I finally made time for Brutal Legend toward the end of last week & weekend, finishing it last Saturday, despite some struggles towards the end. Brutal Legend ended up being an interesting title, not just for its development history, but also my experiences with it. Didn't help I picked it up the same day as Uncharted 2, but I did start Brutal Legend first. I got up to the first stage battle, and wasn't all that impressed, although I wasn't bored of it. I just wasn't hooked. Fast forward three weeks (and finishing Uncharted 2 & Ratchet & Clank), and I finally got back into Brutal Legend, and was enjoying it.

I think I made one mistake: trying to plow through the game. Usually I take my time through games trying to unlock everything, or as much as I can without getting bored. I was doing that initially, but then I was just enjoying it so much I kept going. The last handful of missions/battles weren't fun at all because of that. I had a decent axe/guitar string combination, but I didn't have enough tributes (aka $$) to get the more optimal axe or guitar strings. So, the battles were a lot tougher, b/c I couldn't just solo some of the enemy units as it took a lot of hits to take them down. Plus there was a couple key solos I never looked for that would've really helped according to a forum post. So that didn't help. Neither did the fact that it felt the story didn't do a good job at all explaining things, such as the world's history. Stuff was brought up towards the end of the game that didn't seem to make a lot of sense, nor were they explained at all. Maybe the struggles during its development hindered this. Maybe it was due to the fact that the game itself doesn't have an identity, as far as a gaming genre is concerned.

Side rant about that - I don't mind games attempting to combine a few genres into a game so long as it makes sense. I like to use Ratchet & Clank as an example of this, seeing as its an action/adventure game with 3rd person shooting, RPG (leveling weapons), vehicular combat (spaceship missions), and occasional other elements worked in. Brutal Legend has hack n slash, RTS & vehicular combat as part of its makeup, but it had an odd progression. It started out like it would be a hack n slash for awhile, then the RTS kicked in, but then it just flipped back and forth between RTS & vehicle combat, ignoring a nice hack n slash beginning (with a pretty good boss fight too), which felt like it was totally ignored after awhile. Although, thinking about that now, maybe they rushed it a little, as that boss led to the acquisition of an RTS unit, and you knew what the unit did. Later on, you weren't given any real introduction to the new units, and just had to go forward.

Back on task, the final quarter of Brutal Legend didn't leave a very good lasting impression. If time was spent explaining some more of that world's history, it would have really helped just for clarification purposes. As it stands though, Brutal Legend was a pretty cool game, despite its inconsistencies. The ending kind of hinted at more, like maybe a sequel, but Psychonauts did too, and I would much rather see a sequel to Psychonauts than Brutal Legend. Of the two, Pscyhonauts was just better. It had an identity (as a great platformer, funny, with great level designs), it did a better job with its world, and told a more cohesive story throughout. Of course I haven't played it in 4 years and a hint of bitterness lingers with Brutal Legend. Either way, I still really appreciate the work from Double Fine, and I can't wait to see what they have up their sleeves next.

Picked up Assassin's Creed II at a midnight launch on Monday/Tuesday night/morning. I think I just finished the first DNA Sequence, but already I believe that its a superior game to the original. The way it tells its story is greatly improved compared to the original that I wanted to make the statement that the original didn't even have a story within the Animus' 12th Century world. And since its been two years since finishing the original Assassin's Creed, I'm trying to avoid saying that. But from what I remember of the original, it wasn't very cinematic with its cutscenes, and there wasn't a whole lot of exposition either. In Assassin's Creed II, there are more cutscenes, and within the Animus, there is a developing story that has been pretty good early on. I believe I just got to the point where I could go after my first assassination, so we'll see how the buildup to it will be, as I have heard that ACII is not as repetitive as AC, which is a good thing. Not to mention there's a lot more to do within the city: finding viewpoints like the original, but also treasures, random side missions (races, courier, beating people up, etc). After about two hours of play so far, I gotta say that I am very impressed. I liked the first one, so that's good news for ACII.

So yesterday plus today and tomorrow are my first actual days off work while living at my new home! I'm a little surprised it took over a month before I took a day off work, discounting a day I took off because I went to see a concert. I can get used to this.

I finished Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time earlier this week, netting my first Platinum trophy along the way. The only thing I didn't do, which I usually do while playing any R&C game is upgrading all the weapons and netting as many skill points as possible. Weapon leveling was tougher this time around, so we'll see if I make a run at that or not. As far as impressions, well, its Ratchet & Clank. Of course I loved it. But also, having heard the rumors that this may be the last R&C, I believe I can safely say that this may only be the last R&C game for PS3. The game finishes in a way that, to me, they're adventures are far from over. Still, it will probably be awhile until another game comes out, so here's hoping that maybe we'll see another Ratchet: Deadlocked kinda game in the meanwhile.

I just started up Dragon Age: Origins the other night. I was worried because it froze on me within 10 minutes after starting a Mage's origin. But after playing more yesterday, its okay. I finished the Mage origin story and put that game on hold to play the Dwarf Noble origin story. I really like this setup. Once I finish a game, usually that's it. I very rarely replay games. So to have other stories be at the beginning is great for me, as I'm pretty sure I can find time to play all 6 origin stories, then pick the one I liked and finish the game. So far, its tough to say. Reviews have been very good, so I'm sure it will be good. With any RPG, its hard to get a good grasp on everything after a few hours.

After playing thru Uncharted 2 & R&C, and even starting Dragon Age, I finally got back to Brutal Legend late last night. I guess what really drew me to BL was Tim Schafer/Double Fine. I'm not a big metal fan, although I do like Jack Black most of the time. I think Penny Arcade was right on their analysis of Brutal Legend. I forget the exacts, but I did have similar feelings. The gameplay didn't quite have that great hook that I felt Psychonauts did, or any R&C game does (for me anyway). So after a lengthy absence, I finally started it again and will continue to see if I can finish it prior to getting Assassin's Creed 2 next week.

In other pursuits, I've been working my way thru Bill Simmons' book, The Book of Basketball, which has been very good thru over 400 of the 700 pages. Will go down as the longest book I've ever read when I finish it. And I don't count textbooks for that.

And I'm not sure what else to say here. I need to get cleaned up.

First and foremost, Ratchet & Clank A Crack in Time is out!! I made sure to avoid as much info on it as I could since getting early impressions of it from E3 because I wanted to find out what the game had to offer as I was playing through it. Thus far, after playing for about an hour and a half before work, I love it. The gameplay is the same as ever, but there are some enhancements. It seems like it has a bit more of an open "world" design to it, which strangely enough, I like. I am not a big fan of the open world designs, but with the way the R&C games are designed, having a bit more freedom is a good thing. Plus you can now fly Ratchet's spaceship around areas of space, which is very cool. Previously, flying the ship was limited to shooter levels. Here you have the freedom to fly around sectors of space, which is a great addition. Already this is shaping up to be a great addition to the franchise. Here's hoping the rumors that this will be the last game in the franchise aren't true. But if they are, I do hope it makes for a fitting conclusion.

Last night I finished up Uncharted 2, after a healthy amount of playing the last two days. It was fun, it was entertaining, it was challenging, and got me thinking about the reviews for Uncharted 2. I remember playing through the original Uncharted and really enjoying it. Some reviews didn't quite agree, but they were still very good (in the 8.5-9). Particularly this is in relation to Gamespot's 8.0 review. Then along comes Uncharted 2. Having just finished it, the single player isn't all that much different from the original's. The pace of the game feels a lot better, and a bit tighter, but otherwise I didn't pick up on any aspects to the game that would warrant such a huge leap in scoring. Except one thing: the multiplayer. Now granted, maybe I just didn't pick up on any subtler improvements, like the gun and/or melee combat, partners helping out more during the game, etc. But still, the single player didn't feel any different. It still played the same way, had plenty of challenging sections, told a very good story and looked great. And yet Uncharted 2 gets 9.5s & 10s, whereas Uncharted got 8s, 8.5s & 9s. So that got me thinking: Does multiplayer make that big a difference?

I first want to start by saying that I do have plenty of memorable multiplayer gaming memories, and I'm not opposed to multiplayer, mostly of the local multiplayer variety. My beef stands with online multiplayer. I was disappointed to find out that Uncharted 2s co-op was online only. Naughty Dog couldn't add a split screen local co-op?? But more to the point, online multiplayer isn't that good. Yes, you can play with a lot more people online, not to mention its a lot more accessible, in comparison to local multiplayer. But what happens when the online community latches onto a new game? Or others potentially abusing mechanics makes playing multi unbearable? Or the community is just not pleasant to play against/with (thinking of the "Halo 2 kids" phenomenon here)? Or any other random complaint I could lodge at it.

What it came down to was how the game would stand up over time. Someone I work with has been playing various old games on an emulator for awhile now, and that got me thinking of more modern games and how we look back on them. Say in 5-10 years, when we are on new consoles (PS4??), I would assume some games from this era would still be supported online, but who is still gonna be playing it then? So looking back on a game, the multiplayer value of it drops dramatically, while the single player value stays where its at. Short term, should I really be worrying about something like this? I highly doubt it. Why do I think about it?? Because I prefer single player games and I don't like it when it seems like developers focus more on the multiplayer side of a game as opposed to its single player side. I remember when Ratchet & Clank went multi, with Up Your Arsenal, the third game for the PS2. It had multiplayer for the first time, yet I absolutely loved its single player. So maybe my argument isn't very valid. But I do fear the path that's being taken by developers this decade. Far too many RPGs are being taken the MMO route, which negates any potentially intriguing story since MMOs can't really tell a story (unless the KotoR MMO, The Old Republic, proves me wrong). FPS games are a dime a dozen, and seem to only focus on the multiplayer, and FPS games aren't very story dependant, but still, games do tell stories, even shooters.

Of course, after typing all that out, it feels weird thinking about this argument. Perhaps I just don't get the appeal of online gaming. Maybe its because I prefer genres that typically don't have multiplayer components. Whatever it is, I just hope that online multiplayer doesn't take down single player. Uncharted 2's single player was very good, on par with the original in some aspects, better in others. Ratchet & Clank has always been a terrific single player game, and I don't want to see it go away any time soon.

Enough rambling. Time to finish up work and get home to play more R&C!!