all games are not created equal

Battlefront II did not.

I purchased the recently released "Colonies Edition" of Lost Planet, having been passingly familiar with the original. I'd read online that there were new multiplayer additions, including a very exciting new mode called "Akrid Hunter" that actually allowed players to take on the role of the titular insectoid giants while other players battled against them.

I should've read up more, because one of the reasons I'd purchased the game was because copies of the original Lost Planet were plentiful and I thought I could play with my friends online. My mistake. Apparently, the new version of Lost Planet is a brand new game and does not allow cross-version multiplayer. That alone should've reduced the value of the game significantly. More tellingly, the Akrid Hunter mode is quite one-sided, because the Akrid gameplay is stiff and results in nothing more than a drawn-out slaughter in favor of the humans, who can use their mecha to easily wipe out the awkward, difficult to control Akrids.

Battlefront II, on the other hand, is just as compelling and exciting as I remember. Despite being on the prior Xbox console, the game is just as fast paced and fluid as Lost Planet, and considering the amount of on screen action, quite visually pleasing, particularly the Droid Army. In addition, the vehicles available are far more interesting and varied than the mecha in Lost Planet, with the ability to have a pilot and gunners. In addition, the split screen mode allows two players to join LIVE and revel in sweet victory together. I've heard a few complaints about the seeming futility of winning or losing the battlefield, but in the end, it's more about individual performance than whether your side won or lost.

If you were considering trying Lost Planet, I suggest you pass it up, as it is a perfect of example of half-baked ambition prettied up to compensate for an ultimately lower-value experience. Instead, pick up Battlefront II for half the price and relive the glory that is Boba Fett vs. Darth Vader in the midst of a raging battlefield. It's all about the gameplay, people. All about the gameplay.

So when I played Crackdown, I was absolutely overjoyed. FINALLY, somebody was doing something different! Overlooking the ridiculously generic storyline, the game finally did what I had been wanting to see done; sandbox with superpowers. To a certain extent, Ultimate Spiderman had done this before, but not to this scale. Crackdown had so much going for it; RPG-esque character leveling + customization, crisp graphics, nary a glitch to be found, and a pretty awesome soundtrack.

So why is it that Saints Row 2, a game I should loathe in all manner of loathing, was more entertaining by far?

Sadly, Crackdown missed the boat entirely on replay ability. Once you'd beaten the game, leveled up all your skills, and found all the placement markers, that was it. The RPG leveling wasn't nearly as deep as it seemed, and character customization was shallow at best. Worst of all, there were NO diversions at all to speak of. Oddball Achievements, yes, that you could attempt, but nothing quite as interesting as expected. For a game with such potential, it was sorely limited in scope.

Saints Row 2, on the other hand, not only has a ridiculously, painfully deep character customization setup, but has the most entertaining side missions of any sandbox crime game before it, hands down. The Insurance Fraud diversion had an entire room of my friends rolling on the floor, laughing like maniacs. 

To make a long story short, Saints Row 2 provides a much more robust and engaging experience, despite being a blatant GTA wannabe. Crackdown is fun, but is more of a rental than something you'd want to own. On the other hand, Crackdown is a very cheap used game at my local store, so if you're looking for cheap fun, Crackdown is the way to go. But if you want the absolute BEST in sandbox gameplay, got for Saints Row 2. They're both good games, but Saints Row 2 is the better value in the long run.