What is at the centre of the universe?
No Mans Sky boasts a universe like no other. Endless stars and galaxies to explore with the ultimate goal to reach the centre of it all, but what will be find there?
|
"the mother of all Easter Eggs"
What will we find? Something big, something that has to be worth navigating the entire universe to get to. Starting the game with nothing and taking endless hours to reach it has to be the mother of all Easter eggs. I will be disappointed with however with the head of some God like figure, quoting Star Trek V here. But I will accept the meaning of life (other than 42).
Chris Sowry |
"go back to the outskirts"
You'll find a treasure map of sorts, with the new task of reaching certain points around the edge of the universe. With doing this you can increase the length of the game ten fold. The Dev's have said that reaching the centre is only the beginning, collecting these items will ensure dedicated players have plenty to keep there time occupied.
Clint Tokley |
"Play again with extra goodies"
You'd prestige and be whiskered away to another random location, starting again with nothing. But with access extra goodies to show off to others that you have reached the centre of the universe and king of space exploration. It would be handy if your allowed to keep your current multi-tool, but your basically playing the game again from scratch.
Andrew P Paschails |
"Nothing, just play till you get bored"
I reckon its a ploy by Hello Games, if you can even reach the centre its only been added to give your adventure a purpose. Emphasising on the journey rather than the destination itself. If you have no reason to play, you won't and they need to ensure people keep picking up and switching on No Mans Sky. If you do reach to centre you get a well done, pat on the back and ushered to continue exploring and upgrading.
Kyle Revell |
Should the new battlefront be a battlefield re-skin?
|
Chris Sowry
@CJSowry |
Andrew P Paschalis
@kingeskimo |
|
|
"Games have evolved"
I appear to be in a minority with my words, but just listen to
me out before jumping to any conclusions. The last Battlefront was out on the
PlayStation 2, not just a few years back but a whole decade ago. Games have
evolved just from last gen consoles, just how much have they changed from two
generations? Of course we all bang about wanting to play old classics like
Timesplitters and such, but do we? Nostalgia quickly wears off and ultimately
we judge these old games by today’s high standards that they can never compare to.
DICE taking over the franchise is a massive win for the name of Star Wars, the detail in the models in-game is fantastic. You could not want a more authentic looking title, recapturing the scenes from the original trilogy where it all started. But wait, there where floating rebel icons on Hoth during the second film right? Allowing the rebels to magically teleport into X-wings and Snow Speeders, or pull a rocket launcher from their butt’s. I also can’t remember Darth Vader and Luke dressed from Return of the Jedi having a showdown half way through either (another rant about this later). DICE have opted for an arcade game over realism, true to the original games yes. But my brain hurts to see this kind of spotless detail with random pick-ups and arcade action thrown in. The developers on the other hand, have built up a long reputation with large scale battlegrounds combining balanced vehicle and infantry combat. Anything new they have tried has ended in failure. Medal of Honour reboot jumps to mind. DICE excel at Battlefield games and with carrying this much weight on their shoulders they seriously cannot mess this up. The new Battlefront MUST be spot on at launch, So why try something different to what they already know? Tie Fighters can replace Jets; ST-AT’s can replace Tanks and M16’s swapped out for blasters, simple. For them to now show you calling in Y-wings to bomb targets, goes against everything they have done previous. “You are the air strike” I can distinctly remember their slogan when comparing themselves to other shooters. The power of today’s PC’s and consoles need to be used. Limiting the battles to the small areas may focus the action, but it’s not pushing the boundaries of today’s standards. Even previous Battlefronts you could hop into an A-wing and fly into different capital ships and fight within the corridors. Where’s this gone? The natural extension would be to have the battle spread across a planet as well. I’m sure an XboxOne could cope with a player spawning on a base planet side, jumping in a Tie, fly into orbit. Proceed with a dogfight in space and to then land on a Star Destroyer. This brings me to another problem I have, 20v20 battles. I know numbers don’t make or break games. But the jump from PS3 to PS4 with Battlefield 4 and the extra players count makes the game so much better, bigger maps allow more freedom and extra vehicles to cause mayhem. Maybe a Planetside 2 reskin of Star Wars would be too big. But I want to see every epic moment form the films reproduced in game format. The view from the Millennium Falcon at the beginning of the space battle over Endor would have been pathetic limited to only 20 Ties. Lastly the inclusion of the Hero’s, I read an article about why they didn’t what an over powered unit, dominating the game and I 100% agree. Even going back to the authentic argument, obviously hero and hero will clash and one will die. But can you imagine the videos of Darth Vader killed by a X-Wing ramming into him. It brings you out of the mind-set that you are taking part in this “re-telling” of the movies. While I will still purchase Battlefront, I can’t help the feeling DICE have been told to make an updated version of the old games. While this will please veterans on paper, I struggle to see new players flocking over and staying for the long haul. Even the veterans themselves, once the nostalgia wears off. It’s been catered for a wider audience in mind, it has the feeling of a simple game allowing anyone to jump in anytime and play with little or no effort and skill. We all know that if you try to please everyone, you please no one. If you want the simpler version of Star Wars you have other options including Disney’s Infinity 3.0, offering the more child friendly atmosphere. Don’t let us hardcore gamers suffer. The Battlefield formula has been perfected over its many years, its proven and can keep large number of players hooked years after release. |
"delight at Battlefront not
being a re-skin" 
So should the upcoming Star Wars Battlefront re-boot be a Battlefield re-skin? Hell no is the short answer.
Why on earth anyone would want a Battlefield re-skin is puzzling to me. Battlefield is one of my favourite franchises but simply taking that model and basically calling it Battlefront would cause an almighty and justified uproar. I’ve seen numerous comments from fans expressing delight at Battlefront not being a re-skin. I’m not going to go into to many details about gameplay as it’s been well documented already. I will say three things though; (1) I’m over the moon that 3rd person view is in. (2) DICE are not including Space Battles with their first shot at Battlefront. Why? Well I’d rather they don’t overload themselves with too many elements. Keep it simple, get it right and then add space battles to the next game. (3) thank the stars no Battlelog!! What went from an innovation and handy community tool in BF3 became a hindrance by the time it integrated BF4. Anyway, back to the point in question. Although Battlefront has many of the same elements as Battlefield and I’m sure DICE are drawing on their massive experience of making shooters, this simply is a different franchise and should be treated as such. May the Force be with you! 
|
Is virtual Reality the
next big thing?
|
It may change the way we play games, but not anytime soon. As someone who wears glasses and sometimes suffers from motion sickness, I'm not too comfortable with the idea of playing games with a massive headset on. It looks uncomfortable, and I don't think I'll enjoy shutting myself out from the world just for immersion.
However, technology does it evolve so it's too early to say. It'll either be a hit or miss, I don't think there'll be anything in between. Zarmena Khan For me it's not something that will catch on for a while at least. With these things the big three factors are usability, software support and cost. As we've seen in the past with Kinect, PS Move and 3DTV gaming, without those factors all working together it's very hard to get "the next big thing in gaming" off the ground. Edward Rose |
The most important thing is whichever device hits the mainstream first - there's only one chance to sell the general public on "wear this thing on your head to play games", whether that's from Oculus, Samsung, Valve, or someone else. If that first one isn't great, I think it'll put a lot of people off for several years.
I was skeptical in general but I played New Retro Arcade recently and that's sold me a lot more on the idea. It's a free tech demo where you can walk around an arcade playing on cabinets and game systems, it really captures the atmosphere well. That said, I've yet to see many actual games I'd want to play with it. The software really needs to hit for the thing to actually take off. I still think the hurdle of putting something so obtrusive on your head for potentially long periods of time is a massive one to overcome. Ken Allsop |
It will come down to pricing, accessability and integrating it to a must have before i see it actually taking off. My last 3 cars have all had voice recognition, do i use it? no. Mp3 players and mobile phones had been around for a fair while but apple (love em or hate them) made them a must have item because of the iphone/ipod design. @ the branding + how they intregated into other platforms. If sony had made the psp and vita more integral into the home console gaming i feel imho they would of done much better than they did. The VR gaming concept has been around since the 80's look at the sci fi films of that era but ive yet to see it implimented as anything more than a gimic or and expensive akward add on most folk wouldnt want to be seen using in a group.
Ren Wolf Now when the Holodeck becomes a reality I'll be excited Andrew P Paschails |
We’ve all heard this story before; Motion Control, 3D
televisions and light guns. All promising the new and best way to play our
video games, but they all last a fraction of a time and just as easily
forgotten. It’s not like VR is anything new. I can remember trying it 20 years
ago, it was a great experience and the benefits are obvious. But the bottom
line is video games have had a controller and played on a big TV screen ever
since they were created and nothing will change that. It’s how we want and
expect to play our games. While a few people may deviate now and then, this is
fact and no matter how much money companies throw at the technology and
advertise it. This just won’t change.
And if it’s total emersion there are aiming for? You still need to trick the other five senses as well. The wind on your face, the smell of freshly cut grass and even the taste of burning ash all cannot be re-created via oversized goggles and headphones. Chris Sowry |
Could Chart/Licenced music improve video games?
|
|
|
Music can get the audience and players pumped up or make them cry depending on the feel of the game. But you can add any relevant paced music chart, licensed or composed specifically for the game and it will add the atmosphere as indented. Music is also powerful in the fact it helps aid memory and we associate that bit of music with a what we where doing at the time.
The idea of using chart or recognisable tracks is irrelevant. During my PS2 days, I played music on my CD player, over riding the games choice of music. Now when I hear those tracks again I instantly think of those games. But when I play those games again I don't necessarily think of the matching music that was playing at that time. I have purchased many tracks because they where in games I've played, but played no games because they featured a particular artist or track. Chris Sowry |
Licensed music can be great if it fits the game. GTA is an obvious example of how to do it right. I quite like its implementation in Hardline too. But it's certainly not great every time, plus nothing really stands out quite like a fantastic original score.
Ken Allsop I really enjoy chart music in games, I think it adds something to it. That Far Cry 3 level with Make it Bun Dem was a particular highlight. I also really enjoyed hearing Hank Williams in The Last of Us, it didn't feel out of place (I know that's not 'chart' music but I'm meaning music that isn't a score). Ross Cowie For me a game deserves a unique specially written score that compliments the game itself, the only exception being games with radio stations like on GTA. Scott Maynard |
I think when used to highlight a particular section of the game, a part that is supposed to be memorable and when the music choice is correct, its a good thing. Licensed credits music isn't so bad either, but if a game has a theme then that should be there in place of something else.
My most memorable experiences with songs in games were 'Blow Me Away' by Breaking Benjamin in Halo 2, 'Make It Burn Dem' by Skrillex in Far Cry 3, 'Power' by Kayne West in Saints Row The Third and 'Mad World' by Gary Jules in Gears of War 3. Each one of them times got me going in one way or another for something big that was happening at that point in time and in my eyes would have been wrong with an original score in place of it. The point I'm making is when used correctly its a powerful tool, because its something people have remembered from somewhere else, being used as a tool to make people remember something. Ben Hughes |
Do you need yearly release's of the same title?
|
|
|
|
Asked me this a few years ago and I would have said YES! But after many years of playing COD and FIFA, year after year. Now I just want to play something else.
COD:AW still plays like COD:4 and FIFA 15 plays like FIFA 08. Yes, small changes have crept in here and there over the years. But they are the same game dressed up for another generation. BUT this doesn't stop millions of us flocking for their products year after year. Plus new gamers emerge, never heard of AC2. To them Unity is the best thing ever and will repeat the cycle the slightly older gamers have just done. Buying the same title every 12 months for the next five years!! Chris Sowry |
Some franchises like COD make me think no as their happy to throw up the same game ever year with no changes and a bigger noticeable decline in each.
Then you get some series like AC where i'd say yes, cos for the most part, each game tries something different, adds something considerable to its gameplay and has a story thats memorable. Danny McGarry |
No. Not enough improvement or changes with such a fast turn around. Plus the story lines are so samey as they dont have enough time to think of and write it before production.
David Masser |
No. No franchise ever needs to be yearly because to make a great game that truly surpasses the last one you need time, not 12 months. You need to dedicate the whole team to it and not just some of them ad I cant thin of a franchise that is an exception to this.
Even AC doesn't hold up because when I see and play them they feel largely the same. Yes that's expected from a sequel but I actually have trouble distinguishing the Ezio trilogy from each other because they are so similar. There is nothing wrong with a franchise being built on similar sequels in my eyes, if a formula that makes the game good is found then stick to it. But a yearly regurgitation of that is unnecessary. Ben Hughes |
COD: Advanced Warfare first thoughts
|
"Looking forward to it"
As someone who isn't normally excited by Call of Duty, last years entry, Ghosts, really got me interested in the franchise again thanks to it taking a less serious approach to things. The new Advanced Warfare trailer got me a little bit excited for this years entry thanks to it doing a similar thing to Ghosts with its outrageous yet plausible plot. The idea of having a villain that isn't necessarily evil is also quite inciting as developer Sledgehammer Games could really play on some morality issues thanks to Kevin Spacey's intelligent bad guy. I'm not passing any major judgement yet, but based on how much I enjoyed last years entry and how quickly this years trailer grabbed me, Advanced Warfare could end up being one of my top games this year. Ben Hughes |
"Change the record!"
All the fancy cameos and futuristic technology will only fail to call back once die-hard fans like myself. We seem to forget that this is only a re-skinned version of all the predecessors in the series, the only difference is the developer. Yes, I do hold out hope that Sledgehammer games will push this game in a different direction, but I can't help but expect this title to be nothing more than Modern Warfare v7.0. Carl Faithful |
"Where do I order?"
Advanced Warfare' may sound like CoD is finally ready to parody itself but let's not underestimate it just yet. Yes exo-skeletons, invisibility cloaks and big name bad guys have all been done before but Sledgehammer bring plenty of talent to the party. The creator of Dead Space leading the best-selling FPS series that just happens to star Kevin Spacey? Count me in. Peter Whitehead |
"Wrong trailer"
Indeed, Kevin Spacey can sell anything and the trailer was not what you would call a disaster. It ticked all the right boxes and introduced enough to get the juices going. But why do we all play Call of Duty in the first place. Its not for the well scripted story or the fast paced gun play, Its Online. This was a campaign trailer and we all what to know what new features and tricks they will be bringing to try and reignite the increasing stale online play. Having re-written the book with online 7years ago with COD4, very little has changed. I will not be pre-ordering Advanced Warfare. Because unless they offer something ground breaking its just the same as any other COD. There's other new style of games I wish to play over another generic COD. Chris Sowry |
who deserves GOTY 2013?
The Last of Us
The term 'Game of the Year' is one of the most overused and derogative awards someone can give to a game. To say that the winner stands head and shoulders above every single game released that year is, in many ways, disrespectful to all other games released, especially when only big AAA titles are considered in the actual awards ceremonies.
This year however I was proud to not only call The Last of Us 'Game of the Year', because it wasn't simply the best game made this year, but the best game ever released on the Playstation 3. The Naughty Dog title, released in June, was the start of a new franchise for the acclaimed developer of Uncharted and Jak & Daxter. We were thrust into a 20 year old apocalypse, where humanity has become slave to the Cordyceps virus, transforming all exposed into hideously mutated monsters whose only agenda is to kill and spread its virus. You play as Joel, a middle aged and troubled survivor. Still mourning the death of his daughter Sarah and living in the tightly guarded Boston quarantine zone with his partner Tess, together they smuggle illicit goods in and around the quarantine zone. When the two cause inconvenience for the rebellion group, the Fireflies, they are tasked with transporting a package to a Firefly camp in Salt Lake City, the package however is a 14 year old girl. As their long and tiresome journey goes on, you see the characters change from a one mind to another. From a cold, bitter and emotionally void man to a father once again, with purpose to live and someone to look after. From a girl who is trying not to be afraid of the death that surrounds her to a born survivor. You see whilst The Last of Us isn't perfect, I mean the friendly A.I is more than a little lacking in the intelligence part at times and the puzzles are extremely simple; but The Last of Us outshines every other game this year in its story & gameplay. The stories concept I have already explained and though it may sound just like any other Walking Dead-esque survivor focussed apocalypse story, when you invest time into the game you are emotionally connected from the word go thanks to the games simply jaw dropping opening sequence and the atmosphere the game builds in its first hour or so. The game is heavily scripted, with nearly 3 hours worth of cutscenes over what is a 12-15 hour game, that is rather a lot of time spent watching CGI movies but much like Uncharted these are absolutely necessary to giving us an emotional and gripping tale. The game, at times, will make you question your morality. You begin to realise that in real life there is no real right or wrong, there is no good or evil and that even when all hope is lost all you need to do is keep fighting and you'll make it out OK. The gameplay is quite difficult to explain without calling it a stealth game, which at first sound may put some of you off however it is far from the likes of something like Splinter Cell. TloU is a fast paced stealth game, playing very much like Uncharted on the surface with an emphasis on always moving forwards as fast as you can; however due to having to manage scarce resources such as health packs, ammo & special items you are encouraged to take the enemy by surprise, thinning their ranks slowly before taking out the final few in an Uncharted style gunfight. The more the game progresses the more your survival instincts are tested by throwing you into more complex & unforgiving environments battling increased numbers of enemies with ever decreasing resources forcing you to think on your feet, improvise & pray that you'll make it past them alive. The thought of seeing The Last of Us on store shelves with some ugly 'Game of the Year' logo slapped all over it, having it bundled with all kinds of useless crap makes me cringe but in all honesty I cant think of a game more deserving of Game of the Year status. The Last of Us is Half-Life 2 for this decade, a game that re-writes the rule book, punches you in the gut, squeezes lemon juice in your eyes and leaves you in a coma for a week...a feeling every gamer should strive to feel from a game and that's why it deserves to be Game of the Year 2013. Ben Hughes |
Grand theft auto 5
Enormity is a stringent essential in the ever-growing popularity of the open world game genre. You remember the utter thrills of delight you had plastered across your salivated lips when Just Cause Two’s protagonist Rico Rodriguez surfed a jumbo jet, flying at an unprecedentedly high altitude, and almost feeling the shivers of fright cascade as you gaze, imagining you were in his shoes.
The point is that games are made for their moments, when the screen is filled in excess galore, where you feel like you are in full control of what you do to pass each sacred moment of game time. GTA V has moments where you are almost sick one moment, and laughing uncontrollably the next. It’s game that breathes in the dichotomy of setting, to create a believable atmosphere, with denizens who are crazy or monstrously brainwashed by technology. Everything that can be said about the three protagonists draw on what R* has be well known for. Trevor is the side of R* that is violent, grotesque, he is the xxx equivalent of action porn. Franklin represents the 2 bit side of LA, where he has to fight for notoriety by performing petty crimes successfully before he gets noticed by the 3 bit gangsters. And Michael…….well Michael is that classic character who lets riches and the aristocratic lifestyle go straight to his 45 year old brain. The fact you can play as all three at any time just proves how versatile GTA V is. Now looking at The Last of Us to your left. Please note that it’s a definite contender for GOTY and deserves every inch of credit it gets. You are possible wondering what makes GTA V much better aren’t you? The answer is excess, where quality and quantity converge to make something that’s painstakingly massive, with swathes of social commentary and a blistering soundtrack, which sets you right in the mood. The most impressively varied game missions you’ll ever experience and most importantly- the moments. Moments where you cannot forget situations, moments that happen with friends over a multiplayer session, moments that manipulate all those vital reactions. The Last of Us may have the best story, and it’s been crafted by one of the industry’s most talented studios- but moments stop. You experience the story and it’s done, you replay and try again, and you attempt to play in a different way. Sure there’s multiplayer, but GTA V gives you everything that a gamer asks for. Freedom, droves of activity and wonderful characters all drive the foundations for this unending rollercoaster. Game of the Year is very befitting for a game, which people will play for hours and come back to. It’s also befitting of the toil and sweat that has gone into every acre of geometry. This is the biggest and best game of 2013, there’s no need to say more. James Davie |
Are trophies worth the effort?
NOT SO!
OK so Trophies, yay that ping that sense of achievement for finishing a quest line or collecting a set of relics am I right. Well not really, while the whole concept is pretty solid and a well put together trophy list is fine and dandy and really does give you that grand sense of achievement, the problem is that most of the time they are overdone, know that weapon you absolutely hate and can’t use how about you go out and get 100 kills with it or maybe you would like to spend hours and hours on end searching for random collectibles that aren’t indicated on the map sounds fun right. That’s just the tip of iceberg though we all love the idea of Hidden trophies right, rewarding us for story progress without ruining the actual story love it, until the game developers decided it was time to use hidden trophies for other random stuff like unlocking a specific item, defeating a specific rare enemy or performing some menial task that you would normally avoid like the plague. In essence trophies are a brilliant concept and the early trophy lists were relatively sensible and some still are but on the whole they’ve been raped into a difficulty quest takes the fun and achievement away and replace it with hours of grinding and boredom.
Scott Maynard |
GOD, YES.!
Trophies and Xbox Achievements have been around for years before Microsoft incorporated it into their XBOX360 system. Ratchet and Clank had Skill Points and there are countless games before the whole concept was mass introduced using their own in-game way of unlocking awards and bonus content. Big credit should go to Microsoft for implementing it on such a grand scale as well, to the point Sony realised that by not doing their own reward system was affecting sales. The main idea was to make sure gamers played their games to the fullest. After completing the main story campaign, most games would be traded or forgotten about. And with games with this generation, the single player campaign was just the start of the experience. With co-op, time trials and online being offered as standard with most games today. People sometimes need a push to try out new modes and ways to play. So by rewarding them it gave people the incentive to try new things with their games.
A by-product of this has created more ways to compare our gaming experience with friends, instead of just saying. I’ve finished these three games, we have actual requirements and something to show and compare. Both the Xbox Gamerscore and PlayStation Trophies have great aspects over the other. With Gamerscore, you don’t need to fully complete a game to be competitive with serious gamers and people who love to finish their games to the fullest. As all the scores from every game is added to ONE giant score posted on your Gamercard. PlayStation only the Platinum trophies are compared, meaning if a game isn’t fully finished to the requirements of the other trophies. It is not included and can be seen as a waste of time. But saying you have 61 Platinum’s is better than saying “I have 1,000 GS for 61 games”. Yes, some trophies and achievements are a pain to finish, but noting is perfect. The whole reward system has forged friendships with co-op and made mortal enemies with competitive online. It has increased the gaming experience tenfold and what’s wrong with that? Chris Sowry |
Should you Pre-Order Video Games?
An interesting video was released by YouTuber totalbiscuit earlier this year. Asking gamers not to per-order their video games as it was hurting the industry and promoting bad practice from Developers, Publishers and Retailers. Here's our thoughts on the subject.
An interesting video was released by YouTuber totalbiscuit earlier this year. Asking gamers not to per-order their video games as it was hurting the industry and promoting bad practice from Developers, Publishers and Retailers. Here's our thoughts on the subject.
Harmful to the Industry?
If you cannot see how paying 40 quid up front for a product you know next to nothing about (yes, look at Aliens, all the trailers and demos weren't taken from the final product) is harmful to the industry - and stupid - then I'm lost for words. As for GTA V pre-orders, I bought it and played it before most who had pre-ordered, and thousands of people wasted their money on it after they were unable to download it on PS3, or install it on Xbox.
Jack Gillespie |
Your choice
There's always an option to NOT pre-order. The service should be there for those who wish to utilize it. I personally have never felt the need to pre-order. Even popular games I've been able to obtain on day one without any problems. The bonuses don't usually excite me either. But if someone else wants it, then why not. What I see an issue with is if pre-orders are promoted through misleading messages. That becomes a legal issue, then.
Zarmena J Khan |
Informed decision
I rarely pre order games, there have been a few (Skyrim, Dishonoured and Hitman) but very rarely because im of the opinion that an extra weapon/skin/special power is not worth the not knowing whether a game will be worth it or not.
Matty Roberts |
big games
|
Connor kenway, deserving of all the hate?
Oh my, YES
According to Time magazine, Ubisoft hired an external expert on the Mohawk culture to make the character of Connor as realistic as possible. However, the company failed to make Connor as much fun to play as they did Ezio and Altair. Connor is almost unbearable and has no charm. Instead of coaxing the player into playing the game, his character actually repels one from playing it because of how one dimensional it is. In contrast, players got to see different sides of Ezio within the same game (Assassin’s Creed II) – a romanticist, a warrior, and an intelligent assassin. Connor does not say anything insightful, his dialogues are not interesting, and he actually makes a significant contribution to making Assassin’s Creed III a chore to finish! Perhaps, that is why it is the very character of Connor that has become one of the main criticisms of Assassin’s Creed III.
Zarmena J Khan |
A misunderstood soul
Picture this:
You’re a young man in a time of great uncertainty who’s learnt the future of his country rests on his shoulders as well as needing safeguarding the lives of his people - you've been powerless to save your mother from burning to death - grown up knowing that you’re farther was a killer and that one day you would need to take his life – your thrust into a place with customs your not used to but must adapt to and you can’t even retain your real name! Now think for a moment. So are you a happy-go-lucky fancy boy who’s fast with his one liner’s? A lady’s man? Or maybe a bounding bundle of joy and positivity? No your Connor Kenway, a cold confused young man with great anger inside him. One of the big complaints about AC:3 was Connors lack of personality but in my opinion Ubisoft got the character type perfect for the time period and his personal history same as they did with Altair and Ezio, all three Assassins very different but equally lethal. Even on game-play alone Connors model has the best hand to hand fighting and the best armed fighting combinations. granted this is due to Ubisoft improving on various aspects of game-play game by game so my point stands only for who Connor is and how his personality fits the mood of AC:3. So is he a wet fish? No he’s a perfectly cast character for AC:3 it’s just a shame people can’t see past “O he’s boring” when instead they should get fully immersed in the story by embracing the character their playing as. A great shame indeed. Andrew P Paschalis |
Do games today need an online component to be successful?
Single player is fine for me
Multiplayer is not necessary for a good game, granted some games have a brilliant multiplayer modes, some games are built around those brilliant
multiplayer modes (see Call of duty and Battlefield). The problem seems to be the more effort developers put into making a good multiplayer mode the less effort seems to be put into the single player campaigns. I’m not saying multiplayer is bad by no means I love getting a good sesh on CoD or gathering up a couple of friends and wandering the Borderlands looking for loot and hilarious Easter eggs, I’m just saying a game doesn’t need multiplayer to be a cracker, how many classic games had multiplayer some of the greatest games of all time didn’t have it including 2 of the biggest franchises to date Final Fantasy and Metal Gear solid (though granted a more recent MGS title did include MP the rest of the series didn’t have it. Games can be compelling and addictive if a developer spends enough time creating endearing characters, a believable yet fantastic world and a story that grips you more and more as it progresses, these games keep you coming back over and over to the same disk until its worn out (I should know I am on my second copy of FF7, 8 and 9 for PS1) whereas a game that relies on multiplayer modes just has you coming back until the next release whereby the old title fades into obscurity only to be played for nostalgias sake. Scott Maynard |
YES, they do
Online gaming has been around far longer than a lot of people realise. But it wasn’t until this current generation of gaming consoles it became the norm. You may have noticed Network Play on some later PS2 titles, but this required a lot of messing around and if you still used dial up, forget it. XBOX360 and PlayStation3 is where it took off. Shooters, driving, beat-em ups and Co-op, all offering ways to play with anyone from across the globe.
Online play has revolutionised todays gaming, would Call of Duty 4, been so successful without its online multiplayer? As good as the campaign single player was, the online carried on where it left off. Even now, as the current PS3 and XBOX360 machines pass their touch to the next console, people still play COD4 Online. Almost 6 years after the game was realised. Online not only carries on the gaming experience once the single player has been finished with, but this allows you to play it in a different light. Ratchet and Clank All-4-one, offline is good fun, playing with 3 other friends online and the game changes for the better. Not only do you play together but you are competing against each other too. Mass Effect 3 had another interesting take on online play, Missions defending objectives against waves of enemies. that influenced the EPIC Story. On your third or fourth play thou the campaign, it starting to get a tad boring. The online will change with every game you play, even with the same group of people. That is why games NEED an online component for today’s market. They allow you to enjoy the same game, far longer than the single player can. Facing AI opponents, once you learn how they think and how it was programmed, you can win every time. Where’s the challenge and reason to keep playing? Against other people, no two games will be the same. You will think you know what your opponent will do, them BAM, you where lured into a trap and its back to square one. The human mind learns with every game and this will affect the next. I'm NOT saying to forget the single player campaign, they offer story telling and epic moments Online cant not compare with, but to keep gamers putting that disc into their console week after week, they need more than a 10 hours of alone time. Some games today the online is MORE important then the single player, ask any BF3 fan? A few exceptions will break the mould like Skyrim, but how many people are still playing that now? I bet theirs more people playing COD4 online. Chris Sowry |
Is easy mode pointless?
Its a life saver
In this day and age of achievements, try hards and n00b killerz people seem to think easy or casual modes have no place in modern gaming. I’m here to tell you those people are moronic FPS junkies who enjoy being frustrated as all hell to hear that one little ping and have that ounce of extra bragging right.
I am a lover of casual mode because my true love in gaming is the RPG genre, a genre which centres around character development and great story. Granted most of your FPS titles don’t feature much of those but it is there it’s just impossible to enjoy when the AI has been ramped up to a point that they spam unlimited grenades and ammunition at you so you just sit in cover waiting for a brief respite in the fire to return a nade or two or spend a few rounds to blow up a few heads then move on fuming at the frustration you just experienced. It’s a whole different story on Easy mode yes it may be for the ‘pansies’ who are rubbish n00bs as some would say but I always play easy mode first I get to see and experience the story and (particularly in the aforementioned FPS genre) it’s like doing recon you learn where the enemies come at you from where they take cover and what sort of firepower they bring to the game for when I step it up to the harder modes meaning less frustration and less years cut from my life. I don’t get why try hards are fighting to have easy modes removed you don’t have to play them the same way that those who don’t want to play Veteran don’t have to it’s a CHOICE and that’s the big word at the end of the day, quit whining about it and make your own damn decision and let others do likewise…………..Harrumph Scott maynard |
deafeats the point of the game
In recent years games have become easier, there's no debating that. The GAME OVER screen is a thing of the past and replaced with Checkpoints every 5minutes. Not only this but your character is a bullet sponge, able to with stand half his body full off lead before you start to notice the bloody screen that has become the norm.
Sports games are a prime example of this, beating a Top tier team say (Chelsea) with a League One team (Shrewsbury) 12-0. May look good for your stats with 100% shot to goal ratio but after a short amount of time it becomes boring and the point of playing has gone. Taking away the challenge of the game defats the whole point of the game and you might as well just watch your friend playing than do it yourself. Treat it as a movie, only enjoying the story at face value and not the hardship and sacrifice YOU have to make, this is what separates Computer games from TV and films. So with this In mind, who needs an easy mode? Normal is easy but dressed up so you don't feel bad about playing a baby game. Games where the story is based on survival and overcoming impossible odds need to be difficult on some level otherwise its just another day in the office. Chris Sowry |
E3 2013 Console Showdown
A special E3 "In my opinion" this month. We hear from the gamers dedicated to their chosen console and hear their thoughts on what was said at E3.
Who will win the 'WAR of the CONSOLES'?
Who will win the 'WAR of the CONSOLES'?
XBOX fanboy
I think both look very impressive. I have had an Xbox 360 since day one because Sony messed up and released the PS3 too late plus it was too expensive. If they'd come out on the same day and at the same price I would have gone with the PS3 as I loved the PS1 and 2. Having said that, I have loved my 360 to bits and as a result will be giving the Xbox One a chance. Sure, it has it's downfalls and I think Microsoft have shot themselves in the foot a little. But the machine itself will be outstanding, it's just the rules that will spoil it slightly. If they hadn't introduced the pre-owned limitations and the 24 hour rule I don't think many people would question which console to buy because the Xbox One offers more than the PS4. Also, I don't want to switch to PlayStation because I don't want to lose my Xbox game points and achievements I have spent 7 years collecting.
Chris Gregory |
Own both
As someone who owns both consoles at the moment I thought the XboxOne has a better game line up but the whole pre owned got to be connected every 24hrs just kills the deal for me. Sure the whole TV side of Xbox has the potential to be very good. But on me it's wasted as in the area I live we got very poor broadband speeds. So can't stream films or anything Internet based and is talking to your Xbox to switch channels any quicker than pressing a button on a remote?
So to start with PlayStation4 is the way I'll be going. as its cheaper and none of the ties Microsoft has installed. But once they come down in price who knows. My question is do I keep my current consoles to play my old games or once you've got a shiny new machine do old things just collect dust. Warren Elding |
PlayStation lover
So after watching both conferences I'm 100% going with PS4.
The Sony conference came across as the peoples conference (I'm not deluded & I know they want our money) and on the flip side the MS conference came across as a secret meeting the throw people of the sent of there forceful intent to implement restrictions that gamers are not ready for yet and may well never be. At the revel MS gave the hard push on it being more of an entertainment system them a gaming console that's all good but the PS4 will still cater for our entertainment needs but they didn't feel the need to shove it in our face because they seem to understand us as the consumer/gamer and as a result announced no blocking of second hand games no need to be always online no online check in and the PS+ synergy to name a few. Microsoft are by no means dead in the water but Sony defiantly cut some big holes in there boat and its going to take some work and clarity to regain consumer confidence. The big lesson they should take from this is that People are not stupid and especially in a multimedia age where your can't hide you crumbs under the carpet hoping no one will find your messy secrets. Andrew P Paschalis |
Are realistic games fun?
Real is fun
Let's be honest, we all play games to escape from the
monotony of real life. We play so that we can become something, or do something, that we could never do in real life. I will never participate in the Le Mans race, but I can win it. The best games, or at least the ones that are most interesting, are the ones that let us becomecharacters rather than just play as them. Look at GT. While the massive variables in suspension, braking, tyres and so on may only be of interest to the most enthusiastic of car fans the character that you play as is you. Your character has no physical avatar, but all the decisions you make are yours. That's why every half second that you shave off a lap time feels like an achievement, because it was you, and only you, that does it. To take it to more extreme games, let's look at GTA. There you are essentially given a fixed story in which your character has to do certain events to progress. Outside of that you have the choice to do whatever you want. If you want to go on a rampage the feel free! But if you want to be the good guy, and drive like a normal citizen while listening to the radio on the long beach side roads then you're free to do that too. The largest example of this are the RPG's like Skyrim. There you are given a completely blank canvas on which to post your own avatar. Not only will your character look and be named differently to everyone else's – I'm a bearded Khajitt called Theodore by the way – but your moral attitude to the world will be different as well. Do you want to become the Archmage and save Winterhold from destruction? Or do you want to become the listener for the Dark Brotherhood and assassinate targets for money? Are you someone who will help normal citizens or will you kill them for a shiny pendant? This is the largest evolution of the realistic games, the ones in which we impart a piece of ourselves into the character that we become and these are the ones in which our choices have the largest effect. Realistic games are not just the ones which look the most photo-realistic, or attempt to be a recreation of everyday tasks, but the ones in which your decisions matter. In real life, if you do something to upset someone then you have to accept the consequences of that. Games too often shy away from making you face up to what you've done but the interesting and innovative ones hold up a mirror to you and ask you what you've become. And you can't become more realistic than that. Peter Whitehead |
there BORING........!
Why would I want to play a game I can do in real life. GT5 looks brilliant and plays to the point of boring. Having to time my braking distance and gear changes, I can’t be bothered with all this. I spend enough time driving the kids to school every day. I want to hold my finger on the gas button and tear the track up. I don’t want to apply just the right braking pressure so I can carefully navigate these corners; I slam the brakes on hard and burn rubber as I pull a 50meter drift. And doing this for 30laps of the same circuit? GT isn’t the only game I have gripe with. Take GTA4, the whole relationship aspect, taking her out to play pool and getting drunk. Okay, the “drunken effect” was comical. But I wanted to play GTA so I can steal cars, traffic drugs and beat up the cops. I play the good guy in real life, so in my limited gaming time I want to play the bad guy and do all the things can’t in real life because I’ll be banged up in Jail for 20years. NOT take a girl out to dinner so I can have happy time with her. Now I hear you will have to get a job, house and fill the cars with petrol in the new GTA5……….SOD OFF.! It’s becoming more like real life every game. What’s happening to getting the 5star wanted levels and blowing up cop cars in a tank? I would pick Saints Row over GTA any day now.
ARMA on the PC and Operation Flashpoint when played properly can be boring as hell. Running through an open field to get hit by ONE stray bullet and restart the mission. Annoying doesn’t cut it, but you have one life and a single bullet can end it. I get that, but I’m not really up against a platoon of solders it’s a bunch of pixels. There was a Rally game back in the early 2000’s Richard Burns Rally. If you crashed and totalled your car, your Rally was OVER, Real yes. But it also means I would NEVER finish a Rally. Because, I’m no expert rally driver able to race at 100mph missing trees and walls by mere centimetres. I’m an average person who crashes into everything when I go anything over 50mph. I’ve seen programs of the War in Afghanistan; you’re sitting in a ditch for most of the day because you don’t want your head blown off. A trained Sniper can lay in the same hole for days waiting for their target. Why would I want to do this in a game? I may say Call of Duty is full of set pieces and explosions every 2seconds, but at least it keeps me glued to my TV set. I’ve only recently started playing a few select open world games, why? Because traversing a world the size of London on foot or horse and taking 30mins to travel from one mission to the other is not how I what to spend my time. At least with corridor games, there’s the next mission, get set and go. If it wasn’t for the fast travel in Far Cry3, It would have been traded in within a few hours of me playing it. Games like Flight Simulator I can possibly understand, there is no chance I will be flying a 747 anytime soon, but once I’ve taken off it’s a boring 7hours flight to my destination and land. It is packaged as a simulator NOT as a game. Games are supposed to be fun and enjoyable. I like realistic to a point, I’d favour CoD4 over Halo, because the enemy dies with only a few bullets rather than the 3 and a half magazines required in Halo. But at least it’s still FUN!! Life doesn’t have a reset button, games do and I use it regularly. Chris Sowry |
is motion control worth the extra effort?
Yes, worth every penny
Okay so there’s no defending that log crossing balancing bit in Uncharted 1 or any other cack-handily shoehorned in bits of nonsense but motion controls are more than some cynical novelty. The Wii has for many people completely changed their understanding of what a games console is. Non-gamers the length and breath of these isles were woken on Christmas mornings, year after year, by the sound engineered thwack of a Wii Sports tennis racquet and asked ‘Can I try?’ It was, without being hyperbolic, a sensation purely because it was fun! Kinect and Move while failing to capture the attention of the casual gamer in the same way are far from redundant. They are important not for being a lesson learned the hard way about the controller preferences of the hardcore owners of those respective consoles but as a step forward. Touch screen, augmented reality, 3D handhelds: How we play games is always changing. Whether or not these fan-dangle peripherals are better than the old hat dualshock doesn't really matter because their exciting. Their exciting because the point to the future, to whatever’s coming next.
Tony Clinton |
no, waste of time and energy
Personally I think that motion control on consoles is a novelty. Sure it’s fun to use the Wii mote to bowl and do other cool stuff but let’s face it when it comes to some of the best games like Mario Galaxy and Super paper Mario you mainly use the D-pad and buttons to play the game the motion controls are just thrown in on those as a bonus like they were on early ps3 games for the six axis controller. I’m not denying the first time you find out that you have to physically turn your controller to activate that valve for example is kind of cool but when you’re pounding through an fps and trying to do it the motion controls are more of a hindrance. Going back to the Nintendo Wii where the motion controls really came into their own let’s face It the majority of the games that solely use or use the motion controls heavily are party games yes some of the more serious games incorporate it in some way to like Zelda for the sword and crossbow or Mario kart for steering but what is wrong with doing that with a control pad I always thought it was fine in fact I prefer it its less fiddly and you’re not going to smash your hand on something or break something while using an old fashioned controller. Finally and possibly most importantly cost Motion controllers cost a small fortune to buy a nunchuck and Wii mote from Nintendo will set you back about 50 of our English pounds but the Nintendo classic controller can normally be bought for under £20 it has enough buttons to play any Wii game easily and is more comfortable to use with a basic design so why do I need to pay £50 when I could be using that £20 one just as easily.
Scott Maynard |
Is digital the way forward?
No, I like my hard copies
To see games disappear from shelves would be a huge mistake, for several reasons. Firstly the cost, I can buy a game from Amazon for almost halve the price from the PS Store. This is possible cause for another debate but its fact. The PS store prices are stupid while offing less. No booklet and instruction manual and no trade-in value once the game is finished. Secondly, the risk of my console crashing, I will lose all my games and have to download them ALL again. Okay, I would have lost my game save either way but having to download the game combined with various patches that will take a long time. And thirdly, space on the HHD. I can store as many games as I wish in my house (within reason). But even with a 1TB hard drive it will fill fast. Requiring you to micro manage what game you can play and having to re-download them as and when you feel like playing something different.
Possibly a happy medium would be to stream games, play without having to download complete gaming files. This would solve the last two problems, but adds new ones. What if your internet isn’t fast enough and what about the pricing structure? Do you have a one off payment for unlimited access or pay as you play? All if, buts and maybes but I’m glad the next generation consoles are sticking with disks. It keeps shops open and people in their jobs, how things will be with the PS5 and the next XBOX who knows but I’m happy as things are. C. Sowry |
Stop living in the past,
|
Are Sequels better than the ORIGINAL?
"Sequels are rubbish"
If there is one way to ruin a film or game, that is adding a number after the title. I can count on one hand the films and games that I feel are better than the original. EVERY developer and director feels that to make a film better just add explosions and lots of them. It's like they told the story they wanted with the first and thought, "we can't better this", so instead of leaving it alone they add fire and bangs.
When the first film or game is released, we don't know what to expect, everything about it wows us, because we didn't expect it to have good graphics and fantastic set pieces. we view the game with a blank canvas. When we come to the second instalment, we already know what to expect from the first and that's where the problem lies. CoD4 amazed every single player who played it, everything about it was shocking and incredible. MW2 tried to surpass this by having the Michael Bay effect, everything explodes. Buildings crash to the ground with the slightest of touches and suddenly no one can drive a car without crashing and people with RPGs miss every time? Result, more big bangs. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy playing MW2, it's a great game, but it will never beat Cod4. Why? Because they tried too hard, they over complicated things. Feature films are no different (with the possible exception of Terminator 2). But that's because the first one was boring, it wasn't difficult to improve on that. The first film always has to set the story, Spider-man, Fellowship of the Ring, the examples are endless. It's believable within the confines of the story, they make sense and are enjoyable. But with a sequel the ground work is already laid and they can get straight into the action with no respite Well we need that respite to understand the story and not have it thrown in our faces at the speed of light. You can argue that every sequel has bigger box office sales or broken day one release records. But that its playing off the original and how successful it was. But the originals success won't be noticed on day one, it'll take time for word to spread and the followers to gain momentum So when the second comes around everyone has already been wowed by the first and want a piece of the action as soon as possible. I can easily name examples of great first films and dreadful sequels (The Matrix, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean) but I won't. By Chris Sowry |
"sequels are waaaaaay much better"
Some video game sequels are just better than the originals, like Timesplitters 2, Mafia 2, COD4 etc. If the original had a spark of promise to it. But because of either unaware of a quality the game had until players discovered it or couldn't be implemented due to development time. A great story and a better game engine made Mafia 2 much better than the stodgy and rough PC original. Timesplitters had the promise of what the series could be and with the popularity got Free Radical Design (shame HAZE destroyed the studio <sniff>) developed a better graphical engine and a wider Level Editor for 2 and 3. This was the same with Assassin's Creed, the first was flawed and it wasn't till number 2 it become a series to notice. Moving away from the WWII era to modern day in COD4 started the Call of Duty series into the colossus it's become, and is still regarded by many to be still the best in the series.
But to a game could outstay its welcome. Despite it being a fun title. Future Perfect was really what Timesplitters was about, it's not really a story-led game and being tied to one disappointed many of the faithful. Also now it has become an annual event Call of Duty can be a hit-and-miss affair, people still flock to it but most can't say they love some of the games, it just something to play with their friends. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Revelations were fun but because of over-familiarity has made AC3 seem like overkill, it didn't help that they're much different to series. By Simon James |
WAS Uncharted 2 really the GOTY for 2009?
typical sequel
Uncharted
2 is by no means a bad game, however it is far from the 2010 GOTY as many
people would have you believe. My main gripe with the excellent franchises
rather disappointing second outing is in its gameplay. Now before you jump down
my throat for even thinking of criticising Uncharted gameplay, let me assure
you I am a fan of the series and I love it dearly, but being a fan means you can
still see where something needs a bit of work.
First of all the abrupt and unnecessary difficulty curve around halfway through the game sucks major male genitalia. The first game had a difficulty spike true, but it was at an understandable point later on in the game and, though proved frustrating at times, was nowhere near as difficult as Uncharted 2's difficulty rise. “No bad thing in a challenge” I hear you cry, “games are too easy nowadays” you scream; you're not wrong, but in the case of Uncharted 2 you aren't right either. The difficulty spike was so untimely and instantaneous that you had very little time to adjust to the sudden increase of enemy presence, lack of ammo and sheer power of the opposing force. This continued for the rest of the game, including when the series’ most powerful opponents are introduced in the final stages of the game and an unimaginative boss fight that only proves mildly entertaining because it’s so bloody difficult! Don't get me wrong, I like being challenged, I love hard games but in a series that had been pretty reasonable with difficulty curves, to have this sudden and unfair increase in difficulty made me feel that Uncharted 2 was more of a chore than a game at times. Secondly I move onto the story. “What?” You yell, “Uncharted 2 had a brilliant story!”. Well to be frank, no it didn’t, or at least in comparison to the original game anyway. You see when you force in such a bad cliché as 'Your friend is the bad guy.' to then accompany that with 'The other bad guy is a heavily accented eastern European with a grudge against the west' just screams to you as the player that Naughty Dog didn't have any good ideas left in the hat by the time they got to the villains; not to mention the fact that neither of them are any good as villains anyway. Also on the point of story, why the hell do you make the sub-plot romance take centre stage over the main story? Please explain Naughty Dog as to why you felt that the player wanted to know more about another damn plot cliché that was so poorly written and boring more than the actual story of Drake going on another fortune hunt to save the world? No excuse, admittedly I like the character of Chloe, a lot more than Elena if I'm going to be honest here but I actually got to a point where I felt that the plot had been written by Stephanie Meyer! I mean looking at Jak II and the problems that had, Uncharted 2 had exactly the same problem. A brilliant concept and still a good game, but ultimately due to a few gameplay mishaps and some odd plot choices in bits Uncharted 2 goes from the best Uncharted in terms of all out awesomeness to the worst Uncharted due to its obvious flaws and problems. One last thing before I go, I don't care what you have to say about it but what the bloody hell was ND thinking when they put that god awful Tibet section in there? Ben Hughes |
Best game of the franchise and 2009
Back in 2009, Uncharted 2 blazed trails with exhilarating combat and a fantastic ensemble of set-piece moments, which shook and tore up your adrenaline as well as the surroundings. Among Thieves is the best game in the franchise because it turned Nathan Drake from a wise-cracking ego maniac, and masculine driven genocide enthusiast, into a true gaming icon. A character who is portrayed as a Hollywood misogynist, who slowly becomes more human and caring. Uncharted 2 plays with the relationship between Elaina and Drake, by using Chloe as a woman for another adventure. When the three cross paths, it’s interesting to see how the tangle tries to untie itself.
Looking back to 2009, there were very few other games as tirelessly entertaining as Uncharted 2. Some still thought it had room to grow, but Uncharted 2 ultimately paved the way for arguably the definitive Drake adventure- Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception. It’s by no means perfect, but Uncharted 2 is the most important game in the franchise, no matter whether it has been bettered by Uncharted 3. The benchmark was set fantastically high, and looking at 2011, Uncharted 3 had plenty of competition to beat. There was no beating Uncharted 2, it was and still is one of the biggest earth shattering PS3 games ever released. That might sound like hyperbole, but back in 2009, it seemed like anything but. Adding in a juicy, story driven multiplayer element made it an even hotter prospect- even if some may not consider it being needed. James Davie 
Nate and Sully trying to pinpoint if and where the series was gone down hill!
|