Half-Life 2

The Short


Pros
- Excellent first-person shooter with unique weapons, story, and setting
- Lots of variety helps mix up the shooting with other sections
- Years ahead of its time graphically. Game can still be knocked up to some crazy settings on modern machines.
- Voice acting and story are superb and entertaining throughout
- Universe/world is compelling and leaves you wanting more
- Physics engine is still impressive to this day
- Gravity gun is still one of the funnest toys in gaming
- While Half-Life completely reinvented how FPS games are viewed, Half-Life 2 did the same thing for modern shooters

Cons
- Game feels a bit long
- Any vehicle segment feels tacked on, has clunky controls, and just straight up isn't fun
- You pack such an arsenal the game isn't very hard by the time you hit the second half
- Not a lot of enemy variety or boss battles
- While it is still a landmark game, it was completely dwarfed by its own episodic sequels and many modern FPSes (Bioshock comes to mind)

Time to tackle what many people feel is the best PC game ever made. 

The Long

Half-Life was a groundbreaking game for the industry. Where FPS games had become tournament style deathmatches with little in terms of goals or story, Half-Life completely turned all this on its head. It released a game that valued its setting and characters as much as it did its shooting, starting off slowly to build a scene before letting everything go to hell. It pioneered the "corridor shooter" or "setpiece shooter," where triggered events in the world gave a distinct sense of progression while still telling a story and providing a hefty dose of spectacle. I still remember getting a Sierra-On-Line fan magazine at the time and Half-Life being the upcoming game featured. I thought it looked pretty awesome, having no idea the impact it would have. 

Six years later in 2004, Half-Life 2 finally came out. It had truckloads of hype behind it. From the publicity when their source code was stolen to the fact the game had been delayed constantly and that it was tied to Valve's new "Steam" platform in order to operate, Half-Life 2 had a lot to live up to. And guess what: it pulled it out in spades. Where Half-Life proved that FPS games could be more than just tournament shooters, Half-Life 2 bumped that up a notch. With great shooting, impressive physics and graphics, and excellent storytelling (especially for a shooter), it pushed the industry forward and helped shape the way FPS games are made all the way to this day. Games like Call of Duty and Halo are still playing catch-up with Half-Life 2, and if anything that really goes to show how far ahead of it's time this game was.

But it isn't perfect. Which I will get to shortly. 

The engine still looks pretty dang good, even today. 

Half-Life 2 picks up several years after Half-Life ended, and in such a strange way some people (myself included) might find it hard to pinpoint the connection between the two games. Since unleashing a portal to space/hell in Half-Life, the world has been overtaken by a race of alien called the Combine who have enslaved humanity for relatively unknown means. One of Gordon Freeman's old associates (Breen) acts as overlord and slave to the Combine, and you simply appear on a train in City 17 (just another enslaved city) before heading off on your adventure to free mankind.

The details of the story are convoluted, though I appreciate the attempt to make this universe large and interesting. What really draws you in are the characters and the excellent pacing (at least at the start). The game does a lot to draw you into the atmosphere of this bleak, crappy future, and the excellently voiced and animated characters only help push this forward. While the details of mankind's enslavement, the status of humanity, and plenty of other important tidbits are relatively hidden under the convoluted storyline, what you are given is presented so well it is easy to overlook the fact that the main story is kind of... nonexistent. 

One big problem I had with the story, however, is how it seems to come in spurts. In the beginning, where it has a good blend of talking, atmospheric setting, and action, the game feels very well paced. Unfortunately, it then decides to just drop you off in the middle of nowhere with a crowbar, leading to several hours of no interaction with other people at all. Since Gordon Freeman is mute all the time (which is also sort of annoying with regard to trying to have a character someone can relate to and interact with the plot) these bouts alone are pretty much void of all story. Then you hit a landmark, get fed a ton more story, and are sent off alone again. While the atmosphere makes up for a lot (and the final act manages to have a good deal of plot), I can't help but think the pacing is a bit off once you leave City 17. 

Luckily the shooting is good enough to keep you entertained. 

Where Half-Life 2 shines is the setpieces it puts you into, even if they aren't particularly story related. Ravenholm is regarded as the prime example: a city overrun with headcrab zombies and half the city burning down and corpses piled up set the mood. But, unfortunately, these absolutely incredible setpieces seem to be padded on either side by a lot of bland, generic areas with the same enemies. Yes, it's awesome to go to some really cool places, to drive up the coast, to use antlions to murder a bunch of dudes and clear out a base. But then it's back to running around in sewers shooting the same enemies over and over, performing some bad first-person jumping puzzles or having to move crates about in silly physics puzzles that make no sense in the actual world. I get it: you made an awesome physics engine, and the Gravity Gun is totally sweet. But that doesn't mean 90% of the puzzles need to involve moving stuff around to make your physics work.

So you have a lot of really good setpieces mixed with some boring segments. Gee, sounds like every shooter to follow Half-Life 2 just does the exact same thing. Well...yep, that would be accurate. Again, keep in mind that these little side-adventures are really good. Shooting down spaceships in real time and watching them crash into things (also in real time) and the physics just going crazy and being realistic is totally nuts, especially considering when this game came out. There's just...the pacing is so off here. And I like the shooting and all, it just feels like the lulls go on for too long, and a good portion of the game ignores other shooters that had come out since then. Keep in mind: Half-Life 2 came out after Halo 2 (maybe just a few days after, but a good deal past Halo: Combat Evolved). While Half-Life 2 certainly pantsed Halo on the physics side, Halo 2 did the exact same setpiece bits but kept it interesting throughout. Again: I'm not saying Halo 2 is better than Half-Life 2, and it certainly wasn't as influential, but when you put the two games next to each other as straight shooters, Halo 2 often comes off as being funner and faster paced (and has included multiplayer, which Half-Life 2 did not). 

Alyx Vance: Winning nerds' hearts since 2004

There are plenty of other problems to be found here. The game often requires you to get behind a vehicle, which straight up sucks. Vehicles control decently and are fun to drive for the first 10-15 minutes, but some of these segments involve driving them around for hours, getting out and shooting stuff or doing a physics puzzle (or worse: doing a physics puzzles in the vehicle) and then driving around some more. The boat section especially, while having some totally awesome chase sequences at the beginning (where they drop mines as you are skimming through an aquaduct and they are air-dropping guys you then squish) is fantastic. But then it drags on, back into that "in-between" time padding around cool scenes, and it gets tedious. Same with the car/buggy thing you drive around the coast. You do some crazy stuff on it, but it is padded by so much boring driving and having to get out, shoot some guys and do some really bad first person jumping (whoever decided that bridge climbing/traversing part should stay in the game should be punched) and then it's back in the car. For the time, yeah I'll give it to Half-Life 2 because it made a game that was long and relatively engaging all the way through, and the crazy physics did provide some fun in the downtime. But still...this is just bad game pacing. It's like they had a 5 hour game and they felt the need to stretch it out much longer because of what the fans wanted. I think the Half-Life 2 episodes only prove that Half-Life 2 works best in small, concise and well-planned chunks. Half-Life 2 feels bloated.

The opening segments are still extremely powerful, though. 

I feel the need to stop here and lay down this disclaimer: I really like Half-Life 2. I was blown away when it came out, and replaying it recently I found I still enjoyed the adventure. I just feel that, looking back, we really cut this game a lot of slack for a myriad of problems. I will never deny how influential it was on shooters and how it pretty much shaped how shooters are made to this day, but just because something inspired greatness doesn't mean it itself is immune to criticism (see: Goldeneye 64). Half-Life 2 really hasn't aged well in the gameplay and pacing departments, people. That's all I'm trying to say here.

This game still looks fantastic. 

The graphics and sound effects, however, have aged extremely well. It's a testament to Valve's Source engine that it was capable of processing and running on higher resolutions and setting than were available at the time of release, kind of like how Crysis was made for systems that hadn't come out yet. The difference between Half-Life 2 and Crysis is that the Source engine is much more versatile. Have a crappy 766 MHz machine with 512 MB of ram and a 128 MB ATI video card (these were the specs of my machine when the game first came out)? Bump down the settings and it'll run. Have a modern Mac Mini with a duel-core processor, a decent video card and 8 GB of RAM? Crank those graphics up and see how well everything still looks. It's been eight years since this game came out, and it still looks really good on powerful machines, and even on the Xbox 360 release of The Orange Box. Which is also probably why Valve still uses the Source engine, even for their modern games like Portal 2.

Voice acting, when it happens, is all excellent. The sound effects are also fantastic, with the screams of the headcrab zombies (a mixture of violent howling and cries of pain) still being horrifying enough to get a jump out of me whenever I hear it. When it comes down to the little things, Valve tends to succeed, and it does good at making Half-Life 2 still relevant even all these years later. 

I still hate you, hover-water-bike-thing. But I'll be damned if that water doesn't look incredible. 

So...the final verdict? Half-Life 2 is still decent, and is certainly worth playing if you haven't yet. If you have you probably have rose-tinted nostalgia glasses and will hate me ripping into it, but hey...the truth hurts. As I said before, the Episodes following this game pretty much put it completely to shame (even if the long-delayed release of Episode 3 has become pretty much a joke at this point), condensing the better bits of the game into short, manageable sections. While it still is an excellent single-player shooter that is an exciting adventure and has some really cool story bits, the excessive padding and vehicle segments really get under my skin. It just goes to prove that laying the groundwork for bigger and better things is still important, but it doesn't mean you did everything right the first time. 

Three out of five stars. 

You are awesome, Half-Life 2. You are just starting to show your age. 

Left 4 Dead 2

The Short


Pros
- Same addicting four-player madness as Left 4 Dead but with more weapons, zombies, and options
- Scenarios have more of a theme to them and follow a unique style
- Set in the south, the game has a cool "bluegrass" twang about it
- Everything new is an improvement, to more guns, attachments, and more
- New Special Infected are cool and a blast to play in VS mode
- Scavenger mode is a lot of fun
- Overall, does exactly what a sequel should: improves heavily on the original

Cons
- New characters aren't nearly as endearing as the first batch
- Upped levels of gore are appreciated, but not for the squeamish
- The new Special Infected can make the game substantially more difficult
- Coming out only a year after the first game, this does kind of feel like its features should have been in Left 4 Dead

Another day, another wave of zombies to gun down

The Long

After Left 4 Dead sported a runaway success, Valve decided to roll with it and actually make a game on a decent timetable. Left 4 Dead 2 came out only around a year since the first game, which pissed a bunch of games off for some reason. This was the first instance I can remember of a widely publicized "boycott" of the game, though most of the boycotters ended up getting it on release day anyway (as evidenced by their Steam accounts). Mostly they were mad because they felt that Valve cut features from the first game and were now patching it together in the sequel, and that somehow because of this that diminished the value of their first game that they'd bought and obviously loved. Because if a company makes a sequel, automatically the first game is totally useless and unplayable. It might as well just erase itself and all the fun memories you had from both your Steam account and your brain.

Because that makes perfect sense.

Anyway, they were wrong regardless: Left 4 Dead 2 is an excellent sequel on all fronts. It improves substantially on the original game, while still having its own flavor and style to keep it distant and distinct. Basically, both these games can exist, and there is a reason to own both. So no whining. And on with the review. 

This game is significantly more bloody and gory than the first one. 

So at its gooey core, Left 4 Dead 2 is basically the same game as the first one. You and three buddies (because playing with bots sucks) have to get from point A to point B while not getting brutally ruined by the boatloads of infected zombies along the way. You find weapons, share health, watch each other's backs, etc. etc. So what is different here that would merit a sequel? A lot, actually.

First off are the missions, which are much better than the first four in terms of theme and setpieces. There are five on disc this time around, with more added on to free DLC if you are on PC (and paid on Xbox 360...boo Microsoft!). What makes them neat is how they incorporate new things. My favorite is "Hard Rain," a mission that involves going to a gas station out in the boonies on foot and then hoofing it back the way you came. The trick is that on the way out its nice and sunny, and on the way back you are in the middle of a crazy monsoon. You can hardly see a few feet in front of you, can lose your buddies easily, and with the darkness of night it can be very, very bad if you wander off just a little. You've (luckily) seen the whole area going one direction, but going back can be a challenge.

It's little tricks like this that make the missions unique and also add a bit more flavor aside from "go here, kill the horde, leave." They very clearly tried to make each one distinct, and it goes a long way to mix up the formula.

Melee weapons are another new addition

Left 4 Dead 2 also adds a plethora of new weapons, so many that they seem to just be lying around all over the place. If you don't like your infinite shooting pistol (of which there are actually more options now), you can swap it for a handful of melee weapons. Bladed weapons essentially insta-kill most little zombies at close range, meaning you are swapping power for versatility (hint: always get a melee weapon). There are more guns as well, though they still fall into the whole "sniper/shotgun/machine gun" classes. But hey, there's a three burst rifle finally. 

The same grenades are here, with a new "puke bomb" that attracts zombies to a spot (or enemy) to get them off your back for a time. You can carry a health kit or a defibrillator, the latter of which can be used to revive completely dead teammates. And in addition to pills you have morphine...er...adrenaline which gives you a smaller health boost but temporary speed and pain resistance. 

Essentially they took everybody's complaints about the weapons and addressed them. So yay, more variety in mashing zombies to death. Also, weapon mods like fire bullets or exploding shells are cool. And you'll need them, because of all the new Special Infected. 

Seriously, Chargers are the worst. 

In Left 4 Dead we only had five Special Infected, so the second game ramps it up by adding two more, and both of them are annoying. The Spitter paints the ground in extremely high-damaging acid, meaning if you are trying to camp corners with your team that'll mess you up pretty quick. But the most annoying one is the Charger, who basically blasts into a group, grabs one of your people, keeps running until you are separated and then slams them into the ground for high damage. So he's essentially the Hunter, only a billion times better and with more life. Annoying.

It's worth point out: despite the new weapons, the addition of the new batch of Special Infected (and their substantially higher spawn rates) make this game considerably more difficult than Left 4 Dead. It isn't that overwhelming once you adapt to it, but don't expect to just breeze through the game on super hard difficulties if you've gotten used to Left 4 Dead. There is a a distinct challenge here, and it is welcomed. 

Party time!

Lastly, the gore has been ramped up significantly from Left 4 Dead. Where in the first game the most visceral thing you got was a zombie head exploding, in this one they seem to be made of weak play-do or something because every shot takes chunks off of them, blows of limbs, or just rips them apart. Heavy machine guns and explosive ammo only further push this point, blowing them to pieces with long blood trails. It's visceral and satisfying, if a bit demented, so if gore turns you off you might just have to stick with the first game.

Vs Mode, which I totally ignored in my Left 4 Dead review for some reason, is back and just as fun as ever. Essentially two groups of four take turns being either the humans or the Special Infected (which zombie you get is randomly generated based on the AI Director). The humans try to see how far they can get to the mid-level Safe House (if they can make it there at all) while the zombies try to work together to incapacitate them all. In Left 4 Dead, the survivors usually could make it, meaning it was a war of damage/points attrition. In Left 4 Dead 2, however, with all the new badass Special Infected a moderately competent zombie team can wipe the survivors off the map before they get very far. It turns into crazy running matches to out-pace the previous team's progress before they got wiped, which makes the Vs a lot faster and more furious. 

They also added a new addition: Scavenger mode. Basically the goal is to get a set number of gas cans scattered around the map into a generator before the time runs out. The other team plays as Special Infected trying to ruin your fun, and those game tend to be a lot shorter than a Vs match while being substantially more intense. It's a fun rush and certainly one of the best new additions. 

"We have found a Witch, may we burn her?"

Graphically, it still runs in the Source engine, but the new levels of gore make the game seem better designed overall. Sets are with an American South flavor (including swamps, etc.) and feel distinct and more unique than the first game. It still has its trademark sharp corners and flat walls, but for a Source game it looks really good and has a great deal of style.

Sound design is also top notch, though this batch of survivors isn't nearly as memorable as the previous one. I liked Nick and Ellis quite a bit, but Coach was just boring and Rochelle is no Zoey. In fact, Rochelle hardly ever says anything interesting, which makes me wonder if they even bothered trying with her character. 

Boom, headshot. 

As it stands, Left 4 Dead 2 improves on Left 4 Dead in nearly every possible way. In addition, if you have the PC version Valve ported nearly all the Left 4 Dead maps over to Left 4 Dead 2, meaning you can play your favorites from the first game with the improved features. While it still has a few core problems the original had (the biggest one being you have to play this game with friends to have the best time), there is enough improved here to make it the preferred game if you have to pick just one. Even with no Francis. Who is the best character.

Luckily, if you are a PC gamer you don't really have to choose. Usually these two go on sale on Steam in pairs (or are packed together in a Valve complete pack) and I've seen it where you can get both games for $10. These are excellent co-op games and fun zombie blasters, so grab your friends and get shooting in the deep South together.

Four out of five stars. 

Happy intestines day!

Left 4 Dead

The Short


Pros 
- Four player zombie-shooting co-op action
- Simple shooter to learn, difficult to fully perfect
- Four scenarios (more with free DLC on PC) and a wave-based survival mode
- Full mod support adds hundreds more scenarios to run through
- Excellent writing for what little of it there is
- AI Director ensures every game is different, editing the encounters based on how you are playing
- Tons of fun with a few competent friends; split-screen on Xbox 360 version

Cons
- Only four missions on-disc for the Xbox 360 version, and you have to pay for the DLC on Xbox as well
- Load times can be pretty bad for a low-asset game
- Graphics look decent but not great
- AI Director doesn't do enough. We were promised he'd block off paths or change things and he doesn't; he really just decides if you get either guns or more zombies
- Limited variety in weapons and zombies (though the specials are unique and fun)
- If your friends suck, this game will be awful

Looks like you've been....left for dead. HA!

The Long

Co-op and zombies go together well. Even if we've probably had too much of both over the past few years, there isn't anything like sitting down with some buddies and zombie-smashing together. We've done it in duel stick shooters, Call of Duty mods, and who knows what else. It's been around for a while, to say the least.

Left 4 Dead was Valve's hat tossed into the zombie-slaying buddy-covering market. And while when broken down it isn't anything exceptional, everything fits together well enough in this zombie-slaying extravaganza to make for a fun romp...provided you have three friends willing to take it with you. 

Good partners are essential on the higher difficulties. 

The concept of Left 4 Dead is simple. You and three friends (or bots) have to get from point A to point B to get rescued. Between A and B are about twenty gajillion zombies to hunt down, so you'd better be ready to work together. Luckily, the gun fairy has been dropping weapons like candy all over the place (as well as ammo, health packs, pills, etc.) so you at least will be well-armed. You and your friend fight off the zombie horde while slowly advancing, until you finally win.

It works because it has smaller set-piece battles to break up the larger ones. Shooting a car alarm or having to do something like lower a loud bridge starts "Horde" events, where basically a trillion cannon-fodder infected (aka zombies) rush your team in an attempt to overwhelm. On their own or even in groups of five or six these guys aren't too dangerous, but get away from your group and you can easily be surrounded or overwhelmed. It's the constant state of rest to escalation and then back to rest (and so on and so forth) that keeps the game's tension up while not being completely overwhelming. Having three friends helps too.

Stick together, or get overwhelmed

There are also a few unique zombies. By a "few" I mean "four." You have the Boomer, an exploding bottle of barf that covers you and obscures your vision as well as turning you into temporary zombie-bait. The Smoker, who grabs you with his tongue and traps you completely until a teammates kills it or sets you free. The Hunter, who leaps on you and pins you for sick damage until a teammate helps, a Witch who just sort of sits there unless you shine a light on her or shoot her and then she murders you completely, and a Tank (aka a boss) who is a lumbering giant that everybody has to work together to kill.

Because these infected can essentially pin you completely down (the Hunter and Smoker essentially) you are completely reliant on friends to get out. Forcing this co-op element was a good call: it makes it so teams have to stick together, because if you go running off ahead and get grabbed by a Hunter it could mean instant death. These combined with the persistent common infected keep players on their toes. 

You can heal each other or give supplies if necessary. 

What determines spawns is the Director, an AI operation that watches you and (based on difficulty) either helps or hurts you. If you are all down on health and out of healing, for instance, the next cupboard you find might have some temporary life-giving pills. If you are cruising through with ammo and health to spare, expect a Tank to show up and ruin your life. It works well enough, though I wish it was more dynamic. When originally presented they said he could change routes to make the game harder and different every time; it seems that was cut. Mostly now he just controls zombie spawns and supply drops, and that's it. At least it makes things different every time, but not really enough to change things up enough. 

To be honest, the lack of variety is really Left 4 Dead's biggest weakness. Aside from a starter pistol there are only five guns in the game, with three of them being distinct upgrades from the first two. You have two types of grenades, one that baits and then explodes and one that burns. You also have two types of health: rare health kits that provide a permanent heal and pills that give a temporary boost. It's a bit sparse, and even when playing with buddies one can wish for more variety.

The same goes for the stages. On disc you only have four, and each can be cleared on all but the hardest difficulty in about 45 minutes to an hour. If you are on the PC you get a bunch more for free (including fan-made ones), but if you are on Xbox 360 you get boned by Microsoft and have to buy them. Tip: get the PC version. Load times are better, community is older, and all your DLC is free. Even then, having about 6 (?) stages on the final build still seems a bit sparse, and you'll see them a lot if you want to get your full value from this game.

Each scenario is presented like a bad zombie movie, which is pretty hilarious. 

Despite my complaining, however, Left 4 Dead has a certain draw (though only really if you play with friends). Getting four people together and playing on the harder difficulties can be a challenge, especially since on the hardest difficulty one stray bullet of friendly fire will drop a teammate. Clamoring to survive massive encounters together while keeping an eye out for the special infected can be pulse-poundingly intense, and trying to survive the final stages of a level can literally mean deciding to leave a trusty friend behind to die so that the rest can live. It's hard decisions, made at split second intervals (because those zombies are fast runners) and can be quite a rush. Even with the limited variety, Left 4 Dead pulls through by having everything piece together well, especially when playing with a group yelling and screaming at each other.

The game looks decent, but not great. 

Graphically, Left 4 Dead is just ok. It's running on the old Source engine made for Half Life 2 back in freaking 2005, so on modern machines it still holds up but has a lot of square edges. Zombies are particularly bland, probably because you have to put a bunch of them on screen at once, though blowing up heads is oddly satisfying. The environments are also decent but don't ever provide any scares (which I don't think this game was going for scares but hey, it is a zombie game) or do anything particularly interesting. It does have a cool feature where (if you watch the director's commentary you learn this) when the game is about to do something nasty to you the environments will brighten and blur ever so slightly, like the effect of adrenaline hitting the brain would in real life. This leads to veteran Left 4 Dead players (like me, hur hur) being able to actually predict when a horde event is going to happen before hearing anything, because they'll subconsciously have seen the shift so many times their own adrenaline will start pumping automatically when the screen has that extremely slight change. Pretty cool. 

The character are all unique and, despite not actually having any backstory, I found myself attached to them. I particularly liked Francis, the jerk biker who argues with Bill the war vet all the time but secretly I think they are friends. The character banter (and cries of sadness when one falls) is all very well written and randomized, meaning you rarely hear the same quips more than once. You start to piece together their relationships just by playing the game and listening and without the game explicitly saying, well, anything. It's a clever touch and one I wish more games did; I really felt like I knew these characters after playing a few dozen hours around them. 

It has a film-grain effect over it as well, further pushing the "movie" idea. Or hiding the bad graphics. 

As it stands, Left 4 Dead is an excellent zombie shooting romp with friends. Single player isn't nearly as fun, mostly because any challenge ends up being because your AI teammates are a little too friendly with the pills and health packs rather than the game being difficult. However, considering this goes on sale on Steam like every other day (I actually bought this one full price, but I got the second one for around $3), if you can convince three friends to jump on a sale and then get your zombie action on, you are guaranteed a good time. If you like shooting and hate infected, and have friends you don't mind getting frustrated with, this game is a fun romp. 

Plus it has a survival mode if you just like killing zombies unhindered by that pesky "point" thing that the game tries to force on you. 

Four out of five stars. 

"Oh boy. More infected."
"Don't be an ass, Francis."

Portal 2

The Short


Pros
- Returns to the world of Portal with more crazy puzzles and added mechanics
- Somehow manages to take the 2-3 hour charm of the first game and reinvent and reinvigorate it for a 6-8 hour experience
- The new character Wheatley is one of the funniest in games, and plays an excellent foil to the stoic GlaDOS
- Surprising emphasis on specific story plot elements as well as setpieces could have gone very, very wrong, but it didn't
- I think that between Cave Johnson (the old Aperture founder) and Wheatley, this might have the best script of any game I've ever played
- New puzzle mechanics are fun and mesh well with the portal gun's previous abilities
- Full-fledged co-op mode injects the same goofy humor and difficult puzzle solving into a two-player experience
- Excellent soundtrack
- Has the single best ending to a video game, ever. Hands down. No argument.

Cons
- A few of the middle act's sections ("Old Aperture") drag, falling into the "find the one thing that a portal can stick to and go that way"
- Wheatley can take a bit to warm up to considering how chatty he is, but given time and he's just as endearing as the rest of them
- A few of the jokes and plot points feel a bit forced (the "Potato" thing)
- Some puzzles are downright...well, puzzling. You could easily get stuck for great lengths of time.
- This game really needed more Cave Johnson. Every game needs more Cave Johnson.

How do you create a sequel to a sleeper hit that doesn't piss everybody off?

The Long

I'll admit, I had my doubts about Portal 2, all the way down to when I was playing it on my PS3 the day of release. I (like the rest of the world) loved the crap out of Portal, but felt something about its magic was the fact that it was 1. Short and 2. Perfect. It didn't try to stretch the experience out, which worked wonders to its benefit. The portal gun mechanic was well suited for a 2-3 hour game but anything beyond that and it would start to feel like it was dragging (and it was actually starting to drag at the end of Portal, which makes it a good thing they ended it where they did).

So when they announced a full retail sequel, longer bigger and bolder, I was genuinely concerned with whether or not this game would work. After all, one of the biggest things Portal had going for it (aside from being perfect) was the fact that it was a complete surprise. Nobody expected anything that happened in that game, all the way down to its surging popularity. Portal 2 was slated to be a huge release for Valve, and we already knew GlaDOS was going to come back in it and be evil and all that...what could they add? Could they really succeed in doing the impossible: making a sequel to Portal?

The answer? Yes. In fact, while I'm not going to say the experiences are the same, I will say that on my personal list of favorite games I now rank Portal 2 higher than Portal. Yes, I went there.

I can stand and watch this turret creation animation for hours. 

Where do I even begin with Portal 2? Well, let's first hit the elephant in the room: the story. Portal's story worked well because it was a slow build and escalation paired with a lot of unknowns that were never answered. Who wrote all those messages in the walls? What exactly happened that lead to GlaDOS flooding the science facility with a deadly neurotoxin? Are there any other people around now? Why does she keep testing when everybody is dead? What is the meaning of life?

Portal took care to take a step back and only answer that which was completely necessary to your personal story and that was it. It was an excellent example of storytelling restraint, something most video games just hamfist and blast you full of expository dialogue to get the point across. This ambiguity works for a shorter, tighter experience, but it was clear from the get-go that Portal 2 was going to be longer. So...what changed?

Well, lots. The whole tone of the story has taken a slight shift. Not for the worse, mind you, but to adapt to its new length. There are actual character this time that interact with you, some on a fairly regular basis and on a personal level. There's also an actual story rather than just hints at something bigger, and through this personal story the broader questions get addressed and several (but not all) get answered. It's a shift not in style (as it still feels very much like the first Portal game) but simply adaptation to fit its new length. 

Run to freedom! Nothing bad will happen!

It works, and it actually works better than in Portal, for this reason: Portal was well written, yes. But 90% of that game's script could work in a vacuum separate from the rest of the game and still be clever writing and funny jokes. Yes, it works better within the scope of Portal, but there's obviously a slight disconnect there. Which, for a short game, works.

Portal 2 feels like a tighter knit experience, like the story and the game just fit together and flow better together. It still somehow manages to have very little filler despite being a full length game, with you rarely going for more than 10-15 minutes without either funny dialogue or a story element (though I'll admit the story sort of gets put on pause for the middle section of the game, where it should have been the strongest). It's a combination fake history lesson, character interaction, and answering questions from both games, and it works. I really, really feel like Portal 2 is better written that Portal, if only because of the reason I said above: Portal exists in its own la-la land. Portal 2 feels more intentional, and thus more concrete. 

Plus there is only one cake joke in the whole game, and this is it. Good job showing restraint, Valve. 

I think I need to make note of the characters in the game, because there actually are characters that you interact with this time around. GlaDOS is back, obviously, and her passive aggressive hatred of you produces some of the best lines in the game ("Test results are back. Let's see...'You are a horrible person.' That's what it says. We weren't even testing for that."). Playing foil to GlaDOS's irrational hatred and general genius meanness is Wheatley, a little robot orb with a British accent who is either brilliant or a total fool (usually the latter). However, since he's your only ally you have to tolerate him, and the way the story weaves bot Wheatley and GlaDOS's fates together is ingenious. There's also an underlying message here about power corrupting, but I won't go into that.

There is a hefty amount of in-game foreshadowing to the story, for those willing to pause and look at the scenery. 

During the second half of the game you spend a good deal of time in "old" Aperture, remnants of the building in the 70s, and there you get to hear the voice-over of Cave Johnson, who apparently left old recordings lying around old test chambers. Considering during these parts you've gotten somewhat separated from Wheatley and GlaDOS, Cave does a superb job keeping the interesting history of Aperture hilarious while still being relevant to the main conflict. While the traversal in these areas gets a bit cumbersome, I was willing to forge through because Cave is so funny (voiced by J.K. Simmons, famous angry boss of Spider-Man), and his side story going on through dialogue snippets is also quite interesting. 

Though I will say the third act is easily the best act of the game. A culmination of the previous Portal game, all the Cave Johnson backstory, and the main conflict of Portal 2 results in some difficult puzzles, shocking reveals, and some downright clever writing. The ending in particular, from the final boss to the final credit, is absolutely ludicrous, hilarious, and heart-wrenching. They somehow manage to tug on most of the heartstrings while still being loyal to the humor, which is commendable. 

As I said, I think Portal 2's story is better than Portal's. I also think Portal 2 might be my favorite game in terms of story. Yeah, even more than Nier. It is really quite something.

Now on to the actual gameplay.

So the story is good. Wipe that anxious sweat from your brow and breathe a sigh of relief; they didn't ruin Portal. So now, what about the rest of the game? What about the puzzles? 

Well, as I mentioned before, Portal was exactly the right length because 2-3 hours is about the time you start getting a little tired of using one mechanic to solve everything without much mixup. Valve clearly got this, because it only has you doing vanilla portal puzzles for about an hour before it starts throwing new mechanics in.

The mechanics fit the area you are in. Early on you get laser light boxes, which thankfully replace those annoying bouncing balls that can kill you from the first game. They can also fry turrets, which is a bonus, and have to be refracted in certain ways to solve puzzles.

Then you get to the gels, and things go bananas. 

But the star of the new mechanics are the gels. Showing up in Old Aperture, they come in three types: blue (bouncy), orange (speedy), and white (moon rocks, which lets you put a portal on anything they cover). These lead to the best, most complicated puzzles in the game, and since you can chain them together and then mix them with portals to do some devious physics puzzles, Old Aperture is both the hardest and the most satisfying section of the game. 

There are a few more things added at the end that I personally think should have been put in sooner to keep things fresher earlier, such as the light-bridges, but I guess they added the bouncing platforms and some other things early so maybe I'm just talking out my butt. The point is: all the new mechanics play very well with the portal gun's established ruleset, and if you thought the puzzles from Portal were clever than these ones are going to blow your mind.

Unfortunately, traversing Old Aperture isn't nearly as fun as the test chambers or listening to Cave Johnson.

It isn't all fun and sunshine, though, as Portal 2 does have a few (if minor) problems. The biggest one is the traversal during the second act. During the first and final acts the game streamlines you from one test chamber to another, which I will admit is a kind of boring and linear way to progress but hey: it gets me to the good stuff quicker, so I'll take it. However, during the Old Aperture part somebody was playing Portal and went (essentially):

"Hey! Remember at the end of Portal when things started to get frustrating? Like, where there was only a limited number of things you could shoot with your gun so the whole game turned into a 'find the one white square' instead of an actual puzzler? What if we did that in the second game, but made it bigger?"

Then instead of punching him in the face they did what he said, which was a mistake. It isn't all bad during this section; some areas force you to use gels from previous test chambers (using portals to get it out into the "real world") to aid your traversal, which is clever. But for the most part it's just seeing a far away light source gleaming on a white area, shooting a portal there, continuing. It isn't particularly interesting and, when put alongside the excellent puzzles especially in this area of the game, comes off as *gasp* padding the game's length.

Cave would fire you all for this. 

There are a few more minor niggles, mostly pertaining still to the second section. The plot "twist" during this part is interesting but leaves you in long sections not talking to anybody, which shouldn't be the case considering the circumstances you are put into. The whole "Caroline" thing seemed a bit tacked on, though the resolution of it at the end of the game was absolutely perfect and I have to applaud Valve for breaking cliche. The pacing of the second section also feels more like a stretched out Portal rather than the fine-tuned, stuff happening constantly feel of parts one and three of Portal 2. I think they were hoping that the uniqueness and silly aesthetic/history of the second area would be enough to pull us through (having a "quiet" section of the game) but you can't put the quiet section right after a crazy plot twist and two-three hours of no quite, ever. If your game is designed to be a laugh a minute thrill ride, then you can't have everybody sitting around for several hours, no matter how funny Cave Johnson is. I think it's because the blend is off: in every other section you have both brilliant story and awesome puzzles. This one you are either solving an awesome puzzle in silence or listening to a brilliant story, not both at the same time. It hurts the pacing, which is unfortunate given how great the rest of the game is. 

Just...dammit, Wheatley, you are too funny. 

I feel I should briefly mention the excellent co-op mode. In it, you and a friend run around and basically try to ruin each other's lives and occasionally solve puzzles. It's a completely standalone story from the single player (I think it takes place...after the main story? Maybe?) and while the story itself isn't particularly enthralling, GlaDOS is there insulting you and trying to pit the two of you against each other (usually by giving "points" to the more abusive player) which is hilariously entertaining. The puzzles are also some of the hardest in the game, employing all the new mechanics picked up on the single player but with four portals to deal with now. Yes, you each have your own set of portals, which means some of the puzzles get fiendishly difficult. It's a good time and surprisingly long, clocking in at another 5-6 hours, and if you are the kind of person who thinks Portal 2 should cut back on its story and be more like Portal's "story" of GlaDOS insulting you while you solve tons of puzzles, than co-op is exactly where you want to be. 

The soundtrack is unique, and has a great feel to it. 

I also think the soundtrack earns a mention. In the first game it was mostly background nose, but in Portal 2 it manages to be both background noise and very memorable. Every section has its own sound to it, meaning when you head back to regular Aperture at the end and the music has a tonal shift it feels like going home. The music does well as helping you feel what you need to feel during the story bits, which is essentially what music in games should do, so...good work. Plus it sounds pretty awesome to boot. 

If you haven't figured it out, I really like Portal 2

Many people said 2007 was the best year for gaming ever. And yeah, it was pretty great. But man...2011 was something else. Which says something when I think that Portal 2 might be my personal favorite game of 2011. Yeah, even alongside Skyrim, Dead Space 2, and all those other awesome games...I still think Portal 2 shines above the rest as an excellent example of what games can become. It goes to prove you don't need dark, gritty realism or blood and killing to be excellent. You can take one clever mechanic and, when paired with excellent writing and a few switchups, make a game that is far more memorable than any of those other gray shooters. It sets a precedent, one that probably will be completely ignored by other big game companies, that being clever and making sure all the elements work can produce something that transcends sales numbers: you can make something people won't forget.

Plus...that ending. Man, it's just...it is so good. Go play Portal 2. You have to. I command it. 

Five out of five stars. 

Yay!

Portal

The Short


Pros
- Clever hybrid of FPS mechanics in a well-designed physics puzzler
- Excellent puzzles throughout, with several genuinely brainteasing ones
- Some of the best writing in video games
- Short and sweet, with the option to play user-created puzzles to enhance your post-game experience
- An excellent hybrid of story, graphics, and gameplay that makes it both unique yet familiar
- Regarded by many as the greatest game ever made

Cons
- Any and all bonus puzzles are missing the story element, which is a main draw
- Lengthy intro tutorial can be tedious on repeat playthroughs
- Ending 1/4 can resort to "find the one object I can put a portal on"
- Spawned some awful internet memes we still can't get over

Unlike most of my other reviews, this one almost seems redundant

The Long


How do you review Portal? By this point in the game, I'm fairly certain anyone who has even a remotely serious interest in video games has played it or at least heard of it, and knows already of its quality. But since it is my goal to review every game I've ever played, let's talk about Portal for a bit and why it is such an excellent game. And why, if you haven't played it, you really need to fix that ASAP.

Portal was a pack-in with The Orange Box, a 2007 collection of all of Valve's best game as well as a few new ones. The pack already had the transcendental Half Life 2, as well as the two Episodes to follow. Team Fortress 2, the cartoony follow-up to Team Fortress, was also a big push (and is still a massive PC shooter to this day, probably the most popular PC shooter). Then we had this other game...Portal. How did that get in there? I remember my roommates talking about it but having no incentive to play it. The concept seemed cool enough I guess, but you don't shoot or kill anything and Valve was hardly pushing it so...why waste time on a pack-in?

It wasn't until I saw my friend playing through the last few test chambers that I realized I couldn't stop watching. And if I kept watching I'd spoil my experience of playing Portal, as a puzzler is only as good if you don't know all the answers. So I booted it up and proceeded to ditch all my college classes to burn through it the first time. And man...I was impressed.

Who needs school when you can think in portals?

Portal was (and still is) a complete package. There are three fundamental elements that (I think) make Portal special. 1. Its clever writing and script, that starts off as just background noise and quickly evolves into its own beast. 2. Its unique premise and game mechanic: the titular "portals," which follow the laws of physics and force you to think according to their twisted logic 3. It's briefness and dedication to creating a whole, complete experience without attempting to pad the length. In these three aspects, one could arguably compare it to Braid (or compare Braid to Portal rather, seeing as Portal came first) seeing as everything just pulls together perfectly. It makes an experience that is - again - a bit short, but the quality of those several hours you'll spend with it are so memorable you'll want to replay it again just to catch things you might have missed. That, in a nutshell, is a sign of an excellent game: wanting to go back and play it again immediately after beating it. Added bonus that it's a puzzle game, so you'll already know all the solutions if you run through it again. And still don't care.

This screenshot is a spoiler. 

So anyway, what do you do in Portal? If you've somehow managed to avoid any knowledge of this blockbuster game, here's the gist: you shoot portals. Portals allow instant transport from one location to another. Put one portal next to you and another across a pool of acid, then just walk through and you'll be on the other side. The trick comes in momentum and physics: jump down from a high height into a portal on the floor, and you'll go flying out sideways through one on the wall (over obstacles, etc.). It's a simple mechanic (one that is added upon with buttons, boxes, and dangerous turrets) that carries the whole game through. Aside from a rather long tutorial at the beginning, most puzzles are presented without hint or explanation, meaning you'll have to get your thinking cap on from the get-go.

Portal would have just been another puzzler with a unique mechanic if they hadn't gone all out and injected a hefty dose of personality into the game. What do I mean? I mean having the killer death-turrets say silly and polite things in high-pitched robot voices at you while they try to kill you (or when you kill them by knocking them over). I mean having a persistent voice-over by a malevolent female robot voice that starts off friendly enough but quickly devolves into a malicious AI. Add hidden secrets for those who look, hints that things might not be all they seem. Add hints that there should be a story here, but it's buried so deep under the whole "testing" premise (and since you are technically trapped regardless) you as a player will have to imagine or straight up fabricate your own perceived backstory. Cap it off with a final confrontation that manages to be both hilarious and intimidating, and an ending song that is somehow both extremely out of place yet fits in perfectly. 

The phrase that spawned a thousand memes

It's the combination of the little things that make Portal great, and the fact that they all synergize so wonderfully together. To be completely honest, I think Valve did it completely on accident. Reading the background on how Portal was designed, they actually didn't spend as much time working on it as many people think, and I'm willing to bet a lot of the humor and the game's most endearing moments were crafted that way accidentally. You certainly don't plan a sleeper hit.

Regardless, that's why Portal is great: it doesn't strive to be anything aside from a cute, quirky puzzler dedicated to its aesthetic, script, and theme. And since you rarely get a game these days that does every aspect right (the story, the script, the gameplay, the unifying aesthetic) everybody latched onto it and it got massive amounts of (rightful) praise. It's one part gameplay puzzler, one part a piece of hilarious entertainment, and one part just an experience. It's a ride worth taking multiple times to find all the secrets and clever little things they added in. It goes to show that you don't need a big budget or killer graphics to create something people love, you just need to put a little heart into it. 

Cake optional. 

As it stands, I could gush about Portal all day, but the point is this: it is exactly as phenomenal as everybody has been saying since 2007. Yes, really. And if you play video games and haven't played Portal, than shame on you. It's a short experience (maybe 2-3 hours on a first playthrough, more if you really suck at puzzles) but an excellent one, one that will stick with you for a while to follow. Plus, if anything, then you can play the (arguably better, though for different reasons) Portal 2 without fear of not getting it.

So this review did end up being kind of pointless. Whatever. Portal is great. It is, again, an excellent example of how the little things in a game (or almost any media) can all work together to create something fantastic. So go play it and enjoy the ride. Or go play it again. Just...play it. You really should.

Considering Valve has literally given this game away on PC multiple times, you really don't have any excuses here. On XBLA you can get it and some bonus puzzles for $10, but considering the low system specs and ability to download puzzles, the PC is the way to go. 

Easy five out of five stars. Excellent game.

And of course this is gonna show up now. 

Week in Review for 4/1/2012 - Contest Winners

First off, as you can guess I've been extremely ill all week, so I took a break from reviews. Don't worry; we'll be back to 1-2 a day (or more) as is usual this upcoming week. For now, however, we just had 3 reviews this week. Not great, but better than nothing I suppose.

Second off is the important stuff: the winners of last week's contest! I took all your registrations/shares and figured it out via a random number generator, and here are the winners:

1. divinemango
2. Xeiphyer (GiantBomb)
3. Cipher Peon

Congrats! I've already contacted divinemango over Twitter. Please note you have 48 hours to respond (until Tuesday, essentially) or I'm bumping #2 to #1 and redrawing a new person. So if you get a tweet or an IM, please respond! I'll let you know what games are available.

Here is this week's limited run of reviews.

Space Marine - 4 / 5 Stars
Kirby's Epic Yarn - 4 / 5 Stars
Fable - 5 / 5 Stars

The current best bet for next week with regard to theme is that I'm going to try and review all the Valve games on my list. I might tack some Blizzard on there since those two companies tend to go hand in hand in terms of fans loving them.

That's it from me. Expect a better next week! No foolin!

Fable

The Short


Pros
- Excellent RPG taking you from boy to man in the shoes of a Hero
- Spec out three separate spheres - magic, ranged, and melee - based on how you use them
- Moral choices and freedom let you shape your character and the world
- Tons of options available, from tattoos to hairstyles to clothing and armor
- Action-RPG combat system that has a surprisingly decent melee and a fun ranged system
- Game looks great, sounds great, and really sucks you in

Cons
- Doesn't fulfill even a sliver of the promises made by Peter Molyneux, aka the biggest gaming liar ever
- Despite having tons of depth, all of your character interactions are stale and shallow
- Story is stupid nonsense with a bland payoff
- Load times are so, so so so long.
- Lots of little dumb problems that probably sounded like good ideas on paper get annoying quick
- Really easy
- Magic sucks except Time Slow, which is overpowered insanity
- Can't play as a girl
- Where my acorn, Molyneux? WHERE'S MY ACORN?

Off on an adventure (all screenshots from the PC version)

The Long

Believe it or not, there was once a time I didn't waste my days submerged in video game news and information, and because of this I missed all the hype spouted by Peter Molyneux about this game until after the fact. I remember my roommate and neighbors at the time were super excited about this game coming out on Xbox my freshman year of college, and I have no idea what they were talking about. When the game finally did show up, some were disappointed, some were elated, and some didn't care. I gave the game a run-through on my roommate's Xbox and guess what? Having literally no idea what this game was and with no expectations, I loved the crap out of it. Fable is a game series that has always done well in immersing you into a massive, sprawling world that you feel you are really a part of. But while the sequels kept trying to capture the magic of the original while piling on more and more of Molyneux's broken promises, I still feel the very first Fable is the best game in the series, and a must for any action RPG fan to play. And here is why. 

First, you can look like this! 

Fable's story is nothing to write home about. Essentially "Hogwarts, but replace 'wizards and witches' with 'heroes,'" Fable stars YOU! Yes, YOU! A young hero boy, who only wanted to buy his sister a nice present before douchebag bandits showed up and murdered everybody! Luckily some hero wizard guy shows up and, rather than showing up ten seconds earlier and saving everybody, he shows up later and says "tough deal about your family. But YOU'RE A WIZARD, HARRY!" and off you go to Albion's School of Heroism and Really Big Swords. Where you know it's racially diverse because there are two black people in the whole world. But that isn't the point.

Anyway, there's some story arc revolving around your mom and sister still being alive, and Jack of Blades being a big bad...person for some reason and you have to kill him before he ruins Hogwarts, and...ok, the story is stupid. Luckily for you, the little side stories (and all the voice work) is excellently done so you'll have a much funner time just running around messing with people than doing the actual story. It's weak, unmemorable, but also isn't particularly important for games like these (where you are supposed to be telling your own story), so I'll give it a C- but let it pass the class. This time. 

And here is the headmaster, Dumb...er, Bumblebore!

The story is just a setting to say: "You have to help people, or you can be a massive jerk to them, or both. Also: magic." The actual game in Fable is pretty simple. You have three schools of combat to work with: physical (being melee), agility (being shooting stuff with bows), and magic (being...magic). What is cool about how this system works is that every time you kill an enemy you get both general XP as well as a bonus XP based on how you killed them. If you bashed them a lot with a sword you get red Physical XP, shot them a lot you get yellow Agility XP, etc. General XP can be spent anywhere, while the specialized have to be used in their specific tree. Meaning the more you use one type of sphere, the better you get at it, though it's still easy to multi-class as you just have to start using a sword more to get XP for that specific area. It's something Oblivion did like crap and Skyrim did really well, so it's good to see Fable streamlining it to a point that it works almost perfectly (even if it is a bit too easy).

But aside from that, the real fun in Fable comes from the simple idea of just messing around and making your person exactly the way you want to. Fable was one of the first games of recent generations to really push the whole "Morality System" thing that now stinks up every game that seems to come out, though it did so in such a comical and over-blown way that I'm willing to forgive Fable for starting this trend. Basically you have a bunch of options in Fable. Want to give money to people and be their friends? You can do that. Want to murder everybody in town and steal all their stuff? You can do that too. Want to sacrifice people to some demi-god of darkness and get the best bow way early in the game? Do it. Want to be a pansy nice guy and donate all your hard-earned money to charity? You can do that too. The point is that everything you do adds either good or evil points to a slider, and where that slider stands can influence many aspects of the game.

Oh crap, I forgot to talk about combat. We'll get to it.

Be really good and people will love you, you'll glow with inward goodness, have a halo, and butterflies will flutter around your pristine hairline. If you are evil you'll bald, giant horns will pop out of your head, your eyes will burn red, flies will buzz around you, and the ground beneath your feet will burn. So yeah, pretty stark contrast. It honestly doesn't do much aside from make you look weird (and have people run away from you); the overarching "story" doesn't have any influence and nobody seems to care if you are evil or not except nondescript NPCs, but it's a nice artistic touch.

Anyway, let's go back to the combat, which is actually pretty simple. Melee is usually just button mashing, though if enemies block you can instigate a guard-block break move when you combo enough (also a knockdown move) to keep it busy. Archery requires you to pull the bow back (the time of which can be decreased with level-ups) and then fire for maximum damage. And magic...well, it sucks, to be honest. It's never particularly powerful and most spells are useless, except Time Slow, which is the biggest hack in the world. So just learn that one. 

Combat is extremely easy, especially if you play an archer and know where to get the best bow in the game on like the third mission. There's also no penalty to wearing heavy armor vs light robes, meaning you should always wear heavy armor all the time. There's also no real stealth in this game, which is too bad, since I wanted to make a ninja. Basically the combat is fun but not particularly challenging, and if you stock up enough on potions you'll make it through the whole game without dying. 

You can augment weapons with certain runes, ala Diablo II 

Back to the random crap: there's lots to do. Getting married, buying shops, cutting your hair, getting tattoos, getting scars if you suck at fighting and take a lot of hits, doing random quests; the list goes on. What actually matters is this: I felt immersed in the world. Yes, it's really just a string of different areas linked together with awful load times, and yes it is actually a very limiting world once you dig deep (again, no stealth system, etc.) but I didn't care. I got connected to my character in ways few games do. Being able to provide so many levels of customization made me attached, and the fact that the camera stays close behind helped me always keep an eye on him. I wanted him to be the most evil bastard Albion had ever seen, and I dressed him accordingly and slaughtered everybody with awesomeness. I really felt like I made the guy I wanted to make for the first time in any video game, and it was an experience.

And you stab lots of guys

I could go on, but I think I covered it enough for now. The point is thus: Fable is a fine game if you go in with moderate expectations. Is it flawed? Yes. Did it totally fail to live up to the expectations? Yes. But as a game it's fun, quick, and sucks you into its world. Which is more than enough for me.

Graphically this game looks really good on both original Xbox and especially good on PC, even now. The game is colorful and flashy, with character models that have a cartoony British flare that has since become a theme of the series. Sounds are also fantastic, with excellent voice acting all around, though I wish your character spoke some time. 

Now go forth and fish!

I can't say much for where this series went - Fable II was ok and Fable III was an abomination - but I still have a good deal of fondness for Fable. Something about it really resonates with me (and most of my friends, based on their opinions) so much so that I'll go back and replay it every couple of years. If you enjoy action RPGs where you "forge your own destiny," than you really owe it to yourself to check out Fable. Though if you do be sure and grab Fable: The Lost Chapters; it has an expanded ending as well as some more weapons. 

And while I still say it's flawed, I really think everybody should play Fable. There's something in it for everyone.

Five out of five stars. 

Yay for Fable!