Top 10 Games of 2012

Honorable Mention

I've completed Ghost Recon: Future Soldier's campaign about three times now and the most fascinating thing about that undertaking is I'm still not entirely sure what's keeping Future Soldier from being the great game I know it could have been. I've been a Ghost Recon fan since the first game's much-anticipated release 11 years ago when the Tom Clancy brand promised gamers gruelling, deliberately paced military action.

Don't get me wrong though, Future Soldier isn't a bad game. It couldn't be further from a bad game, actually. The PC version offers up considerably next-gen quality visuals thanks to excellent DirectX 11 implementation, it controls far better than the console versions, and is the first game in the long-running franchise since the first to embrace its tactical roots. The in-depth gun customization options, undeniably cool near-future gadgetry, and wealth of gameplay modes ensures that fans of modern military shooters will get their money's worth. There's a lot of content here that's not only high in abundance but unmistakably well made. So what's the problem?

Future Soldier has the dubious distinction of being a game that wants to be too much to too many people. For all of the bombast it revels in there are just as many slow-paced, stealth-driven missions that wouldn't feel out of place in the original game. And that's more or less Future Soldier's biggest problem: it can't decide if it wants to be a set piece-driven military shooter or a deliberate thinking man's military shooter. I'll give Ubisoft credit for attempting to balance the two but by trying to appeal to two different markets it has a hard time carving out its own distinct niche.

It's sad to see the 2K Games-published, Yager-developed Spec Ops: The Line not only underperform critcally but in sales also. I think it's safe to assume that gamers are no longer interested in military-themed material. That's unfortunate considering Spec Ops: The Line is about as anti-military as a military shooter can probably get.

I'd be surprised if, despite having never played it, most of you aren't somewhat familiar with this game. It's been the subject of some controversy for both its pitch black displays of violence and outspoken lead developer who has publicly denounced the game's multiplayer mode, stating it was a decision 2K forced on what is otherwise a stringently single-player experience.

Multiplayer debacle aside, I don't remember the last time I played a game as disturbing as Spec Ops. Yager aren't content with simply telling you how terrible war is. They'd rather force you into lose-lose situations, force you to make a decision, and then watch as main character, Captain Martin Walker, psychologically unravels instead. His subordinates begin questioning his motives, Walker begins questioning his sanity, and you will no doubt begin questioning what purpose your hours of bloodshed have served. What good has any of it done?

Oh sure, the Unreal Engine 3-powered visuals are nice to look at, the voice-acting is absolutely rock solid, the gunplay perfectly serviceable, and a couple of big set piece moments are undeniably impressive, but you shouldn't walk away from Spec Ops feeling good about the experience. As a straight-up third-person shooter it gets the job done nicely. The cover system is a bit finicky, though very functional, there's plenty of guys to shoot your guns at, and the lite tactical elements are much welcomed. But there's more to Spec Ops than meets the eye. Yager wants you to feel the utter hopelessness of war. There is no winner and there is no loser. There's just doing what you think is right and having to live with the consequences. Spec Ops: The Line will make you feel like shit and it's proud of it.

Like most everything else that makes oodles of cash, corporations the world over just don't know when to give up a good thing. Instead, they prefer not to just run said moneymaker into the ground but down to the very depths of Hell. I think it's safe to assume that military-themed first-person shooters are having their last song and dance. It would be easy to blame the Call of Duty franchise's immense publicity for their downfall, but there's much more to it than that. Everyone wants a piece of that pie and eventually imitators start filing out of the woodwork. Some good, some bad, and some painfully mediocre. Oversaturation leads to customer disillusionment. This is what's happening now and will continue to do so until something else captivates the mainstream and starts moving units. Simply put, Medal of Honor: Warfighter isn't an imitator. Unfortunately for EA's long-running franchise most people just don't care anymore.

What separates Warfighter from the competition is its adherance to keeping things realistic and authentic. There's plenty of excitement spanning the 6-7 hour campaign and a few edge-of-your-seat set pieces, but for the most part Warfighter is concerned with hitting the sorts of emotional cues the 2010 reboot did so well. It's quite obvious that developers Danger Close wanted to make things a bit bigger with this sequel and they certainly managed to push it in places. The moments that are most compelling, however, are the ones that offer a quiter approach to the usually bombastic fair we're used to seeing. The characters in this game aren't superheroes and we're reminded of that time and again. The narrative isn't as strong this time out, though it does have the distinction of having been written by real-life Tier 1 operators which does provide it a certain credibility that other military shooters just can't muster.

Warfighter is a great example of its genre. The Frostbite 2-powered graphics are incredible, the sound design is excellent, the emotional storyline is a bit muddled but still packs a wallop, and Danger Close's obvious disdain for the high-energy theatrics of competing franchises makes this a refreshingly grounded endeavor. But with first-person shooter burn-out setting in full force I'm positive that the heavily scripted linearity of the campaign won't bode well for many. It still comes highly recommended, and not because of any daring originality, but because it executes the military shooter tropes with invigorated panache and rather atypical respect for its subject matter.

Show of hands, who reading this remembers a little game released in 1998 by now-defunct developers Looking Glass Studios titled Thief: The Dark Project? Thief was one of the first games of its kind. At a time when gamers were still knee deep in Quake II and Valve's newly released Half-Life, Thief's taut stealth-oriented gameplay made huge waves. Us Thief fans have been waiting for what seems like an eternity for a new entry in the series and while one has never truly materialized I imagine Arkane Studios' Dishonored is as close to one as we're likely to get for some time.

There's something unmistakably charming about the dark, surreal, pastel painting-like gaming world Arkane has conjured up. You'll skulk through the beautifully dingy streets of plague-infested Dunwall all the while evading, looting, and assassinating with lethal precision. While Dishonored is largely built on the first-person sneaker formula of the aforementioned Thief franchise, Arkane isn't against allowing players to gleefully butcher the shady Dunwall government in many satisfying, unbelievably gory ways. Razor wire traps? Check. Up close and personal sword kills? Check. BioShock-styled dual-handed combat? Double check.

For a game that revels in the dark mystique of a silent assassin and the creative ways in which he is able to complete objectives with painstaking precision and no collateral damage, Dishonored loves making you want to kill everybody. The citizens of Dunwall aren't just crass, they're more often than not loathesome human beings. But that's the point, isn't it? Are these lives worth saving and sparing or are you just going to say "Fuck it all" and decimate entire rooms of NPCs? Arkane has accounted for this as well by ensuring that the actions you take effect future NPC encounters and award you with one of two suitable endings. Despite being an amazing stealth/action game, Dishonored's eclectic visual approach and subject matter won't be everyone's cup of tea. An essential game, to be sure, but just like the inimitable Thief series, Dishonored is destined for long-lasting cult appeal.

Videogame message boards were not the place to be last October. Resident Evil fans were coming out in droves to denounce the latest game in the series, slamming Capcom for daring to contemporize their beloved surival-horror franchise. Yes indeed, Resident Evil 6 is yet another long-enduring series' sequel to be given the set piece treatment. Is Resident Evil 6 horror? To an extent, yes, I'm sure you can classify it at as such. There are some really, really creepy moments and bizarre enemies to run afoul of, there's still a very real feeling of vulnerability, and a complete lack of regenerating health means it's still wise to manage your resources and watch your ammo.

Is Resident Evil 6 survival-horror, though? Certainly not. Capcom has turned what was once a gruelling, nightmare-inducing experience into a Hollywood blockbuster wannabe that really just does not feel like a Resident Evil game. But I loved it. The western design sensibilities are given a decidedly eastern execution, so while there's a good chunk of this game that obviously wants acceptance from western audiences, Capcom hasn't lost sight of what makes Resident Evil so compelling. The only real difference this time around is how purely sonic the whole experience is. It all feels so fast-paced and explosive. This is essentially Resident Evil 4 with a $200 million budget. It's pure spectacle spanning four campaigns and over 20 hours of gameplay.

Resident Evil 6 is contemporary. It knows it is. Capcom is wholly aware that, no, this isn't the skin crawling Resident Evil 2 reinvented for a new generation. This isn't the same terror-driven gameplay that was moving millions of units three generations ago. Survival-horror doesn't sell. But that doesn't make Resident Evil 6 a bad game. Make no mistake, Resident Evil 6 is a jaw-dropping ride. The sometimes wonky control scheme and awkward player movement can be a bit disconcerting at first, but after a little adjusting feels second nature. There's a wealth of content to dig your grubby little mitts into and if you're keen on the kind of game Resident Evil 6 aims to be then you're doing yourself a disservice by not immersing yourself in all that it has to offer.

I'd be understating the success of Rockstar's seminal Grand Theft Auto III if I said it was sort of a big deal. GTA III wasn't just a big deal, it was huge. It was the first real phenomenon the videogame industry had seen for quite some time. Anyone even vaguely familiar with gaming is likely aware of Grand Theft Auto III and the impact it had. And with that kind of success comes imitation. Activision decided it could enlist a developer (in this case, Luxoflux) that would give them their own critically beloved, digustingly successful open-world sandbox title. This game eventually became True Crime: Streets of L.A., and while met with impressive sales, just couldn't compete with the Grand Theft Auto franchise. It was an unusual game that seemed more like a harsh satire of open-world games than an entry in said genre.

Activision got the bright idea to resurrect the DOA franchise with True Crime: Hong Kong, decided that they didn't like the almost-finished product very much, and shelved it after tons of promising gameplay demos and promotional material had already been revealed. Activision was willing to part with the game but not the franchise, sold the individual rights to Square Enix, and True Crime: Hong Kong became Sleeping Dogs. Word on the street is the excellent game Square Enix released wasn't exactly up to snuff under Activision's tyrannical overseeing.

Sleeping Dogs may have started its life as a sequel to True Crime but I can honestly say that if I hadn't known prior to playing that this was meant as a sequel to that particular franchise I would have been none the wiser. It bears little resemblance to any of the two True Crime games excepting the hand-to-hand combat and open-world element. And because it's no longer a sequel it would be unfair to judge it as one. Taken as a standalone game and the probable start of a new franchise, Sleeping Dogs is a screaming victory for Square Enix that does a lot of things right. The main story - involving the infiltration of the Chinese Triads by undercover officer Wei Shen - is suitably dark and violent. The whole thing is admirably straight-laced barring a few comedic bits that really only act as tension breakers. The hand-to-hand combat is also of note due to a relatively easy to use fighting system that is far more complex than it appears on the surface. Extremely solid gunplay and perfect car handling top off a surprisingly refined gameplay experience. There's a lot to do, a lot of ways to customize your experience, and gorgeous DirectX 11-enhanced visuals that make great use of current high-end PC hardware.

Sleeping Dogs is a shockingly good sandbox game that unfortunately suffers from a few vexing issues. The biggest offender here is the abrupt, unsatisfying concluding mission. It lacks finality and feels tonally out of place with the rest of the game. The length of the game's main story is also disappointing. 10-12 hours of play time isn't short by today's standards, but open-world games usually offer main storylines upwards of 15-20 hours. Again, there's a lot to do in this virtual Hong Kong. There's no shortage of collectables to discover, races to partake in, side missions to complete, and a myriad other goodies that will keep you busy long after the main game is complete.

I'm not fond of Ubisoft's recent business model. Sandbox games - especially those with the size and scope of the Assassin's Creed titles - shouldn't receive the kind of quality-destroying annualization that current-gen publishers seem so fixated on. There's too much content that needs to be implemented in too short a time frame. I'll give Ubisoft credit in that they've managed to keep each yearly entry relatively bug-free considering their ridiculously short development cycles. Fortunately for Assassin's Creed III, it was developed over a course of three years. Its creation began not long after the release of my personal favorite entry, Assassin's Creed II.

At this point in the franchise's life there's not a whole lot we haven't seen. Most of Assassin's Creed II's appeal stemmed from the liberal amounts of variety and refinement built from the promising-but-mundane foundations of the first game. So much of what made the series' first sequel such an immaculate experience was in seeing the evolution of the series' now-trademark gameplay and the lengths Ubisoft went to fix the issues fans had with the first. With each subsequent entry I think it's safe to say we've come to expect certain things. Much of that initial "Wow" factor is gone and that's to be expected with such quick succession of follow-ups.

Although much of what Assassin's Creed III offers is nothing more than increases in refinement and gameplay enhancements, I'm reminded why I enjoy this franchise so much when it all comes together as smoothly and rewardingly as it does here. The backdrop of the Revolutionary War makes for some great moments, particularly ones that see you working your way through iconic locations and battles of the time period. In typical Assassin's Creed fashion there's plenty to do and the lengthy story will take up a large bulk of your time. The graphics are uniformly impressive and the combat has been refined to a T. Unfortunately the new ancestor introduced here - Connor Kenway - just isn't as compelling or charismatic as Ezio Auditore and that does hurt the overall impact of the unfolding events.

Speaking purely from a gameplay perspective, Assassin's Creed III is easily the best title so far. The missions are fun and diverse, there's more to see and do then you probably have time to devote to them, and enough has been revamped from the previous games to make it feel like a true sequel. Admittedly, however, the story feels unnecessarily rushed despite being quite long, and Connor is far too wooden a protagonist. Still, Assassin's Creed fans won't likely find themselves disappointed.

The Mass Effect games are an eminent example of a series that's been able to transcend ordinary genre labels. It's as much an RPG as it is an action game and as much sci-fi as it is well-written drama. The Mass Effect franchise started its existence as an early Xbox 360 exclusive that was an unmitigated critical and financial success, hindered only by its generic gun combat and absurdly long load times. Of course, that was also at a time when BioWare was largely an RPG developer, albeit one with staunchly western ideologies.

Much to the chagrin of Mass Effect enthusiasts and benefit to EA's and BioWare's wallets, Mass Effect 2 began shifting things towards a more action-centric focus and Mass Effect 3 has continued that evolution (or devolution, depending on your perspective). There's certainly more, not to mention better, action found throughout with a wider array of attacks, a smoother cover system, and greatly improved gunplay. There are still a lot of dialogue-driven cutscenes, the same genre-defining characterization, and the enjoyably in-depth RPG customization options Mass Effect fans have come to expect.

So what's all the hoopla about? There's no mistaking the fact that Mass Effect 3 is by and largely a game that's attempting to satisfy dual audiences. In a sense Mass Effect 3 is broader than it probably should be. It's not just an RPG anymore. With that said there's been an understandably harsh backlash from fans upset at BioWare for cutting back on the RPG elements in order to ensure better gunplay and "epic" battles. I understand the necessity for such a thing, however, and for those not interested in the game's duality there are options available to the player that enable Mass Effect 3 to alter its presentation to suit your needs. For example, if you prefer shooters it'll basically fast-track through all of the dialogue and RPG-style upgrading for you. If you prefer RPG-styled gameplay the combat sequences will almost play themselves.

Then there's the ending. The ending fans lobbied against. The ending fans bitched so hard about BioWare was all but forced to change it. It's good to see a developer that actually cares about its fanbase, although I feel the fans overreacted. Non-conclusive ending or not, Mass Effect 3 is still a great game that also has the distinction of being one of the few that successfully melds shooter and RPG together without sacrificing one for the other. Fans of either will be getting their money's worth and then some.

The first game in the now-infamous Hitman franchise, subtitled Codename 47, was one of those games that had me sold on concept alone: you played as a lethally efficient contract killer, setting up and eliminating targets in any way you saw fit. Want to make it look like an accident? Done. Want to sneak your way in, posing as a member of their security entourage, and garrote wire them to death? Done. Want to go in guns blazing, eliminating anyone and everyone in your path? Done. The problem with Codename 47 certainly wasn't the concept. 12 years after its release it's readily apparent that gaming hardware circa 2000 wasn't up to snuff with IO Interactive's ambitious game design.

With each successive sequel the series got better and better. The fourth entry in the franchise, 2006's Hitman: Blood Money, was the absolute pinnacle of the series. The graphics were beautiful, the gameplay was refined to near-perfection, and every promising mechanic introduced in the previous titles had been reworked and implemented better than ever before. Blood Money was the alpha and omega of the series, the entry where everything came together cohesively for the first time. It was an unforgettable, unforgivingly difficult experience that was and still is hard to match. It received great reviews, was met with fantastic sales, and the fan reception was impressive to say the least. Then the franchise disappeared. After what turned out to be the most successful entry in the series to date one can see why it was so strange that it took Hitman: Absolution nearly six years to materialize.

As with any videogame franchise that has to find ways to balance an already established formula with contemporary design elements, Absolution has been both loved and hated in equal measure. But this is still Hitman. It would seem design complaints - especially ones accusing developers of "selling out" their franchises for mass consumption - are the norm these days and any time a long-running series begins adopting some current gaming trends the title in question is treated like the black sheep. Hitman: Absolution has had some things changed, certainly, but I feel the final product is better because of them.

There isn't as much freedom, unfortunately, but to say the player can't scour each location for a modicum of alternate paths, methods of assassination, and a diverse selection of ways to complete a given task is just absurd. Blood Money was very sandbox-y, and while Absolution is comparitively strict, there are plenty of open levels with equally open methods of progression. The new stealth system worked brilliantly when adequately adjusted to, the cover system is one of the most efficient and intuitive in years, and the satisfyingly weighty gunplay makes it oh-so-hard not to "Rambo" every scenario. Fan of the franchise or not, Hitman: Absolution is an immaculate action-stealth title.

"Did I ever tell you the definiton of insanity?"

If you were watching Ubisoft's 2011 E3 press conference then you undoubtedly know who Vaas Montenegro is, why the above quote has since gone down in the annals of videogame history, and why Far Cry 3 was one of the most eagerly anticipated titles of 2012.

Didn't like Far Cry 2? No problem. It seems as though Ubisoft didn't either. Far Cry 3 fixes everything wrong with the second game and the best looking, playing, and sounding first-person shooter of 2012 is the result of Ubisoft Montreal's toiling. While occasionally long-winded, not to mention disappointingly barren in the story department, if you signed on for intense action set in a living, breathing, and very dangerous open-world, Far Cry 3 delivers exactly that.

Although games of this genre aren't usually reliant on strong narrative structure, I get the feeling that there was meant to be a deeper story featured in Far Cry 3 than there ultimately ended up being. Suffice to say there's certainly more story and characterization here than in past entries and more than enough to propel things forward and give players a reason to continue. What's most impressive about Far Cry 3, however, are the lengths Ubisoft Montreal have gone to convince players that they're smack-dab in the middle of an exceedingly hostile tropical island. Vicious pirates, equally vicious animals, and Rook Island's native tribe - The Rakyat - clash with one another as main character Jason Brody (a/k/a you) searches for his captured friends, plans his revenge, and seeks his eventual return to civilization. Far Cry 2 didn't feel "alive" enough for you? Fixed.

The island itself is huge and there are literally hundreds of hours of gameplay just waiting for you to unearth them. Far Cry 3 is often considered the Skyrim of first-person shooters and after spending just a handful of hours with it it wouldn't be hard to see why. Nearly everything in this beautifully rendered virtual world is perpetual. Outside of the main storyline, 90% of the goings-on are entirely unscripted. After you've finished everything you can possibly finish, the heart of the surrounding environment around you still pulses and deftly reacts to your presence. In a sense the game never truly stops. If you have the patience and dedication to allow yourself to be swept up in the stunningly chaotic tropical Hell Ubisoft has meticulously created, I doubt you'd find many reasons at all to want to end this vacation early.

I vividly recall the rainy summer months of 2001. August was particularly dreary. Not just because of the consistent cloud cover and lengthy thunderstorms, but because that month was the first time I got my hands on Remedy Entertainment's masterwork third-person shooter, Max Payne. For a 14-year-old kid that was just getting into videogames, falling in love with Hollywood action films, and truly embracing the thought of a future in game development, Max Payne was a Godsend. The visuals (by 2001 standards, mind you) were incredible. The action was groundbreaking. The titular character felt very edgy and real. The voice acting was spectacular and is still hailed today as some of the best videogames had/have to offer. What a great time it was to pick up the hobby, and what better game for an action-starved teenager than the original Max Payne?

I never forgot the experience. In fact it's often the benchmark I set for today's crop of special effects-infused blockbuster shooters. Much to my surprise I enjoyed the sequel, Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne, even more than the first. Remedy delivered a near-perfect one-two punch that wrapped up its ingenious story so cohesively I can't imagine there would have been many avenues to take for another sequel. Apparently Remedy felt the same despite promising during Max Payne 2's closing credits that Max's adventures would continue. It took almost 10 years for another entry to release and to the dismay of the Max Payne fanbase, it wasn't being developed by everyone's favorite Finnish development firm.

Rockstar Games handles development duties this time around and, truth be told, their involvement is what probably saved this project. Would Remedy have been able to innovate a third game in the midst of the industry's tumultuous shifting and turning this generation? That remains to be seen, but Rockstar's work is nothing short of stellar. They've kept the franchise invigorated by knowing what to change and what to leave alone. The Bullet Time mechanics are as jaw-droppingly cinematic as ever and Max's pentiant for inner-monologue is present and accounted for. While acting as both a sequel and a reboot, this still feels very much so like a Max Payne title. That's a good thing.

The DirectX 11-enhanced visuals are a real treat for the eyes, the technology powering the game's motion capture is nothing short of revolutionary, and the adrenaline-pumping gunfights are some of the best I've seen in a videogame in a long, long time. The story is exceedingly well-written, complemented by excellent dialogue and strong characterization. The grim & violent tone is fitting (and rather expected considering the developer), though fans wanting a return to the somber noirish vibe of the original games may find themselves disappointed. Max Payne 3's presentation is more Man on Fire than The Big Sleep.

Max Payne 3 is just an all-around excellent game. This is one of the few titles I find myself replaying and wanting to replay over and over again. It's a stringently linear experience, though in the case of this series has never been an issue. The action sequences are infinitely replayable because they are so purely and unabashedly cinematic in their execution. These are bar none the best, most visually impressive shootouts I've seen in a videogame ever. Every single facet of Max Payne 3 is outstandingly developed and implemented. Thank you Rockstar for continuing Max Payne's legacy in a way truly deserving of its pedigree.