Game Review: Mass Effect 2

Following on from the massively (although perhaps not entirely deservedly) successful Mass Effect, Bioware's latest RPG epic Mass Effect 2 hit the shelves just over a week ago; only to start another debate about whether or not it was too early to start handing out Game Of The Year ribbons. It probably is - let's not forget there's Final Fantasy XIII just over the horizon - but with it's hugely improved combat, awesome scale and superb story-telling, Mass Effect 2 will be a genuine contender for any Game Of The Year awards.

You'll reprise the role of Commander Shepard (you can port him straight from saves of the first game, if they're still lingering at the back of your hard drive) who, after a rather good opening cutscene, promptly dies, only to be brought back by the pro-human Cerberus organisation (a smart way of keeping continuity despite the skills overhaul). It's then off into the big wide Milky Way to investigate why human colonies are mysteriously disappearing and discover another ancient, hidden threat to the galaxy, all the while building a team of soldiers, researchers and a couple of psychopaths to stand with you in the final, suicidal mission. On paper, then, it doesn't look much different to the first Mass Effect, but Bioware have done just about everything possible to make Mass Effect 2 bigger and better in every aspect.

Now you'll be taking orders from the "Illusive Man", voiced by Martin Sheen. Martin flipping Sheen. It's almost worth a GOTY nomination just because of him.

Back in the first Mass Effect the galaxy we were given to explore was a let down almost as colossal as the game's ambition; it turned out to have precious few planets we could interact with - all but three being practically identical - and reams and reams of text containing the imaginary facts and history of imaginary planets and solar systems, which undermined the supposed "epic scale" that Bioware had promised. This time round, though, the galaxy's scale feels genuinely huge; there are more solar systems to explore with new space stations and cities (before there was only the Citadel), each planet you can travel to looks and feels different to the others, and the planets you can't land on can still be scanned for materials - which can be used to research upgrades - or signals that lead to hidden missions. It's just awesome, the perfect staging ground for any RPG epic, where you can spend hours exploring and barely scratch the surface.

The role-playing itself hasn't seen significant a change, but it has been refined. There are still the same starting classes - Soldier, Adept, Engineer and everything in-between - but there are now fewer starting skills per class (six instead of eight), including a unique, class-specific skill (for example; the Infiltrator can now become invisible). It almost sounds like a step backwards, but each skill now has two branches - let's say you want to level up an enhanced ammo power; you can either choose the branch that allows your entire party to use enhanced weapons, or just have significantly more powerful ammo for a single character. With this system you can build your character and the other party members in specific ways, so that you can not only bring the ideal team to every mission. Plus it helps create brilliant replay value.

Why isn't this slimming version available in Dragon Age?

As with other RPGs, you'll gain experience and level up by completing missions, and Mass Effect 2's are just excellent. It would have been easy, with the huge galactic scope, for some of the missions in Mass Effect 2 to fade into the background, and feel like little more than mini-excursions for easy cash and quick experience - that's certainly how it was in the first game - but now that just isn't the case. Almost every mission takes you somewhere different, whether it's simply another part of a space station or a whole new world, giving Mass Effect 2 a diversity that most other RPGs just don't have. Thanks largely to flowing cutscenes and the fully-scripted conversations (pretty much every other RPG has you play as Silent Bob's sword-wielding cousin), every mission feels relevant, as if the decisions you make during it could have a proper impact in the galaxy that will come back to hug or haunt you in the next instalment. There's even a chance to go back and read messages from people you've helped in past missions, giving you a sense of personal involvement that is rarely accomplished in games.

But, Mass Effect 2's most improved aspect is the combat. While it's predecessor was let down by the terrible friendly and enemy AI and having to stop the game every five seconds to use abilities via a fiddly radial menu, Mass Effect 2 has none of those problems. The enemy AI is much more advanced; it will try and outflank you, spread out if you're using area effect powers, and even help power up enemies that are in a better position to take you down. Friendlies are much simpler to command - each of your active team is allocated a button on the directional-pad, just tap left or right and they'll move to cover, attack a target or use their power. There are even three hot-keys for your personal powers, which is probably all you'll need now that you only start with six skill trees. All this comes together with a decent, if not a little rudimentary, cover system to create a surprisingly good third-person shooter that is perfectly complimented by the role-playing element.

The new combat system means that playing with Biotics is much smoother. And infinitely more devastating.

The music is still superb and the graphics no longer suffer from the hideous texture pop of the first game, so all things considered there are very few downsides. But Mass Effect 2 isn't perfect; the story - while being one of the better-told video game stories - is still quite short for an RPG, possibly shorter than the first game was, which is a shame considering just how much they have to play with. Obviously with so much else to be getting on with it's not a massive issue - you'll easily be able to get a good 20+ hours out of it without diving in too deep - but it still feels rushed, and could have probably done with one or two more sub-plots to flesh things out that little bit more.

But don't let that nitpick put you off, because everything else about Mass Effect 2 is just fantastic. It's a prime example of great video-game storytelling with incredible scope, solid combat and huge replay potential. Game Of The Year? That remains to be seen, but it's definitely a worthy contender and an absolute must-play for sci-fi, shooter and RPG fans alike.

9/10

...the sex scene was better in the first game, though. We don't even see side-boob now. Bloody spoil sports.

Game Review: Dark Void

We've been on the virtual front lines enough in the last few years to know what makes a good shooter and what makes a bad one, but it seems some developers are still struggling to figure it all out. Cue Capcom's latest failed experiment, Dark Void, a weird Gears Of War and Iron Man hybrid that somehow manages to do almost everything that's been done a thousand times totally wrong.

After being greeted by a half-dramatic title menu where a flying, steel Dark Void logo flies over what can only be described as a blue neon vagina, things kick off when pilot Will Grey (voiced by Nolan "One Voice For Every Hero" North) crashes his plane in the Bermuda Triangle, which turns out to be overrun by aliens called "The Watchers". Typical. Fortunately, Will stumbles across a gun and, hiding behind some conveniently placed rocks, gets to shooting.

The loading screens look gash

Unfortunately, the shooting is arguably the worst thing about Dark Void (apart from Nolan North, of course). Don't get me wrong, the cover and shoot gameplay works well enough (it would probably be more surprising if it didn't), but because of the weapons and AI it's incredibly dull. When the cover system works in games - Gears of War is the obvious example - it's because the enemy is smart enough to try and flank or expose you. There's none of that here; the enemy is quite happy sitting behind a column or tree trunk or park bench or whatever, popping in and out of cover until you've loaded it with bullets from one of your unimaginative weapons or smacked it around enough - which is basically done by hammering the melee button in the hope that you happen to initiate the attack quicker than the target, watching Will perform the attack from a slightly more cinematic angle (at which point you're unable to control him, so there's every chance that he could finish the attack only to find a grenade at your feet), then rinsing and repeating a few times until the alien falls over. Almost every ground-based shoot-out plays out this way, making the Dark Void experience utterly forgettable.

Wait, is that a flying Geth? Is there anything this game hasn't pinched?

This chug along in this manner for a while until Will meets up with a group of humans known simply as "The Survivors", who quickly hand him Dark Void's party piece: the jetpack. It starts of with fairly basic hovering - which is pretty nifty, and spices up the shoot-outs for a few minutes - but quickly becomes used for proper flight, allowing you to quickly take off from the ground and join in the dogfights. It could have been good but the jetpack doesn't handle particularly well. Standard flying is easy enough, but pulling off any kind of manoeuvre is a faff - you have to hold down one of the analogue sticks then flick both of them in a certain direction, which is way too much fuss when five UFOs are bearing down on your exhausts - and aiming is wild, making it almost impossible to target enemies and, consequently, making the dogfights more frustrating than fun.

Annoyingly, with the jetpack comes the introduction of a ridiculous amount of quick-time events. Pretty much anything that isn't simply hitting a Watcher in the face comes with a quick time event, and some of them are far to drawn out. Hijacking an enemy spaceship is the worst of them, because chances are you'll have to do that quite a lot what with the aiming is so bloody finicky. Normally quick time events have you press buttons in a certain order while something cinematic goes on in the background (see Uncharted 2/The Force Unleashed), which is fairly naff in itself, but hijacking in Dark Void is even worse. You don't press different buttons, you just hold down one and watch as Will pulls away at a sheet of metal. Pulls very, very slowly. You'll actually be sat there for a good thirty seconds, holding down one button while nothing really happens. Someone genuinely thought this was a good idea. You wouldn't even want them stacking the shelves at Gamestation.

Even at full boost, the pointlessly massive environments take far too much time to explore

As stand alone elements the combat and flight simulator are pretty poor, so it's no surprise that things don't get any better when they're combined. Dark Void's jetpack allows for a virtual cover system - let's say you're using the jetpack to climb a rock-face with a enemies at the top; you can use your jetpack to boost up the side of the cliff, grabbing on to protruding ledges and, while hanging from them, use them as cover as you make your way up. It's a novelty at first, but it still has all the problems that the regular horizontal gameplay does - except now you get a few particularly stupid enemies hiding on the wrong side of cover.


It's a shame really, as Dark Void should have been so much better. With the cover system shooting, the jetpack and the seamless transition between the two, it could have ended up as a decent game. But it's marred with poor gameplay decisions - namely the quick-time events - and lazy development, resulting in a drab, repetitive experience that you'll forget about five minutes after picking up a different game. To sum it all up: Dark Avoid.

...I'm sorry.

4/10

I'm sorry for the first caption as well...

Reviews Coming Soon:
Glee (Series review)
Being Human (Series review)
Mass Effect 2 (Game review)
MAG (Game review)

Game Review: Bayonetta

Coming from the same minds that founded the revolutionary Devil May Cry series, you’d expect the same stylish, brutal and blisteringly paced hack-and-slashing from Bayonetta that has made Capcom’s series so popular. What you probably weren’t anticipating were the slick slow-time mechanics, impossibly brutal finishing moves and perception-buggering visuals that make Bayonetta an early contender for action game of the year.

The gist of it (because any expansion on a gist would probably make both our heads hurt) is that Bayonetta is a witch, who spends her life killing angels to stop them dragging her down to hell. That’s all you need to know really. There’s a never-realised romantic sub-plot in there somewhere and something vague happened 500 years ago which apparently explains everything, but all that generally takes a back seat to inverse smiting. Which is fine, because that’s bloody good fun.

Bayonetta’s combat is, like most good games, easy to grasp but harder to master. It’s simple really; X shoots, Y punches, B kicks, and you string these together for damaging combos. It’s highly accessible; anybody could pick up a pad and immediately start beating the hell (heaven?) out of a few angels, and look fairly stylish while they’re at it. But then there’s that extra level of depth for more hardcore hack-and-slashers: last-minute dodges that slow down time, obscenely brutal torture attacks and a wide variety of weapons (including trombones and a snake whip) that can make Bayonetta a diverse, blisteringly paced and beautifully stylish experience that – at least until God Of War 3 comes out later this year – is unparalleled on the current generation.

Something tells me that the developers are having a bit of a dry spell.

As usual with this sort of game, there are regular boss fights throughout Bayonetta. They’re suitably challenging without completely spiking the difficulty curve, which is great, but more importantly they’re some of the weirdest bosses ever conceived. I mean, the first one is a giant, flying upside-down cherub face with dragons for ears. How could you not have fun killing that? After each boss you’re treated to a visually stunning “Climax” (did I mention the shameless sexual overtones? Only the Japanese), where Bayonetta’s hair (seriously) passes through the dimensions and becomes all kinds of giant creatures, fists, or whatever to finish off the enemy. Sure, it doesn’t really make any sense, but it’s so visually satisfying you probably won’t care. The only slight downside is that you will end up fighting the same bosses a few times, although these appear as toned-down versions to gradually raise the difficulty curve before tougher bosses later in the game, so their cameos are forgiveable.

Yes, that is a giant gargoyle face with a massive tongue tipped with a smiling, crowned cherub. Yes, it does have massive tentacles. I'll have one of what Hideki Kamiya is having, please.

Just in case there was any chance that the combat could become tedious (yeah right) Bayonetta spices things up the with a couple of phenomenally fast, arcade-y vehicle sections, which put you on the back of motorbikes and, er, a missile, as well as a mini-game between missions where you shoot enemies for extra points. These sections really help mix up the gameplay, making Bayonetta a surprisingly diverse and a constantly fun experience that is impossible to get bored of during the first playthrough.

The gameplay will probably draw all the expected comparisons; Devil May Cry, God of War, Ninja Gaiden and the like. But it’s the environments the separates Bayonetta from these games, giving the combat and platforming an entire new dimension that relentlessly buggers your perception – think Mario Galaxy, but with a super-powered receptionist in spandex. Running along walls to escape a lava flow, following a winding path that ends up with you standing up-side down, a hundred feet in the air facing the ground where you were just fighting, and jumping across giant chasms onto a revolving island are just a couple of examples of how Bayonetta plays with the dimensions, and it’s this completely different perspective that raises it above other games of its type.

And now she's running up a wall, dodging falling rocks while killing various flying things. There isn't much they haven't thought of, is there?

So Bayonetta, while making absolutely no sense whatsoever, is an absolutely superb game, raising the bar for all games of its type with its awesome, fluid combat and stunning worlds, and is probably as close to perfect as these games have ever come, experimenting with concepts and making them work so well with proven excellent gameplay. And with the ending leaving things open for a sequel, hopefully it’ll be around again in a few years as another incredible example of the hack-and-slash sub-genre. Frankly, it’s a must-rent for anyone who has ever enjoyed a hack-and-slasher. Chances are it’ll blow you away.

10/10

If you're still not convinced, the game ends with you kicking God across the solar system into the sun, then shooting up it's charred corpse. Best. Ending. Ever.

Reviews coming soon:
Glee (Series Review)
Being Human (Series Review)
Dark Void

Mass Effect 2

Film Review: Avatar

So this is it, then. Over a decade in the making, the film that would change cinema as we know it is finally here. Or maybe self-proclaimed “king of the world” James Cameron has just spent fifteen years and hundreds of millions of dollars setting us up for the biggest, preachiest let down of the year. Yeah, that sounds more like it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Avatar is a bad film. The concept behind it – humans controlling synthetic beings, or Avatars, with their mind – is fairly ingenious, the setting is suitably epic and the technology used to create what is undoubtedly the best looking CGI so far may well change how future blockbusters are produced. But despite all this, Avatar still manages to fall short of expectations.

This is partly down to the plot, which Liege Cameron insisted would win over initial scepticism, being so contrived. It’s that old future-humanity-has-exhausted-Earth’s-resources- so-is-invading-a-peaceful-planet-and-warring-with-the-indigeanous-populace chestnut (a climate change message so glaringly obvious it’d make the audience blind if it wasn’t for the funky 3D sunglasses), with a few sympathetic humans taking up the natives’ banner. Sympathetic human du jour is Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic former marine who is drafted into the Avatar programme, and under the instruction of chief meat-head Colonel Quaritch is sent to spy on the local Na’vi – a species of giant, blue cat-people that look vaguely like Angelina Jolie after she’s been smacked around with a frying pan. But it’s not long before he falls in love with the Na’vi princess, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), and the planet itself, causing him to turn on his own people and their reckless, greed-driven destruction of the planet (we get it Jim, global warming is bad). Essentially, Avatar is one Na’vi rendition of "Colours of the Wind" away from being Pocahontas in Space, which isn’t about to win over the thousands of keyboard-mashing sceptics that were Cameron’s target audience.

Neither will the characters, who are ironically two-dimensional considering Avatar is supposedly the benchmark for 3D cinema. It’s not that any of the supporting characters are particularly bad, they’re just never properly fleshed out, probably because there’s so much time spent on wide-frame panning shots of the planet’s undergrowth, which makes it a little difficult to muster up any sympathy when they start dropping like flies in the climactic final battle. Maybe they just wanted to get the boring human characters out of the way so they could introduce a greedy, six legged racoon in the sequel.

Still, the story of Avatar was never really the selling point, even if Tzar Cameron has convinced himself it is. It was the promise of the incredible new technology, which never fails to impress. As much as the endless shots of the planet’s environment detract from the story and its characters, they don’t half look good. Making this alien world and its creatures look entirely natural is a colossal achievement in itself. It’s safe to say that, if this is the future of CGI, then the future does look pretty damn awesome.

The 3D, however, still leaves a little to be desired, due largely to the restriction of cinema screens. The beautiful fluttering of insects or falling leaves is often cut short as it goes beyond the limits of the multiplex screen, and there was even a moment where the barrel of a gun poking into the audience was lopped off, probably poking out of the ceiling somewhere. Times like these make 3D look genuinely poor, and no arrow-flying-out-of-the-screen gimmick is going to compensate for that.

It goes without saying that Shah Cameron’s gajillion dollar masterpiece doesn’t live up to expectations. It’s an incredible visual achievement, one that may well go down in cinema history, but there’s precious little else to it. It might be worth seeing, if only for a glimpse of what blockbusters will look like for the next decade or so, but as a story it’s nothing you wouldn’t get from playing "Just Around the River Bend" over a Halo 3 cutscene while someone behind you shouts Lion-O quotes every five minutes. THUNDER CATS HO.

Film Review: TTS: New Moon

The latest in the deservedly popular Twilight Saga, New Moon, is a masterpiece of film-making, a near-perfect story of tumultuous young love that is brimming with sparkling special effects, incredible performances that exceed the young cast's fame, and subtle yet evocative symbolism, the likes of which we have not been treated to since Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. At least that's how most of the teenage girl population will see it, anyway. Anyone else unfortunate enough to be swept up by the phenomenal hype that has surrounded the latest entry in the Twilight Series' (I refuse to seriously call it “Saga” as that is synonymous with “Epic”) will likely be underwhelmed.

New Moon picks up where the first Twilight film left off with Bella and Edward (Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, as if you didn't already know) enjoying their respective lives and after-lives as the high school's awkward couple. It's all going relatively well, considering Edward's overpowering desire to eat her, until Bella gets a paper cut in a room full of blood-starved vampires. The youngest, Jasper, goes mental, lunging for Bella like a rabid dog that's just caught the whiff of a Pepperami, forcing Edward to leap to the rescue. Which he does in the most chivalrous of ways: by pushing Jasper into a piano and throwing Bella several feet into a wall. I can see how he makes girls swoon.

The experience sees a guilty Edward leave town, insisting he never belonged with Bella. Naturally, Bella responds by curling up like an angsty foetus, screaming herself to sleep and sitting in a chair for absolutely ages before she falls into the ridiculously huge arms of Jacob Black (he's a werewolf, by the way). And so the love triangle is born.

Then stuff just seems to stop happening. Oh sure, there are bits where Bella goes a bit suicidal or where Jacob goes all furry and eats that one black vampire from the last film, but it all feels like irrelevant filler between Edward leaving and Bella chasing him. Without Bella and Edward being together there isn't any point in the story because their love is the story; which I'm sure is something the writers are thrilled they managed to get across, but with Edward absent for most of the film that's a good hour and a bit where New Moon just drags on and on, with nothing really interesting really happening besides Jacob Black getting his kit off for no obvious reason. Not that many people in the cinema were complaining, mind.

But the big problem with New Moon isn't that nothing relevant happens for most of the film. It's Bella Swan, probably one of the most infuriatingly weak lead characters in the history of... pretty much everything. There's absolutely nothing endearing about her whatsoever - she's not funny, she's so absorbed in her own angst that she seems totally uncaring unless it's for something that will probably eat her, and she's got an annoying habit of screaming at the top of her lungs when said flesh-eating man beast isn't there to hold her hand. It doesn't help that Kristen Stewart is as utterly talentless as she is, failing to deliver even a half convincing line for the entire 130 minutes.

The love interests aren't much better. Taylor Lautner as Jacob Black stumbles through his lines like he's been caught in a foothold trap, while Robert Pattinson's undead dreamboat Edward Cullen is as bland as ever, although to be fair it's difficult to determine whether that's just the character or whether Pattinson is just a bit rubbish. At least if it's the latter his new forced moniker is appropriate. R Patzzzzzzzzzz.

Fortunately, New Moon’s supporting cast are every bit as good as the leads are bland and wrapped up in their own self-loathing. Ashley Greene is quirky and cheeky as the pint-sized Alice Cullen, ranking as the only likable character who doesn’t want to kill Bella. Then the slightly less friendly Volturi, an order of more conventional vampires led by the wonderfully camp and evil mind of Aro (Michael Sheen), steal the film in during their brief appearance.

While the Volturi may steal the show, they aren’t around long enough to save it. New Moon is a tedious, bland and altogether irrelevant chapter in the series that lacks any real focus until the dying moments. No question about this: avoid. It’s not worth the time or money regardless of how into the series you are. Just skip this one altogether and catch up on the awkward romance next year.

One plus for director Chris Weitz though: New Moon is probably little better than the Golden Compass was. Although saying that is kind of like handing Gillian McKeith a freshly-filled tuppaware tub and pointing out that it’s floating a little bit more than the last one you gave her.

What [person with nothing better to do in the mornings] watched last night

You know that little article next to TV listings in newspapers titled “What [bloke with incredibly easy job] saw last night”? I figured I'd start doing that since blogging about my everyday life was hardly stimulating writing, never mind reading. And tonight seems like as good a time as any to start.

Like most of the people who will probably end up reading this, it was that much-controversial episode of Question Time, which featured BNP leader Nick Griffin as one of the panelists, that was on the box last night. Although it seemed less of an intellectual, topical Q+A and more of a session in medieval stocks for Griffin, complete with peasants throwing rancid vegetables and calling him names.

I should probably get one thing straight before I continue; I don't like Nick Griffin, as a man or as a politician. I'm not defending him, his personal views or those of his party. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy watching him get a good verbal kicking in most other circumstances. But when it's coming from someone whose idea of wit is starting a sentence with “Dick, oh I'm sorry Nick” or a smug 12-year-old looking student with a blatantly massive stiffy for himself, it all gets a little tedious.

Besides the audience's juvenile insults and throwaway, self-satisfying lefty remarks making for rubbish television, isn't this is the sort of thing that has given the BNP a real hard-on in the past? No doubt they'll be using words like “injustice” and “undemocratic” to describe the audience's playground treatment of Griffin and they wouldn't be entirely unjustified in doing so. We may have given a far-right party with a history of racism a sympathy vote in exchange for a nob gag and a couple of smarmy comments. Superb.

That's not to say last night's Question Time was all bad. There were some good points made regarding the BNP's immigration policy (bricking up the UK-bound half on the channel tunnel and constructing a machine-gun nest on every beach) and Griffin's position on the panel - sitting to the right of a black woman - made unintentionally hilarious use of his lazy left eye as he seemingly kept a wary watch over her just in case she was concealing a tribal spear in her bandana. But other than that it was mostly forgettable; topics that should have been discussed – the BNP's current policies and the reasons for their recent rise to prominence – were largely ignored or were persistently dodged as panelists belted out years-old quotes to score easy points with the audience. In the end, the whole thing was utterly pointless.

Game Review: Halo 3: ODST

Apparently the fight isn't quite finished yet.

Originally intended as a small expansion for Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST seemed to have become so much more. It became a stand-alone game, midnight launches and release parties were announced, and they even surprised us with a brilliant live-action trailer. You'd have been forgiven for thinking all this hype was leading up to a potential game of the year, instead of an expansion with a few tweaks.

The obvious change is that Master Chief, the series' mascot, isn't the focal character. Instead you assume the role of an ODST (which stands for Orbital Drop Shock Trooper, something I'm ashamed to admit I knew before ODST was announced), who are slightly more tactical than the gravelly, seven-foot colossus. With the change in personnel comes a snazzy new HUD - referred to in the game as a VISR, that comes complete with a map, list of objectives and not-quite-night-vision – and health system, with both the recharging shield and a health bar. Both have been integrated fairly well, and help make for a more tactical shooter than Halo 3. A couple of new weapons have been included too: a scoped pistol to effectively deal with Grunts and a scoped SMG that is...a little superfluous, really.

The new character: Rookie. A nameless, faceless, armour clad space marine. So not new at all then, really.

Supposedly, the ODSTs aren't quite as capable as the Chief, and this has been reflected in some of the gameplay tweaks; you can't dual-wield weapons, you can't jump as high, and you can't turn a tank into scrap metal with a few well-aimed punches. But at the same time you can rip a turret from it's stand and knock out a Brute Chieftain with one deft smack. Clearly they (Bungie) have tried to make you feel like less of a super-soldier, but haven't quite pulled it off. Whether or not that's a bad thing is debatable; some fans might be disappointed at the lack of change, others won't because it doesn't detract one iota from the experience.

Campaign is the initial draw of Halo, although in ODST it's a little insubstantial, lasting maybe five or six hours, with most of that time will be spent wandering the streets of New Mombassa (the city that was invaded during Halo 2), in a darkened sandbox environment with little-to-no visibility. This was a nice idea but, while credit is due to Bungie again for experimenting with a long established formula, it's an experiment that doesn't really work. The environment itself isn't particularly interesting to explore; every street looks identical, and enemies are few and far between. The lack of visibility, while suitably atmospheric, makes it so that even if there was something vaguely interesting to see, you'd probably miss it anyway unless you were permanently squinting. Even the use of O'Donnel's beautifully composed score doesn't work in the sandbox; it's fine for wandering around but once you find a couple of enemies it's slow, depressing melody feels incredibly out-of-place in a fire fight. Unless you're a dedicated achievement hunter you probably won't want to spend much time exploring New Mombassa, as there's no real purpose to it besides bridging the gap between the more enjoyable missions.

These other missions offer a stark contrast to the drudgery of the New Mombassa streets. The environments are bright and diverse, ranging from wide open nature reserves to teetering crates high above the clouds, that not only make brilliant use of O'Donnel's score but really show off the newly polished engine. Enemies are never in short supply, allowing for the fast paced action we have always associated with Halo. There is a slight feeling of familiarity; for example the second mission, which has you careering through a nature reserve in a Warthog, feels very similar to the Halo 3 mission "Road To Voi". But they're no less enjoyable, some ranking up there with the better missions in the trilogy.

The views are no less spectacular than they were in Halo 3.

The campaign, then, is a mixed bag, alternating between some of the better missions of the series and the probably worst executed idea in it to date. But the multiplayer has always been Halo's main appeal - even after two years, Halo 3 still regularly attracts gamers in their hundreds of thousands – and ODST contributes to that with a whole new co-operative mode: Firefight.

In Firefight, up to four players work to kill oncoming waves of enemies that become stronger and more numerous as the game progresses; anyone who has played either Gears of War 2's Horde or Call of Duty: World at War's Nazi Zombie modes will feel right at home. It's a good mode with a nice variety of maps and, for the most part (a little more ammo would be nice), well thought out. Halo fans will undoubtedly be coming back for more time and time again, like they have been doing with both Halo 2 and Halo 3's multiplayer for the past five years. On the other hand, for everyone else who maybe dipped into Halo before moving onto something else, it probably won't have that lasting appeal.

That's a potential underlying problem with Halo 3: ODST; it's the definition of fan service. For Halo fans it's great, they'll all get their moneys worth by replaying the campaign for achievements, by getting together on Firefight every other night, and feeding their addiction to Halo 3's multiplayer with the three new maps. But if you're not a die-hard Halo fan you'll most likely be left wanting because, although ODST is decent, there's not enough to it, even with the ever-so-slight price cut.