That's sort of what this NFL season is feeling like. Not just the Broncos absolutely dreadful playing (I can successfully argue they are the worst team in football), but also the disappointing lack of amazing that we all witnessed from teams like the Saints, the Colts, the Vikings, and the Chargers. Now, only one of those teams are in first place in their division, and the rest are third. But enough about that, let's talk about the big news.
No Moss, no mas - If you said that Randy Moss wouldn't finish his season in New England, you'd be right. If you said that Randy Moss wouldn't finish his season with the team he was traded to from New England, you have fucking clairvoyance. Randy Moss is headed to Tennessee, but it's not because of his attitude, if you can believe that. Sure, he's a problem child. He's selfish and lazy and overrated for his age. But blame Brad Childress for his departure. Let's face it: this is Farve's last season (at least as a Viking), and it's not going to be a happy ending for him. He may not even finish the season. But Childress can't blame an old gunslinger who's without his deep threat or a reliable line and whose only crime is sexting (allegedly). He's got to blame Randy, the diva, the whiner, the "guy you blame". Childress did to Moss what he wanted to do to Farve, and what the Vikings' owner wants to do to him. Childress will keep playing the blame game until he's run out of players or fingers. He's gone after this year. Guaranteed.
Best Team - Hmm... I'm going to go with the Steelers at this point. Them losing to the Saints (who played like they did in 2009) is not a big deal at this point. A lot of people say the Ravens will ultimately beat them in the playoffs, but come on. Losing to the Ravens defense without your star QB? And why does everyone believe in Joe Flacco? A good QB, yes. But a star? He'll choke when it matters. Ben won't. He's reformed, put his past behind him, and will play the best ball of his career this year. Prediction.
Broncos - Where to begin, right? What about this team should I be happy about? Ultimately, it's wins that appease fans, and we have two. Out of eight. Yeah. The more I read about it, the less I think he'll be fired. But the more games I watch, the more I want him to be. He's lost his team. He can't plan for a game because of his stubbornness. He's confusing power with control. He is so convinced his plan is right he won't change it to win. Now that's a lot of coaches in the NFL, but none are as flamboyant and outspoken as he is with a team that can obviously win. Kyle Orton is playing the best ball of his life. Brandon Lloyd is the best receiver in the NFL right now. But the rest of the team is dead in the water. There's not heart in the team. Just one big bloated brain.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
RPG: R U Sure?
2010 marks the release of several prominent RPGs in the world of video games, namely Mass Effect 2, Fallout: New Vegas, and Fable 3. I've been wondering for a while what makes an RPG an RPG, and I've decided to declare winners of these three RPGs in each respective category. Now keep in mind this is just my opinion and if you disagree, then fuck off, I don't care.
Story - You know, the thing that most games have? It's important to distinguish what I'm talking about here. I mean the core concept of the franchise, not the individual game. Just a brief one sentence summary of why you're doing what you're doing in the game.
Winner: Mass Effect. The idea of the Reapers is brilliant, and both games take careful not to continue the overlapping story arch, rather than just create new adventures for Sheppard and Co.
2nd: Fable. Boy gets life ruined. Boy becomes hero. Boy kills bad guy. End of Story. It's a BFD.
3rd: Fallout. War. War never changes. Fallout never does either.
Combat - When you're not busy scrolling thru your gear, you may be out killing things for experience points. It's gotta be fun and interesting, something all RPGs have a problem with apparently.
Winner: Fable. I'm going to award this to Fable by the hair of its neck. It has the most diverse combat of the the three, using swords, guns, and magic, but lacks enemy variation. Bandits, balvarines and guards? Really?
2nd: Mass Effect. More enemy variation, but far less choice for combat. Guns and special abilities are always funny though.
3rd: Fallout. VATS is the shining diamond in an otherwise empty rough.
Fat L00tz - Often what keeps you entranced in a game for so long is the shit you hoard. It's addicting rummaging thru containers, dead bodies, and wasting man hours searching for that one thing you can't do without. A must for RPGs.
Winner: Fallout. The most impressive thing about Fallout is the amount of things you can collect and that everything has a purpose. You'll never not know what something is for, and the fact that you can create weapons and other items out of the junk you find is amazing. You'll treasure every treasure (even if it is crap).
2nd: Fable. A huge list of items, but many of them don't do anything, or just don't matter to you.
3rd. Mass Effect. The first game was much better in terms of the items you procured, but for the most part, both games simply don't have much in terms of customization of gear.
Presentation - An RPG must look pretty. It's got to be epic in scope and graphics, and they're can't be much room for unoriginality.
Winner: Mass Effect. The first game was very pretty. The second game was mind-boggingly pretty. The characters and environments are rich and diverse, and the amount of detail is highly commendable.
2nd: Fable. The game is pretty, but lacks diversity. Animations are off the charts however.
3rd: Fallout. A beautiful world can't make you forget about terrible character models and animations for robots.
Open World - A massive world is one of the reasons RPGs are so long in length. There are places to discover, adventures to have, and people to meet. A big world but a filled one.
Winner: Fallout. By miles, the biggest of the three. Fallout is filled with interesting locals and locales. There is so much to see, and going thru the whole world is a challenge and a treat.
2nd: Mass Effect. Mass Effect is hardly the kind of game you'd call free roam. Many areas are unavailable to you until a certain quest, then they aren't open again. Sad really.
3rd: Fable. Like Mass Effect, it's just not open enough. There is a lot to explore but you feel funneled toward certain things.
Side Quests - When you have some down-time from saving the world, you've gotta keep yourself in shape and entertained. Side quests give you an opportunity to meet people you normally wouldn't and get you good items and experience.
Winner: Fallout. Undisputed attention to this. Dozens of side quests with varying levels of involvement make Fallout the most interesting game outside of the main story. You'll never be sad taking these on, and you can often create different endings for each one. Now that's dedication.
2nd: Fable. Fable's quests are interesting, but often are repetitive. Some are prone to give Loregasms, so watch it.
3rd: Mass Effect. Mass Effect's quests are often brief, don't require a lot of skill, only open up a part of the world briefly, but are fantastic whenever you do them.
Sound - Music, sound effects, voice acting. A cornerstone of a good RPGs.
Winner: Mass Effect. The music and score is magnificent, and voice acting is always high caliber. It's use of robots, space, ships, and guns do the rest.
2nd: Fable. The Fable score is always majestic, and voice acting is held to a high quality (a tough task for some 80 voice actors). But it's the ambient noise of water against a dock, crackling of fire, humming in the Spire, and shouting villagers that bring the game to stunning life.
3rd: Fallout. When you're not listening to catchy songs from the 40's, you're listening to the profound silence of the wasteland or a freaking annoying cashier.
Morality - Good or Evil?
A THREE WAY TIE! Cause really, how do you judge morality (pun intended)? Each does pretty much the same thing. If I were to categorize, I'd guess I'd go Fable, Fallout, and then Mass Effect.
Environment Reaction - How do you affect the environment?
Winner: Fable. Come on, this is what Fable is known for. A single action from you could determine the fate of the world. People can scream in terror at the site of you, and refuse to serve you if you've upset them in some way.
2nd: Fallout. You hear about yourself on the radio. People will come and give you things for your good deeds. It feels authentic.
3rd: Mass Effect. You can actually determine whether you and your crew survive the final battle. Apart from that, not much else. Still very awesome.
Stats/Skills - Is leveling up important? For that matter, do you really need to invest a strategy when playing the game?
Winner: Fallout. A lot of energy should be put into your stats and abilities so you can succeed or just look cool. Nobody does it better. If you don't plan it out, you'll have trouble constantly.
2nd: Fable. It only gets easier for you as you level, to the point where you'll be virtually invincible at the end of the game. Not that the end of the game is difficult.
3rd: I suppose gaining loyalty counts as leveling, but just bringing someone with each type ability should do the trick, as well as picking the correct order.
Anyway, that's my take. Lemme know which is your favorite and why. DO NOT VOICE YOUR DISAPPROVAL ABOUT MY CHOICES. Just tell me what you think.
Story - You know, the thing that most games have? It's important to distinguish what I'm talking about here. I mean the core concept of the franchise, not the individual game. Just a brief one sentence summary of why you're doing what you're doing in the game.
Winner: Mass Effect. The idea of the Reapers is brilliant, and both games take careful not to continue the overlapping story arch, rather than just create new adventures for Sheppard and Co.
2nd: Fable. Boy gets life ruined. Boy becomes hero. Boy kills bad guy. End of Story. It's a BFD.
3rd: Fallout. War. War never changes. Fallout never does either.
Combat - When you're not busy scrolling thru your gear, you may be out killing things for experience points. It's gotta be fun and interesting, something all RPGs have a problem with apparently.
Winner: Fable. I'm going to award this to Fable by the hair of its neck. It has the most diverse combat of the the three, using swords, guns, and magic, but lacks enemy variation. Bandits, balvarines and guards? Really?
2nd: Mass Effect. More enemy variation, but far less choice for combat. Guns and special abilities are always funny though.
3rd: Fallout. VATS is the shining diamond in an otherwise empty rough.
Fat L00tz - Often what keeps you entranced in a game for so long is the shit you hoard. It's addicting rummaging thru containers, dead bodies, and wasting man hours searching for that one thing you can't do without. A must for RPGs.
Winner: Fallout. The most impressive thing about Fallout is the amount of things you can collect and that everything has a purpose. You'll never not know what something is for, and the fact that you can create weapons and other items out of the junk you find is amazing. You'll treasure every treasure (even if it is crap).
2nd: Fable. A huge list of items, but many of them don't do anything, or just don't matter to you.
3rd. Mass Effect. The first game was much better in terms of the items you procured, but for the most part, both games simply don't have much in terms of customization of gear.
Presentation - An RPG must look pretty. It's got to be epic in scope and graphics, and they're can't be much room for unoriginality.
Winner: Mass Effect. The first game was very pretty. The second game was mind-boggingly pretty. The characters and environments are rich and diverse, and the amount of detail is highly commendable.
2nd: Fable. The game is pretty, but lacks diversity. Animations are off the charts however.
3rd: Fallout. A beautiful world can't make you forget about terrible character models and animations for robots.
Open World - A massive world is one of the reasons RPGs are so long in length. There are places to discover, adventures to have, and people to meet. A big world but a filled one.
Winner: Fallout. By miles, the biggest of the three. Fallout is filled with interesting locals and locales. There is so much to see, and going thru the whole world is a challenge and a treat.
2nd: Mass Effect. Mass Effect is hardly the kind of game you'd call free roam. Many areas are unavailable to you until a certain quest, then they aren't open again. Sad really.
3rd: Fable. Like Mass Effect, it's just not open enough. There is a lot to explore but you feel funneled toward certain things.
Side Quests - When you have some down-time from saving the world, you've gotta keep yourself in shape and entertained. Side quests give you an opportunity to meet people you normally wouldn't and get you good items and experience.
Winner: Fallout. Undisputed attention to this. Dozens of side quests with varying levels of involvement make Fallout the most interesting game outside of the main story. You'll never be sad taking these on, and you can often create different endings for each one. Now that's dedication.
2nd: Fable. Fable's quests are interesting, but often are repetitive. Some are prone to give Loregasms, so watch it.
3rd: Mass Effect. Mass Effect's quests are often brief, don't require a lot of skill, only open up a part of the world briefly, but are fantastic whenever you do them.
Sound - Music, sound effects, voice acting. A cornerstone of a good RPGs.
Winner: Mass Effect. The music and score is magnificent, and voice acting is always high caliber. It's use of robots, space, ships, and guns do the rest.
2nd: Fable. The Fable score is always majestic, and voice acting is held to a high quality (a tough task for some 80 voice actors). But it's the ambient noise of water against a dock, crackling of fire, humming in the Spire, and shouting villagers that bring the game to stunning life.
3rd: Fallout. When you're not listening to catchy songs from the 40's, you're listening to the profound silence of the wasteland or a freaking annoying cashier.
Morality - Good or Evil?
A THREE WAY TIE! Cause really, how do you judge morality (pun intended)? Each does pretty much the same thing. If I were to categorize, I'd guess I'd go Fable, Fallout, and then Mass Effect.
Environment Reaction - How do you affect the environment?
Winner: Fable. Come on, this is what Fable is known for. A single action from you could determine the fate of the world. People can scream in terror at the site of you, and refuse to serve you if you've upset them in some way.
2nd: Fallout. You hear about yourself on the radio. People will come and give you things for your good deeds. It feels authentic.
3rd: Mass Effect. You can actually determine whether you and your crew survive the final battle. Apart from that, not much else. Still very awesome.
Stats/Skills - Is leveling up important? For that matter, do you really need to invest a strategy when playing the game?
Winner: Fallout. A lot of energy should be put into your stats and abilities so you can succeed or just look cool. Nobody does it better. If you don't plan it out, you'll have trouble constantly.
2nd: Fable. It only gets easier for you as you level, to the point where you'll be virtually invincible at the end of the game. Not that the end of the game is difficult.
3rd: I suppose gaining loyalty counts as leveling, but just bringing someone with each type ability should do the trick, as well as picking the correct order.
Anyway, that's my take. Lemme know which is your favorite and why. DO NOT VOICE YOUR DISAPPROVAL ABOUT MY CHOICES. Just tell me what you think.
Friday, September 24, 2010
A New Dawn
So I haven't really had the time to write a blog in the past few months, but that doesn't mean I've wanted to talk about a few things. Namely, gaming. Some interesting developments have occurred in the past few months, and I just wanted to relay some of my thoughts on the matter. So here it goes.
Halo: Reach - After a long wait, the Halo we've been waiting for. I can truly say to you that this is the Halo we've wanted and Bungie wanted to give us. Everything in the game defeats its predecessor in almost every way. I can honestly say that this is my favorite Halo game and my new favorite game. It is terrificly awesome to see a developer go out on a high note on a beloved franchise, and this is how you do it.
Should the media review multiplayer? - I've been thinking about this one for a while. Most reviews chuck in a novelty comment like "I really like the multiplayer". But often they don't brush on what is really the ups and downs of multiplayer. With games like Modern Warfare 2 changing the online experience, we need more input on this issue. The only way you could get an honest review is if you are an avid player and have experience with a multiplayer's gameplay. Things would have been better if Infinity Ward hadn't put in Commando, but they would have had no way of knowing it unless the community had voiced it's outrage (which it did, but the problem wasn't fixed). I am well aware that the community is also to blame for this, but knowing which problems arise from certain game mechanics is important for developers to ensure everyone can have a good time. Seriously, anyone can jump into halo and start having fun. I weep for those inexperienced players who try to weed casually into Call of Duty. Important for people to know what they're dealing with in all aspects of the game.
Finally, some games - Now ever since the release of Halo: Reach, I haven't really been excited for any new games. I may pick up Black Ops or Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, but those games look like something I've already played (and in many ways are). That's not to say that I won't enjoy them, I'm just not excited for them as much. As of right now, there are three games that spark my interest. First, Bulletstorm. I freaking love the concept of being creative with your kills, and being given an arsenal of original weapons to do it with. People can fly seems to be a promising developer, and I've never been steered wrong by Epic and EA before. Secondly, Bioshock: Infinite. Now, I'll admit it, the first Bioshock took me like a year to complete because well, I'm a big pussy. It scared me, and I was a little bitch about it. But despite my wussiness, it has to be one of the best games ever. So when I saw that this new Bioshock will take place in an American dystopia in the sky with tons of awesome looking gameplay mechanics, I started to get excited. Color me a bitch, but this one might only take me six months to do. And finally, World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. Anyone who says this is more of a gigantic patch than an actual expansion is a moron. This is without a doubt the BIGGEST expansion Blizzard has ever done, and probably the biggest in MMO history. The world will change FOREVER, and we're all just along for the ride.
That's it for now and possibly a while. We'll see in the coming months.
Halo: Reach - After a long wait, the Halo we've been waiting for. I can truly say to you that this is the Halo we've wanted and Bungie wanted to give us. Everything in the game defeats its predecessor in almost every way. I can honestly say that this is my favorite Halo game and my new favorite game. It is terrificly awesome to see a developer go out on a high note on a beloved franchise, and this is how you do it.
Should the media review multiplayer? - I've been thinking about this one for a while. Most reviews chuck in a novelty comment like "I really like the multiplayer". But often they don't brush on what is really the ups and downs of multiplayer. With games like Modern Warfare 2 changing the online experience, we need more input on this issue. The only way you could get an honest review is if you are an avid player and have experience with a multiplayer's gameplay. Things would have been better if Infinity Ward hadn't put in Commando, but they would have had no way of knowing it unless the community had voiced it's outrage (which it did, but the problem wasn't fixed). I am well aware that the community is also to blame for this, but knowing which problems arise from certain game mechanics is important for developers to ensure everyone can have a good time. Seriously, anyone can jump into halo and start having fun. I weep for those inexperienced players who try to weed casually into Call of Duty. Important for people to know what they're dealing with in all aspects of the game.
Finally, some games - Now ever since the release of Halo: Reach, I haven't really been excited for any new games. I may pick up Black Ops or Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, but those games look like something I've already played (and in many ways are). That's not to say that I won't enjoy them, I'm just not excited for them as much. As of right now, there are three games that spark my interest. First, Bulletstorm. I freaking love the concept of being creative with your kills, and being given an arsenal of original weapons to do it with. People can fly seems to be a promising developer, and I've never been steered wrong by Epic and EA before. Secondly, Bioshock: Infinite. Now, I'll admit it, the first Bioshock took me like a year to complete because well, I'm a big pussy. It scared me, and I was a little bitch about it. But despite my wussiness, it has to be one of the best games ever. So when I saw that this new Bioshock will take place in an American dystopia in the sky with tons of awesome looking gameplay mechanics, I started to get excited. Color me a bitch, but this one might only take me six months to do. And finally, World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. Anyone who says this is more of a gigantic patch than an actual expansion is a moron. This is without a doubt the BIGGEST expansion Blizzard has ever done, and probably the biggest in MMO history. The world will change FOREVER, and we're all just along for the ride.
That's it for now and possibly a while. We'll see in the coming months.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Are you ready for some fo--- ah you know....
In order to keep my sanity, I have decided to blog more (not to mention it really helps the typing fingers). So I decided to start by talking about some things in the NFL that have caught my (and most) people's attention during the preseason that will hopefully have at least some impact when the regular season kicks off with the rematch of last year's NFC Championship. ONWARD!
Favre - Did you really think it was over? It will be "over" when the word is spelled "ovre". Brett Farve's return to football shouldn't really surprise anyone, but it should excite everyone. There must be a reason why the 2008 10-6 Vikings became the 2009 12-4 Vikings. Not a huge improvment, to be sure, but one that undoubtedly occured from Favre's resurgence as a QB that could be stalled this year from injuries to key players.
WTF? - The big question for me is what the hell is going on in Denver? I honestly do not have enough time to list all the key players lost to injuries on the team. Each one throws a major wrench in Josh McDaniels's plans to make the playoffs (and more importantly, not look like a douche). Even Tim Tebow (I'm not calling him "The Mile High Messiah") couldn't stay healthy. On an even stranger note, Kyle Orton is looking sharp? Wha-? Sigh, just not our years folks. Just not our year.
Please are shut upz about teh peeplez? - Look, it's way too early to place any faith in any team from any evidence. It's the damn preseason, not the bye week. So when I hear someone rave about what a good team the 49er's are becoming or that Matt Ryan is the best fantasy quarterback sleeper, I get a little annoyed at it. Please, people, this isn't what football is about. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the glory of the sport that is football.
J-E-T-S.... - Wow. And I thought Kanye's ego was big. I'm not gonna say the Jets won't succeed, but it certainly doesn't help your stock by announcing to the the world you're going to be the Super Bowl XLV Champions. Let's just take it down a notch, huh? Maybe start by focusing on the ground-and-pound play that got you to the playoffs in the first place. Just saying.
T. Oh no Cinco. - Chad Ochocinco and T.O. on the same field? Bound to happen one day. But on the same team? To quote the Bible (incorrectly): "Whatever God kept seperate, let no coach EVER, EVER, EVER, bring fucking together." It's a scientific fact that both TO and OCHO's egos can be seen from space. Now try and get them to share the glory of a win. Try to get them to take the blame for an agonizing defeat. Try to get them to call it the Bengals, instead of what it really is, seasons two of "The T.O. Show" and "Ochocinco: The Ultimate Catch". and no, they won't agree on the name either. The fact that they're friends doesn't really matter when it comes down to dollars and "sense" (pun most definitely intended). This one is gonna get juicy (sounded less gay in my head). Batman and Robin? More like Beevis and Butthead...
Favre - Did you really think it was over? It will be "over" when the word is spelled "ovre". Brett Farve's return to football shouldn't really surprise anyone, but it should excite everyone. There must be a reason why the 2008 10-6 Vikings became the 2009 12-4 Vikings. Not a huge improvment, to be sure, but one that undoubtedly occured from Favre's resurgence as a QB that could be stalled this year from injuries to key players.
WTF? - The big question for me is what the hell is going on in Denver? I honestly do not have enough time to list all the key players lost to injuries on the team. Each one throws a major wrench in Josh McDaniels's plans to make the playoffs (and more importantly, not look like a douche). Even Tim Tebow (I'm not calling him "The Mile High Messiah") couldn't stay healthy. On an even stranger note, Kyle Orton is looking sharp? Wha-? Sigh, just not our years folks. Just not our year.
Please are shut upz about teh peeplez? - Look, it's way too early to place any faith in any team from any evidence. It's the damn preseason, not the bye week. So when I hear someone rave about what a good team the 49er's are becoming or that Matt Ryan is the best fantasy quarterback sleeper, I get a little annoyed at it. Please, people, this isn't what football is about. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the glory of the sport that is football.
J-E-T-S.... - Wow. And I thought Kanye's ego was big. I'm not gonna say the Jets won't succeed, but it certainly doesn't help your stock by announcing to the the world you're going to be the Super Bowl XLV Champions. Let's just take it down a notch, huh? Maybe start by focusing on the ground-and-pound play that got you to the playoffs in the first place. Just saying.
T. Oh no Cinco. - Chad Ochocinco and T.O. on the same field? Bound to happen one day. But on the same team? To quote the Bible (incorrectly): "Whatever God kept seperate, let no coach EVER, EVER, EVER, bring fucking together." It's a scientific fact that both TO and OCHO's egos can be seen from space. Now try and get them to share the glory of a win. Try to get them to take the blame for an agonizing defeat. Try to get them to call it the Bengals, instead of what it really is, seasons two of "The T.O. Show" and "Ochocinco: The Ultimate Catch". and no, they won't agree on the name either. The fact that they're friends doesn't really matter when it comes down to dollars and "sense" (pun most definitely intended). This one is gonna get juicy (sounded less gay in my head). Batman and Robin? More like Beevis and Butthead...
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
A New World (of Warcraft)
Ah, Blizzcon, you seem so far off. But soon, World of Warcraft afficianados shall know when Azeroth will change...forever. That's right folks, World of Warcraft: Cataclysm will soon be upon us. Now I had pretty much gone off WoW for a few reasons, but after viewing many a beta video, I'm coming back to it very, very impressed. Here's a rundown of some of the major stuff. Caution: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!
First off, the absolute awesome lore behind this expansion. More lore people know it, but for those who don't, Deathwing, the giant dragon that adorns the Cataclysm cover, has emerged from his sanctuary to reclaim Azeroth. How powerful is he? Well, his return has basically destroyed the world. Yeah. It's gonna be a great story, and Blizzard has promised that leveling from 80 to 85 will take about as long as leveling from 70-80 did, so no one will feel cheated that Deathwing doesn't hold as much sway or familiarity as the Lich King. Not to mention it will feed into the aftermath of the Lich King's demise. With Arthas slain, the uneasy truce that stayed the hand of war has been broken, and it's gonna be a smackdown. Slyvanas has engaged the Worgen, Thrall has stepped down as Warchief, and Vol'Jin has all but left the Horde. For those who don't understand what I'm talking about, just know this: It's on.
As mentioned, the world of Warcraft has changed and I mean dramatically. While entire zones have been created, many previous zones have been altered in some way. Some are subtle, like adding new enemies and replacing the grasp a faction has on an area, to huge massive changes like say, The Thousand Needles flooding with water, Stonetalon Mountains becoming a deforested warzone, and the once Scourge-infested Western Plaguelands now teeming with life. It's these massive changes that will incorporate new questing models that Bilzzard hopes will pour new interest in the number one MMO, but more on that later.
In addition to presentation, gameplay will also receive an overhaul in content. Earlier quests, as early as say, the starting zone, will get new types of quests, as apposed to the dull drop, destroy, discover formula that vanilla wow has come to love. Now players will be introduced to raid bosses, vehicle mechanics, special item quests and phasing (the function in which the entire world changes around the player) as early as the first few levels. You can see a ton of each of these things in both the Worgen and Goblin starting zones. Talents are also being remodeled, much to my liking. The "Path of the Titans" has been removed (whatever it was) in lieu of giving the player a specific ability at certain levels if the spec in a general tree, in addition to the talents themselves. For example, Combat rogues recieve bladestorm, an aoe attack, at level 10, while Subtlety rogues would get a damage boost to stealth attacks. This makes the player feel both powerful and unique when it comes to that specific character.
So the question is, why remodel the world and the action within it? Well, Blizzard has altered it's philosophy on how to get players hooked on the game. Even though 12 million people play the game, Blizzard said it's greatest challenge is attracting new players and retaining them past level 20 with the current system. And they have a point. Anyone who has level past 40 knows all the cool stuff starts way later (I didn't start raiding until level 50), and you won't use siege weapons or pvp world battles until expansion content. The Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King introduced us to new gameplay mechanics and questing, Cataclysm is bringing the rest of Azeroth up to speed.
While Cataclysm faces opposition as more companies try their hand at the MMO market, Blizzard is confident that the latest expansion will keep World of Warcraft atop its high and seemingly indestructible throne. We'll find out come Blizzcon when the world (of Warcraft) as we know it, will change.
First off, the absolute awesome lore behind this expansion. More lore people know it, but for those who don't, Deathwing, the giant dragon that adorns the Cataclysm cover, has emerged from his sanctuary to reclaim Azeroth. How powerful is he? Well, his return has basically destroyed the world. Yeah. It's gonna be a great story, and Blizzard has promised that leveling from 80 to 85 will take about as long as leveling from 70-80 did, so no one will feel cheated that Deathwing doesn't hold as much sway or familiarity as the Lich King. Not to mention it will feed into the aftermath of the Lich King's demise. With Arthas slain, the uneasy truce that stayed the hand of war has been broken, and it's gonna be a smackdown. Slyvanas has engaged the Worgen, Thrall has stepped down as Warchief, and Vol'Jin has all but left the Horde. For those who don't understand what I'm talking about, just know this: It's on.
As mentioned, the world of Warcraft has changed and I mean dramatically. While entire zones have been created, many previous zones have been altered in some way. Some are subtle, like adding new enemies and replacing the grasp a faction has on an area, to huge massive changes like say, The Thousand Needles flooding with water, Stonetalon Mountains becoming a deforested warzone, and the once Scourge-infested Western Plaguelands now teeming with life. It's these massive changes that will incorporate new questing models that Bilzzard hopes will pour new interest in the number one MMO, but more on that later.
In addition to presentation, gameplay will also receive an overhaul in content. Earlier quests, as early as say, the starting zone, will get new types of quests, as apposed to the dull drop, destroy, discover formula that vanilla wow has come to love. Now players will be introduced to raid bosses, vehicle mechanics, special item quests and phasing (the function in which the entire world changes around the player) as early as the first few levels. You can see a ton of each of these things in both the Worgen and Goblin starting zones. Talents are also being remodeled, much to my liking. The "Path of the Titans" has been removed (whatever it was) in lieu of giving the player a specific ability at certain levels if the spec in a general tree, in addition to the talents themselves. For example, Combat rogues recieve bladestorm, an aoe attack, at level 10, while Subtlety rogues would get a damage boost to stealth attacks. This makes the player feel both powerful and unique when it comes to that specific character.
So the question is, why remodel the world and the action within it? Well, Blizzard has altered it's philosophy on how to get players hooked on the game. Even though 12 million people play the game, Blizzard said it's greatest challenge is attracting new players and retaining them past level 20 with the current system. And they have a point. Anyone who has level past 40 knows all the cool stuff starts way later (I didn't start raiding until level 50), and you won't use siege weapons or pvp world battles until expansion content. The Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King introduced us to new gameplay mechanics and questing, Cataclysm is bringing the rest of Azeroth up to speed.
While Cataclysm faces opposition as more companies try their hand at the MMO market, Blizzard is confident that the latest expansion will keep World of Warcraft atop its high and seemingly indestructible throne. We'll find out come Blizzcon when the world (of Warcraft) as we know it, will change.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Case for Creativity
In case you haven't noticed, 2010 is turning out to be one of the worst years for movies. Ever. The theater has become packed with both sequels and remakes of our favorite movies, and a heavy emphasis has been put on 3D. While this may sound like a terrific idea, both moviemakers and movie-goers are suffering, and I've been asking myself why for a while now. This is what I've concluded.
First off, why is it that so many movies this year have been sequels, remakes, or based off of familiar books or TV shows? The biggest reason: Movie-makers. Don't be fooled about producers' desire to creat "movie magic". These folks want to cash in. Most writers are too scared (or too stupid) to attempt to create something that hasn't been proven successful in some form of media already. To them, it's not a question of "What movie can we make that people will like?" It's a question of "What do people like that we can make into a movie?" But why should they do otherwise? Very rarely do we say a sequel is better than the original, but we see the movie anyways in hopes that it will be. Producers cash in on our desire to see where a story goes, even if it's in the wrong direction.
The second reason for the recent lapse in originality is something more sinister: the economy. As of this writing, it's Summertime, the season when studios release their biggest blockbusters in an attempt to make the most of people on vacation. Yet some films based on founded successes (Robin Hood, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, The A-Team) are still underperforming at the box office, losing out due to audiences who are unsure of the movie's quality and opting instead for the safer waters of sequels and remakes (Iron Man 2, Sex and the City 2, Karate Kid). This certainly doesn't sit well with moviemakers, because if the movie can't succeed where it matters to them most, what's the point in trying new things?
Easily the most frustrating part of movies this year is Hollywood's gluttony for 3D. If we are truly living in the age of 3D, something has to be done to prevent it's corruption of movies. The fact of the matter is that 3D is giving both moviemakers and movie-goers the wrong impression of a movie's quality. Some movies (Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans) have received either mixed or unfavorable reviews with critics, but have been smash hits at the box office for one reason: they're in 3D, which is more expensive, more immersive (supposedly) and something new for people to check out. Because the focus shifts to making a movie more eye-popping, its overall value suffers. It's all in the pursuit of cashing in on the world's current Avatar craze (more on that movie in a moment). How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3 are great examples of how a 3D movie can be successful at the box office without losing its wit and heart. If anything, a movie should be conceived as a two-dimensional film first and then equipped with 3D.
So what can be done about the staleness of today's movies? The best advice anyone can give is just take a chance. The best example of the proverbial "shot in the dark" is 2009's District 9. It starred first-time actor Sharlto Copley and unknown director Neill Blomkamp. It was based only on a short film which Copley and Blomkamp created, and it's only claim-to-fame was that Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson produced it. By today's moviemaking standards, it shouldn't have worked. Yet the film grossed over 200 million dollars worldwide (six times its budget of $30 million), garnered praise from critics, and was nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award. District 9 proved that an orignial story and a lot of effort can outshine a sequel starring well-known actors battling transforming robots while speaking dialogue seemingly written by a 10 year-old.
Now, the final question: what about Avatar? The biggest movie of all time was filmed for 3D and had a plot as old and familiar as stories go. What people seem to forget is the exhausting amount of work that director James Cameron put into the look and feel of the world he created. He had to imagine an entire planet, its biology, and its backstory. Coupled with special effects never seen before, Avatar should be commended for its ambition, if not for its story. If anything, the movie showed us that moviemakers don't have to reinvent the wheel to make a great movie. They just have to put the time and effort in to not just grab the bar, but to raise it.
Wow, I'm out of breath. OK, please comment and subscribe for more.
First off, why is it that so many movies this year have been sequels, remakes, or based off of familiar books or TV shows? The biggest reason: Movie-makers. Don't be fooled about producers' desire to creat "movie magic". These folks want to cash in. Most writers are too scared (or too stupid) to attempt to create something that hasn't been proven successful in some form of media already. To them, it's not a question of "What movie can we make that people will like?" It's a question of "What do people like that we can make into a movie?" But why should they do otherwise? Very rarely do we say a sequel is better than the original, but we see the movie anyways in hopes that it will be. Producers cash in on our desire to see where a story goes, even if it's in the wrong direction.
The second reason for the recent lapse in originality is something more sinister: the economy. As of this writing, it's Summertime, the season when studios release their biggest blockbusters in an attempt to make the most of people on vacation. Yet some films based on founded successes (Robin Hood, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, The A-Team) are still underperforming at the box office, losing out due to audiences who are unsure of the movie's quality and opting instead for the safer waters of sequels and remakes (Iron Man 2, Sex and the City 2, Karate Kid). This certainly doesn't sit well with moviemakers, because if the movie can't succeed where it matters to them most, what's the point in trying new things?
Easily the most frustrating part of movies this year is Hollywood's gluttony for 3D. If we are truly living in the age of 3D, something has to be done to prevent it's corruption of movies. The fact of the matter is that 3D is giving both moviemakers and movie-goers the wrong impression of a movie's quality. Some movies (Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans) have received either mixed or unfavorable reviews with critics, but have been smash hits at the box office for one reason: they're in 3D, which is more expensive, more immersive (supposedly) and something new for people to check out. Because the focus shifts to making a movie more eye-popping, its overall value suffers. It's all in the pursuit of cashing in on the world's current Avatar craze (more on that movie in a moment). How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3 are great examples of how a 3D movie can be successful at the box office without losing its wit and heart. If anything, a movie should be conceived as a two-dimensional film first and then equipped with 3D.
So what can be done about the staleness of today's movies? The best advice anyone can give is just take a chance. The best example of the proverbial "shot in the dark" is 2009's District 9. It starred first-time actor Sharlto Copley and unknown director Neill Blomkamp. It was based only on a short film which Copley and Blomkamp created, and it's only claim-to-fame was that Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson produced it. By today's moviemaking standards, it shouldn't have worked. Yet the film grossed over 200 million dollars worldwide (six times its budget of $30 million), garnered praise from critics, and was nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award. District 9 proved that an orignial story and a lot of effort can outshine a sequel starring well-known actors battling transforming robots while speaking dialogue seemingly written by a 10 year-old.
Now, the final question: what about Avatar? The biggest movie of all time was filmed for 3D and had a plot as old and familiar as stories go. What people seem to forget is the exhausting amount of work that director James Cameron put into the look and feel of the world he created. He had to imagine an entire planet, its biology, and its backstory. Coupled with special effects never seen before, Avatar should be commended for its ambition, if not for its story. If anything, the movie showed us that moviemakers don't have to reinvent the wheel to make a great movie. They just have to put the time and effort in to not just grab the bar, but to raise it.
Wow, I'm out of breath. OK, please comment and subscribe for more.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
E3 2010 Day 2
Once again, more highlights from the conferences, which consisted of Nintendo and Sony.
Nintendo: Welcome back, old friend. Nintendo ripped back to life with HUGE announcements, nearly all of them for the hardcore gamer about to sell thier Wii away. The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword was unveiled, and apart from techinical difficulties, it looks brilliant. Followed by a Mario Sports game and Golden Sun DS, it looked like the excitement had ended. That's when Nintendo kicked it into high gear, unveiling a reimagening of the N64 Classic: Goldeneye 007, exclusively for Wii, as well as Epic Mickey, a new Kirby game, Metroid: Other M, AND a new Donkey Kong game. Tie in the new 3DS (complete with an analog stick!), which will feature a new Kid Icarus game as well as remakes of classics ranging from Mario Kart to Metal Gear Solid 3 to the incredible, unfathomable Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (WOW!!!!), and The Big N wins the day, wins the publisher battle, and wins the WHOLE DAMN E3. Period.
Sony: Believe it, Sony is the real deal. Sony is slowly gnawing off the legs of the high horse upon which Microsoft sits. With big, EXCLUSIVE titles, Sony bumped it up with Killzone 3, Infamous 2, Gran Turismo, Little Big Planet 2 and a brand new Twisted Metal game, as well as exclusive deals with some big EA games like Dead Space 2. Move was shown off briefly, and it looks and is priced terrific, with a spellcasting game Sorcery and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2011. Made we want to actually buy a sports game. Too bad can't use Move controller as penis for secret lovers during game though. Sad. Kevin Butler also hilariously took the stage, but even he couldn't top the unbelievable: PORTAL 2 ON PS3. Let me repeat that, just so you know it's real: PORTAL 2 ON PS3!!! IMO, it's a good move. I could give a shit about exclusives, and Valve's doing the smart thing here. This conference made me want to buy both a PS3 and a Move in one fell swoop. Well done, Sony, well done.
Check back tomorrow for my wrap-up, where I name the winners and losers of E3. It's gonna be sooooooooo damn ZANY!!! ALSO, VOTE IN THE POLL AND COMMENT! :D
Nintendo: Welcome back, old friend. Nintendo ripped back to life with HUGE announcements, nearly all of them for the hardcore gamer about to sell thier Wii away. The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword was unveiled, and apart from techinical difficulties, it looks brilliant. Followed by a Mario Sports game and Golden Sun DS, it looked like the excitement had ended. That's when Nintendo kicked it into high gear, unveiling a reimagening of the N64 Classic: Goldeneye 007, exclusively for Wii, as well as Epic Mickey, a new Kirby game, Metroid: Other M, AND a new Donkey Kong game. Tie in the new 3DS (complete with an analog stick!), which will feature a new Kid Icarus game as well as remakes of classics ranging from Mario Kart to Metal Gear Solid 3 to the incredible, unfathomable Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (WOW!!!!), and The Big N wins the day, wins the publisher battle, and wins the WHOLE DAMN E3. Period.
Sony: Believe it, Sony is the real deal. Sony is slowly gnawing off the legs of the high horse upon which Microsoft sits. With big, EXCLUSIVE titles, Sony bumped it up with Killzone 3, Infamous 2, Gran Turismo, Little Big Planet 2 and a brand new Twisted Metal game, as well as exclusive deals with some big EA games like Dead Space 2. Move was shown off briefly, and it looks and is priced terrific, with a spellcasting game Sorcery and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2011. Made we want to actually buy a sports game. Too bad can't use Move controller as penis for secret lovers during game though. Sad. Kevin Butler also hilariously took the stage, but even he couldn't top the unbelievable: PORTAL 2 ON PS3. Let me repeat that, just so you know it's real: PORTAL 2 ON PS3!!! IMO, it's a good move. I could give a shit about exclusives, and Valve's doing the smart thing here. This conference made me want to buy both a PS3 and a Move in one fell swoop. Well done, Sony, well done.
Check back tomorrow for my wrap-up, where I name the winners and losers of E3. It's gonna be sooooooooo damn ZANY!!! ALSO, VOTE IN THE POLL AND COMMENT! :D
Monday, June 14, 2010
E3 2010 Day 1
It's a bit late, but here are some of the highlights from the first day of E3, which consisted of conferences from Microsoft, EA and Ubisoft. If you want a more detailed analysis, click here.
Microsoft: The Big Green focused was too much on Project Natal, which has now been named Kinect. Worse, it focused mainly on games that were for casual gamers, who usually don't tune in to E3 anyway. My personal favorite of the Kinect was an unnamed Star Wars title, which used Kinect in lightsabers, Force powers, and deflecting blasters. But the hardcore games are where it's at: Halo: Reach (space combat!), Gears of War 3 (lambent Beserkers!), and Call of Duty: Black Ops (Helicopter piloting!) were given the golden treatment, but the winner by far is Metal Gear Solid: Rising. The concept: Use Raiden's sword to cut through anything (buildings included) from any angle. The game looked fast-paced, strategic, and gory as all Hell. I can't wait for this one. Finally, a new, sleeker Xbox 360 was unveiled. The design is pretty wonky, but it apparently runs cooler, quieter, and faster, all for 299$, and it ships out this week.
EA: EA had a strong show, with revivals like Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit and Medal of Honor, which resembles more of a faster-paced Battlefield than Modern Warfare. Plus sequels like Dead Space 2 and Crysis 2 were gorgeous to look at and anticpated to boot. The new FPS Bulletstorm was also shown off, and apart from being "gore-geous", it features a great premise: kill the bad guys in the most creative way possible, showing off a laser leash that can fling enemies, super kicks that send baddies flying, and environments dying for destruction. Finally, Bioware concluded the show with Star Wars: The Old Republic, and a trailer that blew everyone away. Ladies and gentleman, the WoW-Killer has arrived.
Ubisoft: Another strong show, Ubisoft employed MC Joel McHale to host again, and it turned out great; he was hilarious and entertaining. But the games are where it's at, remember? Child of Eden, a Kinect arcade-esque title that reminded me of Geometry Wars looks very cool and trippy. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood stole the show, showing off an awesome battle scene and setting up an anticipated sequel comparable to Uncharted 2. Shaun White's Skateboarding looks, dare I say it, "dope", showing off a more cartoony/arcade skateboarding game complete with zany abilities like in the similar Snowboarding game. Ghost Recon: Future Soldier looks much faster-paced and easier to control than previous versions I've seen, with awesome new weapons and gadgetry. A new Rayman game was shown off, and the first thing you notice is its beautiful design and "Castle Crashers" type humor. Finally, dancers from "Michael Jackson's: This is It" ended the show dancing to the "Beat It" music video, introducing a new Michael Jackson related game. Fingers crossed for an FPS! :D
That's all for today, check back tomorrow for more news. Be sure to comment and vote in the poll (on Tuesday!)!!!!
Microsoft: The Big Green focused was too much on Project Natal, which has now been named Kinect. Worse, it focused mainly on games that were for casual gamers, who usually don't tune in to E3 anyway. My personal favorite of the Kinect was an unnamed Star Wars title, which used Kinect in lightsabers, Force powers, and deflecting blasters. But the hardcore games are where it's at: Halo: Reach (space combat!), Gears of War 3 (lambent Beserkers!), and Call of Duty: Black Ops (Helicopter piloting!) were given the golden treatment, but the winner by far is Metal Gear Solid: Rising. The concept: Use Raiden's sword to cut through anything (buildings included) from any angle. The game looked fast-paced, strategic, and gory as all Hell. I can't wait for this one. Finally, a new, sleeker Xbox 360 was unveiled. The design is pretty wonky, but it apparently runs cooler, quieter, and faster, all for 299$, and it ships out this week.
EA: EA had a strong show, with revivals like Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit and Medal of Honor, which resembles more of a faster-paced Battlefield than Modern Warfare. Plus sequels like Dead Space 2 and Crysis 2 were gorgeous to look at and anticpated to boot. The new FPS Bulletstorm was also shown off, and apart from being "gore-geous", it features a great premise: kill the bad guys in the most creative way possible, showing off a laser leash that can fling enemies, super kicks that send baddies flying, and environments dying for destruction. Finally, Bioware concluded the show with Star Wars: The Old Republic, and a trailer that blew everyone away. Ladies and gentleman, the WoW-Killer has arrived.
Ubisoft: Another strong show, Ubisoft employed MC Joel McHale to host again, and it turned out great; he was hilarious and entertaining. But the games are where it's at, remember? Child of Eden, a Kinect arcade-esque title that reminded me of Geometry Wars looks very cool and trippy. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood stole the show, showing off an awesome battle scene and setting up an anticipated sequel comparable to Uncharted 2. Shaun White's Skateboarding looks, dare I say it, "dope", showing off a more cartoony/arcade skateboarding game complete with zany abilities like in the similar Snowboarding game. Ghost Recon: Future Soldier looks much faster-paced and easier to control than previous versions I've seen, with awesome new weapons and gadgetry. A new Rayman game was shown off, and the first thing you notice is its beautiful design and "Castle Crashers" type humor. Finally, dancers from "Michael Jackson's: This is It" ended the show dancing to the "Beat It" music video, introducing a new Michael Jackson related game. Fingers crossed for an FPS! :D
That's all for today, check back tomorrow for more news. Be sure to comment and vote in the poll (on Tuesday!)!!!!
Saturday, June 12, 2010
E3 2010 Predictions
It's finally here. The biggest gaming conference in the world will kick off Monday when Microsoft takes the stage to begin E3. The Electronic Entertainment Expo is so big, in fact, that I did something different to honor this great event. Be sure to comment on each conference when you get here. Enjoy!
Friday, May 14, 2010
Red vs. Deux
Part 2 of the Halo: Reach blog.
So this is gonna be shorter cause I just wanna talk about the overall presentation of the game. The bottom line: this is the best looking Halo game ever. Bungie said they had gutted the Halo 3 engine and built it up from scratch, and it really shows. Weapons, environments, and characters are all better designed and much much much more detailed. I was amazed looking at the graphical difference between Halo 3 and Reach, as the two seem only vaguely similar. Because of the graphical revamp, explosions and sparks all seem much more vibrant and engaging. It just shows Bungie's love of their fans by giving them something prettier to look at. Halo 3 was a Corvette, Halo: ODST was a Lexus, but Reach is a muthafuckin Lambourghini.
Another engaging aspect of the game is the non-gameplay multiplayer experience. Players earn points based upon how they do in ranked games, then used those points to buy new aestetic armor pieces in the armory. It would kinda be cool to see the armor pieces have specific powers (more jetpack time, faster movement), but it's still really cool buying stuff. The best part of it is definitely the new way players get control over the match they play. Instead of veto power, players get to vote on the game they want to play, the most votes wins. The best part of this is the ability to choose none of the above if none seem that interesting. Get a big enough party in the game and you could really swing the vote in your favor. Chalk one up for America. Booyah.
That's all I really have energy to discuss. If you have anything you want to know about in the beta, just leave a comment. Other than that, stay tuned for my newer entries and for the big surpise: YOU ARE NOT YOU. YOU'RE ME. No shit. Seriously, big stuff ahead.
So this is gonna be shorter cause I just wanna talk about the overall presentation of the game. The bottom line: this is the best looking Halo game ever. Bungie said they had gutted the Halo 3 engine and built it up from scratch, and it really shows. Weapons, environments, and characters are all better designed and much much much more detailed. I was amazed looking at the graphical difference between Halo 3 and Reach, as the two seem only vaguely similar. Because of the graphical revamp, explosions and sparks all seem much more vibrant and engaging. It just shows Bungie's love of their fans by giving them something prettier to look at. Halo 3 was a Corvette, Halo: ODST was a Lexus, but Reach is a muthafuckin Lambourghini.
Another engaging aspect of the game is the non-gameplay multiplayer experience. Players earn points based upon how they do in ranked games, then used those points to buy new aestetic armor pieces in the armory. It would kinda be cool to see the armor pieces have specific powers (more jetpack time, faster movement), but it's still really cool buying stuff. The best part of it is definitely the new way players get control over the match they play. Instead of veto power, players get to vote on the game they want to play, the most votes wins. The best part of this is the ability to choose none of the above if none seem that interesting. Get a big enough party in the game and you could really swing the vote in your favor. Chalk one up for America. Booyah.
That's all I really have energy to discuss. If you have anything you want to know about in the beta, just leave a comment. Other than that, stay tuned for my newer entries and for the big surpise: YOU ARE NOT YOU. YOU'RE ME. No shit. Seriously, big stuff ahead.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Red vs. Blue
Hey gang, just wanted to give you guys my impressions of the Halo: Reach Multiplayer that has engulfed over a million people. There's a lot to talk about here, so I may cuts this into two parts.
First off, let me say I was very skeptical about this new Halo. Health, fall damage, and no more veto power had me a little edgy when it came to the game. But my fears were washed I way when I popped in Halo 3: ODST for the first time in a long time to play the beta. I can say that this exceeds my expectations in every way, is ten times better than Modern Warfare 2 and more fun to play than Halo 3. Now to tell you why.
Gameplay: Pop into the fight and you can tell right away this is a whole new Halo. Welcome to Reach, the greatest and farthest UNSC outpost. You're not Master Chief in this puppy. You're a Spartan III, and with that come big changes to the game. For starters, you have health underneath your shields. You may remember this if you played Halo: Combat Evolved or ODST. You're not the One Man Army you were in Halo 3. If you fall from too great a height, you take some damage. If you fall from an impossible height, you take some death. You don't hit as hard as you did, so no more Halo 3 type battles. Let me explain. A classic Halo 3 scenario: Two combatants rush each other, Assault Rifles blazing. When they meet, they melee. One, or both, die. In Reach, one hit will only deplete the remainder of the shield, another is needed to kill. So in the game I've found myself shooting my AR until shields are completely depleted, then using my sidearm to finish off an enemy, rather than get mixed up in the melee.
One of the BIG changes that I love is that of Armor Abilities. Each Spartan gets one, and each brings something new to the table. Sprint is great for people who don't want to deal with confusing techniques and just want to rush and make quick escapes. Jetpacks allow for quick manueverability around maps. Guard allows you to lockdown yourself in a last ditch effort to survive the deadliest attacks. Stalker lets you become invisible and jam your enemies radar, the slower you move, the harder you are to see. Each works well if you play the "class" right, especially on the new gametypes.
The new gametypes are awesome. Stockpile is a CTF game that requires timing and defense rather than speed and transport. Cap flags in your area and defend them until they're counted toward you score. Headhunter is Free For All Territories. Grab skulls and deposit them in an area to score. But the one I really LOVE is Invasion. In my honest opinion, this is Bungie's 9th Symphony. Elites vs. Spartans. The way God intended. Some will be happy to know that Elites are badasses once again, having more shields, regenerative health, and a powerful "Evade" armor ability. Both are paired in three teams of two, allowing for teamwork and partner-spawning. The Elites must infilitrate a fortified Spartan stronghold and deposit a "Core" into a designated extraction zone over the course of three stages. The one map the beta has for this is Boneyard, the biggest map Bungie has ever done. As the Elites tear away at Spartan defenses, new parts of the map open up, new vehicles appear, and new Armor abilities are unlocked. By the final stage, it's an all-out war. The thing that baffled me was how balanced the game type was. There were games when Elites rolled through the whole game in minutes, some when Spartans kept the Core just inches away from the extraction zone and won, and others still when Spartans didn't even let Elites past the first stage. It's big, it's bad, it's glorious.
Finally, the weapons have been tuned up a bit to suit the action, with crosshairs actually expanding if the weapon is fired too long. The AR is much tougher, with better range, more damage, and more kick. Grenades have a bigger blast radius, making them much more lethal. The BR is gone, replaced by the single-shot DMR, which could be a little more powerful but still is a lot of fun to use. The Halo 1 pistol is back and still lethal when shields are gone. The new needle rifle is a long range beast, causing targets to explode when shields are down. But I would say the only overpowered weapon in the game is the plasma launcher, which fires FOUR LOCK-ON Plasma grenades and almost always gets multiple kills on vehicles. Could be better tuned, but other than that, it's the classic Halo weapons you know and love.
That's it for part 1. Stay tuned for part 2, where I'll talk about some other tidbits about the new game.
First off, let me say I was very skeptical about this new Halo. Health, fall damage, and no more veto power had me a little edgy when it came to the game. But my fears were washed I way when I popped in Halo 3: ODST for the first time in a long time to play the beta. I can say that this exceeds my expectations in every way, is ten times better than Modern Warfare 2 and more fun to play than Halo 3. Now to tell you why.
Gameplay: Pop into the fight and you can tell right away this is a whole new Halo. Welcome to Reach, the greatest and farthest UNSC outpost. You're not Master Chief in this puppy. You're a Spartan III, and with that come big changes to the game. For starters, you have health underneath your shields. You may remember this if you played Halo: Combat Evolved or ODST. You're not the One Man Army you were in Halo 3. If you fall from too great a height, you take some damage. If you fall from an impossible height, you take some death. You don't hit as hard as you did, so no more Halo 3 type battles. Let me explain. A classic Halo 3 scenario: Two combatants rush each other, Assault Rifles blazing. When they meet, they melee. One, or both, die. In Reach, one hit will only deplete the remainder of the shield, another is needed to kill. So in the game I've found myself shooting my AR until shields are completely depleted, then using my sidearm to finish off an enemy, rather than get mixed up in the melee.
One of the BIG changes that I love is that of Armor Abilities. Each Spartan gets one, and each brings something new to the table. Sprint is great for people who don't want to deal with confusing techniques and just want to rush and make quick escapes. Jetpacks allow for quick manueverability around maps. Guard allows you to lockdown yourself in a last ditch effort to survive the deadliest attacks. Stalker lets you become invisible and jam your enemies radar, the slower you move, the harder you are to see. Each works well if you play the "class" right, especially on the new gametypes.
The new gametypes are awesome. Stockpile is a CTF game that requires timing and defense rather than speed and transport. Cap flags in your area and defend them until they're counted toward you score. Headhunter is Free For All Territories. Grab skulls and deposit them in an area to score. But the one I really LOVE is Invasion. In my honest opinion, this is Bungie's 9th Symphony. Elites vs. Spartans. The way God intended. Some will be happy to know that Elites are badasses once again, having more shields, regenerative health, and a powerful "Evade" armor ability. Both are paired in three teams of two, allowing for teamwork and partner-spawning. The Elites must infilitrate a fortified Spartan stronghold and deposit a "Core" into a designated extraction zone over the course of three stages. The one map the beta has for this is Boneyard, the biggest map Bungie has ever done. As the Elites tear away at Spartan defenses, new parts of the map open up, new vehicles appear, and new Armor abilities are unlocked. By the final stage, it's an all-out war. The thing that baffled me was how balanced the game type was. There were games when Elites rolled through the whole game in minutes, some when Spartans kept the Core just inches away from the extraction zone and won, and others still when Spartans didn't even let Elites past the first stage. It's big, it's bad, it's glorious.
Finally, the weapons have been tuned up a bit to suit the action, with crosshairs actually expanding if the weapon is fired too long. The AR is much tougher, with better range, more damage, and more kick. Grenades have a bigger blast radius, making them much more lethal. The BR is gone, replaced by the single-shot DMR, which could be a little more powerful but still is a lot of fun to use. The Halo 1 pistol is back and still lethal when shields are gone. The new needle rifle is a long range beast, causing targets to explode when shields are down. But I would say the only overpowered weapon in the game is the plasma launcher, which fires FOUR LOCK-ON Plasma grenades and almost always gets multiple kills on vehicles. Could be better tuned, but other than that, it's the classic Halo weapons you know and love.
That's it for part 1. Stay tuned for part 2, where I'll talk about some other tidbits about the new game.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Plot Thickens
So this is an update blog for both my All the CEO's Men and Modern Warfail Blog. I feel like it's too much work trying to update them seperately, and not enough information to write two full, quality pieces. So here's just a few updates I've been hearing and reading about in the past month or so.
Community Support - So a famous Youtuber posted a video of him noob-tubing from his spawn to the other in a game of Domination, going flawless in the process. He begged Robert Bowling to address the community, and it seems he was heard. Hopefully, this will persuade more big names to address the mess. They are representatives for the community after all. Let's hope this good trend continues as E3 rapidly approaches.
The Future of the Franchise - As many in the community return to COD4 and WAW, there has been a lot of commentary on what Treyarch's new Call of Duty will be about. The biggest rumor is that it will begin in WWII and continue up until the 1980's, following special task forces performing Black Ops around the world. Seeing as this fits the action/adventure direction Activision wants to take the franchise, there could be some truth to the rumor. We'll found out more at E3 most likely. Another outcome of the West/Zampella lawsuit was the mention that Modern Warfare 3 is in development and had been quite possibly since the release of Modern Warfare 2. Though it was not confirmed that Infinity Ward was making it, it can be assumed from the mere fact that IW controls all Modern Warfare related games, it is a safe bet they are the developers. However, they may soon not be any of the IW we knew left.
A New Home - As if clockwork, EA Partners picked up Vince Zampella and Jason West and allowed them to start their new company, Respawn Entertainment. They might soon be joined by folks they recently worked with. After West and Zampella's departure, nine more names have resigned from the studio, including their Lead Software Engineer and Lead Designer. These resignations are a direct result of Activision's actions in both the shady business tactics and countersuit against the former studio heads. So maybe Infinity Ward may not be picked up by a different publisher. But it's getting to the point where soon everyone who ever worked there may be.
So that's what I've got so far. Not too informative, but still a good update. Check back later for some new stuff (E3 coming very soon :D)
Community Support - So a famous Youtuber posted a video of him noob-tubing from his spawn to the other in a game of Domination, going flawless in the process. He begged Robert Bowling to address the community, and it seems he was heard. Hopefully, this will persuade more big names to address the mess. They are representatives for the community after all. Let's hope this good trend continues as E3 rapidly approaches.
The Future of the Franchise - As many in the community return to COD4 and WAW, there has been a lot of commentary on what Treyarch's new Call of Duty will be about. The biggest rumor is that it will begin in WWII and continue up until the 1980's, following special task forces performing Black Ops around the world. Seeing as this fits the action/adventure direction Activision wants to take the franchise, there could be some truth to the rumor. We'll found out more at E3 most likely. Another outcome of the West/Zampella lawsuit was the mention that Modern Warfare 3 is in development and had been quite possibly since the release of Modern Warfare 2. Though it was not confirmed that Infinity Ward was making it, it can be assumed from the mere fact that IW controls all Modern Warfare related games, it is a safe bet they are the developers. However, they may soon not be any of the IW we knew left.
A New Home - As if clockwork, EA Partners picked up Vince Zampella and Jason West and allowed them to start their new company, Respawn Entertainment. They might soon be joined by folks they recently worked with. After West and Zampella's departure, nine more names have resigned from the studio, including their Lead Software Engineer and Lead Designer. These resignations are a direct result of Activision's actions in both the shady business tactics and countersuit against the former studio heads. So maybe Infinity Ward may not be picked up by a different publisher. But it's getting to the point where soon everyone who ever worked there may be.
So that's what I've got so far. Not too informative, but still a good update. Check back later for some new stuff (E3 coming very soon :D)
Sunday, April 18, 2010
2010 NFL Draft Preview
So I want to give you guys a run-down of the NFL draft, which is Thursday at 5:30 on NFL Network. Here are some things I want to talk about that I think are the main things you should know if you're interested at all. If not, you should play Bloons. That game is the shit.
1st Pick Overall: Sam Bradford. Personally, I would pick Ndamukong Suh of Nebraska, as defense wins championships (see Tracy Porter, Super Bowl XLIV). But the Rams need a QB. I think we should remember that the Rams are awful, and Bradford will have to learn the game as the starter with essentially no wise words. So go easy on him when things look like crap, ok?
Tebow: A lot of people have been wondering what round he'll go in and to what team. My answer is I don't know. Tebow is a liability, he's risky, and most teams want to get a highly trained QB from the get-go. Tebow, however, is what I call "a project". He can be molded into a great QB, but I think he'll need to be drafted as a benchwarmer in the second round by a team with an experienced franchiser. Think Patriots (the best scenario in my opinion, he can learn from Belichick and Brady), the Colts (Manning), San Diego (Norv Turner and Phillip Rivers). He can learn the game from the best for a few years and get his start when someone gets injured or makes the playoffs early.
Teams with the best moves: are the teams that don't have to do much in the draft. In an uncapped year, free agency reigns supreme. Big names get moved to different teams like they were third stringers. Among the teams making the best moves are da Bears (Julius Peppers), Baltimore (Anquan Boldin), the Jets (LT and Santonio Holmes) and my personal favorites, the Washington Redskins (Donovan McNabb, the blackest irishman ever to walk this earth). To these teams, the draft is a much smoother procedure. They can snag who they want without having to worry if that position is really what's needed.
Worst team for the draft: The Denver Broncos. No, it's not just so I can talk about them. I truly think that no one has done less in free agency (not even the Lions) to help secure necessary positions. The Broncos need a WR, an inside LB, a receiving TE, and a center. They have 3 picks, and only one is in the first round. If more attention had been paid to one of these issues instead of picking up Brady Quinn, (or if McDaniels wasn't such an arrogant prick), the Broncos could have dealt with this already. But as it is, I feel as if the number 11 overall pick will be wasted on Dez Bryant, who has essentially none of the talent of Marshall but all of the emotional baggage. Bleh.
Farve: The Viking's entire draft focuses around whether he will return or not. If he does return, get him some god damn protection. Snag an additional RB to teach Adrian Peterson how to hold on to the ball (and his job). If he doesn't return, it's time to seriously evaluate the QB slot. Tavaris Jackson is "okay" but can't be molded into the franchiser Farve was (and still is). Lot of contemplation to be had here.
That about does it. I've got a few ideas coming down the pike, including a follow up to this blog after the draft, a follow up to the Activision/Infinity Ward lawsuit, a preview of E3 2010 and whatever else comes into my head. Thanks for reading. :DDDDD
1st Pick Overall: Sam Bradford. Personally, I would pick Ndamukong Suh of Nebraska, as defense wins championships (see Tracy Porter, Super Bowl XLIV). But the Rams need a QB. I think we should remember that the Rams are awful, and Bradford will have to learn the game as the starter with essentially no wise words. So go easy on him when things look like crap, ok?
Tebow: A lot of people have been wondering what round he'll go in and to what team. My answer is I don't know. Tebow is a liability, he's risky, and most teams want to get a highly trained QB from the get-go. Tebow, however, is what I call "a project". He can be molded into a great QB, but I think he'll need to be drafted as a benchwarmer in the second round by a team with an experienced franchiser. Think Patriots (the best scenario in my opinion, he can learn from Belichick and Brady), the Colts (Manning), San Diego (Norv Turner and Phillip Rivers). He can learn the game from the best for a few years and get his start when someone gets injured or makes the playoffs early.
Teams with the best moves: are the teams that don't have to do much in the draft. In an uncapped year, free agency reigns supreme. Big names get moved to different teams like they were third stringers. Among the teams making the best moves are da Bears (Julius Peppers), Baltimore (Anquan Boldin), the Jets (LT and Santonio Holmes) and my personal favorites, the Washington Redskins (Donovan McNabb, the blackest irishman ever to walk this earth). To these teams, the draft is a much smoother procedure. They can snag who they want without having to worry if that position is really what's needed.
Worst team for the draft: The Denver Broncos. No, it's not just so I can talk about them. I truly think that no one has done less in free agency (not even the Lions) to help secure necessary positions. The Broncos need a WR, an inside LB, a receiving TE, and a center. They have 3 picks, and only one is in the first round. If more attention had been paid to one of these issues instead of picking up Brady Quinn, (or if McDaniels wasn't such an arrogant prick), the Broncos could have dealt with this already. But as it is, I feel as if the number 11 overall pick will be wasted on Dez Bryant, who has essentially none of the talent of Marshall but all of the emotional baggage. Bleh.
Farve: The Viking's entire draft focuses around whether he will return or not. If he does return, get him some god damn protection. Snag an additional RB to teach Adrian Peterson how to hold on to the ball (and his job). If he doesn't return, it's time to seriously evaluate the QB slot. Tavaris Jackson is "okay" but can't be molded into the franchiser Farve was (and still is). Lot of contemplation to be had here.
That about does it. I've got a few ideas coming down the pike, including a follow up to this blog after the draft, a follow up to the Activision/Infinity Ward lawsuit, a preview of E3 2010 and whatever else comes into my head. Thanks for reading. :DDDDD
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Let's get political.
I've been wanting to talk about this for a long time now. I'm tired of not involving this blog with stuff that I feel truly matters, to me and every American. After reading two articles, one about Congress failing to do its job and the other about ineffectual leadership, I feel compelled to talk about my take on politics. I go to a very conservative, mainly Republican, Catholic school, so speaking my mind about certain issues is never a good idea, especially because I am a moderate Democrat and an idealist. I try to see things in an objective light, and enjoy getting opinions of politics from others. That being said, here are some things I think we need to do to make our nation more effective is serving all its people.
Reform the system I truly think it's time to reform our political system. If you read the article about Congress, you'll see that at present, our political parties have become politically coherent, and as such, parties disagree with one another in unanimous voice. Since the country has changed, it's time our system accomodates so that we can get things done.
Involve the Youth One of the greatest cripples of politics is the fact that the youth cannot easily get involved. No one listens to a twenty five year old just out of college when they can listen to someone who has worked and lived and owned a house and raised a family. But by neglecting the voice of the younger generation, we embaress the idea of politics altogther. Politicians always say they do the things they do for our children, but when we aren't listening to the ones that come after us, why should we do anything for them?
Enough of the rhetoric Everytime I turn on the TV, I hear something to the affect of "What would the Founding Fathers do?" We have to realize that our nation has changed dramatically since the time of GW and TJ. The truth of the matter is we honestly have no idea what they would do, because they, like us today, disagreed with one another on how they felt the country should be structured. Instead of wondering what the Founding Fathers would do, we should do what the Founding Fathers did: compromise and find solutions that help as many Americans as possible.
Separate Church and State Seriously attempt to keep religion out of politics. Look it's impossible to elect all atheists to Congress, but to allow our government to be dominated by what our church tells us isn't government at all. Let's remember that Law was given to us by God is a way we could comprehend. Therefore, because we create laws, they are automatically inherently flawed. But justice is a divine institution. We must learn that our religion blinds us to what is righteous from a godly standpoint. As such, we must think logically in aspect to our lawmaking, not spiritually.
So that's my take. Please read the two articles and leave a comment about how you feel about politics. Thanks for reading.
Reform the system I truly think it's time to reform our political system. If you read the article about Congress, you'll see that at present, our political parties have become politically coherent, and as such, parties disagree with one another in unanimous voice. Since the country has changed, it's time our system accomodates so that we can get things done.
Involve the Youth One of the greatest cripples of politics is the fact that the youth cannot easily get involved. No one listens to a twenty five year old just out of college when they can listen to someone who has worked and lived and owned a house and raised a family. But by neglecting the voice of the younger generation, we embaress the idea of politics altogther. Politicians always say they do the things they do for our children, but when we aren't listening to the ones that come after us, why should we do anything for them?
Enough of the rhetoric Everytime I turn on the TV, I hear something to the affect of "What would the Founding Fathers do?" We have to realize that our nation has changed dramatically since the time of GW and TJ. The truth of the matter is we honestly have no idea what they would do, because they, like us today, disagreed with one another on how they felt the country should be structured. Instead of wondering what the Founding Fathers would do, we should do what the Founding Fathers did: compromise and find solutions that help as many Americans as possible.
Separate Church and State Seriously attempt to keep religion out of politics. Look it's impossible to elect all atheists to Congress, but to allow our government to be dominated by what our church tells us isn't government at all. Let's remember that Law was given to us by God is a way we could comprehend. Therefore, because we create laws, they are automatically inherently flawed. But justice is a divine institution. We must learn that our religion blinds us to what is righteous from a godly standpoint. As such, we must think logically in aspect to our lawmaking, not spiritually.
So that's my take. Please read the two articles and leave a comment about how you feel about politics. Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Modern Warfail
Enough is enough. A resident fanboy is finally venting about the most frustrating game of all time.
I speak of course about Modern Warfare 2 (MW2). It seemed so long ago that November 10 rolled out, relieving gamers of a Juggernaut-infested Call of Duty 4. Little did we know that 6 months later, we would be in the proverbial gamer hell. To use a stupid pun, if Dante's Inferno wanted to really gross people out, the developers would have had Dante fight through a horde of campers to reach his beloved Beatrice.
Before I start, I just want to set the record straight on some stuff. If you see me playing this game, it will be with friends. I don't care about my Kill/Death Ratio (KDR), I don't care about doing well, I just try to have fun with friends. I have tried to convince them to play something else, but to no avail. Please don't think me a hypocrite. I hate what has happened to this game, but I also want to get better. Secondly, I am an avid youtuber, and I subscribe to many channels of gameplay commentators who make money posting their videos. As such, I have many different perspectives to hear from. I can get a feel for how this game is affecting people who genuinly try to do well and have fun with this game. Enough of that stuff, though. Let's rant.
There are a multitude of entities to blame for Modern Warfare 2's blatant shortcomings. Here's my take on each one.
The Media Surpised I'm sure. Yes the gaming news networks are to blame in part for overhyping the game. This was obviously what both Infinity Ward and Activsion wanted, to spread the word about how amazing the game was going to be, but it has ultimately led to embaressment for both parties. If the game had not been as hyped as it was, I declare we would not have as much frustration about every little thing that bugged us. Now, instead of a "minor problem" in the system, every glitch, overpowered weapon, and problem becomes another line in an increasingly large checklist of failure. Lesson to learn: Don't talk shit unless you can back it up.
Infinity Ward (IW) Wha-huh?! After I defended them in my previous post?! Yes. As much as it pains me to say, if a game has deep problems not only at it's core gameplay mechanics but also it's online support, someone has to pay. Call of Duty 4 (COD4) had it's problems, believe me. But they seem like cakewalks compared to Modern Warfare 2's problems. Noob tubes in COD4 were annoying, cheap, and lame. Rather than seriously re-evaluate them, IW added Danger Close and One Man Army, ensuring Noob Tubers a place in "Fuck you" Hall of Fame. In COD4, the knife was a method of last resort, a means to kill when bullets weren't fast enough. In MW2, there's Commando, the equivalent of the Halo Sword Lunge. You want a lag jump? How about one that's unstoppable at 10 feet or closer. It seems tragic that IW didn't even listen to the community at all when it came to what it wanted, opting instead to make a more "noob-friendly game". Add on top of it hands-down the WORST online support in the history of video games. No online beta, no quick fixes to the millions of glitches that pop up every week, no easy way to play with friends right away, no response to the outbursts the community has about the game at all, and on top of all that, the new map pack doesn't even work correctly. Robert Bowling, get your shit together. Say what you will about Halo, but Bungie would never allow this.
Activision Well duh. These fuckers perpetuate the shituation (not a typo) even more. In the pursuit of making billions of dollars, the company fucks over millions of gamers. Demanding a whopping 15 dollars for their new map pack (consisting of 3 new maps and 2 COD4 rehashes), these sonsobitches are greedy. You may not think that is a whole lot, but when you consider that most map packs for other games (like Halo and WaW) are only 10 dollars and offer a shitload more than that. Activision has dug itself deep into MW2, and it won't let go until it sucks every last dollar away. It's as if Activision is a kid whose found his dad's gun, and has magically learned how to use it to rob every gamer of fun and money.
The Community The Matrix itself. It seems strange, but don't forget that most of the glitches in the game are found one way or another by the community. Now some people will choose to ignore the glitch until it is fixed. But the OTHERS. Oh, the OTHERS. What makes people exploit broken mechanics in the game to cheat their way to victory and then lord it over other players as if they had been beaten fairly? Short answer: people are assholes. But they aren't the only ones. Campers, emotionally incapable of dying in a video game, must hide in corners in order to win, because if they don't, they will spend an eternity in KDR Hell. Sadly, the worst people are the people I play with. These are the people who go into any game, Team Deathmatch, Domination, or even Search & Destroy, with only one goal: boost their KDR. No capping flags, no helping teammates, and no communication. What's worse is the lack of party chat in most games, forcing me to listen to other teams talk shit as my team silently runs around, going apeshit for kills.
Wow. That made me feel better. Anyway, if you have anything you'd like to add or debate, leave a comment and vote in the poll. Feedback is appreciated. Go play some game other than the clusterfuck "the biggest entertainment release of all time" has become. :D
I speak of course about Modern Warfare 2 (MW2). It seemed so long ago that November 10 rolled out, relieving gamers of a Juggernaut-infested Call of Duty 4. Little did we know that 6 months later, we would be in the proverbial gamer hell. To use a stupid pun, if Dante's Inferno wanted to really gross people out, the developers would have had Dante fight through a horde of campers to reach his beloved Beatrice.
Before I start, I just want to set the record straight on some stuff. If you see me playing this game, it will be with friends. I don't care about my Kill/Death Ratio (KDR), I don't care about doing well, I just try to have fun with friends. I have tried to convince them to play something else, but to no avail. Please don't think me a hypocrite. I hate what has happened to this game, but I also want to get better. Secondly, I am an avid youtuber, and I subscribe to many channels of gameplay commentators who make money posting their videos. As such, I have many different perspectives to hear from. I can get a feel for how this game is affecting people who genuinly try to do well and have fun with this game. Enough of that stuff, though. Let's rant.
There are a multitude of entities to blame for Modern Warfare 2's blatant shortcomings. Here's my take on each one.
The Media Surpised I'm sure. Yes the gaming news networks are to blame in part for overhyping the game. This was obviously what both Infinity Ward and Activsion wanted, to spread the word about how amazing the game was going to be, but it has ultimately led to embaressment for both parties. If the game had not been as hyped as it was, I declare we would not have as much frustration about every little thing that bugged us. Now, instead of a "minor problem" in the system, every glitch, overpowered weapon, and problem becomes another line in an increasingly large checklist of failure. Lesson to learn: Don't talk shit unless you can back it up.
Infinity Ward (IW) Wha-huh?! After I defended them in my previous post?! Yes. As much as it pains me to say, if a game has deep problems not only at it's core gameplay mechanics but also it's online support, someone has to pay. Call of Duty 4 (COD4) had it's problems, believe me. But they seem like cakewalks compared to Modern Warfare 2's problems. Noob tubes in COD4 were annoying, cheap, and lame. Rather than seriously re-evaluate them, IW added Danger Close and One Man Army, ensuring Noob Tubers a place in "Fuck you" Hall of Fame. In COD4, the knife was a method of last resort, a means to kill when bullets weren't fast enough. In MW2, there's Commando, the equivalent of the Halo Sword Lunge. You want a lag jump? How about one that's unstoppable at 10 feet or closer. It seems tragic that IW didn't even listen to the community at all when it came to what it wanted, opting instead to make a more "noob-friendly game". Add on top of it hands-down the WORST online support in the history of video games. No online beta, no quick fixes to the millions of glitches that pop up every week, no easy way to play with friends right away, no response to the outbursts the community has about the game at all, and on top of all that, the new map pack doesn't even work correctly. Robert Bowling, get your shit together. Say what you will about Halo, but Bungie would never allow this.
Activision Well duh. These fuckers perpetuate the shituation (not a typo) even more. In the pursuit of making billions of dollars, the company fucks over millions of gamers. Demanding a whopping 15 dollars for their new map pack (consisting of 3 new maps and 2 COD4 rehashes), these sonsobitches are greedy. You may not think that is a whole lot, but when you consider that most map packs for other games (like Halo and WaW) are only 10 dollars and offer a shitload more than that. Activision has dug itself deep into MW2, and it won't let go until it sucks every last dollar away. It's as if Activision is a kid whose found his dad's gun, and has magically learned how to use it to rob every gamer of fun and money.
The Community The Matrix itself. It seems strange, but don't forget that most of the glitches in the game are found one way or another by the community. Now some people will choose to ignore the glitch until it is fixed. But the OTHERS. Oh, the OTHERS. What makes people exploit broken mechanics in the game to cheat their way to victory and then lord it over other players as if they had been beaten fairly? Short answer: people are assholes. But they aren't the only ones. Campers, emotionally incapable of dying in a video game, must hide in corners in order to win, because if they don't, they will spend an eternity in KDR Hell. Sadly, the worst people are the people I play with. These are the people who go into any game, Team Deathmatch, Domination, or even Search & Destroy, with only one goal: boost their KDR. No capping flags, no helping teammates, and no communication. What's worse is the lack of party chat in most games, forcing me to listen to other teams talk shit as my team silently runs around, going apeshit for kills.
Wow. That made me feel better. Anyway, if you have anything you'd like to add or debate, leave a comment and vote in the poll. Feedback is appreciated. Go play some game other than the clusterfuck "the biggest entertainment release of all time" has become. :D
Saturday, March 13, 2010
A Return to Albion
Fable III is rapidly approaching our game collections. The question is whether or not it will be in the "I needed this game" or "waste of sixty dollars" category. From what I've seen, it is shaping up to be an interesting game, to say the least. At GDC, Peter Molyneux showed off some of the new features of the game in a demo presentation currently viewable at IGN. Here is some of my impressions of the demo and some things I noticed.
The Graphics: From what I could see, the engine used in Fable III will be very similar to the one used in Fable II. Characters retained a cartoon-y look, while environments appeared detailed and full. Now I suppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but I would actually like to see some graphical improvement. Fable II had pop-in (there were some in the demo), glitches, and robotic level design. I could really go for more "epicocity" in the designs as well. Just because you're trying to keep a story in realism doesn't mean you can't make it look pretty. One thing I noted was the demo's hero having a cocked eyebrow, which made him feel much more customizable.The Combat: Easily my biggest complaint for Fable II, Molyneux cited the idea of remaking the combat system to a more fluid system where you could combine your sword, gun, and magic into powerful attacks. He spoke about the fluidity of fighting games like Street Fighter and Soul Caliber and moving away from more traditional turn-based combat, which Fable really never had in the first place. I like this idea a lot, however, the demo didn't show anything that sounded remotely like what he was talking about. It look very similar to the combat in Fable II. Perhaps he's waiting to show it off at E3, but the combat system needs more than smoothness. It needs to be remade. In Fable II, rolling made you immune to all damage as you rolled. Guns killed opponents ridiculously fast, especially at higher levels of skill. Magic was slow and difficult to use. Fable III must make combat a greater challenge and more enjoyable.
The Presentation: Fable III takes place several years after Fable II, as you play the son or daughter of your hero in Fable II. Your quest is to come from humble beginnings, make alliances and eventually become king of Albion. So far, it is unexplained what happens to your old hero, or if he is in fact the king you are working to overthrow. It will be interesting how it all works out. But what I really want to talk about are the new things Molyneux's introducing to Fable III, or bringing back from Fable II:
All dogs go to Sequel: Yep, the pup is back. He follows you around. Other than that, not much else I can tell you that will differentiate him from the last game. I'd like to see some advancement of what he can do though. But hey, it's a dog. I heart it.
Smells like Normandy: A big improvement is the elimination of long, huge, unmanagable 2D menus. Like Assassin's Creed II's Villa, your hero will have Guild Chambers, complete with a dressing room, in which you can physically see the outfit and change any part you like. You will also have an armory where you can customize and change weapons, as well as a treasury and an achievement room. Now this is brilliant. I can't even tell you how frustrating it was to leaf through dozens of items I would never use to get to the one I would. It'll be interesting to see how they use it on other items like potions though. Might I recommend a shiny pop-up wheel menu comparable to AC2?
Balverines of Twitter: Molyneux broke from the demo to talk about Twitter and it's gamelike quality, the more followers, the better you do. The same goes for Fable III. As you work to become king, you will have to make promises to people so they will support you in your Kingship. You may have to marry a stuckup bitch in order to unite two factions, something quite common in Europe for centuries. If you fail to do so or don't keep your promises, you will lose followers and even declare war with those betrayed. This to me feels like Lionhead's answer to Mass Effect 2's "Everyone could die" scenario. Your actions have serious reprocussions, and that's key to a successful RPG.
I'm the Map!: This is the coolest part of the demo and the thing I'm most interested in. Your Guild Chambers contains the Map Room, which is strikingly similar to Fable I's Map Room with the giant circular recreation of Albion. Using this map will allow you to survey all of Albion under a giant magnifying glass like an RTS. You can view cities from afar, or get in really close to see people moving about on the streets (Molyneux cited the example of watching your spouse cheat on you). Now this is what would make me feel like a King. Omniscience is power, and the Map makes you feel like a god. You can command your Kingdom from a the seclusion of your own home. Molyneux likened it to Napolean viewing his troops.
It'll be interesting to see if Fable III improves on its predecesor. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything more.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
All the CEO's Men
Back DESPITE popular demand. I felt like writing again because gaming finally FINALLY has found its Watergate. I speak of course of the recent happenings over at Infinity Ward, the subsequent firings, and the future of both Activision and the Call of Duty masterminds.
Oh Bobby Kotick. Why didn't you burn the tapes? Where did the 18 minutes of recording go of you explaining to Jason West why Modern Warfare 2 should be played with Akimbo peripherals? When will Vice President Ford take over for you when you take off in your golden helicopter? Should this blog have been renamed "Frost/Kotick"? When will Adam stop making Nixon references? The answer to these questions are unclear, but here are things we do know:
Security stormed the Infinity Ward office buildings in Los Angeles. The thing I think is funny is the way they phrased this. "Stormed." In other words, the security Activision hired to oust the studio heads are comparable to the NS-5s storming the police station in "I, Robot".
President Jason West and Studio Head/COO Vince Zampella are "let go". In America, this is better known as "fired". Let's get something straight here: this isn't about Modern Warfare 2 in terms of a game. Just cause Mommy and Daddy are fighting doesn't mean they don't love their $1 Billion child. Rather, it's about the compensation and control for it. According to a massive 16-page lawsuit currently viewable on IGN, both West and Zampella were supposed to be compensated for Modern Warfare 2. Activision, in hopes of avoiding payment, hired lawyers to conduct an investigation to bring charges of insubordination and breaches of fiduciary duty against the two, breaching their contracts and resulting in their termination. This type of stuff comes from a publisher like Activision overstepping its grounds, eliminating its promise of complete creative control to IW, and then trying to sneak out the back door.
Activision taps newly-formed studio Sledgehammer Games to make a new Call of Duty. So basically this means that corporate greed wants an even bigger slice of the pie. Activision has expressed interest in taking the Call of Duty franchise into an action/adventure direction. In other words, Bobby Kotick wants Captain Price to star in Uncharted 3. Activision has already stepped on IW's toes by allowing Treyarch to create at least some of the COD games, and now is threatening to take the Modern Warfare franchise away as well. A new Treyarch COD was announced for this year, most likely taking place in a Vietnam setting. A new COD was also announced for 2011, and seeing as how the time gap between Modern Warfare is two years (2007, 2009) this could be the third. The lawsuit West and Zampella filed not only demanded compensation for Modern Warfare 2, but also "the contractual rights Activision granted to Messrs. West and Zampella to control Modern Warfare games." In other words, Sledgehammer could be the next developer of Modern Warfare 3.
So what does this mean for each party involved? Here are some rumors I'm debunking right now:
Infinity Ward will close. Rubbish. Not gonna happen. The developer responsible for the biggest piece of entertainment since Avatar will not just be left out to dry. Though Activision currently owns IW, there exists a Memorandum of Understanding, which keeps Activision's ownership on certain conditions. This memorandum is set to expire in October of 2011 (or if the conditions of contract are breach, which they have been), meaning if another publisher makes a tender offer, Activision could sell the company. Any publisher (the biggest being EA Partners) would snap IW in a heartbeat.
Activsion is fucked. Yes. No matter what they do, they cannot come out of this scandal unphased. Their commitment to greed above quality is sinking them as a publisher, especially in a time when games must maintain a certain level of integrity to acheive success in the market. Other developers, such as Blizzard and Neversoft, will now be wary of a long term commitment with the company. Activision won't close, but it won't ever be the same.
Call of Duty and Modern Warfare are safe. I. DON'T. KNOW. This scares me most of all. They will remain, but they may not be the same games we've come to love (or love to hate). The new action/adventure direction, the new studio, the drama of Infinity Ward all seem to point to one logical conclusion: That the Call of Duty we knew is gone, and is never coming back.
Please let me know what you think. I treasure your feedback, especially with something as madenning as this. Also vote in the poll. Thank you. Glad to be back.
Oh Bobby Kotick. Why didn't you burn the tapes? Where did the 18 minutes of recording go of you explaining to Jason West why Modern Warfare 2 should be played with Akimbo peripherals? When will Vice President Ford take over for you when you take off in your golden helicopter? Should this blog have been renamed "Frost/Kotick"? When will Adam stop making Nixon references? The answer to these questions are unclear, but here are things we do know:
Security stormed the Infinity Ward office buildings in Los Angeles. The thing I think is funny is the way they phrased this. "Stormed." In other words, the security Activision hired to oust the studio heads are comparable to the NS-5s storming the police station in "I, Robot".
President Jason West and Studio Head/COO Vince Zampella are "let go". In America, this is better known as "fired". Let's get something straight here: this isn't about Modern Warfare 2 in terms of a game. Just cause Mommy and Daddy are fighting doesn't mean they don't love their $1 Billion child. Rather, it's about the compensation and control for it. According to a massive 16-page lawsuit currently viewable on IGN, both West and Zampella were supposed to be compensated for Modern Warfare 2. Activision, in hopes of avoiding payment, hired lawyers to conduct an investigation to bring charges of insubordination and breaches of fiduciary duty against the two, breaching their contracts and resulting in their termination. This type of stuff comes from a publisher like Activision overstepping its grounds, eliminating its promise of complete creative control to IW, and then trying to sneak out the back door.
Activision taps newly-formed studio Sledgehammer Games to make a new Call of Duty. So basically this means that corporate greed wants an even bigger slice of the pie. Activision has expressed interest in taking the Call of Duty franchise into an action/adventure direction. In other words, Bobby Kotick wants Captain Price to star in Uncharted 3. Activision has already stepped on IW's toes by allowing Treyarch to create at least some of the COD games, and now is threatening to take the Modern Warfare franchise away as well. A new Treyarch COD was announced for this year, most likely taking place in a Vietnam setting. A new COD was also announced for 2011, and seeing as how the time gap between Modern Warfare is two years (2007, 2009) this could be the third. The lawsuit West and Zampella filed not only demanded compensation for Modern Warfare 2, but also "the contractual rights Activision granted to Messrs. West and Zampella to control Modern Warfare games." In other words, Sledgehammer could be the next developer of Modern Warfare 3.
So what does this mean for each party involved? Here are some rumors I'm debunking right now:
Infinity Ward will close. Rubbish. Not gonna happen. The developer responsible for the biggest piece of entertainment since Avatar will not just be left out to dry. Though Activision currently owns IW, there exists a Memorandum of Understanding, which keeps Activision's ownership on certain conditions. This memorandum is set to expire in October of 2011 (or if the conditions of contract are breach, which they have been), meaning if another publisher makes a tender offer, Activision could sell the company. Any publisher (the biggest being EA Partners) would snap IW in a heartbeat.
Activsion is fucked. Yes. No matter what they do, they cannot come out of this scandal unphased. Their commitment to greed above quality is sinking them as a publisher, especially in a time when games must maintain a certain level of integrity to acheive success in the market. Other developers, such as Blizzard and Neversoft, will now be wary of a long term commitment with the company. Activision won't close, but it won't ever be the same.
Call of Duty and Modern Warfare are safe. I. DON'T. KNOW. This scares me most of all. They will remain, but they may not be the same games we've come to love (or love to hate). The new action/adventure direction, the new studio, the drama of Infinity Ward all seem to point to one logical conclusion: That the Call of Duty we knew is gone, and is never coming back.
Please let me know what you think. I treasure your feedback, especially with something as madenning as this. Also vote in the poll. Thank you. Glad to be back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)