Review - Assassin's Creed II

• Game: Assassin's Creed 2
• Format: Xbox 360
• Other Formats: PC, PS3
• Developer: Ubisoft Montreal
  
• Publisher: Ubisoft
  
• Genre: Third Person Adventure

The first Assassin's Creed was a game with great potential - the Prince of Persia-style free running allowed you to climb any building then leap into a conveniently placed haystack at the bottom. Then there was the crowd-based stealth system that when used properly could let you walk right up to your target, stab him, and walk away before the guards even noticed he was dead. All this was tied up with a plot that could best be described as "The Da Vinci Code if Dan Brown wasn't a talentless hack" and the truly revolutionary concept of using a historical setting that was neither World War II nor ancient Rome.

Note the lack of Nazi gladiators.

Despite this potential, there were a number of major flaws that prevented it from being a truly great game. But now two years on, the sequel is here and provides one of the best examples in years of how to address the flaws of a game and bring the concept forwards.

The story kicks off right where the first game ended. Desmond is rescued from Abstergo by the modern Assassins and put into an upgraded version of the Animus. Once there he begins to relive the life of his ancestor Ezio Auditore da Firenze, a 15th century Italian nobleman who, much like Altaïr, is also a behooded Batman wannabe fighting to stop the Knights Templar from stealing the powers of Space Jesus. It makes sense in context. This change of character brings with it a new setting in the form of five cities in Renaissance Italy.

The dialogue è ormai casualmente switch between English e Italiano. Accendere i sottotitoli. Requiescat in pace.

The most obvious flaw in the original game was the dull mission structure, with constantly repeated missions involving such thrilling jobs as pickpocketing or sitting on a bench. The sequel does its best to address this problem, with much more variety in the missions and more cinematic set-pieces. There are also a number of underground tombs that allow you to make the most of Ezio's parkour skills. Having said all this, there are still too many "very slowly walk after this guy" missions (i.e. more than zero).

And the improvements extend further than the mission structure, to the point where it is hard to think of a single criticism of the first game that hasn't been addressed to some extent. Lack of reward for finding things? Collection increases the value of your villa and hence your income, plus there are proper unlockables for finding enough hidden feathers. Instant death water? You can now not only swim, but make sneaky takedowns from the water's edge. Not enough answers regarding the metaplot? Two sidequests give plenty of information about both the Assassins and Templars, and the ending is essentially a chain of massive revelations.

Non-instakill water. Really useful when you're in Venice.

There are still a few problems though. Having to keep returning to the villa to pick up money is a pain, especially as it involves a loading screen and usually a fairly long walk. In addition, despite improvements the combat still pales in comparison to something like Batman: Arkham Asylum. There are a number of new moves, but the all-powerful counter attack is still enough to defeat just about any enemy. This combined with enemies that politely attack one at a time means that battles often degenerate into holding the block button and waiting for an opportunity to counter.

All in all, this is the game we should have got two years ago, and means the series now actually deserves the level of success it has received. There are a few things left to be ironed out, but if the inevitable Assassin's Creed III has the same dedication to addressing its failings then it could be a true classic.

Score:
8/10

Discuss this article on the forum.

Continue reading Review - Assassin's Creed II

Review - Tom Clancy's EndWar

• Game: Tom Clancy's EndWar
• Format: Xbox 360
• Other Formats: PS3, PC
• Developer: Ubisoft Shanghai
• Publisher: Ubisoft
• Genre: Real-time Strategy

Another month and another Tom Clancy game appears galloping towards us from the dusty horizon with more American gusto and patriotism than a bald eagle donning aviators, loosely based around another book that he didn’t actually write. With all of the pessimistic post apocalyptic games currently out - detailing how our current lives are all useless as we’re all going to die anyway – it is refreshing to finally be given the chance to actually aid in the events leading to Judgment Day, instead of scrounging for pressure cookers and bottle caps to throw at irradiated zombies.

As the name (vaguely) suggests, Tom Clancy's EndWar throws you knee-deep into the conflict of the third World War, taking you for a ride on the RTS wagon. From the word ‘go’ I was bombarded with several industrial tankers worth of information and as a result of my obviously inferior brain I took in absolutely none of it. Regardless of my complete lack of understanding, I managed to win my first mission apparently entirely by accident and as to this moment I still don’t know what my objective was or how I achieved it. After blundering through the first few introductory missions however, you soon get the hang of how the game wants to be played. For instance, my initial thoughts of the camera – perhaps jaded by the generous top-down views from many other RTSs – was that it resembled a horny dog tethered to a leash at Crufts, and no matter how hard you fought, it would still be hauled back in to who was holding it. After a while of play however, I found that the style of locking the libidinous hound of a camera to the selected unit’s perspective forces the player to utilise certain squads as scouts and even garner the high ground purely for the advantage of sight – something that adds a small amount more to the ‘realism’ tally against methods such as ‘Fog of War’ utilised on older style RTS games for the same purpose.

The main premise of the game is to rather predictably ‘win the war’ by siding with a superpower – America, Europe or Russia – and seizing control of the capitols in each of the three territories. Naturally, I chose to root for the home team and selected Europe in the hope to realise my childhood dream of annihilating America at the hands of Britain. Granted, at the time I envisioned doing so with ninjas riding dinosaurs. After a few plays through with the blue army though (apparently we’re blue), it came to my attention that there is a distinct lack of Britain being involved in WWIII. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand that France is a big mover and shaker in Europe, but playing as the cheese-eating surrender monkeys for pretty much every mission is a bit of a letdown. You would have thought that Britain as one of the world’s leading powers today would at least get a passing mention in the next world conflict. Even the Aussies don’t get a look-in, and according to Halo they’re more abundant than Americans in the future.

The big draw of the game that I have purposely not touched upon until this point is the headset support, where a player is able to issue orders like a walkie-talkie throughout the battle. For the most part, this method of commanding works remarkably better than I had anticipated – picking up a great range of regional dialects – but predictably there are mishaps where squads don’t understand the soothing sultry tones of my voice. The key to victory is securing uplinks dotted about the maps, and when the game mistakes the words, “Unit 2, Secure, Alpha”, for ”Unit 9, Eat, Nuclear Waste”, I take that as a personal insult - implying something in the area of my vocal chords being no better than that of an electrified, epileptic strobe victim. With this attack on my ‘mouth noises’ (and my apparent tendency of taking things a little too personally), I find it much more effective and indeed faster to issue certain orders via the controller.

What you can't see in this image is Unit 9 eating nuclear waste

As the loading screens of Call of Duty 2 once told me, ‘there are no winners in war’, and this becomes increasingly apparent as the campaign progresses, with regions trading hands like the village bicycle and no progress in one area without losing another on the opposite side of the globe. When you think you just might capture Washington you have to run back to defend Paris before they start bleaching their flags. And while the unpredictability of it all might be realistic in some respects, after a while I can’t help but think it is a method of artificially extending the game’s lifespan as I fight the same battle again for seemingly the tenth time. But if a commander is not savvy enough during battle, they can find the tides turning far too quickly. Taking the Napoleonic approach with my French troops against the Ruskies, one battle saw me ploughing through their first wave of units in a heartbeat – taking my mighty fist of a battalion from point to point and securing them like the bitch that they are. Just when that little voice at the back of my head patted me on the shoulder, congratulating me on my sure victory, a giant turd of a Russian WMD annihilates my entire army, save for a single unit of cannon fodder who were running late to the party because Jenkins had a poorly tummy. Retaliating with an orbital laser of my own, I felt sure that victory was rightly grasped after that little blunder – but alas, a lone unit of Dmitri’s tanks had survived – presumably also due to poor punctuality. Taking immediate action, I sent my lads packing with their tails between their legs straight back to control point Alpha to do some emergency renovations to mission supports – all the while with hot doom fired over their heads from a distance. In the nick of time, my boys manage deliver a swift EMP to disable the enemy shields and dive into the nearest building to contemplate life and death. I quickly send in the NPC supports and take out the Boris while he’s weak to scrape a victory like plaque from the jaws of defeat.

Graphically the game leaves much to be desired, as I assume the general thinking from Ubisoft was that you’d be so far away from the action that you wouldn’t notice that the infantry look like little plastic toy soldiers, in both detail and animation. I found myself thinking that they should have their trousers round their ankles purely to complete the effect. I probably shouldn’t look further into those thoughts and neither should you. Aside from this though, the game runs very smoothly and can handle a great deal going on at once, so I can’t complain too much.

Signing into the ‘Theatre of War’ mode will hurl you into the ranked multiplayer of EndWar, and upon doing so for the very first time I was greeted with a right royal slagging-off from my commanding officer as he spouted insults about my absence from the multiplayer campaign and even accused me of desertion from my duties. If that wasn’t welcoming enough, he then proceeded to convey how disastrous the last week was for Europe. Now armed with morale-boosting thoughts, I selected a battle to fight that pointed out to me how matchmaking rivals Gears of War 2 for mind-numbing, soul-crushing lack of speed in finding opponents; unless that is, you pick a battle where your side has a distinct and unavoidable disadvantage, and suddenly finding someone to play against is almost instant. My point here is that people are bastards. I hate people.

Overall, Tom Clancy’s EndWar is actually a competent RTS and fills a nice little niche in the home console market. It’s not perfect, but it does the job – much like a gummy hooker. There, I managed to bring this review back down to my usual standard and all is well again in the world.

Single Player Score – 8

Multiplayer Score - 7

Discuss this review on the forum.

Continue reading Review - Tom Clancy's EndWar