Matt Bertz, Content Manager for Game Informer magazine

When we launched our "Make or Break" series last November, we promised to ask "prominent developers, reviewers and expert gamers to share with us via email the five key features, details, techniques or flaws that they look for in games in the same genre." We've done fairly well thus far on the developer front, scoring responses from the folks behind Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction (creative director Brian Allgeier), Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (lead multiplayer designer Todd Alderman), Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (game director Amy Hennig), and the colon-free Crysis (company president Cevat Yerli). But we haven't yet offered up any opinions by reviewers. Until today, that is.

The first videogame reviewer to enter the "Make or Break" hot seat is Game Informer content manager Matt Bertz. With six years of covering games and technology in New York City under his belt prior to joining GI Bertz was the editor-in-chief of Surge, a short-lived gaming magazine that won the 2004 Silver Eddie Award in the Consumer Entertainment Under 250,000 category. His writing has appeared in many outlets, including Next Generation, AOL, Laptop, Mean, Men¹s Fitness, GameSpy, and XLR8R. Because Bertz recently reviewed Crysis for GI, we asked him to tell us what he looks for when he's evaluating a first-person shooter. Here's what he had to say.

 Crysis, developed by Crytek and published by Electronic Arts

1. Non-linearity (or the illusion thereof)

Why it matters: Gamers have spent the greater part of two decades navigating claustrophobic corridors and taking cover behind boxes. The last thing you want is for the player to feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, reliving the same basic experience throughout the entire game. Non-linear level designs allow the players to engage the enemies in a manner of their own choosing, rather than having opposing forces repeatedly spring from behind closed doors and cover after the player crosses a trigger line.

Who got it right: The paramount example of a developer that understands the advantage of non-linear gameplay is Crytek. The German wunderkinds have created two stellar titles, Far Cry and Crysis, each of which offers a sandbox world for gamers to engage with tactics of their own choosing. In these open worlds, players can determine their own play styles; they can move stealthily through the jungle to avoid unnecessary combat, ambush soldier patrols and disappear back into the heavy brush, or walk up the roads guns blazing in classic Rambo fashion. These titles also sprinkle carefully scripted events in certain segments without sacrificing the freedom of movement and decision making an open world affords. Despite its overall unpolished nature, GSC Game World's S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl also offers enjoyable experience because of the sense of exploration its open environments offer.

Conversely, Call of Duty developers Infinity Ward have mastered creating the illusion of non-linearity. The chaos surrounding the intense firefights intentionally keeps the player searching for cover, and the deftly designed levels smartly guide players to the next area through the use of squad movement and an endless stream of attackers that form an impenetrable lines of fire to keep players from moving in directions which they player aren't intended to go. The frantic pace of the fight keeps the player moving quickly to stay alive, which veils the true linear nature of most of the levels.

Could have been better: Doom 3 was a straightforward ode to the first person shooters of yore. In comparison to its more advanced 2004 competition (Half-Life 2, Halo 2, and Far Cry), shooting the few demons that appeared, rinsing, recycling, and repeating in Doom 3 left me feeling like Sisyphus, staring in despair at the rock he failed to push up the hill yet again.

 Clive Barker's Jericho, developed by Mercury Steam and published by Codemasters

2. Artificial Intelligence

Why it matters: AI is such an integral part of the gameplay experience that I'm surprised there are no middleware companies specializing in customized behavioral procedures for the varying game genres. When implemented effectively, artificial intelligence engages the player while reinforcing the sense of awe or realism during gameplay. A good artificial intelligence system not only displays tactical savvy on behalf of its pawns in combat situations, it also applies to their awareness, pathfinding, and interaction with the environment. A tenuous balance exists between making the gamer feel like the hunter and the hunted, and good first-person shooters know how to transition seamlessly between the two to vary the experience and keep the players from feeling like they are the blades at a slaughterhouse.

In squad-based games, the AI also extends to the players' teammates. How adept are they are finding cover? Can they navigate to the destination the player has commanded them to move to without putting themselves at risk or getting stuck? Will they be smart enough to engage the enemies without guidance from the player?

Who got it right: Several games have raised the benchmark for enemy AI in the past five years. Far Cry's soldiers blew my mind with their behavioral procedures; they would engage you on sight, coordinate attacks to flank your position and drive you from cover, and call for backup when the option presented itself. F.E.A.R. was also remarkable for its adept enemies, who would vary their tactics during firefights to keep you on your feet.

In terms of squad mechanics, you need to look no further than the stellar Tom Clancy franchises to find examples of how it's done. When playing Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Rainbow Six Vegas, your soldiers rarely meet their untimely demise unless you erroneously sent them to a weak cover position. Ubisoft and Red Storm exacted the delicate balance that keeps your squad feeling like an important tool in the battlefield while at the same time making them vulnerable to tactical mishaps where responsibility lies with their commander instead of their lack of ability.

Could have been better: We've all seen the soldier run for cover to the spot where you just greased his superior officer. Um, didn't the heap of dead comrades behind that box tip you off, buddy? There are too many games to count that suffer from this malaise. When it comes to squad mechanics, you wonder how much time Codemasters spent game planning the AI in its disappointing title Clive Barker's Jericho. Players often must spend more time healing their brain-dead teammates than they do engaging the enemy. You would think the dev team would have noticed and corrected this early on during playtesting.

 The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay, developed by Starbreeze Studios and published by Vivendi Games

3. Pacing

Why it matters: Attention spans are dwindling, even in the realm of interactive entertainment. If I have to spend four hours in a shipping yard going from menial task to menial task before I have a balls-out firefight, I'm likely to turn the game off and reach for another title. At its best, pacing and variety keep the players playing. Varying the situations a player must endure can also help magnify the importance of epic battles--your climax won't feel very climatic when the rising action offers the exact same kind of experience.

Who got it right: Infinity Ward's virtuosic Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the textbook example in proper pacing. Through the course of the six-hour campaign, players experience intense Middle Eastern firefights, dangerous sniper missions in Chernobyl, and gratifying aerial assaults with an AC-130. Not one of the levels feels like filler meant to extend the gameplay for the sake of more action, and all of it culminates into a great final chase scene.

Half-Life 2 creators Valve also do a wonderful job of mastering variety in the first-person genre, balancing the combat with mind-bending puzzles and in-game plot developments to keep the player engaged. I'd also extend honorable mentions to Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay developers Starbreeze for its imaginative implementation of role-playing elements, and the original Halo for its varied combat scenarios involving close quarters combat, ground assault vehicle skirmishes, and the occasional flight mission in the Covenant Banshees.

Could have been better: The biggest culprit that comes to mind from recent titles is Sierra's TimeShift. Saber Interactive's long-incubated shooter begins with a lot of variety in the gameplay, but it ultimately comes up short due to the drawn out, cookie cutter missions toward the middle and end of the game. It also suffers from a steadily decaying plot. While TimeShift begins strongly by implementing many of the plot devices that helped Half-Life 2 create such a wonderful atmosphere, such as conversations between NPCs and a purveying sense of doom among your fellow rebels, it quickly regresses into short sequences of horribly scripted jump cut scenes that appear during the loading screens that hardly feel connected to the gameplay.

 Black, developed by Criterion Studios and published by Electronic Arts

4. The feel

Why it matters: If they player is going to pull the trigger thousands of times during the playthrough of your game, shouldn't you make sure this oft-repeated element is fun? Feeling the kickback of the gun, seeing the bullets spray and deliver environmental damage, and tracking the ever-important hit detection on your enemies are all seemingly minute details that can help separate a good shooter from a great shooter. Enemies should not buckle the same way every time you deal a death blow--where the bullet enters your target (and how many times he's been shot) should always affect his fall.

Who got it right: Never has a shotgun felt so powerful as when I shot the door off its hinges in Black. Criterion's exercise in "gun porn" focuses explicitly on gunplay, and the results are fantastic. Every bullet that misses its target can effect the environments as well. A well-placed rocket could take down an entire floor of a building, crushing the soldiers positioned on the ground level in smoldering rubble.

For the joy of maximum accuracy and tight, precise controls, nothing beats the feeling of satisfaction you get from delivering a round into the head of your enemy in Rainbow Six Vegas.

Could have been better: While Starbreeze Studios' The Darkness brilliantly creates the gritty nightmarish atmosphere of the comic, the game stumbles whenever the Italian anti-hero Jackie Estacado pulls out a gun. The jerky aim mechanic and poor targeting reticle fail to live up to the lofty gameplay precedents set when you unleash Estacado's wonderfully fiendish powers of ageless evil. Shooting was so tedious I found myself shooting every light in every street or building just so I could unleash my demonic powers.

 Half-Life 2: Episode 2, developed by Valve Software and published by Electronic Arts

5. Choice

Why it matters: Because your idea of a good zoom or cover button may not be jive with the comfort zone of the players buying your game, and providing it to them costs a minuscule amount of time and effort. It's a simple front-end tweak that should be standard in every game, not just first-person shooters. Choice also goes beyond tweaking game controls and extends to the gameplay experience. Let me choose my weapons, attachments, armor, peripheral devices, and rate of fire. And don't leave me hanging when it comes to ammo for my primary assault weapon--the enemy weapons are rarely as alluring as my modern arsenal and I don't want to lose my ACOG [Advanced Combat Optical Sight] or reflex sight. I chose it before the mission began for a reason.

Who got it right: When it comes to control customization, nothing beats PC games. Crysis, Battlefield 2, Half-Life 2, and the majority of other shooters based on the mother platform all allow customization to your heart's content. As for weapon loadouts, few games match the utopian arsenal offered by Rainbow Six Vegas. And while I found myself devoid of ammo for my primary weapons deep in the jungles of Lingshan in Crysis, at least Crytek had the sense to allow me to use my scopes on the North Korean weapons.

Could have been better: Why console games don't offer the same malleability for game controls, I may never understand. But I do know that Halo 3 should have given you more ammo for your human weapons. No matter how well the team at Bungie balanced the Covenant weapons, they never became a pièce de résistance to the battles. Every time I had to drop an assault or battle rifle while fighting for Earth's salvation in favor of a Needler or a Plasma Rifle, my interest in winning the war waned slightly. But it could have been worse--at least I wasn't picking up the AK-47 with iron sights within minutes of beginning my mission like I was forced to do in Soldier of Fortune Payback.