MechWorld Warrior of Online Tanks!

With the plethora of f2p games around there are no shortage of games to play. The downside, for me atleast, is that I just don't have enough time to play everything. Currently I have a sub for The Old Republic and World of Warcraft, although I haven't played much of WoW, I'm still kind of playing The Secret World and slowly working through the massive backlog of games. Now add to the mix two new f2p games, MechWarrior Online and World of Tanks, and even with my pretty open schedule I find it difficult to find time to play everything.

 Both games are very similar in what they do. MWO allows new players to choose from four free mechs to battle with much like League of Legends does with its free champions rotation, WoT actually gives you one light tank from the countries represented in the game and you can research and upgrade them as well.

I'm not sure what I expected with MWO, but with WoT I had this idea that it was an open world style MMO like World War II Online was and it was going to be super difficult and overwhelming to play. I was so glad to find that WoT is just like MWO in that regard - once you choose your vehicle or mech of choice you then click on launch and you're put into a match with a group of random players on a specific map and must duel to the death!

I started playing MWO first and while it took a few games to become comfortable with the game, it did make jumping into WoT much easier because of the few similarities they share. You launch the game, pick your weapon and jump into a game, it's that easy. What happens once you're in a match is not so easy.

I have really enjoy myself in both games and get my butt handed to me as well. There's always this excitement when loading into a match followed by this tension as I make my way around the battlefield which is almost always followed by a sigh of sadness as I sit there watching my burning mech/tank on the screen. No matter what, I am having loads of fun in both games.

This Is Madness! Madness? This...Is...DLC!!!

A number of years ago I remember standing here in the office at work having a conversation with my Manager about Dragon Age DLC. I remember making a remark about how I didn't like DLC because the cost of purchasing all of it would end up being more than what you paid for the original game with a fraction of the content.

Fast forward to today when said Manager tells me how excited he is for Total War: Rome 2 and reminds me that he took the day off just to soak in it's Roman goodness. I know little about Rome 2 but I do know there is a preorder bonus for some faction on Steam and there will be both paid-for and free DLC after release. I also made some snide comment about how paying for factions is part of why I have been less than interested in Rome 2.

Thing is, I am pretty much calling the kettle black here and I know it. It seems pretty hypocritical of a person who has sunk money buying Riot Points for silly champions and skins in League of Legends to complain about DLC. And yet, I'm still kind of bothered by the Rome 2 DLC.

Part of my issue may stem from the fact that Rome 2 is going to cost $60. $60 freaking dollars!?!?! I'm not here to argue value vs time investment nor the fact that I think games are just too expensive because those are topics for another discussion. But at that cost knowing there are factions being withheld or added later just doesn't jive with me. On the other hand Creative Assembly is going to offer free DLC and I should be happy, right?.

I think this quote I say from a PCGamer article that talked a bit about post-release Rome 2 DLC sums up what I am feeling at this moment:

"In Medieval II:Total War I unlocked the side factions for play by destroying them in the campaign. In Shogun 2 I unlock them by paying $5".

If you were wondering, Shogun 2 was the last entry in the Total War series.

Do I think that DLC is bad? No. Do I think Rome 2 DLC is bad? In the long run no. Do I think there is good and bad DLC? Most definitely yes. Do I think that a DLC Season Pass is a waste of money? Only if not purchased on a holiday sale of some sorts.

In the end I have no leg to stand up on when it comes to complaining about DLC seeing as I've purchased my share of it over the years. I've also used the 'if you don't like it then don't buy it' defense for DLC to random Internet morons.  That statement applies to me with regards to Rome 2. DLC has become the cash shops for retail games and if I don't like it, well there's nothing telling me I have to buy it.

Not My Kind Of Game.

From differencebetween.net:

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.

Definition of Game: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.

I bring these two things up because of the Gone Home phenomenon. By the very definition of what a game is I can objectively say that Gone Home is a game. I personally prefer more from my games so I can say subjectively that it's not a game.

Gone Home is described as an interactive exploration simulator. I have not played this game, but it seems that the goal of the game is for you to walk around your house looking at stuff. There could be a little more than that but for maybe a two hour experience at twenty bucks, I find the whole premise to be kind of boring.

I will never tell anyone that they're wrong if they do enjoy Gone Home nor will I say that Gone Home is not worth the money because that's all personal.

I don't plan on reading every review for Gone Home, but I have no idea why it's receiving such high scores. My first thought is that the subject matter is why it's getting such praise. My next thought is that game critics are just cynical, pretentious people who constantly pine for innovation from the games industry. Of course that's a cynical way for me to look at it.

I don't hate Gone Home as I have not played it and it would be nice if I appreciated what Gone Home is trying to do, but I really don't. The reason I am not into Gone Home is the same reason I don't care for Journey - not because I dislike good games, they're just not games to me. I cannot argue what is or is not a game as clearly those are both games, I just prefer more.

What I Think of Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City.

Watch this video.

Who wouldn't want to play this game! I know after watching this trailer one day on Steam I sure did.

So what is RE: Operation Raccoon City? It's a third person action game that begins prior to the events of Resident Evil 2. You play as one of four members of a U.S.S., or Umbrella Security Service Delta Team sent to Raccoon City to retrieve the G-Virus. Of course things go terribly wrong because if not the game would be even shorter than it already is, and you find yourself going to various locations fighting infected and Spec Ops soldiers in the hopes of being extracted from the city.

ORC was built to be a four-player co-op game. Yes you can play a private campaign by yourself with three AI squad mates, but ORC's gameplay is balanced around having four human players. If you take a restrictive FOV, a cover system that requires you to stick to walls which for the most part is broken and useless, a complete lack of a dodge mechanic, enemies that are bullet sponges, and mix that together with a game that likes to throw as many enemies as possible at you in small areas, what you get is a rage induced coronary from a game that is way harder than is should be even on casual difficulty. It's ok to make a game challenging, but ORC falls within the realm of cheap rather than difficult.

That's not to say everything is bad in ORC. The audio and visuals are quite good and the story is serviceable and doesn't get in the way. My favorite aspect of ORC, and the only reason why I played so much, is the gunplay. If you've played a modern military shooter within the past say five years then you know what to expect with ORC. There are a number of weapons to unlock and pick up in the game, each with its own characteristics such as accuracy, damage and ammo capacity. Standing still gives you the best accuracy but at the risk of being hit by enemies. Move around and you suffer in accuracy as you increase a weapon's bullet spread while eating through precious ammo. The gunplay is not revolutionary, but I found it to be very enjoyable.

Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City is a competent, but generic third person shooter. It breaks tradition by forgoing the puzzle aspect which is a halmark of the franchise and instead focuses on the action. While I found enjoyment in the gunplay, I find ORC's focus on co-op with a difficulty exacerbated by bad gameplay decisions such as a lack of a dodge mechanic, bad FOV, a broken cover system and bullet sponge enemies to be less enjoyable.

The Shadow Has Been.....Run?

There's this little game called Shadowrun Returns, you may have heard of it, it just came out after being a successful kickstarter. Honestly I had no idea about this game till a few months ago when it was on the front page of Steam. I know little about the Shadowrun universe and certainly didn't know there was a kickstarter for a game based on the source material.

I'm not writing a review here and am going to avoid any spoilers as well. I did however just want to share a few things about the game and express how much I really enjoyed Shadowrun Returns.

The Shadowrun universe is kind of neat - imagine fantasy creatures from the D&D games in a cyberpunk world like Blade Runner. The game is a top-down isometric game in the same vein as the Baldur's Gate series or the old Fallout games that takes place mostly in Seattle during the year 2054.

I really like the look of the game, the music and atmosphere, the characters, the writing, even the combat was quite fun. The only criticism I would have is the story - it starts off so well and is very interesting, but about half-way through the game it spirals a bit out of control and heads off in another direction. It's not bad by any means, I just found myself wanting more of the stuff at the beginning of the game rather than what I was doing towards the end of the game. It only took me about thirteen hours to finish the game and honestly that is just fine.

Shadowrun Returns is actually just a framework for mod support through Steam Workshop, the actual story in the game is called Dead Man's Switch. I'm really looking forward to the many story campaigns that the community comes up with.

For twenty dollars Shadowrun Returns was a great investment. I find myself wanting to play through the game again with the other races and classes despite my feelings about the latter stages of the game's story.

For The Emperor!

This post will be out of left field, mostly because I haven't posted anything in what seems like months. But I wanted to say that I am FREAKING EXCITED ABOUT THE NEW SPACE HULK GAME!

I figured using caps would drive my point home.

I have no idea if the game is going to be good, but the fact that a Space Hulk game is almost here is, to me, pretty awesome. For those not in the know, Space Hulk was a tabletop board game based on the Warhammer 40k universe. Space Hulk is actually a term for a massive derelict ship that, and those ships tend to become the habitat for an alien race known as Genestealers.

The board game consisted of a set of floor tiles which could be arranged in multiple ways to give subsequent playthroughs a different feel. Think of the random generated dungeons from Diablo. One player would then take control of the Genestealers while the rest of the players controlled a squad of Terminator Space Marines.

I love the Warhammer universe and I also have real fond memories of playing with a group of friends until the wee hours of the morning back in high school. So yes, I am looking forward to Space Hulk. I just hope it doesn't suck.



Someone Say Four Day Weekend!

I had really hoped to post a bit more over the past week, but working two jobs and only having one day off a week is really kicking my butt, and getting old. That will change after today, hopefully, as I have the next four days off, including getting a paid holiday for Monday from both jobs! Woot! I am hopeful that the following week I'll get at least two days off then starting July 1st I'll be a one job man again.

It's not that I haven't had time to do stuff, but the little time I have had I spent watching some TV with the family or playing games. I went from having three days off to only one and the one thing I've known for awhile is that I am really bad at managing my time and it has shown during this past month.

I did, however, make a list of all the games I've either not played or played just a smidgen last. One thing I learned was that I've purchased very few games from a brick and mortar store over the past two and a half years. If memory serves me, I have only purchased ten PC games from a retail store since buying Fallout New Vegas from Gamestop back in October 2010. How many digital games have I purchased? Way too many.

Instead of creating a road map which was incredibly overwhelming, I think I'll use my list as a sort of bucket list for games. Once I feel satisfied I've played the game, I'll cross it off the list and move onto something else. I know that I will never play every game on my list but maybe this will help curb my spending on random games. Only time will tell.

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.

Happy Turkey Day.

I've kind of ignored this blog because of the ease of complaining on Twitter, and I have a bad habit of just hating people in general. Despite all of that, I want to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving, whether it be with friends, family or just with one's trusted PC. Have a safe and happy weekend people, and don't forget to get your game on!

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes.

I love the Hitman franchise. I remember working at Gamestop when Codename 47 was released. I remember as a store manager going to Texas for a conference and having the pleasure of having a first look at Hitman 2 from the developers and being the only person in the room who knew 47's name. Which is 47 by the way. I have my work keys attached to a Hitman Contracts lanyard and a picture of 47 on my employee drawer to signify it's my stuff. I love the Hitman franchise. In preparation for Hitman Absolution's release I decided to replay the previous games in the franchise starting with Hitman 2. I've finished Hitman 2, Contracts and am still working to get through Blood Money and yet I still want to play more. Heck, I even love and own the Hitman movie! I love the Hitman franchise.

As you can imagine I was quite frustrated yesterday when I saw the PCGamer review of Hitman. Of course being a fanboy my knee jerk reaction was to believe the review has lost his marbles and has no idea what the heck he's talking about. Seeing a game I am super excited to play get a 66 was bothersome to me. Once I was able to calm down and think clearly I decided to re-read the review. The review itself is not bad and it was informative, however, it's clear from the beginning based on his admission to loving Blood Money that he was just looking for more of the same in Absolution.

If you were to believe this review you would think the game is complete rubbish, but a quick check of Metacritic shows that not to be the case. Just from browsing some of the reviews it would appear that the mixed reviews tend to dislike the change in direction of Hitman and what I found even more interesting is the ratio of positive to mixed reviews is lowest for the PC version. That could very well change as the week goes on, but I can't help thinking that PC gamers are much more resistant to change than our console brethren. Just a thought.

The whole thing reminds me of when Splinter Cell Conviction was released and the outcry of fans who felt Ubisoft has killed off the series with it's new direction towards a more action oriented gameplay. I too felt the same way about Conviction. Double Agent, a game all about stealth first and only stealth is one of my favorite games so how could they do that to Conviction! Then I bought and played Conviction and absolutely fell in love with the game.

The strength of previous Splinter Cell games was it's stealth gameplay, that's what the series was known for really. But Conviction's ability to balance the stealth with action made the game far less punishing to the player if they didn't stealth through an entire level. Sure a pure stealth or silent assassin run through a level is far more rewarding that just going through guns blazing, but Conviction was able to mix both and still be a rewarding experience.

To be honest I knew I wanted to buy Hitman, but it wasn't till I saw the Conan O'Brien bit on Youtube that I knew I had to preorder the game. After seeing that video and knowing the reaction from reviews I get the feeling I will have the same reaction to Hitman as I did with Conviction. That's my hope at least.

In the end I guess all that matters is what I think of the game and to not let the negative views taint my experience with the new Hitman.

Been A While, Why Not Talk GW2.

In my attempt to get back into the blogging swing again I was reading an article on Darth Hater that wanted first impressions of the recent release f2p patch for The Old Republic. There's only a handful of comments, but what caught my eye were the couple that mention Guild Wars 2. In particular the comments and notion that GW2 was developed as f2p from the start and how much better that model is as opposed to games that are failing that eventually make the transition to the f2p model.

To those I would say this: Your fanboism is showing.

Look, I get that there are those who love this game, are dedicated to it and will defend it to the ends of the earth. It's not unlike having a favorite sports team or picking a political party. Yes GW2 has no subscription and you can play the game as much as you like once you've purchased the game. That's the snag though, you still have to purchase the game (at sixty bucks I might add) and only then can you play the game.

True f2p requires you to purchase nothing what so ever which removes the ultimate barrier of entry, something GW2 does not do. This is not a bash GW2 post, on the contrary despite my incessant complaining on twitter yesterday there are quite a few things I do happen to like about GW2, there are also some things I don't care for as well. But if all that is required to be f2p is to not have a monthly subscription but still require a one off purchase of the product, then wouldn't all games sold now be f2p as well, regardless of genre?

What makes say Call of Duty any different than GW2? They both have strong online components, neither requires you to spend money after a one time purchase and you can play them as much as you would like. Yes one is a shooter and the other is considered a MMO, but that's not much of an argument.

Really it's just a matter of semantics and what I believe f2p is or isn't may not fall in line with what others believe. I do however believe there is a misconception to the true meaning of f2p in a MMO and am of the opinion that until GW2 has multi-transaction items and removes the initial purchase, it's nothing more than a very large coop game masked as a MMO.

When Does Underrated Mean Bad?

I tend to toss out the word 'underrated' often when talking about certain games and in fact I see it used on the interwebs quite a bit as well. Rage, Syndicate and Darkness II are three games I've played this year that I would consider to be underrated. What exactly makes a game underrated? There really seems to be little criteria to make a game underrated except that it sold little and never met sales expectations. So it would seem to be an underrated game you have to be a financial bust and be liked by either or both critics and gamers.

So when I heard about Binary Domain I looked and saw that the game was receiving descent reviews and the most common thing said by those who enjoyed the game was that it's underrated. An underrated game with somewhat decent reviews and it's on sale, well that's right up my alley!

I was genuinely excited to play Binary Domain; the game looks good, has decent voice acting, but the story is what really made me want to finish this painfully brutal game. In the future there are these Hollow Children, robots that look and act human in every way and they themselves believe they are human. This has freaked out some of the world's leaders so they create what is called a Rust Crew, a group of people sent in to eliminate any and all Hollow Children and to take their creator alive if possible.

The story premise frankly is awesome, very Blade Runner-ish if you will. But except for a couple of pretty cool cut scenes and a nice plot twist at the end, the game does nothing with the story. This is the only game that I can think of where I wanted more exposition, more cut scenes to flesh out and expand the story instead of all the mindless combat that you get instead. What you get with Binary Domain is a cool story idea with lots of cut scenes to slow down the game and mounds of awful, crappy cover based combat with awful controls.

Ultimately Binary Domain is a boring, repetitive, formulaic and contrived Japanese cover-based shooter that misses the mark with the one thing that was even remotely interesting, and that is the story. I could have mentioned that the mouse and keyboard controls are awful, it doesn't support a wired Xbox controller like every other controller supported game, and there's a loyalty system much like KOTOR as well, but it doesn't matter cause the game is just bad. Underrated my eye, Binary Domain is garbage.

Games, Games, Games.

Things have been pretty quiet on the blog front. Guess that means I've been playing tons of games, right? Sort of.

I finished Sleeping Dogs about two weeks ago, and let me tell you that game is 100% awesome. It has just enough stuff to do in the world besides the main story to keep me interested, excited and not feel overwhelmed. I absolutely loved the game.

Last week I finished Binary Domain; a game that seems to be receiving rave reviews from gamers but has apparently sold like poo. What intrigued me most, and kept me playing as well, was the story. The problem is the story doesn't seem to go where I thought and hoped it would, and the game is so focused on its repetitive combat. Honestly it could have been so much better.

I did start Fable III finally, and I have to say I am enjoying the game so far. I hear that the ending is pretty bad, but it can't be Mass Effect 3 bad, right? I've played the first two games and not been overly pleased with either one but I've decided to go into this one with an open mind. For me the first two games always started off fun but as time goes on little gameplay elements start to nag at me to the point of frustration then eventual hatred. The one thing that I have a feeling I will get tired of fast is having to greet each and every person to gain their trust so I can lead some revolution.

But in between all of that there's still League of Legends. I've been in quite a slump over the past week, to the point I thought I was going to uninstall and quit the game for good. Unfortunately addictions are no so easily done away with.

Knee Deep.

I finished Sleeping Dogs yesterday and I must say it's pretty darn good. The martial arts combat is great, the graphics with the high-rez texture pack makes the game look amazing, the voice acting is top notch and the story is so good. I found myself invested in the story and the characters within the game, that's how I know I am enjoying a game.

Sure there are some issues with the game. Like the gunplay, it's not the best, Performance can be spotty at times, I had a couple of crashes for some unknown reason, and as great as the combat can be it suffers a bit in large group fights. Oh, and the cars take some getting used to with regards to the handling.

So I did finish the main story but I am only at about 89% completed, so there's a few more things I need to do including getting myself some Steam achievements. It's unfortunate that there's really little replay value in the game, even so it's still a great game.