Roadmapping The Backlog.

Wow, so it's been just over three months since my last blog post, talk about neglect. Even before that my posting history has been nothing short of sporadic anyways. I've been so inactive that I doubt I'm on any one's reader anymore, and speaking of reader, I am going to have to find a replacement for Google Reader here pretty quick.

I really hate having a backlog, I even dislike using the term as well. When I listen to various podcasts and the backlog is brought up in conversation it seems like it's a revered thing, as if it's some right of passage for the "core" gamer. I know for myself it's sales coupled with liking too many different types of games. I like RPG's, RTS's, MMO's, shooters, sports game - well you get the idea.

What I had done over the past year to alleviate the backlog pressure was break up my games into two lists: those games that I need to play and those that I wouldn't mind playing but won't feel guilty if I don't. One thing I have done to help myself was curb my spending, specially when there's a sale going on. Sure I want to play those games, but when am I going to find the time between life, MMO's and what ever other game I'm playing to play that shiny new game I bought on sale?

For the past month I've been working two jobs and have only had one day off each week, so as you can imagine my game time has been cut way down. After I finished Tomb Raider the other day (spoiler: I hated it!), I found myself in a situation where I wasn't sure what to move to next in the virtual stack. I'm waiting for Marvel Heroes in June, there's the Rift F2P coming as well on top of the few other MMO's I've started playing again and the monster that is League of Legends which eats up a bit of time. It's a time management issue really.

I'm a big proponent of the idea that you play what you feel like playing at the time, but I thought maybe creating a list, a roadmap as it were, might help me manage my time better and give me a better understanding of just how many games I have that I truly need to play. It could be way too daunting and overwhelming which might cause me to break down and cry, but it's worth a try.

This of course is just a tool to help me and things can and will probably change. A few months ago I was planning on playing through all three Mass Effect games, even started the first game again. Something came up, my interest changed and I have yet to get back to Mass Effect.

We'll see just how far I get into this project, but for now it sounds like a good idea.

What I Think of Spec Ops: The Line

 

Been working on this post for awhile now, let's see if I can get this done! THIS IS A SPOILER FREE POST! At least I will try as hard as possible to not give any sort of spoilers. Also, I played the PC version with a wired Xbox controller.

I am going to assume that by now most people already know what Spec Ops: The Line is - a third-person cover based military shooter that features a story based on the movie Apocalypse Now and the novella The Heart Of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. Some may say the gameplay is just average at best which I think is a tad shortsighted and I believe there's a bit of hyperbole surrounding the story with these intense moral decisions.

Without going into spoiler territory let's begin with the story.

Six months before the start of the game Dubai is engulfed by a massive sandstorm burying most of the city under sand. Lieutenant Colonel John Conrad, commander of the 33rd Battalion which was in the process of returning home from Afghanistan has volunteered his unit to go in the Dubai and attempt to rescue those stranded in the city from the sand storm.

In the mean time Dubai has become surrounded with what is called the sand wall making flights in and out of the city impossible along with any sort of communications. Four weeks later a mysterious and slightly broken message penetrates the sand wall from Conrad and the missing 33rd. Players take on the role of Captain Martin Walker as he leads a three man recon team tasked with investigating the source of the transmission and to see if there are indeed any survivors before pulling back to the sand wall for extraction.

This information is pretty much revealed during the opening cutscene while the credits are rolling, anything further would be in that spoiler territory. Now initially there is a tutorial where you learn how to aim and shoot, run and use cover and interact with objects, from that point forward though the game goes into what I like to call the Heart of Darkness weirdness. Well actually, that kind of starts before the opening cutscene.

What I can say about the story is that I loved it the first time I played through Spec Ops. I only knew of Heart of Darkness from the many references made on various podcasts when talking about the game and I had very little knowledge of the movie Apocalypse Now because I've never seen the movie. Not knowing what happens in the movie or novella and how they influenced the story in Spec Ops was for me perfect. By the end of the game I was blown away by the story, found it interesting from start to finish.

Unfortunately after that first play through I spent some time looking for information on both the novella and the movie to see just how close in story all three were. All that time learning about how Spec Ops compares to the novella and the movie and what exactly it took from them, reading about the clues from the author and then playing through the game two more times to see if I could see the twists coming caused me to lose some of that initial love and admiration for the story that I had.

In the end the way I experienced Spec Ops the line with no prior knowledge of the source material I believe was the best way to play the game. However, if you are familiar with the novella and/or the movie I still think you will appreciate what Spec Ops does.

So what about the gameplay you ask? Well there's really not much to say honestly; you can aim, you can shoot and throw grenades, you can sprint, take cover, sprint in and out of cover, pick up all sorts of weapons and blow enemies heads off. It may sound generic or average, but it is a whole heck of a lot of fun. The gameplay was part of the reason why I played through the game three times in two and a half days.

There was a half-baked squad command system in the game which isn't a real detriment to the game, but on the harder difficulties it can be annoying when you have to repeatedly redo sections because your squad dies or you die from trying to revive them. Speaking of difficult, Spec Ops is not easy. It's easier on normal but it can still be pretty tough at times.

Spec Ops isn't revolutionary, it doesn't introduce any sort of new gameplay mechanics. It's not like when Gears of War was released and suddenly every third person game had to have cover mechanics. It's not like that at all, but what it does do gameplay wise is done I think very well. The camera never interfered with my enjoyment of the game, the cover system works great and the weapons had a hint of realism with bullet spread and kick when fired.

For me Spec Ops: The Line had the whole package - it looked good, the audio was fantastic with the voice overs, sound effects and music, the controls were tight, the gameplay was great, the pacing was perfect and the story was amazing. I picked up the game on sale for five bucks and it was money well spent. I would say Spec Ops is easily worth twenty or thirty bucks, if not for the gameplay then at least for a story that you don't normally get in game like this.

A few small tidbits - I did try one game of the multiplayer and if you've played Call of Duty or Battlefield then you know what to expect. A coop mode was added in later but I did not get a chance to try it out.

Why? Well Why Not I Guess...

I was listening to Episode 84 of the Rocket Jump Podcast the other day and something one of the hosts Aaron Phokal said had me ask a question. Before I get into that let me ask this - do you like podcasts? Do you like video games? Do you like listening to people BS about games on a podcast? Well then I highly suggest the Rocket Jump Podcast, it's one of the few that I don't miss. 

Now back to the topic at hand. On the podcast Aaron let it be known that he purchased a Wii U and one of the other hosts on the show had the same reaction I did - Why? His response was along the lines of 'I own the others so it was a matter of time'. So the question I asked myself was if most games are multiplatform then is there a need to buy more than one console these days?

I know I had a PSOne, then a Dreamcast, then a PS2, then a Xbox and eventually I picked up a 360 and stopped playing on those older systems. What sold me on the 360 was Gears of War, but I really hated that game still the purchase of the system was well worth it. I didn't become interested in getting a PS3 till after watching a friend play Uncharted Drakes Fortune and for some reason I just had to have a PS3. So eventually I did get one and wouldn't you know I didn't really like Uncharted either. Oddly enough the sequels to both games were amazing with Uncharted 2 being the best game I've ever played on a console. But I digress.

After awhile my 360 melted and I was left with just the PS3 and it's been that way for almost five years now. I won't lie, I've been very tempted to pick up a 360 mostly because it has a huge library of cheap used games. I can't help but ask myself why every time the temptation arises. I have a PS3, why not just pickup said games for that system instead of spending the money on a whole other system.

I guess the answer to my own question is yes, there is still a reason to own more than one console, for now. At some point I do see myself picking up a 360 because I would really like to play the Gears of War and Halo games but since I hate anything and everything Nintendo I won't have to worry about spending good money on crappy hardware.

With the next generation of consoles just around the corner and them most like costing a small fortune I personally feel there needs to be a good reason to buy one let alone more than one system. I'm perfectly happy with the current gen still and unless I see a must have game I'm perfectly content with sticking with my PS3 for a few more years.

Much Of Nothing.

I had hoped that I was going to post something worthwhile on the blog this month, but using your time wisely  on my days off is proving much more difficult than I had hoped. Basically I've been spending a boat load of time playing games at home and when I have some free time at work I've been watching hockey games on the computer.

I did take two solid days to play and finish Spec Ops: The Line three times and I have some thoughts about that game that I want to share. I've also installed and started playing Velvet Assassin, a game I picked up on a deep discount from Steam just before the holidays. The majority of time however has been spent playing Borderlands 2.

So there you have it, a post about much of nothing  feature nothing much.

Insert Witty Title Here.

This poor blog, seems like I don't give it the time and respect that I once did years ago. It's definitely not from a lack of inspiration, it's more like a lack of motivation mixed with laziness with the ability to waste time. So really this is a post to myself in an attempt to motivate me to post more, besides I always have something silly to say and it's great writing practice.

So what have I been up to the past few months? Playing lots of games. Actually there haven't been too many games so I've been spending quite a bit of time gaming. The game that has grabed the most attention from me is Hitman Absolution - the game is bloody brilliant! Sure it's not perfect, but it is pretty darn good and I do like the new direction the game has gone to. Yes Blood Money is an exceptional game, but sometimes things need to be shaken up a bit to avoid that sequal-itis feeling. Personally I believe that most who criticize Absolution give up on the game early on and never actually get to experience just how great this game really is.

I've also had a hankering for some sort of fantasy RPG gameplay and not necessarily the party kind of game like Dragon Age II (which is a wonderful game). Been playing Borderlands 2 quite a bit lately and as fun as it is, it's kind of too long and I just want to bash something in the face with a sword of mace of some type. I think Skyrim would work to fulfil this desire, but I think what I'm really feeling is a pull towards the MMO again.

I have Guild Wars 2 that I haven't played in a month, but I'm looking for something with good questing, not that crappy run around the land doing errands for people garbage questing that GW2 has. At one point I almost entertained the idea of returning to World of Warcraft, but quickly squashed that idea. Instead I think it's about time to sub to Rift, a game that I've enjoyed quite a bit while playing the F2P portion. I figure between Rift, Eq2 and something single-player I should satiate that fantasy sword bashing thirst.

In the coming weeks I think I'm going to do some sort of best of and worst of type posts for my 2012 gaming. I don't think I'll have anything unique of interesting to say that will differ from others, but it's something I want to do so I will.

So here's hoping that 2013 is a better year for me personally on the blogging front!

Sleep In Heavenly Peace...

Charlotte Bacon, 6

Daniel Barden, 7

Olivia Engel, 6

Josephine Gay, 7

Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6

Dylan Hockley, 6

Madeleine F. Hsu, 6

Catherine V. Hubbard, 6

Chase Kowalski, 7

Jesse Lewis, 6

James Mattioli, 6

Grace McDonnell, 7

Emilie Parker, 6

Jack Pinto, 6

Noah Pozner, 6

Caroline Previdi, 6

Jessica Rekos, 6

Avielle Richman, 6

Benjamin Wheeler, 6

Allison N. Wyatt, 6

 

Mary Sherlach, 56

Victoria Soto, 27

Anne Marie Murphy, 52

Lauren Rousseau, 30

Dawn Hochsprung, 47

Rachel Davino, 29

  

What I Think of Chivalry: Medieval Warfare

Have you ever been given a gift that you wish you hadn't received, but you're thankful anyways and try to enjoy the gift only to get super frustrated and now you want to somehow smack the gift giver? Well a kind hearted friend wanted to share the fun he was having with Chivalry and decided to gift me a copy, and believe me there are times I wish he hadn't.

Chivalry is a multiplayer first person melee combat game built on the Unreal engine so it's pretty and quite unique. It is also broken, flawed and at times seems highly unbalanced, yet it has its moments that make the game incredible. Unfortunately for me those times do not happen very much.

There are four classes - Archer, Man-At-Arms, Vanguard and Knight. There are a small number of maps and includes your standard multiplayer game types - FFA, TDM, Team Objective, King of the Hill and Last Man Standing.

Each class must choose a primary, secondary and special weapon. Everyone starts with three primary and secondary weapons they can choose and from what I can tell there are six of each that can be unlocked by accruing a set number of kills with each.

Before I delve into the bad of Chivalry, I must confess that there is still information that I do not know. There appears to be no sort of manual for this game so some of what I might say could be answered by having one, something to keep in mind.

So what is broken and flawed about Chivalry you may ask? I think this a great time for some bullet points!

• Key bindings - a small patch supposedly fixed key bindings, but all it seemed to do was change some of them without changing the on screen prompts. Example: Use changed to I, still says E on screen. All commands must be bound to something and can't be left blank and you can accidentally have two commands bound to the same key. Example: Wanted to bind crouch to C since normal games do that which meant that war cry would be unbound, instead the game put both commands as C.
• Level system - yep, just like every other multiplayer game Chivalry has a level system. With other games gaining levels gives the player something for earning those levels. Not Chivalry. Seems the only thing levels represent is that a player has spent far too much time playing this game, cause they do nothing else.
• Weapon stats - each weapon has three stats: damage, speed and reach listed as percentages. There's even a detailed info screen that gives the percentages of primary, secondary and special. So what are the percentages based on? Is there some sort of rock, paper, scissors thing going on? The lack of information makes the percentages kind of arbitrary.
• Team Objective - It's the mode I tend to play most with any online game. In those other games each side will rotate who is for example the attacker and the defender. In Chivalry each map has a predetermined attacker and defender. With so few maps it would have been nice to have each side to attack and defend. There's also a timer to complete objectives, what that amount is I have no idea.
• Combat - My biggest gripe and I think the games best feature is the combat. It's unique, it's fast and brutal, and it's the most frustrating thing to experience. There are three attacks: stab, slash and overhand smash. These attacks can be blocked and parried by keeping the center of your screen on the tip of the enemies weapon. It's a neat mechanic. Unfortunately one can just circle strafe around while spamming left mouse button, or they aim high and spam over hand or aim low and spam stab. There is a finesse and skill to the combat that is extraordinary if played right, when on a server with 30 other players however, it just turns into a chaotic mess of LMB spam.
• Combat part II - Balance is fubar. Man-At-Arms have weapons with the shortest reach, lowest armor but are the fastest. Vanguard has moderate armor and speed with primary weapons that have long reach and secondary weapons with a short reach and no shield. The Knight is the slowest with the most armor, primary weapons with long reach and can use a shield with their secondary weapons. What this all means is that the long weapons are king of the battlefield and Knights are the uber sauce on that field. I like playing the MAA for the speed and shield, but I tend to get one shot quite often.

So if this game is broken and flawed how can it be so fun? It's unique and different from other multiplayer games which tend to be of the shooter variety. It's a gorgeous game that one minute can be controller throwing frustrating and in an instant become the most awesome thing you've seen. Weapon movement is slow, but character movement is very twitchy and timing is everything in Chivalry. On occasion I get it right and it is glorious! I just hope the devs continue to support Chivalry and patch up some of the brokenness with the game.