Review: Dead Rising 2 (360)

Zombies with traffic cones stuck to their heads, others getting sliced in two, being burned alive, or just smashed in the face with a soft toy. Not so much of a surprise considering your proprietary aim throughout the whole of Dead Rising 2 is to kill, mame, and disfigure as many of the living dead as humanly possible whilst trawling through the Las Vega inspired Fortune City. It's a highly enjoyable experience at times, but not without elements of repetition, and some issues which make this sequel feel slightly hacked together at the last minute. But at least it's for the most part, still quite addictive.

Dead Rising 2 sticks firmly to the blueprint established by the first game. The missions are largely similar, the whole idea of picking up almost anything and using it as a weapon is almost the same, as is the never-ending onslaught of zombies, and familiar time-based structure, all which form an altogether familiar, but rather fun game.

However, with this sequel (or what feels like a retry of sorts) developer Blue Castle Games has improved on many of the flaws of the original. The save system has been slightly overhauled, the game’s use of time no longer penalises you for failing missions, and the ability to combine weapons together provides ample reason alone for mindlessly running around and bashing as many zombies as you can. It’s still not without some issues though, and the whole idea of levelling up and going back through the game can get decided boring, often pretty repetitive at times.


Now that isn’t always such a bad thing per-say, with the game’s sandbox nature giving you plenty of the same things to do. It’s just a question of whether you want to keep doing them. And that can be a pretty big ask. Though for the first few hours or so, you will definitely want to stay in Chuck Greene’s world turned upside down.

Roaming around the glamorously hellish paradise that is Fortune City, beating down loads of living rotting corpses with almost anything you can pick up is what you'll be doing most of the time. And there's plenty of items available at your disposal to do this. Nearly everything can be used; saw blades, baseball bats, axes, tables, chairs, plant pots, soft toys, etc. You name it and you can probably use it to deliver death to the undead. It can be a rather wildly enjoyable affair.

Of course you could do this before. But now you have the ability to combine various weapons together into making a custom death-delivering machine, or just a push broom with shotgun on the end of it. Did someone say ‘boomstick’ anyone? All objects that are identified with a wrench icon can be combined with another item. Usually this still has to make some kind of logical sense; such as a water pistol combined with a gasoline canister becoming a flamethrower, and so on. The fact that you have such a huge range (nearly unlimited claims Capcom) of items at your disposal keeps this whole idea from going stale. But also another reason for backtracking your way all over Fortune City.

You’ll be doing a lot of that too whilst in the world of Dead Rising. This sequel, like with the original, has a hard time limit in which to complete the game, and is backed up by a shallow, but mildly compelling storyline.


After being framed for the recent zombie outbreak in Fortune City, our new hero Chuck Green (bye bye Frank West) has only 72 hours in which to clear his name, and find enough Zombrex (an expensive medicine) to keep his daughter from turning into a zombie before the military arrive. To make matters worse, the whole place is quarantined off as well.

After initially escaping to safety from new zombie infestation, you find yourself holed up in a safehouse in the centre of another shopping complex, and it’s from here where you’ll be stepping out into the world, killing lots and lots of things, whilst running rescue missions and helping stranded survivors.

The story establishes the time limit, and throughout the game every mission you do is also timed, taking a chunk out of the whole 72 hours you have. Multiple missions are radioed to you from the save house, and usually run concurrently with each other, meaning that you’ll often have to decide which ones you have time to do, and which ones to let go. Even if you don’t choose a particular mission they still expire, so juggling between them is reasonably important.


However, it is impossible to complete every mission, every side-quest, and to see and do everything the first time around. Instead, the game has been designed for multiple playthroughs, with some challenges requiring you to be significantly levelled up in order to complete them. Also, some missions can only be successfully taken on with good time management. On subsequent re-plays you should have a greater understanding of where things are, and which missions can be done at the same time before returning to the safe house.

In DR2 it is also possible to fail missions, even major ones, without much in the way of punishment. You can even let Katey die if you want to. The result is that the game’s eventual ending changes, and you are left with a few shallow, but mildly perplexing moral dilemmas. In any case it’s a far better system than the one in the first Dead Rising, in which failure could often lead back to the beginning of the game. Now, you can choose when you want to start up from day one again, fully powered up and ready to go.


Aiding with Dead Rising 2’s far more forgiving game design, comes a tweaked save system. In DR2 there a now a handful of bathrooms in which to save. And you can choose to use them, and thus save your game at any point in time, mid-mission or otherwise. Of course balancing out this increase in chances to savage your progress comes the cleaver design of positioning save points often at ends with where you have to go for your main missions. This means that you’ll have to make a choice to either: carry on until the next intended save point. Or: fight your way through more hordes of the undead to reach a bathroom.

Both choices are filled with similar dangers, and neither represents a truly easy option. Getting to a save point when having to stroll off the intended mission path also loses you valuable time, meaning that it’s more likely that you’ll have to play through the game again to make up for any missions you might have missed. But the idea, and implementation is sound. Still, the giving the player a firm choice makes for a fairer overall experience than in the original Dead Rising.


A fair amount of the game (read: most) simply sees you going from point A to point B, picking up stranded survivor and helping them back to the safe house, maybe follow up on a the next case objective in between, or at the same time, whilst killing, bludgeoning, and dealing as much punishment as possible to as many of the undead you can in the allotted time limit.

Along the way you will also encounter a few boss battles – usually either powered up super zombies, or crazed humans looking to stake their claim. But in what exactly, I’m not sure. They’re challenging to beat, to say the least. And you’ll often die initially, having comeback a little later on, levelled up and armed to the teeth in order to finally take them down.

Thankfully, as you should have spent at least a few hours roaming and killing plenty of what you see, accumulating more in the way of weaponry, and increasing your health and strength, then these encounters shouldn’t prevent you from progressing for too long. Instead they simply reaffirm the fact that the game wants to be played over and over again, and that you should have far more fun in completing it if you go about it this way.


Unfortunately, the game’s long loading times make constant backtracking and exploration a somewhat tiring experience. Fairly long loading screens occur when venturing into different areas of Fortune City, and in between cut-scenes, breaking up the action considerably. These are pretty lengthy and make each area feel disconnected from the last. In particular, it feels like you are simply going through a series of separate levels set in the same place while carrying over any weapons and items you happen to find along the way.

Although it is understandable why these occur from a technical perspective (especially when moving from area to area), one can’t help but wonder why Blue Castle Games could have used pre-recorded in-engine cinematics for the cut-scenes instead, thus reducing the amount of times the game needs to load. But as it stands, with all too frequent occurrences, they simply disrupt the flow of action and prevent you from really becoming immersed in the world that has been created.


At least its a world that you can share this time around.

For those of you who might somehow tire of the experience when going it alone, you’ll be pleased to find that the developers have also introduced a story mode co-op option for Dead Rising 2. This sees both players taking control as Chuck Greene, albeit in different outfits, battling hundreds of zombies, and performing all the same tasks as you would in the standard solo story. Although in cut-scenes only one version of Chuck is ever present - the host’s character always takes president.

The use of co-op works well for the most part, however is let down by some peculiar issues with the game’s save system in this mode. For example, when playing I found that only the host could actually save their story progress – the guest player only saves their level, which is extremely frustrating. Especially frustrating in fact, when you consider that your zombie kill counter is reset every time you choose to return. In addition when one player saves their progress, the other is unceremoniously booted from the game, thus having to rejoin with the host again.

A few annoying niggles aside, playing through the game in co-op is a great way for both players to level their characters up, whilst also exploring all Fortune City has to offer. In particular, picking up new items, customising weapons, and then trying them out on the nearest group of flesh eaters in lieu of completing the actual story is great fun, whilst also allowing you to learn the layout of the game and its many nuances before you do things proper on your own.


Taken as a variety of individual experiences, Dead Rising 2 can seem to be rather repetitive and rather mundane. However, combine the time spent mashing up zombies, whilst performing various escort missions, and investigating the shady goings on in Fortune City, it becomes strangely compelling.

The storyline even manages to deliver a few Romero-esque moments of political jousting, often criticising the sometimes selfish and voyeuristic nature of man. But at the same time it knows never to take itself too seriously. Protests against the mis-treatment of the undead is at odds with exactly what the game wants you to be doing – killing as many as possible. And definitely adds a comedic touch to the premise as it unfolds. That, along with the many colourful, and downright stereotypical characters you will meet along the way.


However, Dead Rising 2 isn’t for everyone. And while as many people are likely to be enthralled with the constant carnage on offer, equally as many will be turning away in boredom after only a few hours. What keeps things enjoyable though, is the unique mix of humour, likeable characters, and viscerally gory action.

The fun that comes with finding, and indeed making new combinations of weapons, before then trying them out on the nearest walking corpse is actually just as good as it sounds, while at the same time most of the complaints surrounding the first game have been completely resolved. And although a few cuts have also been made; you can no longer take photos of your bloodiest work whilst running around Fortune City. Plus the game’s frame rate regularly takes a dive, resulting in quite laggy controls. These problems aren’t enough to tarnish what is a mostly entertaining, though rather samey experience.

VERDICT: 8/10

Eurogamer Expo: The Kinect Report

When reading various forum posts by avid gamers you get the impression that many people seem to want Kinect to fail, whilst many industry journalists tend to brush over the obvious issues with the device in the hope that the final experience will be on par with what they have been promised.

Complaints usually centre on the high levels of latency and inaccurate pointer tracking, both of which make the whole experience a rather flawed one. And while this is in fact very true, I can’t hep but feel that at least some have forgotten about the fun factor - the reason we actually gather round and play these things in the first place. Because whether or not Kinect actually works technologically as it should – which it doesn’t at the moment, at least not consistently – there’s no denying that the software can be incredibly enjoyable to play, especially for the casual crowd, in which latency is just another tech buzzword being thrown around in another write-up of the device.

That’s not to say Kinect’s lack of precision and pin-point accuracy doesn’t put a downer on things, because it clearly does. It does affect the gameplay, and it does reduce the feeling of immersion you get from almost being in the game.


Some experiences fare better than others. Kinect Sports for example, does in most of its games provide decent, and reasonably accurate full body tracking. Sure, there is noticeable latency, and the game does make allowances to compensate for the users actions in accordance with its own somewhat limited physics system. But it also delivers a more in-depth experience than anything the Wii has to offer in terms of similar software.

Compared to the PlayStation Move however, it feels like a backwards step. Sony’s motion control solution has completely proven itself with regards to featuring 1:1 accuracy with low latency precision. Kinect on the other hand, even now just over a month away from release, still has much to prove. And a load of promises, and conceptual gameplay ideas to deliver on.

The likes of Volleyball and Table Tennis in Kinect Sports actually shows some of that promise in the device. They’re both very fun to play, and feature pretty accurate tracking of your movements.


Table Tennis stood out more in this regard being comparative to its PlayStation Move counterpart in Sony’s Sports Champions. Latency was clearly higher of course, and like for like precision definitely seemed paired back in comparison. However, it wasn’t as far off as I originally expected. And using your entire body in combination with just your arm for movement and positioning seemed slightly more natural for me. Reaction time and accuracy was clearly reduced compared to the Move, and a lot of the time the tracking wasn’t as smooth or quite as precise as it could have been. Controlling the paddle in Table Tennis on the Move showed how much better the tracking was in Sony’s solution.


The same could be said about Beach Volleyball, in which your actions don’t always translate well into real-world physics in the game environment. The downside: It felt like the game was slightly on rails, slightly more in control than it should be. And the upside: It was both easy to get into and pretty enjoyable to play. Though, it remains to be seen how much depth each experience provides. However, this is something we won’t find out until the device actually comes into homes, away from controlled demonstrations, and limited playtests.


The worst game I played at the event for sure was Joyride. There’s very little to the experience as a whole. You play the game standing up, like with other Kinect titles, so there is no way in which to accelerate or to brake – the game does both for you. Instead all you do is steer your car around the track using both hands held out like you would when holding a steering wheel. Hardly inspiring, and overly simplistic. Occasionally you get the opportunity to boost, in which case you hold both arms close to your chest, and then thrust them forward in unison to activate it. You can also grab bonus items by reaching out to the sides whilst racing, and that’s about it.

Latency was noticeably higher than in Kinect sports, with there being a unmistakable amount of delay between your actions, and seeing them represented on screen. Whilst this may be understandable given the complexity of the full body tracking involved, and the processing required to pull it off, it was clearly apparent that most of the software just didn’t do it all that well. Joyride being one of the worst offenders.


Of course, Kinect isn’t aimed at the core gaming market. It’s currently aimed at the casual audience. And for them I think that it will work quite nicely. There’s no question that the amount of latency may be quite frustrating for some – think Motion Plus enabled Tiger Woods on the Wii and you have some idea of what I’m talking about - and that will definitely spill over into the people MS is aiming Kinect at. Though it certainly won’t be the be all and end all of the discussion.

Saying that the software on test at the EG Expo was clearly work in progress. Whilst I was surprised that Kinect was quick to scan in additional players, I was also disappointed to see how slow and inaccurate using your arm as a pointer was. It’s downright buggy at this point. In game things were noticeably better in all the titles I tried, though at this point in time, polish definitely needs to be made with regards to the smoothness in the overall body tracking, with less in the way of pre-scripted movements representing your actions on screen.

Disappointingly, nothing has really changed on the software side in nearly two years since the Kinect was first unveiled, since it turned from being a cool design idea into a workable reality.

The overall latency is still the same, and the errors in tracking are still unresolved. The only real difference is that Microsoft seems to have lost much of its initial imagination with regards to planned software for the device. This appears to have happened in conjunction with the reduction of tech powering Kinect. The lack of internal processing capabilities in the device, and a lowering in camera resolution does seemed to have limited what is really possible, to the point that many of the originally extensive, and rather creative experiences once planned are just no longer viable.

Saying that, software is still rampantly being worked on, having last minute touches added before release. Plus what we have here is just the first batch of titles taking a stab at using the technology. If it is indeed true what developers have recently said; that it’s squarely down to the software, more so than the actually hardware (though a little at odds with what we know about how the Kinect actually works), then things should change for the better with second and third generation games. I wouldn’t expect hardcore types experiences like Gears Of War and Halo however, as they would need a Nunchuck or Navigation Controller style add-on to work. But certainly something more fully featured than what we are seeing now.

Ultimately, the very nature of how Kinect works limits its potential compared to the PlayStation Move, which is not only considerably more accurate, but is obviously more versatile as well. Though it will no doubt over time find its footing with specific genre types, and different kinds of experiences outside the traditional ones expected, it has much to prove before it lives up to expectation. That is, if more developers actually get creative when working on new software for the device. Rather than dishing out the same old stuff the Wii crowd is beginning to tire of.


The one area in which Kinect currently does succeed is fun. However you feel about the latency, or mixed results of early body tracking, you can’t argue that although bizarre, and at times rather pointless, it still brings something mildly enjoyable to the table. Maybe Kinect isn’t the deepest motion control experience around, being initially quite shallow. But some of the games are in fact very fun to play, and will no doubt bring both friends and family together for some loose and decidedly non-serious gaming sessions.

I’m willing to bet that this will be one of the most popular things in gaming this Christmas. It’s different enough from the Wii in order to make it interesting, and not bad enough to be utterly forgettable. Despite not living up to it’s initial claims of truly ‘making you the controller’, and delivering on the promise of having new innovative experiences, it is far from the disaster many people on forums are making out it out to be.

Review: Halo: Reach

Each instalment of the Halo series has both divided and polarised the hearts and minds of gamers across the globe. It’s had many ups and downs, minor miss-steps, and incredible triumphs, but most of all, it defined a generation of console first person shooters, for better or worse, with the original Halo perhaps being the most highly regarded. So with that in mind, Halo Reach seems like a fitting end to the series by going right back to the very beginning, a conclusion that is the catalyst for all that has gone by, and all that is yet to come to past, even if it can never live up to the expectation of being called the greatest Halo ever.

Halo Reach tells the story of mankind’s first large scale conflict with the Covanent on planet Reach; the legendary training ground for the elite Spartan soliders and the iconic Master Chief himself. For those who haven’t read the books, it’s a battle which turns into a massacre, a disaster zone in which mass genocide, chaos and utter obliteration ensues. The tale of Reach is supposed to be a sombre, desperate one, connecting with the series more naturalistic, human side, whilst also setting the stage for that memorable first encounter on the original Halo ring that brought the series into the limelight.

But despite going back to the series beginnings it never feels like a homage title to the first game. Instead it crafts out its own unique feel and iconic legacy that ensures that it stands out from past instalments, whilst also bringing something new, and somewhat fresh to the table. Well, just about.


In-keeping with the game’s story and planetary settings, Halo: Reach feels far more organic than its predecessors. Both the music and the art design reflect an earthy tone underpinning the whole experience, whilst staying true to the series trademark, minimalist, almost contemporary, sci-fi roots. However the game also never quite achieves its heartfelt intentions, with both the storyline and characterisation being paper thin, and the cut-scenes simply doing very little to flesh out the apparent horrors of war being faced by the cast and planet Reach.

Touching down on the planet’s surface for the first time, shortly before engaging in your first close quarter’s encounter, it’s pretty clear that this isn’t Halo: CE. In fact Reach is actually quite different from past Halo games (being more like ODST than 2 or 3), cleverly integrating nearly a decades worth of upgrades, gameplay tweaks, and AI developments into its campaign. The familiarity of the series is there, and the overall feel rests somewhere between that of Halo 3 and ODST, but with the finer balance and finesse associated with the original game. Dual Welding is out, with the heavy firing assault rife, and the impacting pistol with the zoom sight going back in.


Throughout Reach you’ll be playing as Noble 6; a nameless, faceless new addition to the Noble Team of Spartan soldiers sent in to defined Reach against the growing alien invasion. You are in effect a clean slate, something in which to blueprint your own personality onto. At first this makes your part in the whole conflict feel a little soulless, but at the same time it is exactly the reason why Bungie decided to go with a faceless, nameless hero like Masterchief (it’s simply a military rank) in the first place. It’s your fellow comrades, which provide the game’s light semblance of humanity and character. And by that, I mean human character, and not that of the environment and enemies.

Unlike ODST, the game never gets bogged down with personal stories. Here, your only concern is Reach, and defending it from a sneaky alien invasion. Sure, each member of your squad has his or hers own distinct personality, but they never take centre stage. Although at times the game takes itself far too seriously. That said it is a vastly superior take on the ideas first explored in ODST, despite the fact that they are not explored quite enough given the underpinning subject matter. Characters that you feel like you are getting to know are killed-off almost as soon as they begin to stand out, and the whole start-to-finish story of planetary annihilation is paced far to quickly for any meaningful effect.

But then again this is Halo, and with the exception of the convoluted story behind Halo 2, the series has never been one to mince words, instead simply providing the basis for more thirty-second action, with a few set-pieces in between.


Onto the actual gameplay, and Reach presents the player with the classic Assault Rife and Pistol combo. A familiar sight for anyone who’s been with the series since the begging, and a welcome return to what many fans were calling their favourite weapons combination.

However, these aren’t exactly as you remember. Anyone looking to lay waste to an Elite by emptying a whole clip from their assault rife, before smacking them in the face using the but end of the thing, be warned. The powered up Spartan favourite has been balanced out accordingly, with a stock of Covenant weapons providing much-needed grunt on occasions where the human weapons fail. Plus, those nasty Elite’s are even nastier, tougher and more relentless than ever. But it’s not just them. Hunters are equally difficult, if not more so to eradicate, so you’ll be wanting to keep some sort of Covantent weaponry handy in order to take down their shields before going in for the kill.

Saying that, both signature weapons from the first game still feel rather aggressive, and several well-aimed, well-timed, blasts in combination with a melee attack will still reward those with a quick and gracious kill. The DMR – Reach’s replacement for the battle rife – is easily one of the best, providing ample damage, and a nice short-range zoom facility. If not, then sniper rifles and grenades put up a formidable fight against the alien’s powerful oversheilds, as does your armour abilities, protecting you when all else fails, which when used correctly evens things out a little.


Armour abilities now stay with you throughout the campaign, like with normal weapons, and can be swapped out at certain points in the game. Unlike before, they are all multiple use, relying on a small gauge found to the bottom left of the screen. It only takes a few seconds to fill back up after use. Some abilities, like the jetpack, and the sprint can be used in smaller increments giving you more control over how you want to use them. They’re inclusion in Reach seems far more deliberate, largely more useful than in Halo 3, and represent another balanced improvement on the Spartan side of the arsenal.

On the other hand, some of the Covenant weapons feel a little bit more useless than before. The needler in particular has seen a subtle downgrading in power, no longer being the series alien alternative to the pistol – its still one of the best though, still fully functional in the right hands. Whilst new additions like the concussion rifle and focus rifle are largely pointless, and act as a poor alternative to their human developed counterparts, if of course they actually have one. Case in point, the somewhat disappointing needle rife, comparatively less effective than the standard sniper rifle.

However, it’s not all bad. The plasma pistol becomes a deadly weapon for taking down Brute’s shields, and the quick firing, but reasonably powerful plasma repeater can break through an Elite’s armour in just a few shots - more so than either the Spartan pistol or assault rife. These provide a far greater balance between power and firing speed, being thoroughly effective weapons for dealing with most, but not all of the Covenant threat. Also, when used in combination with the less unusual human arsenal a few key weapons really come into their own, clearly affirming the human/covanent strategy that seems built for the game.


And strategy, albeit at a break-neck, split second pace is exactly what you’ll need, seeing as Bungie have laid down the gauntlet with some initially impressive enemy AI. Before, particularly in Halo 3 and ODST, it always seemed that every enemy (minus the grunts of course) was permanently on full testosterone, aggression duty. But not anymore.

The AI is still rather aggressive, although it now shifts depending directly on how you approach the situation, and how the odds sway during battle. It’s nothing revolutionary, with the whole thing basically coming down to: retreat, flank, attack, reposition, and then repeat again. But it’s the way it is done that commands your attention. AI patterns are always varied, usually interesting, and always make for a thoroughly entertaining, if not occasionally frustrating shootout experience.

Of course, if you want to pick holes, then you could say that most of the game’s seemingly intelligent enemies are used as a smokescreen for some basic AI routines, which are pretty easily exploited. The Elite’s in particular, can be made to do what you want by firing off shots on either side, and by positioning yourself in a way that constantly makes them want to attack you directly.


Using this kind of gameplay approach evens out some of your limitations. In Reach your overshield takes a lot longer to recharge than in Halo 3 or ODST, and while it is down you are even more vulnerable to taking damage than before. A single blast from a Grunt’s plasma pistol can instantly take down your shield if impacting head-on, and a few smaller, quick blasts can sap out your health just as fast. Rushing in is now no longer an option. Instead you now have to play it safe: a cat and mouse game of strafing, backing away, before rushing in for a briefly surprising counter-attack.

The gameplay then, feels different than before, almost more like an extension of the system found in ODST than in Halo 2 or 3, and very different to the one found in the original. Despite this Halo Reach feels very much like the game Halo 2 should have been, particularly when it comes to its visual style, and the more grounded, earthly nature of the environments so beautifully depicted throughout. Reach feels like earth, and one stage later on in the game looks like a direct homage to the opening level in the unfinished, canned original build of Halo 2. A nice nod to the fans there.


Somewhat disappointing is the size and scope of some of the battles, or rather the lack of. Bungie promised us ones that were meant to be huge. Epic, in fact, perfectly setting the tone for the eventual end of Reach. However, what we have been given is largely the same size battles as in Halo 3, maybe bolstered with a few more Grunts and one or two Elites. Most of the Epic scale stuff is contained within the cut-scenes, and the on-rails portions of the game, giving you only a brief look at the wider picture of the conflict potentially on offer here.

In the end the Campaign mode of Halo: Reach sticks to exactly what the series is known for: a close 30 seconds of intense shooting fun, never deviating from that blueprint, or attempting to add anything else to the proceedings. Thankfully, the scenery in the game is beautiful, with stunning mountain ranges, large wide-open vistas, and stark industrial complexes, complemented with a lavishly implemented graphical upgrade. You can read about it in detail here, and here in our tech analysis if you really want to know the details, but suffice to say that Reach finals comes out back on top with regards to its once high-end visual status.


Despite a few issues, and some ups and downs, the campaign in Reach is perhaps the most iconic that the series has seen since the original Halo. Pretty much every stage through the game was as memorable and as pleasing to see as the last. Perhaps all except the final few stages, in which things get very dark, and very gritty. The campaign is also a lot more consistent throughout. Whereas the first half of Halo: CE was clearly the best part of the game, Reach manages to keep things moving forward for longer, even if what’s here does feel a little tired, like you’ve been treading old ground over for the umpteenth time. And in essence you have, since this is yet another Halo title.

Outside of the Campaign Mode Halo Reach’s Multiplayer is slightly less fresh, and more overly familiar. Its no less good because of that though, and basically culminates in bringing together all the upgrades and tweaks that we’ve seen over the years in one finely refined package.


I’m sure some people will complain about the various weapon changes that have taken place (the slight downgrading of the pistol for example), they always do. Although weapon balance in itself is as good as it has ever been, and the new additions – some initially bizarre and in effective, others particularly outrageous – allow for plenty of variety and intricate mastery to take place.

It is the modes and maps however, that really defines just how good the game’s multiplayer will be. And in this respect Reach perhaps is as good, but not blindingly better than past titles, although not without the feeling that a few more classic stages wouldn’t go a miss, and that there really should be more outdoors, blue skies content for your killing needs. Then again, with Bungie promising further support by the way of downloadable content, it’s not a terribly large issue. Stuff like Bloodgultch has seen another return which is nice, although not many people seem to be picking it.


Making their way back for this latest, and last instalment in the series, from Halo 3 and ODST, we have both Forge World, and Firefight. Both have seen a range of tweaks and upgrades, mainly in allowing for more customisation and control over what the player can do.

Firefight in particular has seen some interesting inclusions in the way of customisable features called Files. Files can be created by both players and the developer, and basically consist of fixed, custom match set-ups. Things like enemy types, weapons, and more can all be set, mixing things up from the usual match options via the use of the series infamous Skulls. Player created files can be uploaded onto Xbox Live, and then Downloaded by other players to try out. Amongst these is one made by the developers themselves, allowing players to easily gain all the available achievements in this mode. Nice!

Forge World allows you to move around large parts of the scenery in real-time with other players, giving the option for more finite customisation of various game types whilst making traditional maps almost unrecognisable. It’s here that all new takes on classic game types can be made, and bizarre twists on initially balanced maps can be turned upside down for all to see. Far more impressive is the fact that you can work with other players in crafting the stage, thus bringing a real community feel throughout the whole process.


Classic modes like Team Slayer and King Of The Hill make their successful return, as does Capture The Flag and plain old Slayer, much to the delight of many fans, and especially myself with the inclusion of classic slayer, although its inclusion is somewhat overshadowed by endless twists on the formula. Many traditional modes have been beefed up with new twists, and a wider range of variety when in matchmaking. Sometimes it can be quite hard to just play one single style of game type over short’ish sessions, with a distinct lack of control over what you can and cannot play.

Quite why I cannot set-up a matchmaking option where I just choose one game type with no variations is, in this day and age, rather disappointing, and a somewhat major oversight to an otherwise solid matchmaking system. However, having a system like this encourages players to try out other modes, which is obviously a good thing, and prevents the online community from feeling stale from simply playing similar games.

New modes like Invasion sets up two teams against each other, one playing as the Spartans and the other as Covenant Elite’s, with each side trying to capture the other ones turf in a series of simple objectives. Whilst Stockpile sees players accumulate skulls upon each kill with their aim to deliver them to the drop off point before getting killed themselves. Invasion adds a touch of teamwork and strategy to the proceedings, while Stockpile often descends into madness, arguably being almost as fun as Team Slayer on many occasions.


In the end Halo: Reach’s multiplayer is once again the backbone of the game, not only propping up the single-player Campaign mode, but also being the needle-injection of addictiveness the series is known for. The vast range of game types and different takes on these is impressive, and the inclusion of Firefight matchmaking is a big plus. Although, the lack of being able to either, start matchmaking custom games, or simply one type of selected game (like Classic Slayer) is pretty disappointing. You can of course do this via individual player invites, but it would have been nice to be able to do this with all players as well.

Perhaps the only other issue is that the whole thing feels a little too familiar and samey overall. Halo 2 brought the series multi-player into the limelight, and it could be argued that Halo 3 ODST vastly elevated it, while Reach tries to perfect it, albeit with strong but also mixed results. Multiplayer, like with the single player Campaign can never be everything to everyone, although Reach does provide the best overall social slaughterfest the series has seen to date, regardless of whether or not the maps you so love are or aren’t included.

On the flipside Bungie have promised to update the game periodically, including tweaks and changes to modes and matchmaking options, and like always, with a string of new maps, making this a progressive experience rather than a final one.


When it comes down to the crunch, Halo Reach is still quite possibly the best game in the series, although it doesn’t always feel that way. It may not be quite as iconic as the first, and the single player campaign isn’t quite as expertly structured, but in terms of the whole package it is pretty much as good as you were ever going to get.

Bungie have brought the series back full circle, without reinventing the wheel, or even delivering some of the changes expected from a series that has been going for so long. It does however, provide another enjoyable slice of first-person shooting action, which although feels a little too samey, holds up far better up against Halo: CE than any of its past sequels has ever done, especially with regards to the Campaign. That said, I think that the series has finally run its course, and that Reach could be described as a reasonably good, often excellent, fitting finale to the series as a whole.

The real question though, is whether or not it was really worth waiting nearly a decade for. And sadly, that answer is obviously a decidedly firm no. Instead, I’d perhaps describe Halo: Reach as the game that Halo 2 should have been, but nearly ten years too late, with loads of tweaks and upgrades, a far better campaign, and more than a touch of unwanted over-familiarity.

VERDICT: 8/10

Tech Analysis: Halo Reach - Final Game Update

Up until now, the Halo series on the Xbox 360 has always been somewhat lacking in the graphics department. Halo 3 ruthlessly cut back on the high levels of image quality and texture detail expected from a title this generation in order to include what was, and is still, arguably the most advanced HDR lighting solution we’ve seen in any game so far. Whilst ODST merely added a brief lick of paint to the proceedings, upping the quality of the texture filtering slightly, and bringing in a post process blur effect to smooth out the upscaled framebuffer.

For Halo: Reach Bungie have completely gone back to the drawing board, stripping out, and rewriting most of the engine with alarming success. So much so, that the game now ranks as one of the prettiest on the 360 – no meant feat when considering the series dwindling reputation for graphical prowess.

We first took a look at the tech behind Reach in our analysis of the Beta way back in May. But now, as we blast our way through the final game, we take an updated look at the title, now focussing on the Campaign and the drastic graphical upgrades that are apparent over the ones originally seen in the game’s impressive range of multiplayer modes.


Now while multiplayer in Reach looks pretty much identical to the Beta version – still representing a true current-generation look over Halo 3 and ODST- it’s absolutely nothing compared to the visual majesty of the Campaign mode. Here the game ramps up its graphical polish considerably; textures are noticeably more detailed, bump-mapping has been expanded and hugely refined in the process, the full range of Bungie’s trademark HDR solution is not only evident, but also combined successfully with a new, real-time, dynamic lighting system, complete with baked shadow maps and much improved use of local lights (like in the beta each projectile has its own light source).

Furthermore, you’ve also got improved smoke and particle effects, which don’t appear to be rendered using vastly lower res alpha buffers. In fact both of these effects have been expanded with far more in the way of alpha transparencies than before. Plus, adding to this is a range of impressive post process effects; including object-based motion blur, and different screen distorting filters, used in varying scenarios throughout the game.

Most of these have been seen before in the multiplayer beta, just not quite to the level on offer in the Campaign mode – and that includes the online co-op campaign as well.


The title’s use of SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion) – previously only used for indoor areas of the beta – can now seen in both inside and outside spaces accordingly, adding an extra layer of depth to the scene and its already high-end approach to lighting.

Evidence of this is very subtle however, although you can definitely tell that its there when seeing the game running in real-time. The most obvious places where it appears are near buildings and bespoke areas of scenery. The look that the effect provides is reasonably recognisable, if not also a little inconspicuous at times in Reach.


Amongst all the accomplishments, there is one compromise. In order to conserve on bandwidth the game does use an A2C blend on foliage. As you may be aware this is a process of rendering certain alpha effects in an interlaced-style, half-res manner, but without simply downing the overall resolution of the buffer.

The effects can be seen in the screenshot below. Just about. For most of Reach the usual side effect of using A2C (dithering and a screen door look) is largely inconspicuous unless you actually go look out for it. And when you do, you’ll se that the effect is far better implemented than in most other games that use it.

Thankfully, you’ll find that it is only the foliage that suffers from this; other key visual elements like water and fire are rendered in full resolution using proper alpha blending – none of that low res stuff there.


Outside of the additional polish applied to the game’s use of visual effects and advanced rendering make up, the basic framebuffer and method of anti-aliasing remains the same as the Beta.

Halo Reach renders in in 1152x720 for both single and multiplayer modes, and uses a custom form of temporal anti-aliasing, though the effect is most visible on static objects. The reduced horizontal resolution, and use of a non-standard form of anti-aliasing is required for the game’s framebuffer to fit into the 360’s 10MB of EDRAM without the need for titling.

Effectively, using regular 2xMSAA would mean that parts of the frame would have to be broken up and rendered using tiles, which results in an additional geometry processing cost due to the large amount of triangles needing to be rendered multiple times across different tiles – not helpful in maintaining performance, whilst also taking up more in the way of overall memory outside the FB.

Instead Bungie’s custom solution works extremely well, and just about fits into the tight memory constraints given to the framebuffer by the machine.

However the use of the temporal AA solution does have some drawbacks. For one, only objects that are static get the majority of AA. And this mostly disappears immediately when you start moving – some AA is still present, just not as effective. Plus none of the 2D, sprite-based foliage gets any edge smoothing either, making some jaggies apparent regardless of whether the AA is working or not. In reality however, this seldom makes a large difference at all, with the game’s use of post processing effects (like motion blur) keeping the overall image clean and smooth.

The temporal AA also has some odd, but extremely subtle side effects. For example, there are times when only parts of the screen receive any AA. Though this is only visible on a frame-by-frame basis (not during actual gameplay), and doesn’t happen all the time. Well-trained eyes can see the bizarre occurrence in the screenshot below.


Another is a blurring, or rather what looks like ghosting of the image while fast sideways movements or sharp turns occur. In still frames you can notice what looks like a double image, but with no AA. This is basically caused by the way Bungie’s AA solution actually works. Two separate frames are combined to form the anti-aliased image, although a successful blend only happens in still scenes due to a time delay between both frames being blended. The result: the aforementioned double image ghosting that manifests itself in these situations.

However this particular issue now only seems to affect the surrounding environment, and not the weapon you are holding. Other than that it is exactly the same as in the beta, and can be found in both multiplayer and the campaign mode of Reach.


Performance wise, Halo Reach is pretty impressive, enabling an almost constant use of v-sync and hardly ever deviating from its targeted 30fps update. However, there are times when the game does drop frames quite badly, and this is perhaps the biggest discrepancy between both the Campaign mode and the multiplayer.

In multiplayer, like the beta, reach holds to an almost constant 30fps with only very minor, small deviations in performance. Screen tearing is also kept to a bare minimum, practically never occurring at all. Campaign mode however, is a largely different story.

Interestingly, this mode is also v-synced, pretty much solidly so. And this can, and will on occasion severely impact on performance. Like with the multiplayer, and the beta, Campaign mode runs at 30fps for most of the time, only dropping frames in the most strenuous of situations. Small dips happen here and there, but nothing but the slightest blip. Until, that is, all hell breaks loose.

In the first encounter you have in the game, the framerate drops below the 20fps mark, becoming a temporary slideshow. While this is all going on your sense of control is adversely affected; latency spirals, and all attempts at getting a steady aim go out the window. It’s hardly the best of starts, and would be a rather constant annoyance if it wasn’t for the fact that examples like these are few and far in between.

Quite why these occasional, heavy dips in performance weren’t optimised out is unknown to me – when they happen they’re worse than anything Halo 3 had to offer in this regard. Perhaps Bungie thought it best to try and maintain v-sync as best they could in these types of situations. Although in practice, having a little screen tearing is better than a large increase in latency in the middle of battle, and that’s without the intrusive eradication of a smooth framerate.

Despite this Halo: Reach performs incredibly well, with very little in the way of large overall framerate drops, and almost no screen tearing in either the campaign or multiplayer modes.


Cut-scenes fair a little differently though, with Bungie freely upping the level of detail on characters and objects safe in the knowledge that performance can be more tightly controlled. And in that respect, with the additional load that it is pushing, does so quite admirably, though not without faltering slightly.

In many of the game’s real-time cinematics tearing was clearly visible across the entire screen, with different tears appearing on screen for different lengths, and the frame rate also took quite a few steady dips below the 30fps mark. On some occasions the framerate drops I witnessed were almost as bad as those in the minus 20fps sections of the single-player campaign. However, as the action isn’t controllable the effect it has on the game is far less important.

Ultimately, what IS important, is that the game performs smoothly for the majority of the time with only minor dips here and there. And in that sense Bungie have succeeded with Halo: Reach. What’s even more impressive is that the developers have been able to do this whilst upping the game’s framebuffer resolution, along with stringing out more intensive graphical effects, all the while still including their trademark HDR lighting system without compromising it.

On top of that you’ve got the inclusion of SSAO, a mix of dozens of dynamic light sources perfectly complementing the use of plain old, baked light and shadow maps, and a mildly tweaked version of their custom temporal AA solution. All of this manages to not only be rendered in a final framebuffer image which fits into the 360’s EDRAM, but also a game that from both a visual, and a tech perspective, is right up there with the best titles on the system.

The debate on whether Reach is the best Halo game yet is still ongoing – I myself still prefer Halo: CE’s campaign to this one’s so far – although the undeniable fact that it is by far the best looking is not.

For the first time in nearly ten years Bungie have produced a game that once again can be used to show off the graphical capabilities of a flagship console, devoid of the restraints of the past, and the rushed development cycles that once impacted on past performances. Sure, the slightly plain, angular, and almost barren style of the series’ architecture may look tired or stylistically unimpressive, although in a raw technical sense, without fail, it commands your complete attention.

For those of you who either don’t like Halo, or have grown tired of the series many attempts to match the raw brilliance of the original, there may not be much to tempt you back into Bungie’s world of Spartan soldiers and religious alien zealots. But at least now the franchise truly looks great again, and that definitely counts for something. At the same time that classic Halo gameplay seems to have been refined down to a fine art, and a few campaign issues aside, Reach as a whole may well be the best game in the series since the original.

Thanks go out to Mr Deap for the screenshots, while AlStrong once again counts the pixels.

Tech Analysis: Vanquish Demo (360 vs PS3)

We all remember the travesty that was the PS3 version of Bayonetta. It was hardly the best example of solid multiplatform development, instead representing exactly what happens when a publisher chooses to take a game perfectly designed around the advantages of one platform’s unique specifics, and converting it to another without doing the same.

On one hand you had the sublime 360 version of the game, complete with full resolution alpha and particle effects, detailed, vibrantly coloured textures, and a fluid 60fps framerate. On the other, there was the distinctly sub-par PS3 game, with its washed out textures, lower resolution effects buffers, and a framerate that was for the most part cut in half.

The game’s lavishly detailed nature, in combination with so many high res alpha effects was ideally suited to the huge amount of bandwidth provided by the EDRAM situated on the 360’s GPU, but was a poor fit for the PS3’s bandwidth starved RSX in its original form. Of course this shameful port was nothing to do with the game’s original creators Platinum Games. Instead it was converted and shipped out by a team at Sega, who wanted a PS3 version of the game out shortly after the 360 game’s release in Japan.

Thankfully for Vanquish, Platinum Games are at the helm of both versions of the game, and have developed it from the ground up – using the Bayonetta engine no less – optimising it in a way that takes advantage of both platforms without being more tailored for one than the other. In short, they have achieved an impressive example of platform parity, in which the PS3 build is every bit as solid and technically accomplished as the 360 one.

Arguably, there have been some noticeable changes in regards to what the engine is rendering on screen to make this happen; not least of all the slightly sub HD resolution of the game, along with the toned down use of alpha effects. Although this in it self is no bad thing, and is required for parity to be reached without large differences between builds. What is commendable, is that the development team at Platinum Games not only understood what needed to be done for their next venture, but that they have achieved it whilst still creating a visually impressive experience with plenty of intense action.



Seeing as Vanquish features a wealth of more advanced shader effects and post processing than Bayonetta, the game effectively renders in 1024x720 on both platforms in order to keep performance up, with edge smoothing being available through the use of 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing).

What is impressive is the fact that Platinum Games have managed to get anti-aliasing up and running on both platforms to an equal standard, and that the vast majority of alpha effects are rendered in full resolution matching the framebuffer – fire being the only one which sticks out as being slightly lower. And that’s also on both PS3 and 360.

The use of 1024x720 with 2xMSAA means that the FB just about squeezes into the 360’s 10MB of EDRAM, and that given the tweaks made to the underlying engine doesn’t put too much of a strain on PS3 performance, other than in heavy load situations, in which both versions suffer. In fact, as you will find out later, it is the PS3 game which initially fares a little better in this area.



As you can see in our screenshots, both versions look pretty much identical with only very subtle differences between them. The PS3 game appears to be a tad sharper, whilst the 360 version appears a little more pristine overall. Though most of the time they really do look the same in motion. It is likely that the ever so slightly cleaner look of the 360 build is down to the machine featuring a better scaler contained within its GPU, compared to the relatively poor horizontal scaler found PS3’s RSX, which simply features a bilinear solution. Although in this case there’s hardly anything between the two.

Brightness levels also appear to be slightly different on both versions, as does the look of the shadowing. Although it isn’t a case of one looking better than the other, with any differences being down to the way both machines respective GPU’s deals with certain effects. For example, in terms of the shadowing, both the PS3 and 360 versions actually use the same type of filtering, though it does seem to be implemented a little differently.

You could also point out that the lighting looks a tad washed out on the PS3 game, however that is as much due to the gamma differences between the two consoles video outputs than any technical limitations. In any case the precision of the lighting is the same on both versions, and adjusting the RGB settings for HDMI on PS3 and 360, along with your TV settings, helps bring this into line.

Either way it is safe to say that Vanquish looks as good on the PS3 as it is on the 360, with no glaring differences to be found like the ones so easily apparent in Bayonetta. Things like texture detail and filtering are the same across both versions, as is the use of post processing effects and alpha buffers for transparencies, so it’s basically like for like.



In our early tech report of the game we found that some of Vanquish’s pre-release screenshots had huge amounts of post-processing visible, some of which we thought would never make it into the actual game. Well, as it turns out most of it is in fact correct and present in the demo, although without being enhanced specifically for supersampled PR bullshots.

Here we have some impressive screen distortion effects, coupled with per-object motion blur rarely seen outside of the PC space, but that is becoming ever more feasible on consoles as developers find new ways to optimise their engines even closer to suiting the hardware.

Like with the rendering resolution and use of AA, post processing looks identical on both PS3 and 360, with the cool motion blur effect helping in making the game’s 30fps update appear smoother than it actually is.



So far what we’ve discovered about Vanquish is par the course for parity, with pretty much every area of the game looking the same on both platforms. Impressively, the PS3 version has had nothing in the way of visual cut-backs, even having proper MSAA and full res alpha buffers, which is a testement to Platinum Games’ resolve about getting their flagship engine working identically across both platforms.

Interestingly, the developers were actually quoted as saying that the PS3 was the lead platform for Vanquish, and that they were optimising the engine to ensure that any differences would not be detrimental to the overall experience – something they have managed to achieve in a very short space of time. But is there anything that points to that fact being apparent in the way Vanquish as been built up to operate?

Nothing conclusive, I have to say. Although we can see that texture detail has been paired back from Bayonetta; no doubt to save on memory in order to keep things the same on PS3, and that the use of alpha heavy effects has also been cut down on slightly. However the game’s the use of far more advanced shaders and lighting, with some computationally heavy post process effects (per-object motion blur) clearly circumvents this, providing a more impressive visual range but in vastly different areas.

Also, by rendering in 1024x720 with 2xMSAA, and at 30fps, in addition to the changes made with regards to particle and alpha buffers, Platinum Games have allowed for their engine to comfortably fit in with the bandwidth and processing requirements of both consoles, and especially the bandwidth limited PS3, and have built upon these limitations by enhancing the game’s visuals in ways that work within these constraints.



Going back to our comparison of the game itself, we can see that performance across both platforms is far more closely matched than with Bayonetta. In fact, it’s pretty damn near identical most of the time, being one of the best examples of cross platform development we have seen so far alongside Dante’s Inferno and Burnout Paradise.

For Vanquish Platinum Games has targeted a 30fps update rather than going for the more preferable, eye-blazing 60fps found in many Japanese titles, and the decision was definitely the right one. In the case of Vanquish, where the engine is throwing around all kinds of advanced effects and heavy amounts of post processing, having the game maintain a smooth 60fps update would have been next to impossible, and the extra work would have almost certainly impacted on the PS3 version of the game.

Going for 30fps means that not only do both versions maintain a smoother framerate for longer, but also that the developers have managed to implement v-sync on both platforms with differing methods of preventing screen-tear.



Indeed, both versions hit their target framerate for most of the experience, only slowing down slightly when there is an over abundance of stuff happening on screen at once. Although throughout the demo, in the busier sections before facing up to the boss, it is the PS3 version which manages to drops less frames than the 360 one, appearing slightly smoother during general play as a result. These drops are pretty small on both platforms, mainly going down to around 25fps or so for brief moments, or maybe even less for the most part.

During the boss battle things appear to be reversed with the 360 build commanding a slight, but noticeable lead over the PS3 game. In this section the framerate drops down to at least 20fps on the PS3 when the action is at its most intense, whereas on 360, the framerate, although dropping down noticeably is slightly steadier.

Without using video capture equipment we cannot be any more specific, but overall it definitely feels like the PS3 version was slightly smoother for the most part, and that the smaller drops in framerate were less noticeable than on the 360 - the boss battle aside of course.


We mentioned earlier than Platinum Games had managed to implement v-sync across both platforms for Vanquish, and the results are very impressive; the game practically never features any screen tearing on the 360, and absolutely none on the PS3. Interestingly, the way both games deal with screen tear also has a small, but barely noticeable impact on how each version controls.

I’m pretty certain that some kind of frame buffering technique is being used here, especially on the PS3 build which not only demonstrates ever so slightly more controller lag, but also nothing in the way of tearing.

For those who don’t know, triple and double-buffering is a method of rendering multiple versions of the same frame, which are then held in reserved just in case one of them is torn. When this happens the torn frame is replaced with the next one, which should hopefully be clean. As tearing is really only visible when multiple frames are torn this results in an effective method of reducing screen tear altogether when failing to maintain v-sync. In the case of triple buffering, you hold two frames in reserve rather than just one.

My best guess is that the PS3 game is being triple buffered, and that the 360 is using the slightly lesser double buffered approach seeing as it has less lag and practically no visible screen tear. Using double buffering would also consume less memory, which would be better suited for the framebuffer being limited by the system’s 10MB EDRAM.

Saying that, any screen tearing that occurs in the 360 game is so minor and incredibly hard to spot – even when looking for it, that it’s practically not worth mentioning. I could only see it for a fraction of a second on occasion, and that was when carefully looking for it.


In the end both versions perform largely identically with only small differences between them. The 360 game drops less frames in the most intense situations, whilst the PS3 game is more consistently smooth overall, only faring worse in heavy load areas, such as the boss battle. Screen tear isn’t an issue for either build, and the PS3’s use of triple buffering doesn’t affect controller responsiveness to any noticeable degree during regular play. In fact it is the PS3 version of the game that actually just pushes ahead, looking slightly smoother, and sharper overall, though without commanding anything more than the subtlest of leads.

There’s no doubt that Platinum Games have really taken the time and effort to get both versions of the game looking and operating near identically, to the extent that either one is well worth picking on release regardless of platform preference or past experiences.

Perhaps all that’s left to say is that this is just the demo code of the game, and that there’s still over a month to go until the final release build is shipped. Seeing as I’ll definitely be buying at least one copy of the Vanquish upon release, I will endeavour to get a hold of both versions at some point soon after launch for quick look at what, if anything has changed. Until then it looks like both versions will come highly recommended, whilst also representing another stellar example of multiplatform parity that few developers manage to achieve.

Thanks to Mr Deap for our comparison screens, and AlStrong for the pixel counting.