arkham asylum is the best game of 2009; if you disagree you probably hate games

Fame is a fickle bitch: here today, gone tomorrow. Strike while the iron is hot and the faithless mob will love you for a month and a day and risk your once core supporters becoming your main detractors. Like anything worth (consumer’s) money the loudest bang, the brightest flash, and most importantly the fastest reward will sell the most; lodge itself in the collective conscious like a meme bullet.

This brings us to the meat of the argument for ‘Best Game of 2009’, and why the conclusion of that argument is Batman: Arkham Asylum. It may not seem apparent, but the above paragraph will illustrate this reasoning better than simply stating ‘Batman is the best game of 2009, let alone this generation!’ until my throat is bleeding and raw.

This is not a fluff piece written to get you to buy the game. If you don’t already own it, then I hope to whatever deity you believe in that you asked for it as a Christmas gift. This is genuine heartfelt praise for a piece of art that exemplifies its medium, exceeds the confines of ‘digital entertainment’ and should be used as a paradigm for all the folly attempts at re-creation to follow.

I will not humor you in discussing the bare essentials of Batman: Arkham Asylum. Unaware of the game though you may be, I find the concept impossible. This article is not for you.

What I will do however, is attempt to stem the tide of an ever-growing wave I see coming in the weeks to follow: that any game other than ‘Batman: Arkham Asylum’ will be voted as ‘Best Game of 2009’ from a myriad of sources both professional and amateur. I say to these future proclamations: you are wrong.

A technical marvel; yes. The best written and acted game ever made; yes. Competent mechanics and a driving pace that keeps you interested in the game; yes. All of these things could describe either of the titles I’ve already mentioned, but I am referencing Uncharted 2. This game more than any other this year is poised to sit atop many a ‘Best of 2009’ list of gaming-dom. Undoubtedly gorgeous, polished in script, and tuned to perfection with performances from non-actors that outclass many ‘top-tier’ thespians living and breathing in Hollywood, Uncharted 2 is however fleeting in its enjoyment.

Nathan Drake’s adventures rely heavily upon the game establishing a base sense of realism, both with its graphics and the majority of its content. This goal is admirable, to recreate ‘the real’ inside the ‘virtual’; this very task has been taken up over the course of human history, not just in the digital age alone. The experience however, seems determined to distance itself from being a videogame: there is no appreciable on-screen HUD to speak of, no life bar, no waypoint markers, no game over screens, no map, no information outside of what you as the player can assess from the game world.

Again, this effort is not to be under-estimated however this is the exact point where Uncharted 2 ceases to be a ‘virtual reality’ and starts being ‘a videogame’. Inherently it is my belief these two concepts will never be in perfect harmony. The very definition of a videogame and schema of the concept does not allow for many conventional gaming devices and any game designed around the notion would not be very fun for very long. In short, Uncharted 2 frequently and flagrantly breaks the suspension of disbelief necessary toward the creation of a great videogame.

‘Batman’ contains none of this ridiculous “it’s so realistic until you get to the parts that aren’t!” design. It never tries to be anything more than a videogame; icons, markers, on-screen button prompts, safe rooms, impossible physics, etc. It is in many ways the “gamey-est” game that has ever existed.

It does not seek to deliver the most ‘realistic’ Batman experience to be had, and in ignoring this goal the game achieves exactly that. Owing to the caveats of being an ‘interactive experience’ there is not a single moment in ‘Arkham’ where the player is not instructed in some manner on what he/she is expected to accomplish or confused on how to proceed. There is no confusion, because unlike Nathan Drake who ‘appears’ to be a competent Adventurer, Batman does not make appearances,he simply is the Batman (detective, master of logic, martial artist, etc).

In short, there is never a point in the 12+ hour experience of playing Batman: Arkham Asylum wherein I felt compelled to stop playing; I only did so to avail myself of things like eating and sleeping. The boss fights were both challenging and fair. A few them even required some unconventional thinking and tested my simple simian brain. The story, saddled with the tired scenarios and heavy-handedness its comic book origins carry, is written well and acted at worst competently; at best magnificently.

Architecture in the game is simultaneously, like the controls, built around the aspect of you being Batman (and not just looking like him) and also appropriate to fit the aesthetics of the Batman universe. Small contrivances like a proliferation of gargoyles around the interiors of Arkham Island (to allow Batman to perch upon) are quickly dismissed due to their oddly fitting presence in a locale that looks ripped from the pages of some 1930s Gothic horror novella. Again, the base level here is not to establish “the real world” but instead to establish “Batman’s world”.

The pacing of ‘Arkham Asylum’ is largely dependent upon the player and their choices. You can decide to bowl through the story proper and leave the secondary goals for after the finale or play each in tandem. This prolongs the overall experience and in the end you feel like you’ve not only saved the day, but walked a mile in another man’s shoes: a man who just happens to be Batman. Nathan Drake on the other hand often feels like your clumsy puppet, and often you will chastise him as though he exists apart from you.

You’ll also be watching Nathan Drake do this in roughly the same span of time as everyone else, lest you go well out of your way to find treasures that add little to extend or add to the experience. ‘Arkham’ features a large collection of Riddler Challenges that not only come in a variety of shapes and sizes but their collection is an extension of the core game you’re already playing: you have to be Batman in order to retrieve many of them..

This may seem like ‘Arkham’ is a game that is superficially inflated to make it seem longer, distracting the player from finishing the game. However finding these items helps to reinforce “Hey I’m really Batman!” and as a side bonus allows the player to experience challenge levels that boil the game down to its most core components: stealth and combat. Other titles this year like Uncharted 2 or Assassin’s Creed 2, offer little in the way of incentive for pursuing their needless snatch-and-grab collection mechanics outside of production art or the introduction of game items that do little to enhance the overall experience.

Batman: Arkham Asylum ignores the fact that in the last 10 years many game developers have struggled with how to make games look less like ‘games’ and more like something non-gamers could appreciate; in effect, the ‘real’ world. Rocksteady doesn’t care that ‘Arkham’ is just some ‘game’. They revel in this fact. They use it to build a world wherein the player is incapableof not feeling like a part of it. Every nuance, every facet of the experience ties into selling the participant on “this is Batman’s world and you are the Batman”. Other games this or any year previous seem less engaging by comparison.

Both sequels in the Uncharted and Assassin’s Creed franchises, two of the most positively reviewed games this year, have seemingly garnered the public’s eye because of how they turned ‘good’ concepts into ‘great’ games. ‘Arkham’ does not have such a luxury; to be able to astound and impress because of “how much better it is than the first one”. I am not blind to the amount of praise the game received when it was released, however much of that fervor seems to have been replaced with a short-sightedness that seems tunneled into the ‘Holiday Season’ of gaming. Did we all forget that Batman: Arkham Asylum is not only the best Batman game ever made, but that it accomplished this in its first iteration?

Developer Rocksteady seems to have built their entire game around “What if we made a game where you WERE Batman?” whereas Naughty Dog or Ubisoft may have started their pitch with “What if we made a game that LOOKED LIKE a movie?” or “What if the player could PRETEND to be an assassin?”. The ideas here are similar yet miles apart intellectually. One strives to perfect the mere appearance of thing, but at its core remains something entirely different. The other is more pure, more direct, and as a result, is infinitely the superior.

Batman: Arkham Asylum – The Best Game of 2009, Best Game of This Generation

how the 'reviews' work.

Since I intend to write 'reviews' about 'videogames' I suppose it would help if I 'explained how I approach the process'. None of the preceding terms actually needed quotations.

In short, there are no number scores. Number scores are silly and fruitless; the monkey brain trying desperately establish a hierarchy where none need exist. Forget about numbers and what they mean when applied to art. I can't tell you if you're going to like a game with a number. What I can do is explain my personal experience with the game and if you feel like you'd have somewhat of a similar experience well then its up to you to fork over the sixty dollars American (plus tax) to take that plunge.

That said, I am a consumer, like most of you. I do not write for a magazine, I am not sent review copies of a game prior to release. I am a full-blooded consumer of the highest order. I have to be smart with my dollar and its not easy to do that when somebody tells you "This game is a 10!" and then provides absolutely no valuable context in which to place that statement. What if the reviewer likes dating sims, eats red meat, and votes Republican? Two of those don't make any difference but perhaps you have such a deep-seated hatred of dating sims that anyone who likes them is automatically a terrible person and should not be trusted.

Honestly, it pays to have somebody who isn't pushed on a daily basis for 'clicks' and pressured with 'generating ad revenue' (those needed quotes) to give you the straight shit on whether or not a game is worth your money. I'm not the only person to do this, but I feel like there might be some of you out there who'd like to hear more opinions. These reviews are mine.

So back to the original point: no numbers. No letter scale, no grading curve, no "bad, okay, good" system. All of these are subjective and quite frankly game reviewers do not have the time to fully explain the context of their reviews. So they invite convenient systems to compress their opinion into a web-byte and then bitch when that's the only thing that winds up on Metacritic.

That said, games will essentially be graded upon "Is it worth buying?" or "No, it is not worth buying at this time". Key to note the "at this time" as there will be games available for purchase at $60 that may be worth perhaps...$40, or even $10. Its all relative; and it is important to note that not all games reviewed here will be new releases. Is Too Human worth $60? Absolutely not. Is it worth the $10 used price? Absolutely yes.

Secondly and just as important, I will attempt to provide a 'Reviewer Bias' score of sorts. Essentially this will range from +5 to -5. The higher the number the more I was likely to enjoy the game despite some of its flaws. This would be akin to an absolute die-hard Final Fantasy fan reviewing Final Fantasy XIII. They're probably going to love its androgynous doll creatures and terrible naming conventions even if the game plays like shit and you can't understand who's busy being mad at what. Conversely, the lower the number (closer to -5) the less likely it was I was going to enjoy this game. This is again akin to a die-hard Final Fantasy fan who hates sports games reviewing Madden 10. Its probably just not going to work out.

For the most part, the 'Reviewer Bias' is a measurement of my pre-conceived notions on the game prior to reviewing/playing it. I feel this is of the utmost importance as many reviewers will give a game high marks and then in some small, obtuse manner suggest to you that they were jerking off to screenshots of the game during their down time at E3 last summer. This is deceptive and more members of the gaming 'press' should be forced to give an objective (as much as possible) viewpoint on their own expectations when passing judgment. I understand this doesn't generate 'sales' or 'clicks' but come on; you're telling people what to do with what little money they earn. Have some transparency.

So thats how the reviews work. I tell you what I thought of the game and whether or not I think its worth the current retail asking price. Afterwards I let you know just what my expectations were going in so you're not under any kind of illusion that a game I claim to be "Worth double the price tag!" isn't just something I was going to love even if it came sealed in dog shit.

borderlands; a review

It can’t be easy, being Borderlands. Released in the dead middle of the holiday push, the game faces stiff competition in each the 360, PS3, and PC markets.  Each of these platforms has not only had their complement of "staple" first-person shooter titles, but also major releases of a similar type this holiday season.  What does Gearbox provide in its Space Western-cum-Loot Whoring title that makes it stand apart from acclaimed titles like Uncharted 2, Left 4 Dead 2, and the 8000lb. gorilla known as Modern Warfare 2?

Taking place on the planet 'Pandora', Borderlands is the barely woven tale of a 'Vault Hunter' and their bullet-riddled quest through the wilds of the backwater planet. Seems there’s a legend about a mysterious 'Vault' what contains vast fortunes and power.  Stop me if the equation: sealed vaults + desert setting looks familiar to you. At the outset of the game you are given the option of choosing one of four Vault Hunters, each with their own unique set of skills and signature action move that are more-or-less indicative of their characterization (Berserker punches people to death, Hunter uses a pet, etc).

The game does little to educate on you which class to pick, and your decision is largely informed by their physical appearance and by the weapon specialization that is listed under their name.  Any character can use any weapon, however in line with having a unique ‘skill’ each character has unique skill trees that augment a variety of stats and give bonuses to certain combat actions.

All things being equal across the four characters removes some of their novelty but at the same time ensures that the game is able to suit the play-style of anyone who picks it up. Thankfully the game mechanics are where the game starts to shine. Gearbox has an established pedigree of developing and working with top-rated shooter titles and Borderlands is no exception.  This game is about guns: lots of guns; lots ways and places to obtain guns; and lots of locales wherein to shoot things...with guns.

The game touts a 'gun generator' capable of producing an obscene number of weapons each with their own unique set of stats and bonuses.  This claim is mostly true.  However what the back-of-the-box factoids fail to tell you is that 9 out of every 10 guns will be going straight into one of the game's many vending machines in exchange for cash that you'll use to buy what else...better guns (or maybe a shield, see next paragraph).  You'll find yourself cultivating a rotating cast of about 6-7 weapons that will occasionally be replaced with similar ones albeit with higher stats. By the middle of your 2nd play through, you'll likely have several ‘Legendary’ quality weapons and not have upgraded to a new gun for several hours of game time.

It’s worth mentioning here that like other first-person [insert genre here] titles Borderlands features a layered shield/health system whereby your shields take damage first, then your health.   Shield energy will replenish after a few moments of taking no damage, and health is recovered via a number of handy ways.  It is highly recommended to equip a shield that also regenerates your health.

As mentioned, the game does not skimp on the gunplay.  Guns, the ammunition to load them with, and things to put those bullets inside of are never in short supply.  Quick, easy-to-understand quests will propel you from the ‘welcoming’ village of Fyrestone to the heart of the Crimson Lance’s privatized military complex over the course of roughly 25 to 30 hours.  While the quests feature a variety of goals, they never stray far from the game’s unspoken mantra of “shoot every motherfucker between you and the glowing quest object at the end of the corridor/canyon/hallway”.

It is during these excursions, (which can last upwards of a good 30-40 minutes for quests that end in a boss fight) that Borderlands reveals itself fully; a gigantic biome created exclusively for the purpose of shooting-every-fucking-thing-in-sight.  Think World of Warcraft with less highfalutin fantasy and far (far) more guns. Is it moving? You should probably shoot it. 

In vein with its role-playing cousins the game renders your damage over an enemy’s head with each successful shot.  It’s actually somewhat beautiful watching numbers pour off a target like water.  The sheer amount of visual information in this game is near orgasmic at times.  Is your action skill on cool down? What’s your shield strength at? How much ammo is left in the gun? Is an enemy on fire and about to die? How much damage are you doing with the Repeater that has Corrosive damage?

For all the best intentions at creating an indigenous force to be reckoned with; enemies in this game are pretty lame-duck on the intelligence level.  They exhibit basic duck-and-cover techniques but essentially come at you in obvious waves.  Before long, you begin to recognize unit types by their behavior patterns and aesthetics of the weapons they carry. You don’t need to even look directly at them, just fire in their general direction and mentally masturbate yourself as that new SMG you picked up causes dozens of floating “101”s and “Critical!”s to explode from a man’s head.   You’ll find yourself roving from one enemy to the next, eager to fill them with the requisite amount of bullets before they explode like a piñata; glowing bits of loot oozing from their bodies as though the inhabits of Pandora are made of delicious virtual candy.

The allure here is not that you get to use a lot of guns; it’s that you get to use one really fucking AWESOME gun in the pursuit of amassing a collection of useless guns to sell in order to buy an even MORE AWESOME gun.  The vaudevillian ‘cha-ching’ noise the vending machine makes every time you feed it another item becomes almost like music to your ears; Pavlov’s bell.  You’ll hear the belched slogans of every gun manufacturer (‘If it took more than one shot, you weren’t using a Jakobs!’) about 500 times too many in this game and you’ll sure as shit remember them.  Not from sheer saturation on your senses, but because they represent the foreplay to the climax of selling your stash; they are the smell of the French fry before you’ve removed it from the grease-laden bag in your passenger seat.

I suppose you could call Borderlands exactly that: fast-food first-person shooting.  It’s not particularly important what the weapons are called, exactly how much money you gained from those 5 lockers, or just what exactly the difference is between Tediore and Maliwan weapons are (PROTIP: Maliwan makes elemental damage guns, Tediores have a fast reload speed).  The point is the miniature release of brain semen that happens every time you see loot and money essentially ‘vacuum’ itself into your character’s body.  As if Mordecai the Hunter is so pressed for time he can’t even be bothered to sift the gold from grit.  He just needs more; you need more.

You even get to do this a second time!  Upon completion of the game you are (rather clumsily) given the option of replaying the game again from where you ended the first run.  All of the  variables in play are ratcheted up a few notches this time, but the basic mechanics and ideas remain the same; assess the situation, dispatch of most immediate threats, deal with the 'elite' enemies last, and then suck up every last piece of loot like a whore on rent day.

There is a story to be told and a colorful cast of characters to support it; either you'll pay attention to it or you won't.  In the end it doesn't really matter if you understand why Patricia Tannis is trying to solve the mysteries of Pandora's 'Vault' or why the Atlas Corporation suddenly appears in the last third of the game and shit suddenly “gets real”.  You're basically going to be pointing the loud end of your gun at someone or something and squeezing off rounds until it explodes in little firework of virtual success to replace the lack of it in your real life.

You can play Borderlands with up to 3 other people cooperatively, or spend time fighting each other in the wilds of Pandora, or in the specially designated Arena sections.  If you feel like it, I guess.  Honestly the inclusion of other people in my virtual orgy of guns and self-gratification shatters the illusion of my impending omnipotence over Pandora like a fragile Christmas ornament against linoleum.

Visually Borderlands apes a comic book style seen in titles like Crackdown and the mediocre Xbox game XIII.  Enemies have a semi-cel-shaded look to them, and the world of Pandora is essentially an amalgamation of every 'wrong side of the tracks' motif that exists.  Think Black Hawk Down only with more sheet metal and random space junk.  Enemy design is appropriately a mix of pseudo-bondage Road Warrior goons, generic “space” versions of Earth animals, and de-facto Space Marines toward the end of the game.

The world is populated with non sequitur lockers, toilets, cases, and other containers that hide money, ammo, or guns. As long as you don't think too hard about why a gang leader was keeping some sweet gun locked away in his hut (instead of shooting you with it) or why there's a locker with $4000 cash in it underneath a fish hatchery, you won't find much to complain about the small contrivances Borderlands makes to support its frantic shooting and ‘more, more, more!’ loot and item collection ethos.

All in all, Borderlands does enough things differently and successfully to set it apart from most of the other "point at thing and shoot it until it dies" shooters on the market today.  The combat can become especially repetitive, but is alleviated by the ability to re-spec into other skill trees and adopt new play styles.  The game rewards those who are interested in the small things (gun stats, funny little set pieces, the un-narrated quest descriptions, and midgets) and will likely frustrate anyone who is expecting a tightly-packed and well-written adventure in a foreign land.  Go play Half-Life or Fallout for that.

What you get for your money:

• A game that literally will last you several days of playing. My first play through of the game exceeded 36 hours; however I completed every side quest on my own and spent a considerable amount of time helping a friend toward the beginning.  At the time of writing my total play time was beyond 40 hours on a single character in addition to the 3-4 hours playing the other classes. Gearbox has announced intentions to update with DLC regularly and at the time of writing the first pack ‘The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned’ is available.
• Well designed NPC characters with some above-average voice acting and a unique art style that plays to the game’s some cartoony over-violent content.
• A fairly easy drop in/drop out co-op mechanic that allows you to play solo, invite friends, and continue playing after they have left without a break in the experience.
• A game rich in visual information and lean on complicated game mechanics.  Shoot everything.  Keep guns that help you to shoot everything faster.  Sell everything else.
• Lots of interesting guns with quirky modes of fire (shotgun that fires rockets, rifle that belches lightning balls) that will have you opening “just one more” chest in the hopes of finding that epic-level shotgun you need.
• Easy achievements; you can get about 900 points just playing by yourself.  The last few will require you to have at least one friend with a copy of the game.

What you do NOT get for your money:

• A well told story.  Gearbox seems keen on establishing a unique Universe; however they clearly spent very little time fleshing it out.  My advice is to watch Firefly and pretend Borderlands exists in roughly the same intellectual schema.
• No proper multiplayer modes.  And this is just as well as the dueling mechanic in the game seems like an afterthought; with the sheer amount of random weapons, balance would be a major issue (I lucked out at one point and had a revolver drop that I used for a good 12+ levels, overpowered to say the least).
• A change of pace.  Borderlands is several long hours of rocks and desert and space creatures and guns. And brown.  A lot of brown.
• Hard achievements that require skill or effort.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but it would’ve been nice to have some harder achievements for a game that doesn’t break its own mold for the duration of the experience.

Final Thoughts:

It is my opinion this game is worth the full asking retail price for those who find the above information appealing.  This game is not likely to make a fan out of anyone who does not already enjoy ‘loot’ games a’la Too Human, Diablo, World of Warcraft, etc.

Platform Played:

Xbox 360

Reviewer Bias:

+1; I was anxiously looking forward to this game but almost did not purchase it after reading a few concerns over the lack of a trade system and the repetitive nature of the combat.

Found this elucidating bit over at Kotaku.

Etiquette Check: How To Handle Xbox Friend Requests?

There isn't much I can add to this.  Just understand that somebody somewhere thinks airing their social ineptitude in a public forum is interesting.