Having tested several Razer mouse pads now, we’ve found that for the most part, double-sided pads mostly serve as a gauging tool for gamers to see which style of pad they prefer for future purchases. After a few hours testing each surface of a double-sided pad, gamers will know what they’re most comfortable gaming surface is. Is the Vespula any different? Does it offer something that previous pads don’t? Let’s have a look.

The Razer Vespula features Speed and Control for its two sides and we’ll start by focusing on the Vespula’s Speed surface. This side offers a slick and almost frictionless surface for only the most hyper-active of gamers. However, this side also has a large drawback: after a bit of heated gaming, especially on warmer days, the Vespula’s Speed side quickly became a bit sticky when I started to perspire. Granted, it’s nothing that will ruin your gaming experience, but still enough to annoy you.

On the other side, you’ve got the Vespula’s Control surface. Personally, I much prefer the Control side of the Vespula because I usually find the Speed surface ends up feeling detached somehow. I much prefer the more textured Control side because — while still very slick and fluid to game with — it offers a greater feel of (as the name implies) control rather than just having the mouse slide around the pad. And of course, this is all dependent on what type of gamer you are. To its credit, the Control side is much better at dealing with your excessive perspiration as you continue to frag away.

The Razer Vespula comes with an optional wrist rest that is connected to a large rubber pad that helps keep the Vespula in place during your gaming sessions. Should you choose to game without the wrist rest, the Vespula does have rubber feet on its own to prevent slipping, but these aren’t quite up to the task and will leave the Vespula shifting around a bit.

After using a variety of Razer’s offerings, the Vespula doesn’t seem to be built as sturdy as the company’s other mouse pads. Of course, the trade off is that it’s lightweight, and due to its smaller size, it makes you think that it was designed more for mobile gaming such as LAN parties. One of the largest drawbacks of the Vespula is that it’s simply too short. More than a few times, I found myself moving the mouse off the top edge of the mouse pad because I thought I had more room to move the mouse forward. The Vespula offers plenty of horizontal gaming space but, unless you’re using a smaller mouse, this could be a problem.

When it all comes down to it, these double-sided mouse pads are only 100% usable and effective for the first few hours of gaming. Once you choose which side you prefer, you’ll be sticking with it. Don’t expect it to be like DPI where you’ll be changing it during gaming to get the competitive edge. If you haven’t used a double-sided mouse pad and aren’t sure what surface you prefer, then this is a purchase worth considering, but if you already know if you prefer a certain kind of surface, look elsewhere in Razer’s store for a pad that is focused on your liking.

Full Disclosure: The first Vespula review unit Razer sent us had issues with air bubbles in the finish [Image]. After contacting Razer, we were assured that no other cases of this had been reported, and that their team would inspect the faulty Vespula to find the root of the problems. Of course, it goes without saying that such an imperfection would be covered by Razer’s warranty terms.

Scores

-Price: 7
The Vespula is competitively priced among other gaming mouse pad offerings, but it’s hard to ignore that there are better overall mouse pads in that pricing range, even from Razer’s own store.

-Setup/Install: N/A
Simply remove from box and place on desk.

-Ease of Use: N/A
Assuming your wrist still functions properly, this category shouldn’t be an issue.

-Performance: 6
The Vespula’s dual-sided design offer gamers the ability to choose which is better for their gaming habits. However, things can get annoying due to its relatively small vertical space and how the Speed surface tends to get sticky even with just a little perspiration.

-Features: 8
Two mousing surfaces to choose from, an optional memory gel wrist rest, and great gaming performance make this a good mouse pad for any gamer.

Overall: 7 Olives

Back in my early days of gaming, I remember going to a friends house and catching glimpses of his older brother playing this top-down military strategy game that captivated me. I never learned of this game’s name, so I was tortured by this mystery for many years.

Fast-forward about 8 years and I stumble across that very same game on the internet. I was speechless and knew that I would have to put this game through the tests. Was it worth the wait? Could this game possibly have been as good as it looked all those years ago? Time to answer some questions.

Surprisingly, the game survived the test of time rather gracefully. Still remaining undeniably playable, the game even manages to be impressively difficult and challenging without causing too much this-game-is-impossible-I’m-going-to-kill-my-neighbors kind of rage that so many classic games tend to inflict.

Instead of building a massive horde of faceless and nameless minions that carry out your genocides as you would see in just about every other strategy title, you’re given a group of soldiers that you must use tactically and intelligently to get the upper hand in later levels.

As you progress through the game with your soldiers, they will level up, and become better soldiers, but only if you can keep them alive! That’s one of this game’s most unique traits. Cannon Fodder changed things up a bit in the gaming world with its novel approach to the soldiers that are used in the game. Instead of getting a team that you had to keep alive or soldiers that would respawn at some point during or at the end of a mission, you can actually finish the levels with as few as one soldier. Then, before your next mission, you would get fresh recruits to replace the fallen. The draw back here, of course, is that the fresh-from-training soldiers are back at level 1.

For its time, Cannon Fodder was fantastic. Even today, it is more than playable for any fans of classic RTS games, especially fans of games like the Commandos series. And, while time has killed some of this game’s wonder and excitement that I experienced while watching others play it, it is totally worth playing for any die-hard strategy gamers.

In anticipation of the second game’s release, I finally went back and finished the first Kane and Lynch. It was far from perfect, but it had its good points and it was a promising start to a new franchise form the great guys behind the Hitman series. When Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days was announced, I was excited to see how the first game’s promising formula was improved. Now it’s time to put the series’ second installment to the test.

Since the events of the first game, the two anti-heroes have split ways and went on with their own lives. Dog Days skips over this a bit and starts with Kane visiting Lynch in Shanghai (the reason for his visit is never explained) where Lynch has made a life for himself.

Before the game’s story has a chance to even begin, Kane tags along on an errand with Lynch where chaos ensues and people get killed. The rest of the story is Kane and Lynch fighting their way through a crime boss’s blood-fueled attempt at revenge for Kane and Lynch having killed his daughter during previously mentioned errand-gone-bad. I will admit, the story does progress at a quick pace that it lends itself a bit of chaos that fits well with the game’s overall feel, but it still lacks a core story worth caring about and that is a huge annoyance.

When it comes to the game’s visuals, one would expect at least a small improvement over the original game three years ago. Unfortunately, very little has actually changed. IO Interactive did add some interesting filters and visual effects to Dog Days, and these changes come in the form of “artistic” filters, censor-blurring, lens flares and some very shaky documentary-style camerawork. This does seem to create an almost atmospheric and artistic approach at first, but it ultimately only succeeds in annoying the player and inducing motion sickness in most gamers.

During the game’s 6-8 hour campaign, you’ll find yourself gunning through some adrenaline-pumping, gore-filled shootouts, but we all know that games cannot live on this alone. And even such a simple mechanic as this isn’t without its issues. Looking past the fact that enemies can almost always still shoot you even when you’re in cover, most of the weapons you come across are about as powerful and accurate as the slingshots you used to make as a kid from fallen sticks and old rubber bands.

And if you’re still reading this article thinking, “the story can’t be all bad, there’s gotta be at least a great ending to make up for it all, right?” Wrong.

Sure, the ending does bring a bit of closure and leaves you a bit satisfied, but it raises more questions than it answers. When all is said and done, you’re left thinking, “that’s it? That wasn’t an ending,” but it simply was.

Scores

- Graphics: 3
Unfortunately, this aspect of the game that tried and failed the hardest. In a semi-successful attempt to make the game feel more cinematic, grungy and flowing, IO Interactive changed to a much more shaky documentary-style camera and almost completely left the 3-year-old graphics untouched from the original game.

- Storyline: 4
Before it gets a chance to even start a story, the game is interrupted by a revenge-driven blood bath that engulfs the entire game. It starts and ends on its own terms and offers the player almost no satisfaction or enjoyment. On the plus side for deranged fans of the series, the game’s ending leaves itself wide open for a third Kane and Lynch title.

- Gameplay: 6
Dog Days does feature some great voice acting, and it’s not a terrible choice if you’re looking for a mindless shooter, assuming you can get used to the frustrating camera-shake and annoying enemies-can-shoot-through-any-surface cover system.

- Controls: 6
Nothing special here, but more importantly, nothing to disappoint. Laid out fairly simply, the game’s controls are fairly effective despite the chaotic camera trying its best to disorient you during heated battles.

- Lasting Appeal: 3
The game does feature multiplayer like its predecessor, but good luck finding a friend that hasn’t snapped his game disc in half. Unless you were a massive and undying fan of the first game, I strongly suggest you pass on this one.

Overall: 4 Olives

I’ve been waiting for the day when big-name peripheral manufacturers would start making left-handed products for the few and the proud. Logitech was first with a left-handed version of the MX 610. Now, Razer is wanting in on the left-handed action with their new DeathAdder Left-Hand Edition. It’s not the first left-handed mouse, but the  company claims it’s the first left-handed gaming mouse. We’ll give it to ‘em. Myself being left handed (and using right-handed mice all my life), I wanted to check this thing out and see what ergonomic mayhem I was missing out on my whole life.

The left-handed DeathAdder is pretty much just a mirrored version of the normal right-handed DeathAdder. It has the two main click buttons, which are switched (The “left click” button is on the right side and vice versa), as well as the scroll wheel that lights up and then the two thumb buttons, which reside on the right side of the mouse. It also has the same 3.5G sensor that can deliver up to 3500DPI. It’s a pretty simple mouse when you think about it. Not a whole lot to it.

So, since it’s a left-handed mouse, how does it feel for left handers like myself? Well, to be completely honest, I’d rather stick with my right-handed Logitech VX Revolution, for a couple of reasons. The DeathAdder doesn’t have as many buttons as my VX Revolution, which has thumb buttons, “zoom” controls, a separate button above the scroll wheel, and side scroll buttons. Trust me, I use all of these buttons and not having them during my time with the DeathAdder was kind of frustrating.

Another annoyance was how the left and right click buttons were switched to accommodate the left handers. You would think lefties would love this, but I personally found it irritating. I’ve always used the left and right click buttons just the way they are, so it was frustrating when they were switched on me. Yes, I could probably easily get used to it in a month or two, but then every other computer I would go to, I would have re-teach myself how to use the mouse.

The left-handed contour of the DeathAdder feels pretty good in my hand. However, gamers with smaller hands might have a difficult time reaching the front thumb button.

To quickly wrap-up, this isn’t the mouse for me, even though it’s meant for me. It could certainly be different for other left handers, though. You might like how the main click buttons are switched and you might not mind that the only extra buttons are just the thumbs buttons. Nonetheless, it’s a very well built mouse that definitely lives up to the Razer name. No doubt about that.

[Product Page]

Score: 8 Olives

While the MX Revolution is still one of the best mice I’ve ever had the pleasure to use, I was ecstatic to review the second generation of this amazing mouse, which is the Performance Mouse MX. Logitech finally sent over a review unit and it’s time to see how this mouse compares to its predecessor.

*Above: Side-by-side comparison of the Performance Mouse MX on the left and the MX Revolution on the right.

Right away, I was surprised how much the design changed from the original MX Revolution. Unfortunately, some of these changes worked against the mouse’s overall appeal. What made the MX Revolution such a new and unique mouse was its extreme styles, curves and incredible ergonomics all mixed together with awesome technology and versatility. These curves gave the mouse a feeling of it being huge without it actually being very much larger or heavier than most wireless mice on the market. However, the Performance Mouse MX seems to have scaled back and slapped on fewer buttons that are smaller and tighter-grouped. What you get as a result is just a couple extra buttons and a much tighter grouping of the thumb buttons, which makes their use in heated gaming almost unrealistic, since the chances of you hitting the right button quickly are low.

Staying with this topic, we move onto the mouse’s scroll wheel. The scrolling action of the wheel is great and allows you to easily change between regular scrolling and Logitech’s frictionless scrolling modes. However, it’s the middle button and side-scrolling (pressing left and right on the wheel) buttons that are painfully unresponsive and mushy. Even when not gaming, it can be hard to reliably issue a command with these buttons, which can lead to a lot of frustration no matter what task you’re performing.

While the MX Revolution’s 800DPI never had me wanting more, the Performance Mouse MX received a bump to 1500DPI, and that’s nothing to be ashamed of. You also get Logitech’s Darkfield technology that allows you to use the mouse on just about any surface, including my glass desk, which it performed flawlessly on. There’s also Logitech’s Unifying receiver that allows you to use multiple Logitech products simultaneously with just one tiny wireless USB receiver. As a result of these updates, you get shortened battery life when compared to the original MX Revolution. While it’ll still last a few days of standard use before it starts begging for more juice, it’s a far cry from the 7+ days that you’d get out of a single MX Revolution charge, but this is counter-weighted by the new, on-the-fly charging setup for the Performance Mouse MX, which comes in the form of a USB charging cable (which also comes with an adapter to charge in a standard wall socket) that allows you to charge the mouse while continuing to use it.

As one has come to expect of Logitech’s premium mice, the Performance Mouse MX’s build quality and use of high quality materials give it a fantastic feeling in your hand. Add that to the ergonomics and you’ve got what is possibly the most comfortable and reliable mouse on the market right now.

[Product Page]

Scores

Price: 8
Priced at $99.99 (direct from Logitech) it is hard to seriously consider this mouse over the gaming equivalent that you could get for around the same price. However, considering the reliability of the Logitech brand, you’re paying for quality and longevity. And, if you have the patience to wait for a nice discount, you should have no trouble getting the mouse for much less than sticker price.

Setup/Install: N/A
Other than just plugging it in, you can install the optional Logitech software. That’s it.

Ease of Use: 10
While not mandatory to the mouse’s function, Logitech’s software suite offers you tons of settings ranging from simple button rebinds to advanced gaming profiles and program-specific button layouts. The best part of all this? It’s impressively simple to work with. The software is very well laid out and has a very fresh and clean user interface.

Performance: 7
Despite the lower-than-others DPI count, you have to remember that the Performance Mouse MX isn’t designed exclusively for gaming. And with Logitech’s fantastic wireless, Unifying, and Darkfield technologies, this mouse is packed with high-performing features, not just good looks. However, due to the poor placement of its thumb buttons, it becomes difficult to use them without accidentally pressing others which can become a little frustrating.

Features: 10
While the removal of a charging dock is a disappointment, this new setup allows you to keep using the mouse even while it’s charging, so no time is lost waiting on the mouse’s battery to return from the dead. All the cables and adapters even come in a nice carrying pouch that keeps the mouse mobile.

Overall: 8 Olives

One port that rules them all! USB is the most widely used port in existence, so it only makes sense to honor the great history of the early days of USB in this month’s Retro Review.

The USB was created to essentially be a user-friendly interface to connect devices to your PC. Before the USB, there was obviously the legacy ports (parallel, serial, PS/2, etc.), which are sadly still being used today by the few and the proud. Back then, you only had one of each port, sometimes two. So if you had multiple devices with the same port, you’d have to get an expansion card with more serial or parallel ports on it. Also, parallel devices required custom drivers and serial devices had to be configured properly (baud rate, parity, etc.)

In short, this was all just a pain in the rear end, but along came the USB.

The Universal Serial Bus interface was invented by Ajay Bhatt of Intel and development began in 1994. USB 1.1 was, in fact, not the first revision. USB 1.0 was introduced in 1996 with a transfer rate of 12 Mbps, as well as a lower transfer rate of 1.5 Mbps for lower bandwidth peripherals. USB 1.1 wasn’t brought into the world until 1998. It had the same transfer rate of 12 Mbps/1.5 Mbps as USB 1.0 and even though it wasn’t the first ever USB revision, it was the first revision to be widely adopted.

How did it become widely adopted? Well, a part of it had to do with issues that were fixed from 1.0, but one of the biggest reasons was…wait for it…the Apple iMac.

When USB started showing up on Windows machines, many people didn’t really make the move over to the new interface right away, simply because they still had their legacy ports. The iMac was the first computer to include USB ports, but no legacy ports. This pretty much forced users to start using USB devices.

USB 2.0 was introduced in 2000, with a transfer rate of 480 Mbps, forty times faster than USB 1.1. USB 3.0 was unveiled in 2008, with a theoretical rate of 4 Gbps. What will the future of USB bring us? How much longer until USB 3.0 becomes the standard? When will USB 4.0 be out? Will USB even last? A lot of questions can be asked, but one thing’s for sure: USB 1.1 is what started a revolution.

Hulu’s new paid subscription service marks a revolutionary step for watching television content online. $10 a month gets you entire seasons of numerous TV shows and the ability to stream them in HD, as well as watch content on your iPhone, iPad, and PS3. However, is it good enough to ditch your current cable/satellite provider and stick solely with Hulu Plus? We’ll find out, thanks to the guys over at Hulu, who gave us an invite to check out their new service.

First off, Hulu Plus isn’t actually a separate hub from the free Hulu that you know and love. It’s built into the website mixed in with the free content, which we like. All you do is login and it automatically switches over to Hulu Plus (assuming you paid the $10 first).

A huge feature about Hulu Plus is the ability to watch content in 720p HD. I knew Hulu would be bringing HD streaming eventually, and finally we get to experience that. However, not all paid content is in HD. There are quite a few shows that only have the most recent season in HD. All the others were in 480p standard def. So don’t expect the ability to watch everything in higher def.

The quality of the HD streams are pretty decent. Not great, but decent. Below is a screenshot of a 720p HD stream that is maximized on a 22-inch 1680×1050 monitor (Click for full size).

Of course, we also hooked up to a 32-inch HDTV to see what that was like. Again, the quality was decent, but not great. However, we were ecstatic to be watching an HD stream of a Family Guy episode that actually looked good (even if it was still 4:3).

Now let’s talk about Hulu for the iPhone. I know we’re a PC-only blog, but this is a big feature of Hulu Plus and we’d be crazy to just skip over it. Please spare me a few minutes while I share a quick video walkthrough of the Hulu Plus iPhone app:

Not only is Hulu Plus available on the iPhone/iPod Touch and iPad, but it will also be available for the PS3, as well as newer Samsung TVs and Blu-ray players when Hulu Plus officially launches later this month. They’re also planning on adding Hulu Plus to the Xbox 360 for Live Gold subscribers sometime in “early 2011″ and also newer Sony and Vizio TVs and Blu-ray players this Fall.

One big question that I asked myself (and I’m sure most people will) was “would I ditch my cable and just go with Hulu Plus?”

The simple answer is, “Maybe.”

One big gripe that I have is that Hulu doesn’t have all of my favorite TV shows. It doesn’t have any CBS shows, nor does it have anything from the Discovery Channel, TLC, History Channel, etc. Granted, Hulu links you to different network websites where you can watch these shows on their own websites, but that’s not as fun and can be more restricting with less features.

Then again, I’d only be paying $10/month, instead of several tens of dollars a month. And instead of having cable TV tell me what I’m watching, I can watch anything (restricted to Hulu’s catalog) at anytime, no questions asked.

So, I’m still up in the air about whether or not I’ll keep paying $10/month for Hulu Plus. Chances are I’ll spend the rest of my life deciding, and in the mean time I’ll still be spending $10/month for Hulu Plus.

Currently, Hulu Plus is invite only. So if you feel lucky, you can head on over to Hulu’s email submission page and pray that you get in, but don’t come crying to us if you’re left in the dust.

Seagate’s desktop version of its GoFlex external drive lineup brings all of the unique features that we saw on the GoFlex ultra-portable drive — interchangeable interfaces and the ability to write to both Mac and PC. The GoFlex Desk even comes in a 3TB flavor, which is the first and only 3TB hard drive on the market right now. We decided to delve into this 3.5″ external beast and see what it can do.

At first glance, the GoFlex Desk isn’t anything fancy. It looks like your typical external hard drive. However, you can switch out interfaces (USB 3.0, FireWire) using the same drive. All that’s needed is a new base with your interface of choice, which can be bought separately. We’ll get to those in a minute. The drive is seems pretty heavy and solid and it’s actually really quiet. You have to put your ear right up next to it to even really hear that’s on and spinning.

The GoFlex Desk also comes with a capacity gauge, which is nothing more than four bars that light up, letting you know how full the drive is. The problem with this is, there are only four bars representing 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% full. So, if the drive is 24% full (which is roughly 245 GB of a 1TB drive), this means that none of the bars will light up, making it look like there’s nothing on it. Placing more than four bars would be nice, or better yet, utilize a small screen, that actually tells you exactly how much space you have left, similar to some Western Digital’s  external drives.

Now, about the different interchangeable interfaces. You’ll have to buy each of them separately. It’s $50 for FireWire 800/USB 2.0, $40 for USB 3.0, and $80 for USB 3.0 with a USB 3.0 PCI Express add-on card. Sadly, they don’t have an eSATA option for the GoFlex Desk, and they don’t have plans to release one anytime soon, which kind of blows because, well, I love eSATA.

The speeds on this drive were typical when using USB 2.0. I switched over to USB 3.0 and timed a few file transfers to see what those speeds were like. Below you’ll see my findings in chart form.

As you can see, USB 3.0 didn’t seem terribly quicker than USB 2.0 in our case, but nonetheless, there’s no reason not to use USB 3.0 or a faster interface than USB 2.0 nowadays. Having access to faster speeds is always nice. Plus, results will vary on different machines transferring different files at different sizes. There was even an instance where I transferred well over 300 GB of files over to the GoFlex Desk and was averaging around 80-100 MB/s on USB 3.0, which isn’t too shabby.

To put it simply, the GoFlex Desk is a solid choice, but be prepared to spend a little more cash for the faster interfaces that you’ll definitely want.

[Product Page]

Scores

Price: 8
The GoFlex Desk is priced competitively. We would liked to have seen the interchangeable interfaces to be a bit cheaper, but it’s nothing terrible. $80 for a complete upgrade to USB 3.0 isn’t too bad.

Setup/Install: 7
Getting USB 3.0 up and running can be sort of a pain during the first go. You have to first plug the drive into USB 2.0 and install the USB 3.0 driver. Then you can connect it through USB 3.0.

Ease of Use: 9
They’ve hit the mark here. Everything’s pretty much spelled out for you. And if you know how to transfer files, then you pretty much got it down pat.

Performance: 8
Average USB 3.0 speeds were pretty scattered for us. It really just depends on the machine, the files, and their sizes. However, we never came across slow transfers and were getting speeds that we’d typically see.

Features: 9
Just like with the GoFlex ultra-portable drive, the interchangeable interfaces and the ability to write to both Mac and PC are the big features here.

Overall: 8 Olives

You might recall when we reviewed Seagate’s GoFlex ultra-portable drive, as well as the GoFlex Net media sharing device. We’re here once again to continue the GoFlex saga to bring you the GoFlex TV HD media player. This little guy plugs right into your television and plays any videos, music, or photos that you have stocked on your GoFlex drive or any other USB external hard drive.

The GoFlex TV is nice and small in size, which makes it a great space saver. It also has a trap door on the front that you can open up and slide your GoFlex drive right in. What we would’ve loved to see though is the ability to slide the drive all the way in and close the trap door, that way the drive can remain hidden and not take up any more space. The drive doesn’t slide in all the way, so the end sticks out a bit (see the photo gallery at the bottom).

It has two USB 2.0 ports, one on the side and one on the back. Also along the backside are component and composite outputs, which require the included adapter cables. There’s also digital S/PDIF, HDMI, and ethernet. Seagate includes an ethernet cable, but no HDMI cable sadly. You can also get a wireless adapter for the GoFlex TV, which can be purchased separately and will take up a USB port, leaving you with only one.

On the software end, the GoFlex TV’s user interface is pretty much exactly the same as previous media players from Seagate. It’s really simple and easy to navigate, but it still seems a little sluggish at times. You can stream Netflix movies and YouTube videos, as well as Mediafly and vTuner internet radio. You also have access to Flickr, Picasa, weather, and more. You can also stream media from a network drive to your GoFlex TV.

The device will play pretty much any video file you throw at it, including .MKV, and it’ll play full 1080p HD video at pretty good quality (assuming your original file is good quality).

So, the ultimate question is: should you buy this? It’s definitely a good investment if you’re the kind of person who has all of your movies on your hard drive and would rather watch them on your TV than be stuck watching them on your computer screen. If you already have the FreeAgent Theater+, don’t bother upgrading to the GoFlex TV unless you absolutely have to have the latest of everything. There’s really not much difference other than looks. However, the smaller size of the GoFlex TV can be really enticing. The choice is up to you.

You can get the GoFlex TV for a very reasonable $130 on Seagate’s website.

Score: 8 Olives

Aiming (if you’ll forgive the term) for a somewhat untouched flavor of the FPS genre, Sniper: Ghost Warrior focuses on long-range combat through your well-polished sniper scope. While most war games only feature scoped weapons briefly in their campaigns, Ghost Warrior promises to make this aspect its primary focus. With this different take on the FPS genre, how does Ghost Warrior measure up against other modern war games of 2010?

Heralding itself as the most realistic sniping game, Sniper: Ghost Warrior surprised me last week with a demo that featured solid graphics and controls with very satisfying sniping mechanics. However, as one would expect, the demo wasn’t without a few bugs and annoyances, but I expected these issues would be ironed out for the retail release. I was wrong. From the name, you’d expect that the entire game is spent far from the battlefield in a nice concealing bush. Again, I was wrong. A good percentage of the game is actually spent in (relatively) close-range sniping and/or playing from the perspective of ground assault teams as you’re being covered by snipers (who you get to play as next), which does create a nice flow, but only makes you crave your next turn on the sniper side of the battlefield.

Unfortunately, the game is cursed from the start. While the overall aesthetic and graphics are crisp and impressive, they are riddled with many clipping issues that will often allow you to see through buildings, rocks and many other obstacles. This hinders the game’s overall polish, but it’s still a mild enough issue and by no means is it a deal breaker.

However, the game’s largest issue becomes apparent when you’re sneaking through the many jungles you’ll come across in Ghost Warrior. It goes without saying that most of the game is spent sneaking and walking around in a crouched or prone stance, so one would expect a mechanic as simple as this to work as intended. Does it? No. As you’re sneaking and you come across some stairs or just a small rock that you need to step over, your character will run into it like a brick wall until you stand up and/or jump over this tiny obstacle. Unsurprisingly, this usually ruins the stealth cover you’ve been working so hard to maintain for the past hour. Of course, this fact isn’t helped by the enemies’ ability to see through what you would think is heavy cover, thanks to an annoyingly inconsistent stealth system.

Despite what you may be thinking at this point, the game’s sniping mechanics are actually its saving grace. While the missions that focus on the ground assault teams are a blemish on the campaign, the sniping side of things are actually reliable and satisfying enough to make the game very enjoyable, especially the “bullet cam” that will follow your bullet in slow motion for some shots (see above image).

Ghost Warrior does make an attempt at an engaging storyline, but it falls short of anything interesting with it revolving around a notoriously common revenge plot with no further attempt to make it more dramatic. But for anyone that actually played the pre-release demo, the game’s biggest storyline twist is completely spoiled anyway, and while it’s nice that the game makes some attempts at making it feel cinematic, most of these methods are obviously inspired or even directly copied from recent Call of Duty games.

This is a definite graphics-and-gameplay kind of game. Don’t expect much in the storyline department, but if you can handle that, then expect a great shooting experience that you won’t find anywhere else. At the end of it all, wait for this game to hit the discount bin before grabbing it for yourself, but until then, grab the 1.36GB demo and that should keep you entertained with its singleplayer and multiplayer content.

Scores

- Graphics: 8
Graphics are actually one of this game’s stronger points. Built on the same engine as Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood, the lighting and overall environment are well polished while remaining fairly easy on the resources. However, take into account the serious clipping issues and you’ve got an overall mediocre outcome.

- Storyline: 3
Sniper: Ghost Warrior relies on a very basic storyline layout, filled with typical vendettas and betrayal, but it was hard to expect much else. If you plan on playing this game, don’t hope for any depth or interest in the game’s storyline at all.

- Gameplay: 8
Here, we come to the game’s crown jewels. Despite a collection of other issues, the game’s sniping mechanic is actually very well done. Your shots are affected by many factors and having to account for those factors on-the-fly actually makes the shooting very satisfying and rewarding.

- Controls: 7
The game features your typical FPS control layout with nothing special or confusing, it’s simple enough to leave you to worry about more important issues.

- Lasting Appeal: 4
Ghost Warrior does feature multiplayer and more of the same shooting that you’ll find in the campaign, but it just doesn’t seem to offer the same appeal. At any rate, it’s clear that the developers should have spent more time focusing on the game’s campaign than implementing multiplayer.

Overall: 6 Olives