XBOX/XBOX 360 Comparison: Forza Motorsport vs Forza Motorsport 2

I didn't play the first Forza until after having extensively played Forza 2 for XBOX 360. I suppose my thought was, "Dang! Older Need for Speed games spank the pants off of any of the more recent ones that I've tried!" (indeed, I actually bought NFS: High Stakes on my same trip to the store as I did Forza). What I immediately noticed upon first glance is that they are EXACTLY THE SAME (with subtle differences). They have many of the same race tracks, many of the same cars, and many of the same features. What I would like to do today is put them head-to-head (mostly because it wouldn't be worth doing two separate reviews). Let's begin.

Forza Motorsport is a simulation racing game. I much prefer it to Gran Turismo due to the availability of driver's aids (please excuse me if this has changed in more recent titles. I haven't played a Gran Turismo not on the PS2). It can be quite repetitive: there are always eight cars in a race, you will race the same tracks repeatedly, and, obviously, there is no nitrous, no hydraulics, and (thankfully) no cheesy story. The biggest variety will be in the kinds of cars you get to drive and it is impressive how distinctly they handle from one to the next. When you install aftermarket parts, you can access the option to fine tune them (but it seems I am only capable of making them worse).

As far as the actual playing goes, these two games are very much alike, though there are a few minor differences. One of the most notable is how much easier it is to damage your car's engine in the first Forza. Seriously, if you miss a shift and over-rev for a moment and your engine is going to have to be repaired. This can get a bit annoying, especially when you have a powerful car with an old transmission and "yer givin' 'er all she's got." My experience with over-revving actual engines is limited - I can't say whether this is an accurate simulation (cheers if it is). To mess up your engine in the same way in Forza 2, you will have to aggressively downshift at a high speed. But, in light of things, this isn't really a major difference.

A feature in Forza 2's favor is that you have the option to have a partial brake line (whereas in Forza it is either fully on or fully off). I actually find the partial line more helpful than the full line because it will only show up when I have to reduce my speed; when it is a full line I have to pay attention to when the color changes. This isn't a big deal but sometimes the colors run together. Along with this, Forza 2 allows you to see real-time information about your car as you're driving, such as tire pressure, horsepower being generated, pressure on each shock, G-force created, that kind of stuff. It doesn't revolutionize the experience, but it's kind of cool.

Both games share a majority of their race tracks with each having some exclusives (Forza with more, including point-to-point races). As well, both games share a majority of cars, with each having some unique selections (though the favor being with Forza 2 by a long shot). Forza 2 has more manufacturers with more models. The two games' career modes are also very similar; most of the events are exactly the same (like the Corvette Club Cup, Corvette vs. Viper, etc.). They both offer fun decal and vinyl customization features, which one can lose track of time fooling around with (though there is either something wrong with my copy of Forza or my XBOX 360 in trying to read it. There is a serious glitch with trying to apply vinyl).

I think I can easily say that the biggest difference between them is in how they handle simulated races (the very idea of which is weird to me. Why would you want the game to do the job for you?). The original gets a big thumbs up in this regard. It takes a little effort, but it will have you drive through a few tracks and will try to get a sense of how well you are able to handle different types of turns (and it apparently thinks I suck at hairpins). They call this your "drivatar." If, for whatever reason, you want your drivatar to do your racing for you, you can upload him or her at the cost of most of your winnings. I think this is kind of cool. Forza 2, however, simply has drivers you can hire. Not nearly as cool.

But Forza 2 is superior in other areas where it counts, particularly in car performance customization and car rankings. For many of the cars in Forza, no body modifications are allowed, whereas the same exact models do have available mods in Forza 2. As well, the number and specificity of upgrades are greater and add more depth to the game as a whole. What I mean by car rankings is that I've found that mismatches are much more common in the first game; it's a bit like Midnight Club in how it seems your ability to win depends as much on your upgrades as on your driving skill. Regrettably, both have cars ordered at the start of the race from fastest to slowest. Wouldn't it make more sense to give the slower cars a handicap? You also get no bonuses for finishing with a lower ranked car, which is disappointing.

As you would expect, Forza 2 has the advantage in graphics and presentation, but not by as wide a margin as I anticipated. I honestly don't feel like I'm changing between generations. Forza offers music while the other does not, though this doesn't make a difference to me since I just listen to my own stuff anyway.

When all is said, it's not easy to call one absolutely better than the other. Forza 2 just seems to be a next-gen port of the original with a few good additions but also some subtractions. And based on the similarity of games in this franchise and the price for which newer installments can be had, I don't recommend picking up either of these games. Actually, forget that. You can buy either of my copies here and here. I'll even sign them for you. [Editor's Note: Copy of Forza 2 has been sold.]


By the by, here is a trailer for Forza: Horizon DLC. Man, the last time a racing game trailer gave me goosebumps like this was NFS: Hot Pursuit 2.

Finest Fights: The Myth (2005)

It's been some time since we did one of these, but you know the drill: we bring you some of our favorite fight scenes from YouTube, like this weird one from The Myth.

Maybe not Jackie's best work, but it's the only scene worth remembering from that film, that's for sure.

PS3 Review: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (2005)

As before, Thrasher's looking at Chaos Theory through the lens of the Splinter Cell Classic Trilogy HD collection. Even though the game looks stunning in HD, this evaluation of the game can nevertheless carry over to its original versions on PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube (except for its co-op and competitive mutliplayer elements, which were not included in the HD collection).

While Chaos Theory doesn't radically alter the Splinter Cell formula, it nevertheless perfects it. Almost all the nagging issues I had with the original and Pandora Tomorrow have been addressed: specifically, the linearity of the missions, the lack of a mission ranking system, the frustratingly inconsistent gunplay, the underdeveloped close-quarters and hand-to-hand combat, the awkward animations. I also found the plot to be just as difficult to follow as its predecessors, especially in its more minute elements, and there are just so many names and dates and places and alliances and double-agents to keep track of. At times I had trouble recalling exactly who did what and to whom and for whom, but I was never in doubt as to the broader consequences of the mission: you know, kill this guy to stop WWIII, for instance. I would've liked some in-game device for recapping the story, especially for those of us who may have played the game slowly and may have forgotten some of the details in the interim. Now, that's not to say that the plot isn't engaging, indeed far from it: the narrative stakes are immense, as tensions between China, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan come to military conflict following the capture of weaponized algorithms by a radical separatist group. As I noted in my Pandora Tomorrow review, this series does an amazing job of furthering the plot through gameplay and not through cinematics, so that while I may not have retained every piece of data thrown at me in a mission I played two weeks prior, the briefings and in-game chatter between Sam and Lambert et al. made the goal of any specific operation sufficiently clear. Episodically, each mission works on its own quite nicely, something which keeps any of them from becoming pedestrian affairs.

As mentioned above, Chaos Theory addresses many of the bugaboos I had with the two earlier games in the series. First, the missions, while certainly not open-ended by any means, have been opened up considerably. There are often several ways to overcome an obstacle, much less obvious and guided this time around, and seldom do the choices offered seem hierarchical: in other words, this route rarely appears strategically preferable over this other route. Second, Chaos Theory has a mission rating system that evaluates your performance immediately after extraction, based on accuracy, shots fired, number of alarms raised, bodies found, that kind of thing. It's something that adds a wealth of replay value to the game, especially for those perfectionist spies out there dead set on being 100% invisible and nonlethal. It also helps that you can finally pick the equipment you bring into the field via the mission outfitting screen. Third, though shooting has been improved somewhat, there still remains some frustrating moments of inaccuracy. It's maddening to plug an adversary with few choice shots to the chest or legs only to see him sprint to cover unharmed, or to wait patiently for that perfect shot to align itself, from a crouched position with a motionless target, only to watch the bullet innocently bounce off his head. Fourth, hand-to-hand combat has improved tremendously with the addition of a knife. It seems like a simple addition, but it adds a new wrinkle to the way you approach your enemies: should you give him a knife in the gut or K.O. that sucker with a palm thrust to the jaw? Each has strategic implications unfortunately absent from the two earlier games in the series. Finally, the new physics engine gives the animations of Sam and his opponents their proper physical dimensions. Gone (for the most part, anyway) are those instances in which Sam would slide to door handles, for instance, and gone are the bodies that would get stuck between walls, which often resulted in those bodies being spotted on camera. I think Chaos Theory, like every successive entry in the Splinter Cell series, improved upon its predecessors without making them obsolete. Even in light of Double Agent or Conviction, Chaos Theory can stand on its own, and that's the mark of a great series.

Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

The first thing that should be said about The Hobbit is that it is NOT The Lord of the Rings. The former is a children's story, the latter is an epic. So, don't expect to get the same experience from each. That being said, even I couldn't help but hope that The Hobbit might replicate the magic emitted from Peter Jackson's previous series of work. Regrettably, it does not. I think a large reason why might have to do with the fact that The Hobbit was published as a single book while The Lord of the Rings was several. So my question is, "Why take three separate films to tell the story found in one book?" I could be wrong, but I would speculate that the motivation had more to do with maximizing revenue than artistic considerations. I think one can see this while watching the movie for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it feels grindingly slow. They had to find some way to fill up all that extra time, didn't they? Also, it has been several years since I have read the book, but there are many things in the film that I don't remember at all. After a bit of research, I learned the reason why: the writers had to add so much crap that wasn't in the book in order to justify the outrageous length of this film. There is a whole fabricated subplot of the company of hobbit, wizard and dwarfs being pursued by a large number of orcs seeking revenge, which I suppose is to resemble the tension brought about by the Black Riders chasing Frodo in The Fellowship of the Ring. It does indeed add tension, as without it the film would feel quite empty. But, again, this has to do with unnecessarily telling the story in three long films, not with any failure on Tolkien's part. But with that added tension comes the cost of being reminded that this film doesn't have faithful adaption of the novel as its highest goal, but rather to make boatloads of money. In addition, I did not find it enjoyable to watch. When I wasn't feeling bored because of the slow pace of the film, I was feeling overwhelmed by scenes that seemed to be contesting the Star Wars prequels in terms of who could fit the most crap in a single shot. It was like watching a video game. By the end I was too exhausted to appreciate the narrowness by which the protagonists escape destruction (since it becomes too many to be plausible) and any sentimental feelings between Bilbo and his dwarf companions. Ultimately, what I hope is that once the second two films are completed that it will be possible to edit them in such a way that we can have a one volume film that is faithful to the novel and pleasant to watch.

XBOX Review: Half Life 2 (2005)

If nothing else, Half Life 2 demonstrates the strength of what an exclusively single player shooter can be. It is pretty much universally acclaimed, as it should be. It is an engrossing first person sci-fi experience with a (still) advanced physics engine. It may begin a bit slowly; the long sections of dialogue are probably the worst part about this game. Luckily, they don't happen that often, but they can't be skipped. I don't find myself paying much attention to them anyway, as I couldn't make sense of it when I tried (that's what Wikipedia is for). I felt like I knew all I needed to know: there is an oppressive police state and I have a crowbar. The player is taken on quite a journey, first escaping the city through the canal system, then commandeering a hovercraft to provide transportation to a rebel base, to another secret lab where the indubitably fun gravity gun is obtained, to a zombie-infested ghost town, and so forth. Each level seems unique; no where does the game feel repetitive. I found this wide array of challenges to be ever amusing (except for perhaps a specific battle with two gun ships) and all done well (indeed, there are no annoying half-hearted attempts at adding stealth scenarios). Added to the mix are a variety of puzzles that rely on the realistic physics of the engine. I was pleasantly surprised to find that they nearly always find the right balance of not being overly obvious as well as not requiring a visit to the web to figure them out. Puzzles such as these aren't often seen in first-person shooters, but they work well here. In addition, each level seems to build on the last (both in terms of the story and the tension); you obtain distinctly new and different weapons, operate new vehicles with unique characteristics, and encounter new enemies that require special tactics to combat on your way to your final goal. This is definitely not like other FPS games where it is an exercise in entering an environment, shooting everyone, and moving to the next room. Rather, it is a steady progression towards the climax, which was really quite satisfying. If there is a major cost to having it be exclusively single player, it is the unfortunate fact that there is no co-op option. Games this good should be enjoyed together with someone else. As well, there is no multiplayer, not even offline. While some may see this as outdated, I see it as the best FPS experience I've had since the release of Timesplitters: Future Perfect. For the prices it can be had today, I won't hesitate to say that you can't afford to not give this game at least one play through.