Dota 2 (2013) by Valve

I finally feel qualified to write a review of Dota 2, since I'm just exiting the stages of being an absolute beginner in Dota 2 and finally progressing into the "novice" stage.

After nearly 1,500 hours over a period of 6 years.

I remember reading a news story a while back during the release of the hugely popular Witcher 3 in 2015 that was speaking about how many other games had lost thousands of players, all of whom had flocked to the big new game and were engrossed by it. Except for Dota 2 players, who continued to play to their normal numbers and weren't distracted by another game releasing. The writer came to the humorous conclusion that Dota 2 players are probably just not aware of the existence of other games.

Although I love other video games, that's still easily understandable for me, because Dota 2 is by far the best competitive game I've ever played. It sucks people in and devours them, dominating their every waking moment. I know people who don't play any other games, just Dota. And I understand why.

The sheer amount of variance between games and the bevy of differing mechanics enables the player to continue playing for thousands of hours—as I have—and still feel utterly amateurish. There's so much to learn, and so much to think about while you're in the game. The game isn't so much a test of how mechanically skilled you are, or how fast your reflexes are, but your ability to multitask and make a multitude of complex decisions in a small amount of time. Do you have vision? Are smokes of deceit available? What's your next item? Who is killing you in fights, and what can you do to prevent that? Have you used your shovel when it's off cooldown? What about midas? If you win a fight, should you Rosh, or take objectives? When's the proper time to split up and farm? And those are just the in-game, micro-decisions. You've got vaster ones to make as you continue to play the game. Which heroes feel stronger this meta? Which items? Which strategies are working?

Friends and I often talk about our "forever games", ie. the game that you will probably play for decades into the future, because you'll just never get tired of it. And that's Dota 2, for me. I began playing in 2014 and I've taken a significant amount of time off here and there (most recently, for the past 2 years, only to come back once again). If you're looking for a forever game, Dota can certainly be that for you. But there are a few significant hurdles in the way.

First off, I don't think I've ever engaged in anything with a steeper learning curve than Dota 2. There are more than a hundred heroes, of whom you must learn every single thing. All of their abilities, the items they will build, their power scale timings. And then there are hundreds of items you must learn as well. And you've got to apply all of this thinking on the fly to how it affects not only your hero, but your teammates' heroes. It's such a massive amount of knowledge to compile, and it's changing all the time. Nine out of ten players will try this out for 5-20 hours and set it down, utterly bewildered by what they're doing wrong as they get mercilessly brutalized over their first 10 games or so. So it certainly helps to play with a more experienced, exceptionally patient friend who can show you the ropes. And if you stick it out, and play a few hundred hours, you'll find that you can begin to gain an appreciation of why this game so dominates the passions of so many players around the world.

I can talk about how the sound design is fantastic, how I dislike some of the character designs, or any other of normal-video-game-things, but the real focus on reviewing Dota should talk about two things: 1) The incredible job IceFrog and Valve do at balancing a game with so many disparate parts and how having such a deep set of mechanics to learn keeps players coming back for tens of thousands of hours, and 2) the infamously cancerous community surrounding the game.

Dota 2's infamously contemptible community is easily the games worst aspect

I'm not going to blow smoke; many of the players populating Dota's servers are unkind and delusional. I've had literally hundreds of games in which I've watched a player roam into the enemy jungle, try and fight 3-4 enemy heroes, die stupidly, and then proceed to flame their teammates for not following. Or the players who, the moment you die, will jump on your mistake and adopt an air of superiority in scolding you, and trying to correct the way you play—despite being the same rank as you. Everyone playing Dota 2 seems to believe that they belong at a far higher rank than they are, and everyone else is at fault for their placement.

The core component to the toxicity surrounding this game is a stunning lack of awareness of the player's own deficiencies, and the deflection of blame towards anyone else possible. Sure, there are trolls who run down mid, and there are people who refuse to actually support. But these are relatively rare in my experience. What wears me down from playing Dota consistently is the sheer amount of toxic communication and blame-game playing. If you play this game, you've got to have a thick skin. You'll be criticized mercilessly and blamed incorrectly. And it's constant. This happens nearly every game, even if you have a decent behavior score (8000+), as I do. Even I'm not exempt from this behavior—there have been plenty of times in the past when I've engaged in bitter exchanges with teammates. It's something that just comes with the territory of playing such a difficult, highly competitive, intensely human game. Emotions run high and we say things we regret.

That said, I do believe the game's in a better place now than it has been in years past. Supports are more likely to pull, gank, and buy smokes and deward. Individual couriers have done a lot to improve player relations in-game and prevent arguments—it's hard to believe now that you'd sometimes get games in which supports would refuse to buy a courier. And, perhaps most important, Role Queue is a huge, fantastic development—you now no longer have 5 carries every single game. And to deal with such rampantly poor communication etiquette, all you've got to do is mute other players liberally. My personal rule of thumb is to mute anyone who begins suggesting items to other players (these people often have a false sense of superiority that leads to flaming teammates when things go poorly), or begins to broadcast the slightest amount of negativity. I've never regretted muting a player, but I have frequently regretted not muting them. I've even gone through dozens of games with everyone muted on both sides, just enjoying the game itself in lieu of any communication whatsoever. Learning to use the mute buttons liberally is the fastest way to truly enjoy playing Dota 2. But you'll still likely end up having days where Dota 2 is the best game you've ever played, and days where Dota 2 is the worst game you've ever played.

There's also the esports scene around Dota, which is incredible. The International is the best esports tournament in the world, and the Dota client itself has amazing features for spectating games by high-level pros, whenever you want to. I personally enjoy spectating games from Player Perspective, so I can analyze what high level players are doing differently than me when I play.

Reviewing Dota 2 is not like reviewing any other game. It's the deepest, most rewarding competitive experience I've ever had with a video game. But it's also the most infuriating and mood-ruining. Striking a healthy balance between these things is key. If you have the determination to learn the game, a thick skin, and a modicum of intelligence, you'll probably adore this game. And, best of all, you can get all these thousands of hours of enjoyment out of the game without spending a single dime. All the heroes are free so you have a complete playing experience right out of the gate, unlike other, similar games on the market.

And maybe you'll play it forever, like I will. Give it a shot. It's free, after all.

⭐⭐⭐⭐

Shadowrun Returns (2013) by Harebrained Schemes

I was excited to play Shadowrun Returns simply because I'm a big fan of both tactical RPGs and cyberpunk. I've read William Gibson's work and liked him, and Final Fantasy Tactics is one of my favorite games of all-time.

This game is obviously influenced on the combat side by XCOM: Enemy Unknown, which I loved. But I found it to be a bit light as far as tactical RPG depth. The robustness of the different systems in play in XCOM, including the greatly varying types of enemies and huge differences in classes and abilities, is just not present in this game. Now, a game that relies on a very basic combat system is certainly not always at fault for doing so, but it's got to be a strong enough core mechanic to carry the weight of the entire combat system, otherwise is just gets boring. This game is nearly there, but I just don't feel that the tactical combat in this game is solid enough at its base to accomplish that. It requires a more robust, deeper experience.

RPGs will always grapple with their pacing. It's easy to leave a player a bit too long in a hub world, and make them feel bored with some of the more tedious tasks they're assigned there. The pacing in this game suffers from that problem. You're spending too much time running around aimlessly, chatting people up, and doing other miscellaneous things. Again, there's just not enough depth here. I don't feel like too many of the things I'm doing actually matter. They don't interest me. I'd be itching to get into more combat, but then I'd actually get into and get bored of that, too.

The writing is there, but I didn't find any of the characters particularly compelling save for Sam Watts, who doesn't get much screentime.

Shadowrun Returns is not an offensively bad game by any means. It's actually a very promising one. It's a portent of what's to come from Hairbrained Schemes. This title is one of those examples of a developer getting their feet under them with some nice basic design and then releasing an initial effort. The obvious emphasis is on core systems: The building blocks are here, and they've got a lot of potential. But the combat system, the characters, and the pacing leave a lot to be desired.

The emphasis on community developed content is a strong one as well, so there's a lot to do here outside the main game. But as a standalone game, I can't recommend Shadowrun Returns simply because I highly recommend its standalone successor, Shadowrun Dragonfall. Dragonfall succeeds in every category of Returns that I found wanting. I'd recommend to anybody considering Shadowrun Returns to skip this title and play Dragonfall instead. It's really a fantastic game.

⭐⭐

Playtime: 18 hours

Splinter Cell: Blacklist (2013) by Ubisoft

Ubisoft quietly releases the best Splinter Cell game in years

Splinter Cell Blacklist is the best entry in the series since Chaos Theory, and one of the best pure stealth games I've played in years.

Traversal is a dream. Sam moves fluidly and intuitively. You feel like a cat prowling around these levels, stalking enemies, and darting quickly to and fro outside their paths of patrol. Sam Fisher's hand to hand takedowns are superbly satisfying, particularly the deadly variants with his karambit knife. The choreography there is spectacular, and unlike some stealth games such as Human Revolution, the takedowns never get old. The game is also designed in a way that rewards you for your playstyle, no matter how decide to play. Want to play ghostly, never touching enemies, and never leaving a trace? Me, too! You get a lot points for that, which you can use to unlock better gear and weapons. Want to take down every single enemy you come across, alternating between fighting, popping off a couple of shots, then throwing down a smoke grenade and disappearing into the shadows? They give you quite a few points for that, too. Want to just go balls out and play the game like you're John Rambo, throwing incendiary grenades and fire an unsilenced heavy gun? Totally viable way to play the game, and, yup: They give you a boatload of points for that, too. This game has succeeded in allowing the player to drift between full stealth and action shooting in a way that many stealth games have tried over the past couple of decades, but few have succeeded in doing. It does exceptionally well at allowing you to play the game the way you want, and seamlessly transitioning between different styles. I's an amazing accomplishment, and it's the biggest reason why this is such a good game.

Yup, it's a Splinter Cell game.

The replayability I touched on is another asset of the game. Sam Fisher is so customizable that this game could also be described as having RPG features. You can customize all of his gear and weapons to help him better perform either at stealth or combat. You receive money for accomplishing things like takedowns or disappearing after alerting enemies, and then use the money to purchase pants, better goggles, better guns, and more. It does more to allow you to play the game the way you like, and that's something I can always get behind, especially from a company as typically reprehensible to consumers as Ubisoft generally is. It also creates a ton of replayability and does a lot to keep you coming around. Just look at my stats: I've put 60+ hours into this game and have replayed it several times. That's more than I've put into any Splinter Cell game since Chaos Theory.

A big part of the success here is how bad-ass you feel while playing the game. I mentioned how strong the hand-to-hand takedowns are, which is a big part of it. Another is the mark and execute feature that's been carried over from Conviction, which I absolutely adore. It functions in this game as an excellent "Oh, shit" tool to use if you're about to be spotted by an enemy. Check out the surroundings, mark the enemies, and commence sneaking. Take a wrong turn and get spotted? Hit the button and Sam instantly takes out anybody within range that you've marked, bailing your dumb ass out and giving you another shot to keep sneaking. It's a great way to incorporate a kind of undo button into a genre as unforgiving as stealth. I'm not sure whether the developers purposely intended for the feature to be used in this fashion, but it works great, especially considering that you can now use mark and execute at extremely long range when equipped with sniper rifles, which is a neat feature.

I've played several Ubisoft games the past few years, and none have run very well aside from the Far Cry series. This game, happily, runs like a dream. It looks great, too. Textures are excellent, and motion capture for the actors is terrific. I do think the game loses quite a bit without Michael Ironside, though, and I question why Ubi even deigned to put Sam Fisher in the game to begin with. The justification was that they needed a younger actor to do the motion capture, which is understandable. But Sam has to be in his late 50s by this point. Why not just reboot with another character altogether, and relegate Sam to the Lambert role of the older games? Ironside is an excellent voice actor, and the series is worse off without him.

Anybody who has read my reviews in the past knows that I have a big problem with checkpointing in stealth games. There's nothing more frustrating than sneaking through nine tenths of an area, getting caught at the very end, and dying, only to be put right back where you started and having to follow everything you just accomplished again. It's unbelievably frustrating, and it has no place in modern video games that could easily provide a free save feature. If you don't like save scumming, then don't do it. I don't. But not having free saves is a terrible design choice and it harms people who play the game on the hardest difficulty, which I frequently choose when playing stealth games. This game, sadly, does feature checkpointing, which is one of my few complaints about the game. However, the checkpoints are frequently very manageable, which does some mitigating to the repetitiveness caused by their presence. They are still annoying, though, and I have no idea why game designers continue to use them.

The story is another weak point with this game. It's your typical Call of Duty-esque American military story, with the gruff hero saving the world from the sneering villain. I thought Conviction actually had a really great story, but unfortunately this game doesn't continue what they shot for with that one. Gone is pretty much all of the Tom Clancy flavor out of the series that was present in the first three games. This is all Hollywood action movie, which is disappointing, but doesn't matter much in the long run since the game plays so fantastically.

I also found the music wanting. Chaos Theory had what I consider to be the best soundtrack in any video game, ever, and this game lacks Amon Tobin's stunningly beautiful score that that game featured. Tobin did such a great job with Conviction, despite having only two songs present in the game, that I would linger on that game's menu just to listen to the excellent menu track that he composed (see below video). The fabulous sound design in Conviction does not return, either, but it's manageable here. Seriously, Ubisoft, Amon Tobin is a god. Bring him back, please. We miss him.

Another complaint I've got are the stupid first person shooting segments of the game. I can see the value of using them to break up the pacing and add something different, but come on, people who buy Splinter Cell games buy them for stealth gameplay. If I wanted a shooter, I'd play Battlefield. I'd rather Splinter Cell sticks with its strengths.

The multiplayer and co-op features in this game are some of the strongest since Chaos Theory as well, and I'd be doing a disservice to the game if I didn't mention them. I don't play much competitively, but I had a blast with the co-operative segment of the game. I only wish it were a bit more meaty -- It's easy to blow through all of the co-operative levels in just a few hours.

Overall, you could do way worse than Splinter Cell Blacklist. If you're looking for a pure stealth experience, this is your game. It looks great, it runs great, and it plays great. It's got great replayability. The minor nitpicks I have with it do nothing to really damage the experience. This is a great game, and it's a promising return to form for the Splinter Cell franchise. If you're a fan of the stealth genre, you'll adore it. If you're not, it's still worth playing, as it's a solid game even when played just as a third person shooter with some stealth features.

⭐⭐⭐⭐

Total War: Rome II (2013) by Creative Assembly

Attempt to divide and conquer in Creative Assembly's thoroughly broken, poorly optimized strategy sequel

I'm a huge fan of history, particularly classical history. I spent my time in college studying Roman Civ, so the game was hugely appealing to me. But I'll try and take a step back here in order to review it from the point of view of someone who isn't completely infatuated with history.

I'm a big fan of the old tactical JRPG style games, like Tactics Ogre and Final Fantasy Tactics. I haven't done much gaming with its cousins in the subgenres of military strategy and real time strategy, but I really enjoyed how this game seemed to blend both of those genres together, and I respect that Creative Assembly is basically designing two games in one, here. There's the overarching strategical game in which you're managing your cities and towns and moving your military and spy/champion/dignitary units, and there's what is obviously the meat of the game in the battle system that occurs once you engage in combat with an enemy unit. They flow together quite nicely, allowing you to build up the efficacy of your units via upgrades in your cities and towns. It scratches the RPG itch in that way while at the same time providing a great strategical and tactical experience. You can easily find yourself dumping hours upon hours into this game, thanks to the patented "Just One More Turn" addiction technique made famous by the Civilization series. It's quite enjoyable, and there's quite a lot of it -- One campaign can take nearly 100 hours to complete.

There are some really cool features to the game. I got the most enjoyment out of it simply due to the fact that it strives to be historically accurate, and it does a great job of it. The Roman military is clearly split between the Manipular system of the middle Republican era, and the Marian reforms later on that transformed the army from the group of levied farmers it classically was into the group of professional, disciplined fighters that would eventually conquer most of Europe and all of known Africa. The historical accuracy of the military units also extends to the Celtic tribes of Gauls and Britons, the Iberian tribal fighters, African and Asian horsemen, etc. It's all really enjoyable given my interest in history.

There are numerous little touches that are really nice, as well. The art on the unit cards is really awesome. It's clear they went for an antique style with them, and it really works well. The Celtic tribes look particularly cool. Another thing I found really enjoyable was the pre-battle speeches that the general can be heard giving his troops. They're phenomenally well voice acted, and they make accurate references to religion and state. It's enjoyable down to the cornua that the centurions blow whenever you tell a unit to move. It matters a lot that they get the little things right here, as they do a lot to immerse you in the time period, and Creative Assembly has absolutely succeeded there.

An historically accurate depiction of Caesar vs. the Gauls

The actual combat, and being able to zoom in and out as your units go to battle against others, is absolutely phenomenal. You can zoom in and see each unit, in great detail, fighting against the enemy. Or you can zoom out and take in the entire battle from a colossal scale. Watching your cavalry charge the rear of an opponent is immensely satisfying. I had one situation where one of my legions was caught in enemy territory. I had had the foresight to send my units into a defensive stance, so the battle began with them entrenched in a wooden fortress. I was heavily outnumbered, and didn't have many units to do anything with other than just station them in the doorways of the fortress and hope they could hold off the enemy. They ended up succeeding, breaking the enemy waves at the entrance in true Roman legionary fashion. It was awesome, and easily my most memorable moment in a game filled with them. The problem is that about half of the most memorable moments are due to terrible bugginess, and those memorable moments always caused battles to end in disaster for me. Imagine fighting a battle for close to 40 minutes, and having it suddenly turn because one of your key units got stuck on geometry and slaughtered since you could no longer maneuver them. It's just as infuriating as it sounds.

I've gotten into this game somewhat late, playing it a full year after it originally released, and I've read quite frequently that people say it's become way better, that it's been fully patched and is now recommendable to everybody, but my experience with it has not proven this to be correct. I've had units refuse to enter a breach in a wall literally a dozen times, which has caused me to stop knocking down walls altogether and just use siege ladders. But then I had units get stuck on a wall and do nothing but continue to climb up and down the siege ladders, which caused me to lose an extremely important battle. I've also experienced a bug where my cavalry has run in the completely opposite direction from which I've ordered them. There are numerous other things like this that really destroy the experience for me, but it's also incredibly poorly optimized, even after Creative Assembly has patched the game several times and repackaged it into the "fixed" Emperor Edition. I'm running 780ti SLI and I see dips down to around 20 fps at times, which is absolutely ridiculous.

It really hurts me to give this game a thumbs down, because I did enjoy it quite a bit. But the frustration from dealing with its bugs and its poor optimization make it hard for me to recommend to anybody outside classical history buffs and hardcore Total War fans. If you fall into either of those groups, then by all means, take the plunge, because you'll get quite a bit out of this game. I surely have. But if you're not, then you should probably just pass it up altogether, because the frustration will likely outweigh any enjoyment you'd get out of the game.

⭐⭐

The Wolf Among Us (2013) by Telltale Games

Telltale creates yet another engulfing, narrative-driven experience for the player to affect

Even though the horror genre is generally lost on me -- especially zombie fiction -- I'm a huge fan of Telltale's The Walking Dead. The writing, particularly dialogue and characterization, really sets the bar about as high as it can possibly get in video games.

I was naturally excited to play The Wolf Among Us, though I decided to wait until the summer sale this year to play it so I could experience it in a binge, like I did when I played The Walking Dead Season One last summer.

This series lives up to the high standard set by The Walking Dead, and it appeals even more to me than that series does. The characters are fantastic, the dialogue is expertly written and even quite humorous at times, though the story itself is really quite dark. The characters are all very relatable, and they've got their own issues they're dealing with. At the core of the story is the conflict between who people are and their struggle between their nature and who they ultimately wish to be. It's deep stuff, and the fact that the game is populated with a number of very real personalities makes it hit all the more harder. I particularly liked characters like Woody and Gren; people who come off as your typical villains when first introduced but eventually develop into fully rounded characters with very real flaws, should you allow them to. And, of course, Bigby. Though he ultimately is what you make him, I found that each path you could potentially take is a totally fleshed out, meaningful one. Kudos to the writers, because producing that kind of a narrative can't be an easy thing to design a video game around.

The gameplay is pretty sparse, just like it was in The Walking Dead. All quicktime events, with some very stripped-down '90s style point-and-click adventure exploration thrown in as well. I could understand how that may turn some people off, but if you're here for story and characterization (as I am) then it shouldn't bother you much. This game doesn't shy away from what it's strengths are to fit other expectations. It's a story-driven experience, first and foremost, and it's not self conscious about that, which is relieving. I think that trying to shoehorn in some shooting or deeper gameplay would have just distracted from its strengths.

The art style is, at its core, the same as The Walking Dead. But the color palette here is spruced up in various shades of warm oranges, neon reds and pinks, and cooler purples. Nothing is really gray or brown. The streets are a cold slate, buildings mimicking the streets, with glowing yellow windows throughout the buildings. Most of the game is set at night, and the artists are obviously shooting for a noir feel, which is helped along by a pretty solid soundtrack. While the basic art style is familiar to Telltale's other efforts, I have to say that it's much improved from the drabness that I felt hurt The Walking Dead. This is a really, really fun game to look at, and though the writing is utterly fantastic, it doesn't have to rely only on that to keep it standing like The Walking Dead did.

If you're a fan of Telltale's The Walking Dead, you already know that you should probably buy this. If you're unfamiliar with that title, but you're interested in a strong narrative with a good atmospheric feel, then I can't recommend this game enough. I'm really enjoying it, and I can't wait to play the finale this upcoming Tuesday. But if you're looking for more action, or a more "gamey" game, then you'll probably want to look elsewhere.

And man, I really can't wait for their adaptation of Game Of Thrones.

⭐⭐⭐⭐

Bioshock Infinite (2013) by Irrational Games

Bioshock Infinite's visuals are undoubtedly the main draw, but it features remarkably little depth within

The good stuff: Amazing character design, very good writing. Think Disney characters stuck in a gritty, mind-bending plot. It's really fantastic. All of my drive from playing this game came from wanting to see Elizabeth's character development. The art direction is absolutely superb and unmatched by anything in the industry at this point, and the graphics support the artistic view. I will say that this game is embarrassingly hampered on consoles -- It really shines in 1440p, which is what I played it on. Absolutely beautiful game is every aspect.

Actually playing the game, however, is an utter disappointment. Totally gone are the best aspects of Ken Levine's first BioShock game: Altering the scenery to your advantage via hacking and trapping is completely absent. Those features, combined with the ability to manipulate the Big Daddies, were what made BioShock such an amazingly fun and unique experience. Now you've got some rails to fly around on. Seriously, that's it. Nothing else. The shooting in BioShock was universally agreed upon as the worst part of the game, but it was bolstered by some great environments that provided plenty of variety to the problem solving inherent in the game. That's nowhere to be found here. You're left with a group of boring weapons, not enough ammo, and no environmental alterations save Elizabeth's powers, which seem completely neutered. You can choose one alteration to make to each environment, out of 3-5 that Elizabeth presents to you. It's a far cry from the dozens of alterations that you could perform in the original BioShock when looking to take down a Big Daddy.

On top of this, the plasmids in this game are nowhere near as interesting and fun as those found in the original game. The combos are far more boring.

In the original BioShock I was constantly tinkering with different hacks and booby traps, and combining them with a variety of power usage to take down my enemies. It was at its best on the highest difficulty level, when you were truly pressed to plan perfectly and execute at 110%. In this game I find myself shooting, camping until my shields recharge, shooting, waiting until Liz throws me ammo, and shooting some more. It's a far more tedious experience than the original game.

In closing: This game is ABSOLUTELY beautiful in every way. The environments are breathtaking, the character design is stunning, the dialogue hits home with every line spoken -- It's both well-acted and well-written. But the gameplay simply is not there to support it.

If there were some way to combine the art design, acting, and dialogue of this game with the pure puzzle-esque gameplay of the original BioShock, it just might be the best video game of all-time. This game, however, is all aesthetics and no guts.

⭐⭐