My Thoughts: Deadpool

Deadpool is that character you either hate or love. He's egotistical, self-centred, rude, impulsive and just a whole lot of other things. Still, he gets the job done and ends it with a *huge* bang. Pretty much the concept of anti-hero personified. In the game, you play as this madman, running around slicing and dicing your enemies while letting your trigger finger loose. ... I LOVE IT.

I'm not exactly a comic book reader (I do read manga, however), hence I am not up to date with the lores of the Marvel universe. Would this video game throw people like me off and leave them confused? Nope, and that's the beauty of it. The game introduces characters and backgrounds in an optional manner, where Marvel nerds (it's a compliment) can skip them to save some time. The introductions are really well-done, however... So don't skip it, nerds.

The plot's pretty simple and straightforward. Evil mutant hellbent on destroying stuff, the protagonist (Deadpool) has to stop him. In a way, it is reminiscent of Devil May Cry, but maybe that's just me. Still, really simple and straightforward stuff.

The presentation, however, is what makes the game different. It takes on a comedic approach, with humour that ranges from downright silly jokes to considerably offensive insults. Various tropes and stereotypes are present in the game as well. To my delight, the usage of memes was also employed. Heck, a tip message in the loading screen rick-rolled me. Awesome stuff.

If you are a Marvel nerd, you'd know that Deadpool's theatrics is his way of dealing with his inner demons. I love how the developers just smothered the game in random and insane shenanigans yet still had some bits and pieces of some levels which represented Deadpool's internal struggle. It's in there. Find it, if you haven't already.

Gameplay is pretty straightforward. It's a third-person action game with a combat style similar to Devil May Cry - you get your melee attacks mixed in with gun-kata for sick combos. Since there are annoying ranged enemies, you get a fine aim button for guns in-game. Simple, and straightforward. The problem rolls in when you are surrounded by a bunch of enemies. What do you do then? There is a counter and evasion system, thankfully. The developers implemented Deadpool's teleportation as an evade, which also operates as a failsafe mechanism should players fail to make a jump, think Prince of Persia. Since the evasion negates all damage, there is a set limit on the number of teleportations that can be made. After that, you need to wait for it to recharge. (It would be unbalanced to teleport indefinitely)

Deadpool powers up as players use DP points in the upgrade menu to purchase power-ups. You can get DP points by killing enemies or finding them in chests. OR, if you are a gamer who likes to combo enemies into oblivions, good news, you get DP points for combos too. This serves as an encouragement for players to get in and brawl with the enemies. Downside is, if you get hit by an enemy before letting the combo meter die out, you won't get anything. In other words... Effort. Wasted. Still, if you rack in a good chain and you cash out on it, that feeling you get is so gratifying.

Speaking of combos, they also help you build up Momentum, which can be used to obliterate enemies within your vicinity. Imagine, teleporting into a bunch of enemies and using a Momentum move. Ker-blamm. Everybody dies, and you walk away like a boss. Feels GOOD.

Parts of the game are also played in a side-scrolling manner (Mario), and classic JRPG style (Zelda). You get clichéd game elements in there just for lols, and random comic shenanigans in there too (YOU GET TO WALK ON SPEECH BUBBLES). It's like they made a game for the nerds in us. 

Well, overall, the game is pretty alright and sits well with those who want to enjoy themselves and those who want to challenge themselves. Even though the game is simple, it can be quite difficult. I played the game on the harder difficulty, which was absolutely brutal. Enemies with guns can take you out in a second, and you can't do anything because you can't teleport indefinitely, remember? Aiming at them with your gun can be tedious, even with an auto-lock, because the camera's a little weird to handle. Heavy enemies can wipe you out in one or two attacks. If there are a lot of enemies, you get chained by a flurry of attacks and die immediately (there is no invincibility-after-hit). IT WAS A NIGHTMARE GETTING THROUGH THOSE STAGES. This also means that, the game can be incredibly short, depending on the mode of difficulty. It took me a day to finish it, and I had to redo a lot of things... So... Yeah, Activision, maybe you want to lower the price a little on games like this.

The combat system is really fun as well. If you are a casual gamer, well, it is relatively simple. If you take games slightly more seriously, don't worry, it's fine. There is that differentiation of light, middle and heavy weaponries which allow for you to fine-tune your combat strategies to your playstyle. I personally went with light melee and heavy guns.

There ARE some problems with the combat system, which might had been intentionally implemented. When you execute a counter or takedown, enemies in the vicinity can still hit you while you are doing that. "Well, duh, don't do any of that shit then". Uh, well, yeah see.... The evasion button? It's the same button as your takedown/counter button. So... you are pretty much stuck in combat without a way to get out aside from running, which is not an option because you can easily get caught. I died a few times because of this weird thing. I do hope it is there because it was intended to be so...

I found a bug as well, in the later parts of the game. There was an instance where earthquakers stopped attacking me when I jumped onto a fallen ledge. They would come over near the ledge and just stand there, and so would the other enemies. I took my sweet time combo-ing them to death. Oops...? Oh, and the frame drops. OH MY LORD THE FRAME DROPS. They made me want to punch a wall or something. GRAGH!!

Verdict? If the game is on sale, or it's a pre-owned copy for sale, I think it is worth getting. This game is a good way to release some steam. It is rather straightforward and simplistic, yet at the same time capable of offering a challenge to those who are willing to abuse themselves because their gamer pride demands the challenge. I have not played the "Challenges" maps yet, and still I already deem this game worthy. Heck, Activision even had a "shameless cross-promotion" of their Call of Duty series in Deadpool. I LOVE IT. This kind of stuff makes it feel like I'm buddies with the developers, and there isn't really a formal wall between us. 

For an overall rating, I'd give it a 7/10. This game is fun to play, has a decent combat system and a really friendly vibe to it. The character appears crass, yet there are implications of his internal struggles all over - I love stuff like this. Then, you have the wonky evasion/counter/takedown button implementation and frame drops messing with the combat. Ranged enemies can take you down before you even get near them, and the camera wasn't really helping with the aim. Still, these things still did not stop me from enjoying the game as a whole, which I think is really important. After all, why play a game if you're not having fun? (Unless you are a total zombie gamer who punishes himself with difficult gameplay just to be l337... *sob*)

Why Microsoft Wanted the 24-hour Check-in

I have been skulking around the net on game news sites. A LOT of people were complaining about how Microsoft's decision to reverse its policies showed that they have no backbone. One thing in particular bugged me - there were people who only had beef with the 24-hour online check-in rule. Some suggested that while a player has the game's disc onboard the console, the check-in should not be mandatory. Some stated that the check-in should be pushed to take effect every week instead of once every 24-hours.

Here, I am going to explore a little on why Microsoft wanted to check on you every 24-hours. Of course, this is based solely on speculation, but I think it is a very sound assumption. Let's begin with a story.

One fine day, John bought a game for his Xbone. Following the rules Microsoft had imposed for the playing of games on the Xbone, he installs the game from the Blu-Ray disc, registers the product key on the Internet to his account, then proceeds to play the game. While playing, John thought of selling the game once he was done with it. John took the game and sold it. After the trade, he no longer has rights to the game under his account, and cannot play the game even though it has been installed on his Xbone. 

So far so good right? Now, imagine that the 24-hour online check-in was removed, or delayed to a week. What could John have done?

The story continues from when John wanted to sell his game. This time around, however, John removes his Xbone from the Internet. He proceeds to sell the game to his friend. John then goes back home, and replays the game another time. Without the 24-hour check-in, one can effectively buy a game on release, install it and sell it on the same day for more money - all after unplugging the Xbone from the Internet.

This seems really tedious and unlikely, but it will be done if granted the chance. People are like that.

Now, I am making this point because I want to drive home the point that Microsoft is a business corporation. To those who think they would have removed the 24-hour check-in issue or mitigated it, do you honestly think that as a company, which has time and time again revealed their sole focus to be monetary gain, would ever bother with allowing such a loophole that could make losses? To seal it, Microsoft needed the check-in. There was no way they would have removed it or mitigated its effects, anyway, anyhow.

This online check-in requirement ties in to their DRM. Amazon's poll reportedly showed 95% of users favouring the PS4 instead of the Xbone. Of course Microsoft needed to do something. Since the main beef centred around DRM, they decided to "listen to their fans" and reversed their original Xbone policies. No DRM restrictions, no online check-ins.

Following that, Microsoft also retracted their Family Sharing "feature". As previously discussed, this "feature" would allow for up to 12 people to share the cost of a SINGLE game. That means, $60/12 = $5 each. Microsoft potentially loses revenue totalling $60*11 = $660. Do you think they would have just left it there with or without the DRM? Heck, now that they have to compete and in turn abolish DRM restrictions, having this feature COULD spell even more loss for them. These 12 people could in turn go around their friends' houses and log-in to their accounts to install the game. Without DRM restrictions, the game could then spread like wildfire. Really guys, I mean, it's pure business.

An Xbox supporter told me that a similar feature already exists in the current XBLA. If Brian buys an XBLA game, he could install it on his friend's console, and his friend can play the game for free. The game can also be played online. Simple breakdown - 1.) this game is indie, it does not cost much, but good for you to be so indie-supportive by wanting it free anyway; 2.) to play online, one needs the Xbox Live Gold SUBSCRIPTION. You have effectively paid a fee to play online for free. How... weird.

I am getting rather confused at how "involved gamers" can be so supportive of things that SEEM innovative but, really, it's just a business model. Now, don't get me wrong. Sony is a business corporation too. The only difference is, Sony seems to know better. They get what customers want, and when customers want it. Them being a Japanese corporation also makes me feel more secure, in that Japanese businesses tend to have better customer service than Western corporations.

One last thing, stop spouting nonsense about cloud processing. Simple arithmetic and a rough understanding of how MMO's work can give you a rather clear idea on how totally nonsensical this push for "cloud power" Microsoft is having. Sony owns Gaikai, which is essentially one of the pioneers of cloud streaming, and yet they aren't pushing things too much. MAYBE, just maybe, there's a good reason why Sony isn't pushing that. *cough cough* bullshit *cough* exaggerations *COUGH COUGH*

Well, that's that. Hope you guys enjoy your PS4.

The Xbone an Innovation?

I can't believe I have to write something else so soon. In any case, I was lurking around the Internets when I saw people claiming that, while others were whining about the Xbone, in actuality it is an innovation in the game console market. Well...

OBJECTION!!

It was to my distaste that said people are the ones who are living in first-world countries which have extremely stable Internet connections, and also . The inability to comprehend another party who is less well-to-do is understandable when, at face value, said person does not seem to have knowledge of the actual circumstances surrounding the less fortunate. However, when weeks of Internet banter have revealed multiple parties, even if they are the minority, do suffer from problems which do not plague the fortunate ones, ignorance deserves no mercy, ESPECIALLY when you took part in the banter.

Now, looking at the Xbone, one can surmise that its direction is headed towards that of Steam - digital sales. Although statements and evidences suggest that it would be dealing in the existing framework of the gaming market, the way Microsoft had positioned its product pretty much revealed everything, even if not backed by actual statements or what-nots.

Problem is, it wanted to implement a draconic control over the playing of games, as compared to Steam's policies. See, if games were digital, that means the games are naturally tied to an account, so the owner can access his games using the Internet (or the Cloud, same difference). The owner then installs his game on the console, and gets to play that game using that console. We could essentially do that using current-gen consoles, where even if you are not logged in, so long as the game is installed you can play it on that particular console. At least, that's how things seem to be working on my end. I have only been owning a sixth-gen console for a few months.

Microsoft probably then thought "hmm, well that means if anyone shares their account, that game can effectively be installed and played by multiple people without paying for it for each additional person playing it. That won't do, that won't do at all!!" Boom, hourly check-in if the account is being used on foreign consoles. Effectively, only the person who is using that account can play the game.

One might argue that, well, just loan your friend your account. Done. What if I want to play games too, when my friend is using my account? Let's move past that because the entailing debate would be moot when it is all very much situational. Wouldn't it be better if then both my friend and I own a copy of the game each? But then, they are so pricey, what should we do? Enter Steam sales.

The only reason why people are willing to purchase a copy of the game and deal with Steam's DRM is because things are really cheap on Steam. Sales pop off so soon that gamers are willing to just get a copy of the game themselves. So, if consoles followed this method of doing business, no one would mind buying games because they would then be a lot cheaper.

Strictly speaking then, consoles would be following Steam's footsteps. No one is really "innovating" anything, unless of course we are talking solely about the console market, which in my opinion has had similar sales for PSN games since awhile back. AAA titles go for sale more often in PSN than they do in XBL, and PS+ essentially gives off games for free to its subscribers. I have not heard anything similar being done for the XBLA Gold service. Call me pessimistic or skeptical but I don't think Microsoft will suddenly change everything.

Let's say this is an innovation for consoles nonetheless, what does it entail? What I can see is, people owning digital rights to the game they have bought, which is something that we already have. A shift towards having consoles' games being fully digital? Not every country has a decent Internet connection, and this removes consoles' ease of use thusly. 

Perhaps then, having prices of games drop to what you see on Steam? Gamers have long been complaining about the price of games on consoles, and nothing has changed thus far. If they were to lower the price of games, it would only be justifiable if it is done for digital sales, since no actual physical discs will be used, hence "lower cost of sales". Then, retailers will be useless since things are cheaper digitally anyway, there is no point in getting a physical copy. So, unless Microsoft strong-arms the prices of games to drop, nothing will change. This did not happen at all. Microsoft announced the price of next-gen games to be similar to current gen's.

I do not understand as well those who say they were looking forward to the ability to log in to your account anywhere and install their games to play them. Can you not do it on the current gen consoles? At least, it seems like it is doable on the PS3. What innovation are we talking about? Cloud processing? You mean online MMO's, something like what Square-Enix is coming out with in 2-3 months' time?

There is nothing "innovative" about anything that is the Xbone. Family Sharing? Like I have mentioned in an earlier post, it's a feature that is exploitable. Microsoft or any sensible company that wants to retain its ability to make money won't let exploits remain for long. What feature? Cloud processing that has been over-exaggerated in proportions and the Kinect, which for all intents and purposes is still an underdeveloped tech which should not be force onto consumers?

I cannot see anything that is innovative about the Xbone at all. Nothing. I do not understand why would people call it an innovation. Tech geeks who are lamenting over its departure from the original plan, are you honestly telling me, as a tech geek, that you were looking forward to a piece of hardware that tries to take on the role of multiple device, which has no solid advantage unlike the smartphone that is mobility in its belt. As a tech geek, the existence of a "nifty" device is justified even if its policies threaten the sanctity of consumers' rights?

The more I look into it, the more confused I get. What innovation are you guys talking about? The PS4 is a PS3.5? The PC Master Race should feel offended, since PC's upgrades are essentially a perpetual race in hardware upgrades, so in that sense PC has never had a "next-gen". No. The platform's enhanced abilities allow for games to perform better, which in a sense brings about "next-gen". What nonsense are you guys talking about. Xbox360 2? Better hardware, software and small but key features are "meh"?

This is to me the prime example that is the entitled behaviour prevalent in first-world gamers. Like any other normal consumer, their inability to think past the point of purchase and the characteristics of the product leads to SMH-statements. Obnoxious, self-absorbed and just lacking in sympathy for the less fortunate.

I stand by my decision that the Xbone is dumb, and by no means it is innovative. It adds some "features" which is essentially a gloss over of what we currently have, just less underdeveloped. New features? More like warranted upgrades. Sing your praises for the Xbone's "features" if you want, but I still don't see anything "innovative" no matter how hard you chant. 

I need to go to college. Bye.

Microsoft's Back-pedalling

Hey guys, just giving a quick update and my views on the recent stance taken by Microsoft in regards to the Xbone. Microsoft purportedly reverses their position on the whole DRM, 24-hour online check-in and used games issue. Read all about it here.

So, hurray! *clap clap clap clap* For once the consumers' voice reached the ears of uncaring high-profile executives! *clap clap clap* They did it because they cared! It's not about the sales! Hurrah! Hurrah!

Okay, all sarcasm aside, in general, this is a good thing. Competition in the home console scene is back, to a certain extent. The Xbone has gotten back part of its appeal as a next-gen console, and there shouldn't be anything hugely negative per se to discourage people from purchasing an Xbone.

The Xbone will however still enforce its mandatory-Kinect system. XBLA Gold is required to play online multiplayers, a system similar to Sony's take on online gameplay, but with the PS+ instead. The benefits of having a PS+ subscription far outweighs XBLA Gold's. Also, The HDD can be easily replaced for the PS4, and its raw hardware is better than the Xbone's. Though, exclusives titles which have been revealed thus far spell a better future for the Xbone's audience. Its UI is familiar ground to those who are Windows users, making the interface learning curve incredibly shallow.

Personally, I still feel that the PS4 is a bit more appealing. Raw hardware suggests that it won't reach a performance wall anytime sooner than the Xbone. Its non-mandatory camera usage doesn't expose users to risks of privacy breach, which is a legitimate cause for concern due to the recent exposé on the whole PRISM scandal. It is not verifiable if the Kinect itself can be turned off wholly or it's just a "soft off". Other than that, it seems that the Xbone has turned itself around and start to be more appealing, right?

Well, in the grand scheme of things, I feel that a huger issue needs to be addressed. What is it you ask? This whole scenario of Microsoft attempting to exert its control to monopolise the sales of pre-owned games and enforcing DRM on a scale which totally snuffs out consoles' simplicity, suggest to me that they aren't what gamers are looking for.

Back when they were lauded as anti-consumeristic post-reveal, Microsoft took no official stance and dawdled around in the shadows. The internet was in an uproar over their reveal, which placed no emphasis on games (yes, they want to show off their hardware but to demonstrate a DVD player's ability to go online instead of its ability to smoothly play DVDs is downright silly). After that, their representatives began talking about things which contradict each others' statements, causing further confusion amongst consumers, and perhaps amongst Microsoft employees themselves.

After the whole preliminary shitstorm, E3 came along. Before E3 however, Microsoft released official statements as to the Xbone's policies. This stirred up the murky depths that is the preliminary shitstorm, which had started to settle when E3 was around the corner. A lot of people went nuts over how Microsoft consolidated their stance and how they just outright ignored the words of its existing loyal Xbox fans. Madness. During then, news of Microsoft attempting to push the Xbone to Hollywood celebrities were circulated as well, which didn't really help in their whole "made for gamers" statement.

Then, E3 came along. Their conference showed a few exclusives (Titan Fall exclusive for PC as well, so it's not limited to Xbone) and confirmed its departure from an indie-, game- focused platform to a generic consumer's home entertainment system. The audience was hugely interested in Killer Instinct, a fighting game sequel which its fans had been longing for for ages. Alright, time to move on to the demo's.

E3 proceeded to its next few days, and people were able to test out game demo's on booths. Things were looking bright for the Xbone, until news of its games were being run on high-end PCs which had 4x the processing power of the Xbone, during the press conference and in their demo booths, was made known. Pictures were taken which show the Xbone booths' cabinets having PC's running, with no Xbone console in sight.

After all these shenanigans, after all the confusion and shitstorm Microsoft had stirred up, they FINALLY released a statement that they are going to reverse their stance on things gamers found to be detrimental to, well, gaming. This brings us to where we are today.

Now, granted, some people would argue that everything people were complaining about were non-issues, to which I say, no. Those are valid concerns. If everything went according to the original plan Microsoft had, game retailers and rentals would be out of business, while mindless DRM would encroach upon users and slowly become an unwanted norm. 24-hour check-ins would have been disastrous should Microsoft's servers crash, which is a known issue. Also, those 300,000 servers Microsoft promises, are they all physical servers or virtual ones? If virtual, one machine crashing would equal to multiple servers shutting down. All flair, no substance.

In any case, the way Microsoft has been dealing with this just makes me feel uncomfortable. They are definitely more focused on grabbing your money than giving you bang for your buck. For now, they are making a move to satisfy consumers, but they still managed to retain at least one of their money-grubbing policies, namely making Kinect mandatory for all Xbones. For me, this is their first successful step in their path to anti-consumerism. Well, I'm uber pessimistic.

So yeah. Microsoft not only doesn't know what gamers want, they want to impose their stupid regulations on people so in their perfect world where they dominate the market, everyone has to obey their every single whim.

Okay, I am a supporter of Sony's products, because they haven't given me a good reason to not support them. Back when Sony was partnering with Nintendo, they wanted to implement CDs for the SNES, but Nintendo's obstinance in using cartridges forced Sony to push their own console. When DVDs were no longer satiating digital storage needs, Sony came out with the Blu-Ray. I don't know about you guys but it just seems that Sony knows what's going down and they know what the market needs. I would rather trust them than Microsoft, at least, in the gaming department. I mean, their uncertainty and back-pedalling in policy-making and herd-following (they are trying to imitate Steam's digital sales) just assures me of their ineptitude at understanding the market, at all.

Well, okay, that's that. I am drowsy and this is my rant. Good day to you, and thanks for reading.

My Thoughts: The Last of Us

*whew* FINALLY.

It took me quite awhile to get to this. I spent a long time in the game just enjoying it. Lots of things to go through, so let's go. Oh, and don't worry about spoilers. I think this game deserves to be enjoyed as a whole, and so I will try not to spoil anything.

The game revolves around Joel and Ellie. Joel is tasked with smuggling Ellie across America in a post-apocalyptic world infested with infected beings. Like the Uncharted series, Naughty Dog made this to be what some might view as a movie-esque game. The plot's great, there's substantial character development, and the setting is convincing thanks to decent graphics and music.

So, let's get down to business.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The setting is such that some people might expect it to be an open-world roaming game. However, it isn't. The whole game is very much linear, with minor explorations that can be done (think F.E.A.R).

I played this game on hard mode and I have to say, that is probably why it took me so long to complete the game (or maybe I just plain suck). Resources were scarce and enemies were hard to take down. See, this game is not like Resident Evil 5, 6 or Left 4 Dead. You make a mistake, you pay for it. Everything you do has a short-term and long-term consequence. You cannot, and I repeat, CANNOT, be a Rambo in this game. 

The characters are controlled from a 3rd-person POV, and they need to maneuver through hordes of infected and other times, human scavengers. Depending on who the player faces, different strategies are needed. Do you fight it out? Do you utilise stealth? If you were spotted, what is your escape path? Do you have anything that can help with escape? As players keep thinking about these things, they slowly learn about strategising, which is quite cool.

Most of the time, the thought of resources running out stops players from doing the stupid rubbish some "survival horror" allows them to do, like taking on 10 enemies. If you do that in this game, you will most likely get flanked, surrounded and killed. The characters are human enough to die easily, especially if you run into this one type of enemy that can instant kill you if it catches you. Also, you risk losing resources by choosing to engage, and might wind up being really vulnerable later on.

The game sounds rather difficult to play, but it is all these things that gives it the sense of realism and tension which I find to be great. It can be really taxing for players as they fail again and again, however. Yet the sense of achievement you get when you maneuver through the level without wasting resources is so profound, it makes those failures and attempts worthwhile.

As for level designs, the whole aspect about puzzle-solving is really simple. Heck, one might not even consider them to be puzzles. However, the variations of what happens make it more of a tool of storytelling instead of a pure puzzle game, which is rather nice.

_________________________________________________________________________________

So the game plays great, what about the story? And the characters? Well, if anything, Naughty Dog has pretty much outdone themselves this time. I have played Uncharted 2 and 3 before. Even though it is similar in style to Uncharted, The Last of Us, to me, outdid Uncharted. 

I could tell that Naughty Dog was really meticulous with this one. Every bit of minor chatter and trivial things, which we people take for granted, made the characters real. For comparison's sake, I will use Heavy Rain. In Heavy Rain, the characters were over-emphasised. There was no space for trivial chatter or hesitation. Everything presented must be of the greatest cause and of utmost importance. The characters must have huge impressions and, whatever David Cage wants them to be, they must portray those characteristics at any chance they get. And so, you get to hear them constantly whining, talking about stopping the antagonist and being totally obnoxious. Because of that, the characters in Heavy Rain, to me, felt distant and fake.

In The Last of Us, Joel and Ellie had plenty of small talks. They also try to hide their feelings, and do little things like looking away from who they are talking to or pouting. "Oh wow, these sound super lame." Yes, perhaps, but they do make things so much more relatable than "I am a man who fights for the great cause of saving my son and I will talk about it every single chance I get while whining at things". No. No such bullshit.

There are lots of minor details that players can find in the game. A good example would be when you get to control Ellie. All your items and learned skills are gone. She also takes a ton of damage. The feeling of controlling a weaker character gets through because everything gets tougher. Also, if players check Ellie's notes and mementos, they are different than Joel's and some of them reveal more of Ellie's past. Such small details, such good stuff. Kudos, Naughty Dog.

Character development is huge. Joel starts off with a painful past and then comes along a girl who reminds him of it. The feelings Joel have to deal with were subtly planted and showed in-game, if you pay attention. As he starts to grow out of that and become closer with Ellie, while journeying through America and encountering obstacles which helped them to bond, you feel a connection to Joel and Ellie which frankly speaking, is wonderful. You become a part of the world that is The Last of Us.

_________________________________________________________________________________

There were some parts that could have used some fixing. In the early stages, when I was taking my time exploring, Joel's sort of weirded out when I climbed up a ledge sticking close to the wall. The character animation probably freaked out when it had to deal with a wall, a ledge and a hole I had to crawl through. Grabbing an enemy from under a ledge resulted in Joel releasing the enemy, which then alarmed the mob. I think there is probably something wrong with ledges here.

Combat mechanics were a little rough, especially the shooting. When I melee an enemy, sometimes I whiff it completely, sometimes my character dashes to the enemy and hits him. I can't tell if there are conditions which tell if you will or will not hit the enemy, but it just feels dodgy. Shooting mechanics feels like it came out of Uncharted, but harder because you don't zoom in as much and the enemies' heads are really tiny from far away. You miss your shots but they hit you with pinpoint accuracy, which is rather perplexing and degrading for me. I absolutely loved using the bow and arrow, if only it had more killing potential and better aiming. Sometimes, the character's body blocked the crosshair, which absolutely infuriates me. However, since the game presents the theme of survival, the combat was secondary to the overall gameplay, which might explain why it seems less developed than the stealth mechanics.

Conversation audio clips would sometimes go missing. I only noticed this when I was reading the subtitles alongside listening to what they were saying. Perhaps the final script was not what was given to the subtitling team, either way it doesn't look good. The sceneries were absolutely fantastic. I liked how everything looks, except maybe the sky, which seemed to me to be a huge JPG picture of a sky. Honest.

Well, thankfully, all these weird little problems does not mess up the overall gameplay experience. Sure, they are irksome but the fantastic journey you have in this game from beginning to the end does not change.

_________________________________________________________________________________

If you are a gamer who likes to be challenged, or you are just someone who would like to enjoy a good story, The Last of Us is definitely a good buy. This game stays true to the genre of survival horror, and yet at the same time presents a wonderful storytelling. The characters present a compelling realism and the ending of the game (no spoilers) created in me an internal conflict which made me want to go against what Joel did, but at the same time I support his decision. It's a pretty heavy feeling.

This game deserves an 8/10. If they fixed the combat system and made it a slightly more open world with things to explore, I would definitely give it a 9. I am down for a sequel of the game, or even if it's just a game that's based on this world. 

I have been straining myself to play this game at nights, due to bright lighting in the room in the mornings and evenings. Promise to write a better review for other games. Till then.

All About The Games (Exclusives lol)

It's fair to say that during E3, the above happened. *YES*

You get all sorts of people on the Internet, and when you find them you kinda wanna go "SMH". Well, seeing how some Xbox fans are still running around trying to defend that console with "PS4 is essentially the same with their online subscription" and "exclusives and better games are on Xbox One" as arguments, I thought perhaps it's fun to take a look at some of the games on the new consoles.

Exclusives became the last resort for Xbone defenders, despite the Xbone having totally anti-consumeristic policies which spell doom for all. Well, let's see here...

PS4:

1. Killzone: Shadow Fall
2. Knack
3. Driveclub
4. Gran Turismo 6 (thanks to Josh for reminding)
5. InFamous: Second Son
6. Deep Down
7. Secret Ponchos (indie!)
8. Outlast (indie!)
9. Transistor (indie!)
10. Basement Crawl (creepy indie!)
11. Primal Carnage: Genesis
12. The Order 1886

Xbone:

1. Halo 5
2. Ryse: Son of Rome
3. Killer Instinct
4. Forza Motorsport 5
5. D4
6. Crimson Dragon
7. Dead Rising 3
8. Below
9. Quantum Break

Well, time to do some review here. Some may wonder "what about Titan Fall? Project Spark? This is biased!" I would like to remind you that those titles will be headed to the PC as well. So, they aren't  exclusives per se. 

Ryse is a Quick-Time-Event game. Killer Instinct's "free to play" is actually true, IF you just want to play as one character. Dead Rising 3 removed their humour to satisfy a more generic market. Don't get me wrong, they still look pretty good, but these are really good signs of telling if Microsoft wants to push gaming or push sales. I'll let you decide.

For the PS4 line-up, it's crazy how many indies there are, indicating Sony's keeping their word of pushing indies. Killzone and InFamous look the same in terms of gameplay, but new elements may make it worth playing. The Order looks REALLY REALLY INTERESTING. Damn. Van Helsing, anyone?

Why would anyone argue that the line-up in one camp is better than the other? From this end, it looks like Sony is dominating. However, user preference may decide that the Xbone's line-up looks better. What I can say however is that, Microsoft got very flashy and showed their AAA titles with executives talking about really negligible stuff during their conference. Sony on the other hand kept showing games and addressed some questions (DRM in particular) that people had. This may have resulted in the bigger impression that games on the Xbone are better, but in actuality... It's an exaggerated impression.

Really guys, I'm not even... Just look at the videos on YouTube. There is a stark contrast between how Sony and Microsoft are treating games.

Well, just for a quick mention about the whole online pass shenanigan. It is true that you would require a PS+ pass to play online, similar to the Xbox Live Gold's system. So, both consoles require you to get a pass to play online. Difference? The PS+ gets you in line for early demo's, gives you more than TWO games every month and it gives you discounts for some games.

Really, Xbox fans, just, really. Throw anything at Sony and you seem to find a better deal there. Heck, even the new Smash game and Pokémon game make me want to get the Wii U more than the Xbone.

PS4 wins next-gen. For now. Well, actually, looks pretty much set in stone.

Comparisons (updated)

Xbox One - November, for $499

• Offline gaming is available for up to 24 hours, and one hour on a different console. You then need to be online to "check-in", for DRM reasons. Also, auto-updates. (here)
• You can share your game with only one friend, possibly playable concurrently. Publisher enabling required. *
• Publishers decide if trade-ins are allowed, only at participating retailers.*
• You can share a library with "ten members of family". Possibly exploitable by registering as family with another friend and sharing cost of games. If so, you would probably get to play the same game on another Xbox concurrently.*
• If the game is installed on the console, it is free to play, possibly until the authentication "check-in". *
• Your "key" to a game is saved online, and you can re-download the game whenever. *
• The Kinect is mandatory. (here)
• According to wording, you may pause the Kinect when Xbox One is on. The "Xbox On" turn on feature can be turned off. **   [privacy concerns - I cannot say if the Kinect hardware itself can be turned off, or just a "soft" off. Microsoft reserves the right to share your information, when the situation calls for it, according to this. The whole PRISM programme is just so ambiguous. Obama getting sued? Damn.]
• Your Xbox is always on and always connected to the internet. ***
• Apparently, Microsoft's presented keypoint is about the Xbox's ability to play MMORPGs. ***
• The Xbox has two wireless antennas, which, according to a mech. engineering student, does not mean better coverage or what-not. If 802.11n is multi-input/output, why do we need two? ***
• There are allegedly more than 300,000 Xbox Live and Windows Azure servers. There is no confirmation as to them being virtual servers or not. ***
• The Xbox One is allegedly going to be region-locked (here).
• The UI for the Xbox allows for users to switch between what they're doing.
• Like the old Xbox, you need to subscribe to Xbox Live Gold for online multiplayer games. The subscription can be shared with your family.
• The HDD is fixed at 500GB.

* read it here
** read it here
*** read it here



PS4 - this holiday season, for $399

• The PS4 is not region-locked. (here)
• The PS4 will not have restrictions on the use of games, or online requirements for offline games, or regular "check-ins". (video, text)
• The PS4 requires you to have PS Plus to play multiplayer online.
• The PS4's UI allows users to switch between what they're doing. Players can also download a portion of the game first to begin playing. The PS4 is also purportedly always on and always connected, allowing users to access their game library and begin downloads even when away from the console. (here)
• HDD can be upgraded by users (here)

The only reason why there are more points for the Xbone is because of the multiple restrictions and problems that I needed to address. All those problems are slapped away by the PS4's second point.

As for hardware, I am no expert but the numbers suggest that the PS4 is ahead of Xbone. The Xbone isn't even fully utilising the 8GB for your games. Eh. 

Exclusives in the Xbone look good, but I reckon it's not worth splurging $499 just to get those games. Honestly, just... PS4 all the way people.

Think about how Sony's press conference is compared to Microsoft's. The emphasis on games is clearly given by Sony, whereas Microsoft is just... dawdling. "But... Sony's presentation had hiccups, the console's broken." Remember Battlefield 4? Xbone's console messed up their audio. What then? Killzone ran fine on the PS4 during the reveal conference. The Division gameplay showcase? Obviously the games in question are still in its alpha/beta stages. To infer that these are signs of console problems is too far a stretch.

In any case, hope all this info helps. I hope you would not support the Xbone mainly because, well, a 'vote' for Xbone is a vote for anti-consumerism.

(updated)

• Sony will allow 3rd-party publishers to enforce DRM ONLY on online used games, like current online passes. (here)

The Xbone, again.

Good ol' Microsoft released some information regarding the Xbone yesterday. They broke it into three segments - licensing, privacy and connection. Cheeky little bastard, separating the information to soften the hard-hitting truth of your policies. Anyway, let's go check them out.

Licensing
To sum it all up, most retailers will be dead.

Microsoft is seriously testing my patience here. I can GIVE my friend a game that I OWN, and it can only happen ONCE. Yeah. And this guy must have at least been on my friend list for 30 DAYS. What is with all these restrictions? I will, however, make the assumption that both you and your friend can play the games concurrently. Remember that you have to install the game to play it, and you can play without the disc. This would be beneficial to a gamer and his ONE friend (yeah, because we are loners), but this potentially means that retailers will lose a potential sale, which in turn affects publishers.

As for trading-in and you selling your games, "Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers or consumers for enabling transfer of these games". Guess what Microsoft? It has ALWAYS been this way. You are not DOING anything. We could also look at this as Microsoft saying "oops, hey guys, we aren't gonna charge an activation fee to enable you to play the game". No apologies, just pure business. Wait, hold your horses... We now need publishers to enable trade-ins? Yeah, guess what, bye-bye pre-owned games market.

Enabling people to buy the game on Xbox Live without the need to go to retailers? WHOOPS, sorry guys, direct sales. Sucks to be you GameStop. HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE.

And the best of all, now EVERYONE who comes to my place gets to play the games I OWN. What in the... Just... Shut your mouth Microsoft. Seriously? "But you get to play it without logging in!" THAT IS THE WAY IT HAS BEEN ALL THIS TIME??? MAYBE??? I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I AM MISTAKEN?

Grrghh... Why? Why would you make stupid statements? Who does all these things for you? Jimmy the 9-5 office boy who earns $8 an hour? Who doesn't play games because he's so broke?

The family access bit is a little too ambiguous. How does the registration take place? How do you identify that this person is actually my family member? Oh by the way, I can essentially play any games I own on any other consoles nowadays because CONSOLE ADVANTAGE. You dumb... Why do you make it sound like it's some "oooh, aaaahhh..." issue? And no, it won't be like today, because today I can play that same game on multiple consoles. Guess what? In the future, I can probably only play it on one other console thanks to your restrictions. "But, cloud power! Your account!" I have friends who own consoles but do not necessarily own high-speed internet connections. WHAT THEN?

Damn you Microsoft, just, damn you.

Privacy
"You are in control". Or are you? Am I actually in control Microsoft?

Obviously, when I am not using the Kinect to record or upload my conversations, it should not do so. Why should you even mention that? However, the fact that is has such capabilities worries a lot of people.

"Oh you can turn it off, on or pause it, whenever you wish to." Oh really? Thanks guys, but really, though, can I not want it? No? I MUST buy it in order for the Xbone to function? They come together? Oh, okay.

No really though, Microsoft, why did you word it the way you did? When the system is off, the Kinect is only listening for a single voice command? But, that means it's on then? I can turn that feature off? Does this mean JUST the listening feature, or can I actually turn off the Kinect? So far, you've only told me that I can turn off, on or pause the sensors. I wonder if electrical engineers have better knowledge of this...

By the way guys, although they say you have control over your personal info, I would like to point out that:

1. Your personal info is in a database. It could be hacked, even though it is a minuscule chance.
2. Microsoft, with the "right reasons", can use this information. According to this anyway.

So, overall, everything stays the same. You are at risk as much as you are on your computer.

Connectivity
You shitlords, this is... Just...

Every Xbox owner has a broadband connection. Yeah, until I have to go on a holiday and I don't want to get charged a ton of money for a hotel connection, PER HOUR. And your stupid reason of "developers can create massive, persistent worlds that evolve even when you're not playing" is bollocks. If I wanted to play something with massive, persistent worlds, I would have gotten an MMORPG like FFXIV, which is available for current-gen. Stop masquerading what is already available as something revolutionary. 

"Your Xbox One is always ready". This means that, even though the console is off, it is on. Because everything will be updated so you don't have to wait for it to update. Therefore it is always online, waiting for updates. Why in the seven seas... GRGRAGHHHHHH


I give up. I cannot do this. The more articles I open up on the internet, the more I want to tear my hair out.

Look, if you are here reading this, thank you. And if you are reading this, you hold the responsibility to inform your friends and what-not about how shitty the Xbone is. Why? If this goes on, the game industry will get messed up. If this goes on, Microsoft will be the evil emperor they are clearly striving to be. Retailers will lose their business, people will be unemployed, shitstorm is abrewin'. 

So please, just... Tell them. If you are not sure about what's up, feel free to Google things up. Game forums, Kotaku, Destructoid and other gaming sites will tell you more than shitty mainstream media outlets will ever do. 

DAMN YOU MICROSOFT

Team Siren? Pls.

So, Dunkey posted this video today. Lol-worthy, check it out. If you don't know about him, Dunkey's a YouTube personality who posts stuff from games and dubs over it with some funny shit. Check him out.

Anyway, the point of this post is about games and females.

Recently, I was reminded of the horror that is Anita Sarkeesian. She calls herself a feminist, and she 'brings to light how video games portray women'. To summarise, she believes games are trying to undermine females' roles and portray them as weak and ineffective by subjugating them under 'patriarchy superiority'.

This is insanely dumb. Before you go off writing me off, hear me out.

To a certain extent, I agree that women are underplayed in games, but calling it a ploy to fulfil the patriarchy's master plan is stupid. If you have not seen Thunderf00t's video analysis of Anita's 'well-researched exposé', check it out.

No matter what you do in games, it is a plan to undermine women's authority. For example:

Strong women? Damnit, patriarchs trying to make women be like men.
Weak women? Damnit, patriarchs saying women are weak.
Beautiful women? Damnit, patriarchs saying looks are everything.
Ugly women? Damnit, looks are everything.

What is your issue here? We can't portray women in any manner possible, it seems. Regardless of the stance we take, it is a lose-lose situation.

Now, looking at video games, and as Thunderf00t has mentioned, they portray men in a specific manner too. Why are JRPGs men so bishie? Why are most male main characters good-looking and strong and what-not? Why must it be such that men are judged based on that? This is horrible, isn't it?

Then we have racial issues too. Why make black characters speak like they're from the ghetto? If you try to portray them as being smart, someone somewhere will remark that you are trying to imply that they are imitating Caucasians. Orient characters have their thick accents with them, even if they have spent a long time abroad in the West working, like you see with Wei Shen in Sleeping Dogs. Oh no, the horrorrrrrrr!!

I don't want to go too deep into that rabbit hole. I believe that people who take some time to think about how video games work will understand that, games are games. Figure out for yourself if games are about "oppressing women".

Back to Dunkey's video about this Team Siren. Look girls, good for you that you are the first all-female team. Good for you that you like this game called League of Legends. However, you girls need to wake up to the fact that your channel essentially belittles pro players and mocks their efforts.

Yes, you are rather good at the game, but not good enough for the competitive scene. So, why promote your team for a game and have your main slogan be "first all-female team"? Why are you not promoting yourselves based on your skill levels? Does being female have anything to do with your skills? Are we supposed to be more lenient because of that fact...?

No, I am not saying that the fact of you people being the first all-female team is false. No, I am not saying you can't have that description for your team. However, you pass yourself off as a professional team, and provide footages of your games with average skills and then go "hey we are like, the first all-female team, the pro teams are like all male, we are here to be the game-changer". Change the game with sub-par skills? What am I, or anyone else for that matter, supposed to take from that?

Here is my impression of your team - you over-promoted yourself by passing yourself off as a professional team and talk smack about "changing things" when you cannot play competitively. Look at Road to LCS, previously known as Road to IPL, and look at their efforts at getting better at the game. They do not oversell themselves and work hard. And what did you do? The exact opposite.

To put things in perspective, imagine a new team that has average skills trying to push themselves. They then make a video promoting themselves, with this slogan in it - "all-male, Oriental team". What then? What does that have to do with their skills? Nothing. Play the game. If you're good at it, show it. Go hard or go home.

Man. Rant, over.