can be crashed, burned or blown to pieces via nuclear air strike. It’s a highly polished, glee-inducing toy-box experience

Check out the entire review right here.

After almost a decade in development, many of us may have had unreasonable expectations for Silicon Knights' "Too Human." But the final product doesn't even meet basic expectations for an action RPG, at least according to Variety reviewer Tom Chick:

"Too Human is a disappointingly substandard role playing game buried under the debris of a thousand forgettable robots slain in a hundred vacant hallways by one man in a silly outfit... Nearly every cutscene is cringeworthy, with terrible dialogue mouthed loudly and earnestly by characters who look like vacant-eyed puppets... "Too Human" is full of waiting, whether the player is walking down yet another long empty hallway, meandering through vacant cyberspace that looks like unpopulated leftover levels from "Fable," or standing by after dying for the interminable resurrection sequences performed by what must be the slowest Valkyries in history.

It's also worth noting that while most games don't deserve a fashion critique, it was necessary for "Too Human": Rarely do characters look as ridiculous as they do here, decked out in their mismatched and nearly meaningless inventory items. "Too Human's" hero dresses like he lost a bet."

There are plenty of mediocre reviews out there for the game, but Tom's just may be the most critical one yet. To read the whole thing, click here.

Oh, and be sure not to miss Tom's "Top 10 most unbelievable lines of dialogue from Too Human" over on his SciFi.com blog Fidgit. My personal favorite: "Your agonized shrieks shall be your only monument." Just take a moment and think about that...