Halo is a legendary series. An important game. A trusted name. And, undoubtedly, a consistent cash source. Its legacy will continue on regardless of what you might think, and that's why we're getting Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition this autumn. It's an important release, not only because it symbolises the tenth year of Halo's creation, but because it also presents questions about future re-releases in the same vein. Isn't it time that these remake games offered more of what we loved in the original, instead of 'balancing' our vintage gameplay?

Halo: Combat Evolved was the seminal title that started it all. You've heard this line a myriad of times, but it doesn't change the facts. Halo is an important game because of what it brought to the console market; first-person shooters were never as solid, didn't run nearly run as smoothly, and definitely didn't have the addictive gameplay or - most importantly - multiplayer functionality that the original Halo did. The closest title I can think of is GoldenEye 007, released during the Nintendo 64 era, but let's be honest: that game doesn't come anywhere close to what Halo has become.

Saying all that, it's been ten years since Halo: Combat Evolved pleasantly surprised the console world, and now - surprising us again - is a re-release, or a 're-imagining', of the original game. Set to release on the 15th of November, Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary is the complete original Halo game with new, additional high-definition visuals and other unique features. Just some of these features include the ability to swap old graphics with the new on-the-fly, online co-op, and remastered versions of old maps available for multiplayer (as if that wasn't already guaranteed).


Forgive my satire, but this 'new' Halo game is a bastard child. It's another short-lived, uninspired way to cash in the Halo name for something that really doesn't have to be remade at this very moment. Unfortunately, this game has no place in the library of titles out there and will do nothing but augment the apprehension we'll all feel when more of these 'remakes' hit store shelves. Regardless, the first game was pretty grand; yes, it had its flaws such as awful level design later on, but it was a solid title that left quite a bit to build on. A remake sounds great on paper, but in reality it's nothing more than a retail, super-expensive expansion pack for Reach.

The best part about this game is that 343 Industries are remaining true to the original campaign and leaving it relatively unscathed and unmodified. The pistol is still going to be an insanely powerful side-arm, vehicles won't explode and the Energy Sword - or any other crazy-ass weapon, for that matter - simply won't be useable or might not even exist. Yes, I'll admit, The Library is a horrible part of the original's campaign, which I'm sure many would like to see changed in this re-release, but that brings me right onto my next question: should a remake change the original source due to its infamy? My answer is a resounding "no".

If your game is getting the remake treatment, it's almost certainly because someone upstairs believes that there's a fanbase for it, one that will snatch up your remade product and make you some nice, easy money in the process. But these fans want to see the game they loved, the one tucked away in their memory alongside a big serving of nostalgia, not some abomination that's been tweaked to make the game play 'better'. It may sound contradictory, but the game actually plays 'better' when it's true to the original source and, whilst I hate to say it, The Library is something that defined the original Halo. It wasn't good level design, and it wasn't fun to play through, but it served as an integral part of the game that has become nothing short of a legend. I wouldn't be opposed to having the option to play through a modified or uncut version of a game (like the way some movies present you with a similar option), but the original basis for the remake must still be present.

This is something 343 understands, but still ignores.



Announcing the fourth, fifth and sixth Halo iterations at once at this year's E3, 343 decided it was a good idea to throw some canon into the anniversary game, as a prelude to the release of Halo 4 next year. That means we'll get to access terminals akin to the ones found in Halo 3 for Halo 4... in the original game. It's as stupid as it sounds. Certain changes are needed, I agree, like the implementation of Xbox Live to make co-op play possible over the internet. Modifications like that are fine as they aren't making any tangible changes to the core gameplay. Adding terminals that cater for future Halo games is, however. And that's worthless.

Speaking of modification and change, the multiplayer in this game is already laughable. One could make the argument that the game is simply devoid of multiplayer altogether. You'd think, would you not, that if you're making a stand-alone remake of the original Halo, you'd have to throw the multiplayer in there as well right? Apparently not, because the Combat Evolved play-style is not coming to consoles this November. Instead, seven maps from the original Halo are going to be ported to Reach.

I just can't understand why a company would attempt to remake a classic game, but orchestrate such alien devices on one of its most beloved assets. People want to play online multiplayer Combat Evolved-style: they want to use the pistol to destroy you repeatedly, but it's just not going to happen. It's akin to putting cover-based shooter Gears of War up for a remake in a few years, but deciding to make its online component Blitzball. Who the hell wants to play Blitzball?

Halo Anniversary is a remake, and I remind you that the original game is already available to download from Xbox Live. Come November, you're essentially spending upwards of forty dollars on merely a graphical update and seven new, old maps for Reach. Whilst the terminal thing can easily be overlooked, the absence of Combat Evolved's original multiplayer component cannot be. This is unacceptable, especially since future remakes of other games will likely follow in this game's footsteps. Never should there be a game of this calibre being remade with a key, core component omitted. If HD remakes like Sly Cooper and God of War can get it all right, Halo should have no problems rivalling them.

Labels: 2011, 343 Industries, Andrew Whipple III, Bungie, Feature, Halo, Halo Anniversary, Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition, Microsoft, Microsoft Game Studios, Xbox 360

The Gears of War 3 beta is now in full motion, and you're probably already murdering dudes with your bare hands. Great as that may be, your bloodlust might have blinded you to the changes Epic has made to the system. Not sure what I'm talking about? It's alright, Gearsheimers has affected a great many and I'm here to make it all perfectly clear.

Some of the changes present are fairly obvious, so forgive me if I delve into a couple of items the Gears-deprived are ignorant to. Now, where to start? Ah, who could forget the wonderful...

Dedicated Servers

A locust depicting the stranglehold that 'host' connection had on the community.

Arguably the most tremendous addition to the game, the Gears franchise has an infamous history of that heinous thing called 'host advantage'; when the person hosting the game also holds a greater connection and thus inflicts more damage, has greater accuracy, and pretty much everything is better for the host. In Gears of War 3, host advantage doesn't exist, and it's incredible. You see, now no-one has to worry about that sole guy who can take on the entire team with only a pistol, craggy game connections are extinct, and silly things like the room being dumped or host migration have vanished. The servers stand tall and proud, basically making Gears a lag-free endeavour, something that the series has needed from the start.

This has also affected joining games. Unlike the twenty-minute wait everyone had to endure during the launch of Gears of War 2, Gears 3 makes this process seamless and fast. Players will also be able to join your game on a whim when someone else unexpectedly quits. If no one is there to take the place of your former comrade, Epic's 'gear bots' jump into the mix. And, no, they aren't as asinine as the last ones were. Don't you remember the behind the back, no look, Boltok headshots?

Menus, Ribbons & Unlockables

See this here? He too could one day be yours to play as. Maybe.

When Gears 2 released a couple of years back, the menus were something of an afterthought. How bad was it? Well, let's just say that there was no option to even quit the game. In order to do so you had to jump back to your dashboard and boot the game again. Thankfully, Gears 3 sees a departure from this shoddy programming, and goes the extra mile by throwing in unlockables, and special awards that Epic are calling 'Ribbons'.

I really don't care about achievements, trophies, medals or ribbons, unless they net you something worthwhile in the game itself. Surprisingly, Epic has implemented a system that does just that. By completing tasks such as killing twenty-five enemies with the Retro Lancer, or performing a certain number of Executions, not only will you grab Ribbons, but you'll also net add-ons like weapon skins, characters, and unique executions for specific weaponry. In Gears 2 all the weapon executions were open, but if you want all the unique ones in Gears 3 you'll have to work for them.

More about Ribbons; they'll have a direct impact on how fast you'll 'level up'. Once again, a Call of Duty-esque experience system strikes into the heart of another shooter, and it works well for Gears of War 3. Depending on how well you do and how many Ribbons you've achieved, your experience will be bolstered tenfold. Since you pretty much get a Ribbon for everything you do in the game (including being the first to die), doing well and Ribbon-mongering share a symbiotic relationship. Progress is tracked in real-time during a game, like in Gears 2, but you can also observe what you've done on the main menu screen.

Combat

Violence really is the spice of life; a spice which costs $59.99, and is available from September 20th.

The thing that's seen the most tweaking in Gears 3 is probably the way combat unfolds. Sure, the new Team Deatchmatch mode has respawns with lives, which is slightly odd, but I'm really talking about the other major mechanic: rolling. Since the start, you've only ever been able to roll forward, backward, left, and right, frozen-rope style. In the new game, if you hold up and a little to the left while rolling, you guessed it, that's where you're rolling to.

This subtle tweak has changed much more than how it appears on the surface. Rolling with accuracy allows you to hit those tight corners you otherwise might have missed in the previous games. It also allows you to move about more erratically when fleeing for your life, or maybe even when you're chasing someone down. No more rolling in place gents, it's a skill roll now.

You also can't forget that stopping power is still in effect. When someone is shooting you, it means evasion is a necessity, as you won't be moving forward at the standard rate. Remember, Gears is a cover-based shooter, and Epic clearly would like it to remain as such. When it comes to cover, you also have to remember that if your enemy is present when you hop over some cover, landing inevitably on top of them, you'll kick them right in the face, causing disorientation and setting you up for an easy kill.

Oh and before I forget, if you're standing next to a teammate, you can now actually swap weapons with them. That's important because that novice with the Torque Bow can now give it to someone who isn't absolute rubbish with it. Thank you.

Weapons

I won't say it. Really, I won't.

Practically all of the standard weapons make a return in Gears 3, but some new ones and old favorites have surfaced with a twist. Take, for instance, the Gorgon Pistol. Now subtract 'Pistol' and add 'SMG'. That deadly dual-stream of bullets from the second game is now a constant stream, and it's all the better for it. The Hammerburst, along with the Lancer and Retro-Lancer, can all be selected any time you die during the match, to switch with whichever one isn't working for you. Whilst the Retro-Lancer is powerful but highly inaccurate, and the Lancer is largely the same, the Hammerburst is the most accurate of the bunch and can even zoom into a first-person view. Despite the apparent incompatibility of a first-person view in a third-person game, it's actually quite awesome and is a great unique feature of the Hammerburst.

Smoke Grenades are now useful, funny as that sounds, and can change the tide of a fight in a split second. Upon throwing down your smog-inducing spherical device, it'll explode, causing a concussive blast that stuns surrounding foes. The stun still allows enemies to move, but for a short period they cannot fire. Also, the Gnasher works again (thank the gaming Gods). Plus, the Lancer can only be interrupted if you're shot in the revving process. Don't believe me, believe Rod Fergusson:

I'm particularly fond of the fact that the Lancer chainsaw can only be interrupted when it's being raised. Like me, once it's up, it's on!

Active reloading is also a bit different. Veterans won't balk at the standard Lancer and Gnasher shotguns' active reloading, since nothing's really changed, but the other weapons you're used to may tell a different story. Take, for instance, the Hammerburst. Instead of increasing in speed, the Hammerburst takes you off guard by going at a steady rate. This might not seem like much, but in the midst of battle, having varying speeds at which your weapon reloads can make or break the fight. The new sawed-off shotgun is the epitome of this practice. Miss that active and you wont be shooting for a while, but land it, and things are gonna get dead quick.


Whether you've noticed them or not, the Gears 3 beta has given us plenty of minor and major changes. All hasn't been revealed yet, but you can definitely expect much more when the full game hits this September. Also, remember to submit some feedback, over on the Gears of War 3 beta forums. Epic wills it.

What do you think? What's your favourite change from Gears 2 to Gears 3? Let us know in the comments section, or you can tweet us @ggtl.

Labels: 2011, Andrew Whipple III, Beta, Beta Impressions, Epic Games, Gears of War, Gears of War 3, Microsoft Game Studios, Xbox 360

I loved Fable II. The way that it combined RPG elements with the staples of an adventure game really drew me in, with the choices you made and the way your character shaped the world really setting it apart from other games on the market. It was also genuinely funny, with some great voice acting and a quirky, Tim Burton-esque art style. Sure, there were technical issues and the combat was simple, but I sunk so many hours into Fable II that I even went to the lengths of unlocking every single achievement for it - including the DLC.

Fast-forward to 2010, and here is Fable III. A game that, like it's predecessor, is full of charm and plenty of heart. It's also a game that is going to be compared to the likes of Fallout: New Vegas, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins. At least that's what you'd think, because really, at it's core, Fable III isn't really an RPG at all.

When you boot the game up for the first time, you're given the familiar choice of choosing to be a male or female character. In Fable III, this choice sees you pick a Prince or a Princess, as you play as the sibling of Albion's new, (not so) benevolent King Logan. Both you and Logan are the children of your character from Fable II, although don't expect the in-depth game-save reading found in Mass Effect 2: from what I noticed the only attribute or decision used from Fable II is what gender your character was. The game doesn't waste any time throwing you into the action as you're soon introduced to the nastiness of your older brother, and you have to make a very important and game-changing choice right at the very start (which I won't spoil here). Once that's done, you set off on an escape of the castle with your mentor, Sir Walter Beck, butler Jasper and loyal canine companion. From there onwards your journey to becoming a hero begins, as you fight your way across Albion to recruit followers and take down Logan. For the first time ever in Fable, the much talked about land of Aurora can now be visited and the game gets noticeably darker from that point on. Whether that's a good or bad thing probably comes down to personal opinion, but I thought it was a bit at odds with what makes Fable so unique: its splendid world and great sense of humour both disappear in the last third of the game.

What's interesting about Fable III's story is that it doesn't end where you'd expect it to, as once you defeat Logan a whole new portion of the game opens up in which you are the King, making decisions and trying to keep promises that you had previously made in order to gain followers. It's a cool element but doesn't really feel fully realised; the decisions you make are very limiting and are so clearly black-or-white that they come across as a little contrived. Most of the time these decisions come down to how much money you have in the bank, so you don't really feel like you're doing anyhing, with things instead determined by your bank balance. Without wanting to spoil anything, things in your kingdom can go badly wrong at the end of the game, and if that happens the world becomes... well, you're probably not going to want to play anymore. Fable III's end-game takes some admirable risks, but it gets to a stage where the game seems to want to shock you more than it wants you to have fun: a fatal error.

What I will give props to the story for is a great use of cut scenes which were stubbornly omitted from Fable II to try and keep you 'immersed'. Their use here shows that a good cut-scene should not be underestimated. They're brought to life by the stunning cast, perhaps the best I've ever seen in a game: it's basically a who's-who of British talent, with appearances from Simon Pegg, Jonathan Ross, Michael Fassbender, John Cleese, Stephen Fry, Bernard Hill, Ben Kingsley, Zoe Wanamaker and Naomie Harris are all present and accounted for. The writing is excellent, with some fantastically witty dialogue permeating the whole experience. Annoyingly a lot of this humour and wit is lost in the final portion of the game.

Fortunately the rest of the game leading up to the conclusion is cracking Fable fun with all the great elements you've come to expect from the series: great quest variety, fantastic imagination, genuinely funny moments, memorable characters and some spectacular locales. In your quest to becoming King or Queen, you'll take on quests ranging from escorting townsfolk through scary forests to raiding a bandit camp. The more creative quests see you perform a series of roles in ridiculous theatre performances and dress up as a chicken to coax some poultry back into their pens. As well as the great quests, it's still a joy just to explore Albion with it's terrific art-style and funny characters. Hunting down pesky gnomes that take the place of the gargoyles from Fable II is well worth it, in fact this is one of the few games where hunting down collectibles is actually enjoyable.

Albion is a terrific world, but the aforementioned Aurora is a bit of a kick in the teeth for players. The game takes on a dramatically different feel, with the land coming across as a really dark version of something from Arabian Nights. It feels very out of place and that portion of the game just isn't very fun to play through.

The final portion of the game isn't helped by the fact that, by the time you reach the end of the game, the core gameplay is starting to feel a little bit tiresome. The gameplay mechanics are much the same as Fable II but have been even further simplified. Combat is still restricted to one button for melee, one button for firearms and one button for magic. Unlike Fable II though, where the system was surprisingly deep for such simple mechanics, Fable III's combat is stupidly easy. To sum it up, there's an Xbox LIVE Achievement for finishing the game without dying and I completed it with ease.

The character interactions, job systems, character customisation and the role of your dog is also significantly simplified. You can now only perform one of three interactions with a character at any one time, and the game selects these randomly so if you want to hug your spouse you have to hope the game is going to let you. The jobs are so boring now they're hardly worth it, boiling down to hitting the same button again and again until you make enough money. Whilst these simplified mechanics are refreshing and fun for a while, after seven or eight hours they become tedious.

What does liven the game up a bit is the fantastic co-op, which is one element from Fable II that has been expanded rather than dumbed down. Combat becomes immediately more bearable with two players, but it's the other things you can do together that set this apart from other co-op games. You can get married, have kids, set up a business partnership, share dogs, trade items and gold and plenty more. It's deep and rewarding to play the game with another player, but most importantly of all it's great fun. It's available both locally and on Xbox Live, which is a plus, and the latter removes any movement restrictions so your characters are no longer tethered together, which allows you to be doing completely different activities in different parts of the world at the same time.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Fable III is the user interface. Basically, rather than a pause menu to access maps, potions and weapons, you now have the Sanctuary. Pressing the Start button takes you there, and it's essentially a visual representation of a pause menu with different rooms representing the sub-menus. I found it to be a fantastic system and used very well; the map is an especially neat feature as you can now set waypoints and zoom right in on people and buildings. However, I do understand that some people would prefer to have quick access to a pop-up map or quest log without having to bother with the Sanctuary, and that's where the problem lies. It seems as though the interface in Fable II was so bad that Lionhead decided to get rid of it rather than simply make a better menu system. It's not that hard to design a good menu system, so this is an area that some may find bemusing.

Fable III's graphical style is one of the game's big strong points. Technically it's a lot better than Fable II, although it's not going to have you ooohhh-ing and ahhh-ing at the screen. What sets it apart is the terrific art style, with beautiful environments and cool-looking enemies being the stand-out aspects. I've already talked about the voice acting (which is superb), and the rest of the audio is of a high standard. Danny Elfman composed the main theme and it's still as haunting and memorable as ever, whilst the rest of the score stands up as well.

As you can tell, there is a lot to consider when reviewing Fable III and I don't think there's been another game this year that will split opinions to the extent that this game will. For what it's worth, I do think that a lot of the core gameplay is overly simple and the game definitely runs out of steam in the latter stages. However, when considered as an experience, Fable III is a joy. It's still set in a fantastic world with great characters, it looks and sounds as good as anything else on Xbox 360 and it stands out as top of the RPG or Adventure genre in terms of its quest variety. Ultimately, whilst the gameplay may be a little unfulfilling for some, Fable III is still one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences of the year: there's just nothing else like it. From the casual adventuring to the unique charms of being the ruler or your own kingdom, Fable III is chock-full of fun. If you have an Xbox 360 and are looking to spice up your games library with something other than a shooter, then Fable III is absolutely worth checking out.

8/10 [?]

Labels: 2011, 360, Fable III, Lionhead Studios, Microsoft, Microsoft Game Studios, Review, Tom Acres, Xbox 360