You Asked For It...Halo Wars. Plus A Bonus!

Ah, my first day to myself in a few months! I think I'll spend it playing some Asura's Wrath. *Notices Cody S's. request for Halo Wars* Ah, dammit.

Halo Wars is a bit of a contested entry in the Halo Series. Some I've talked to think its story would have worked better as an FPS. Others argue that the RTS system is actually pretty well done on the 360, since to my knowledge RTS games are normally only seen on PC, rarely being made for consoles. Let's see what FFG has to say about it.

Our reviewer today Frank, from the Skyward Sword review, or at least I'm assuming it's the same guy. He opens by saying that the real-time strategy genre is "slightly better than the first person shooter genre."
So, right off the bat we're starting with a completely opinion-based, subjective statement that can easily be disagreed with due to personal preferences. Yay.
He then goes on to explain the basic gameplay. Okay, nothing too bad so far. This is followed by two bland statements that I could literally paste into a review of almost anything. " Between each level the storyline unfolds in some nice cinema style movies."
Like most modern games?
"The characters have different attitudes, and they routinely clash."
*Tommy Wiseau voice* Oh hai, incredibly broad statement.
This paragraph closes on an explanation that Halo Wars takes place 20 years before the other Halo games, "which ultimately tells us what will be coming in the future."
Um...no. No it doesn't.

Frank goes on to praise Halo Wars on the "nice details " in its graphics, then immediately pulls  a 180 and starts bashing it for reusing images and even says that there are "female characters who wear skin-tight clothing."
 
This is Serina, one of only two female characters in Halo Wars. She is wearing a lab coat.

 
This is Ellen Anders, the other prominent female character in Halo Wars. She is also wearing a lab coat.

 
This is Zero Suit Samus. She is wearing skin-tight-clothing. The other two...not so much.
 After that mass of concentrated stupid, Frank mentions that the cutscenes are of good quality, and that the blood and gore-
 There's no gore in Halo!
He could talking about The Flood.
Oh right. 
-the blood and gore are, at least, small and hard to see.

Now we run into a recurring problem with a lot of FFG's reviewers - they contradict themselves constantly. Frank mentions that the sound in Halo Wars is "top notch," but then instantly bitches about cursing and repetitive sound bytes. He also starts talking about the enemies, and this is where I honestly cannot fathom what this guy is thinking. Frank mentions that the aliens are "shown to be people of faith" and that "in many ways they act more 'honorable' than the good guys."
You mean like capturing a human scientist and attempting to wipe out an entire human city during an invasion on a colony? Not to mention the fact that the Covenant are repeatedly shown to do horrible things and their religion has been proven to be a hollow lie maintained by the Prophets to maintain control over the various alien races! This crap is honorable?!

Frank mentions the various different modes of play and then start complaining about difficulty. He then says that "certain levels have to be played a specific way, or failure is guaranteed."
You mean like every video game ever?
He then says that the game is repetitive, and that life seems to have no value, as lost troops can always be replaced. He finishes by saying that it "teaches some lessons in war, but not always overtly," and that he "never had to explain to thousands of parents why their child died."
Are you serious? Are you really being serious here? I can barely even think of a response to something this stupid. If dying soldiers disturbs you, then just consider - if this game is like the other Halo games, then they probably respawned back on the ship, like Chief and Noble Six do in co-op and multiplayer. It doesn't make sense from a story perspective, but you can think of it that way if you want.
Frank makes one more parting comment, that he was "not sure" if he was "fighting on the right side or not" and that the game "led to a lot of prayer."
THE COVENANT ARE SCARY DOGMATIC ALIENS WHO WANT TO USE ANCIENT SUPERWEAPONS TO WIPE OUT MANKIND! THERE IS NO MORAL GRAY AREA HERE!

Speaking of morality, how's about a second review for this post?
Sure, why the hell not? Nothing can be worse than that last one.
They had someone review inFamous.
CraaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP!

Our reviewer this time is Luke. Let's see if The Force is with him or not.
That joke sucked.
Shut it! He starts out mentioning that he got inFamous for free due to the PSN hacking debacle, and he briefly notes that they announced a sequel. Frank then mentions that the main character Cole is "a super powered man who gains more skills as the game goes on" and that "lightning is his main power."
No, lightning is not Cole's "main power," for a few reasons. The first being that lightning is not synonymous with electricity - lightning is a bolt of electricity discharged during thunderstorms, while electricity is the broad term for electrical power. Only a few of Cole's attacks involve lightning bolts, mainly his Bolt and Lightning Storm attacks, and if you meant that electricity is his main power, then that's still wrong - it's his only power! Saying it's his "main power" implies he has others, which in inFamous 1, he doesn't!

Luke complains that the graphics in inFamous are grainy (like an old comic book. This was intentional.) and that the camera "gave him a migraine."
I'll admit, the camera in inFamous does seem to want you dead at times.
He then says that "the core of inFamous is violence ," "there is blood, gore and death..."
There is one instance of silhouetted gore in a cutscene!
...and that the people look realistic, making him feel bad about killing them.
Then play a Hero character and revive them with Healing Pulse. Seriously, this isn't that hard to figure out.

Luke, as usual for FFG reviewers, complains about swearing...
What little swearing there is in freaking inFamous! 
...and says that the music and voice acting all elicited negative responses from him.

He briefly mentions the trophies that are now standard in all PS3 games, and that he has no reasons to play inFamous. Luke then complains that the gameplay is "frustrating," and that "jumping on certain things was nearly impossible."
Okay, that happened sometimes in inFamous 1, but it's not like it was constant! It's no reason to condemn the entirety of the gameplay.
He says the game explains some aspects but not others, and that he often had to get help to complete mission.
The game explains new types of missions as you encounter them. After a certain point, the designers assume the player is intelligent enough to remember what to do.
Luke closes this paragraph by saying that the NPC's constantly remind you of your mission objective.
Uh...no, they kind of don't...

Luke ends this farce by saying that inFamous is "disturbed" and that it teaches to player to "worship death."
No,  inFamous teaches about morality and the consequences of your actions. It tries to get across the message that being selfish will net short-term benefits, but long-term losses, while selflessness and sacrifice will lead to long-term victories that it is overall better to think about the people at large rather than yourself. But this guy didn't even mention inFamous' karma system or it's deep, awesome plot. All he saw was "game where killing is possible" and based his argument on that, never once looking into the deeper meaning behind inFamous. It's almost like he didn't even play inFamous, but just read a Wikipedia article about it!