The Next Generation

If there was ever a point where I just said "I'm done with you!" it would be now to Microsoft's new Xbox One.  This brand-new gaming platform looks pretty good for all the hype that has surrounded it, but I still feel like it is under powered in comparison to Sony's PlayStation 4.  Both graphics and quality looks top notch, but I am not going to shovel out $500+ for this new generation because I have little to go on.  However, I am completely turned off by the Xbox One, and Microsoft's new gaming market has proposed.  What the plan is, as far as I know, is that every game you buy for the console is linked to your gaming profile on Xbox Live, Microsoft's online service.  Also, the game you buy must also be downloaded onto your harddrive before playing.  This might be for no-disk playing, which is a cool concept.  What else will happen, and this is my least favorite part, is if you pick up a used game from Game Stop or another retail, or trade/borrow hard copies of games from friends, you can be charged the market, I repeat, MARKET, price for the game.  Its as if you were "buying" it for your own use.  This can apparently be avoided by having your friend log into his profile onto your system, which is a round about way to do things.  But what happens if you are playing a used game from a retailer?  Is the game still linked to the original owner, or do they relinquish ownership when they sell it to the retailer?  This whole thing sounds like a way to corner the retail game market.  Unfortunately this will also push away the social aspect of going into the retailer and talking to other people about games.  Even the midnight releases for games could be removed because of online purchasing.

In the meantime, Sony has not said anything about their own marketing for games, and won't do so until the E3 event this June.  So with my opinions on the table, I am just waiting for E3 to come and tell us more about this next generation.

Until next time.

A Review to Some Films

Well it seems I can finally get down what I want to say today, so thank you for bearing with me.

The other night I finally went an saw Iron Man 3.  Now, I am a huge fan of Iron Man and Tony Stark, but this movie finally balances out the two characters.  And the story line works well for the type of movie it is supposed to be: a comic book action movie.  filled with explosions, one-liners, and the general "A-Ha," moment near the end that takes one away from reality into the world of superheroes and super villains.  Iron Man 3 starts off right where The Avengers leaves off.  However, unlike the last two movies in the Iron Man trilogy, the focus is no longer on the powered suit or its fancy upgrades.  It instead follows the story of the man within the suit, and the place Tony Stark has in his world.  The story was probably the best part of the movie, and showed how human one could be.  The visual effects, hallmark of many action movies now, were superb.   I was generally surprised how the movie decided to tone down the "showy" side of CGI, and use more visual shots with actors.  yeah, there are some great sequences that needed the CGI, but it wasn't overpowering and made me feel like I was playing a video game.  But I was a little surprised because little, if any, of the video editing was not done by Industrial Light and Magic, who came with the LucasArts move to Disney.  Ambitious, right?

Another film I saw these past few weeks I was away was Star Trek Into Darkness.  The entire crew is back, and better than ever in this sci-fi thrill ride.  Now, I am not going to reveal anything that hasn't been in the trailer, but I can tell you that the plot line is a joy to follow because of it.  The character development between the two movies is superb, and shows how the crew is getting along since the last time we saw them.  Director J.J. Abrams has also toned down his affection for lens flare, only using it either very subtlety or in exactly the correct moments of action in the space sequences.  As a personal note, the music and scores that went along with the film was perfect, thanks to Michael Giacchino.  I firmly believe that music to a movie makes up half of the experience.  It was great to see the entire show.  Unfortunately, I don't want to reveal any spoilers before everyone has seen it.

As you can see, I try to avoid any spoilers in my reviews.  I try not to detract from that moment which decides whether the thing you are seeing was a movie or a film.  If I were to pick one movie to see over the other, definitely go check out Star Trek before Iron Man 3.

Until next time.

Summer!!!

It's summer!!!!

That sounds so much better in my head than in reality.  Now that high school is over, there is much more to do.  Working, planning what my future will be, among a slew of other tasks.  I have some plans and things I would like to do.

First, a reflection of my first year at university.  The best part about my year at university was collecting a group of contacts and friends.  However, I am completely disappointed in myself otherwise.  I wish I hadn't fallen flat on my face this year.  I feel like I have fallen off the radar (or RADAR) of whatever I am supposed to be doing with my life.  Next semester is going to be different.  I can feel it already.

Now on to some plans for the summer.  I am going to working all summer at the job I have had for a year now.  I am not only going to be working all summer.  I am hoping to chill with my friends, stay in contact with  people at the university, and build my own PC.

Yes, build my own PC.

It really isn't that hard to build a PC.  Its hard to choose what you want your PC to do, and then acquiring the parts necessary to do the building portion.  Unfortunately, this all comes at a cost.  A particularly high cost that makes everyone gaze at you like you're mad.  The benefits of this build will outweigh the costs.  I own an Xbox 360, and it is the same one I have had since 2008.  I love my system, but with the advent of the newer Xbox (720 or Infinity, I can't remember what it will be called) costing in the vicinity of $300 to $500, and its lifetime of greatness only to be 3-4 years, I think I more money will be saved by building a rig that can be upgrades when the time comes.  The problem I see with at home consoles is that they have a great run for the first year or three, but their quality is never the peak that a PC, which all games are originally  made on.  With the exceptions of some Xbox and Sony exclusives, the available PC games are the same, and are better in quality overall.  Now, i have already done a lengthy rant on this difference, so see my previous post "Holiday Gaming, Part 1... Maybe...".

So with this build I have been doing a lot of research for pieces and parts.  One of the problems I have had upon starting was the amount of technical speak that renders any first time builders in a certain spot.  The different tech specs for every piece of hardware without basic "translation" for what you were buying.  This puts one in the spot of either "I am going to immerse myself in a world few have tred" or "what the hell have I gotten myself into?"  I was somewhere in the middle, lost in numbers of processor types, motherboards, and graphics cards.  Despite this I found the most helpful website that translates this and makes it a bit easier to understand.  Rob Williams made a site called mysuperpc.com, which is updated regularly.  He outlines his own hardware, what each piece does, and how to put the entire thing together.  The information is clear and concise, giving beginners the first step towards building their own PC.

Now I think I will add a little bit about my own process of building.  So far I have cued up the necessary materials that I want in my PC, and have priced them out (its quite a lot).  Now I need to get back to work so I can pay for my books next semester and this journey I am about to embark on.

Until next time

Holiday Gaming, Part 1... Maybe...

Okay, so I touched on this a bit earlier in another post.  But all I can see this holiday season is another top-notch, fanboy competition to see who can be the most realistic (I’m using the term loosely here) first person shooter game of 2013.  The three contenders? Call of Duty: Ghosts, Battlefield 4, and ARMA 3.

Let me start off by saying that there is also a console war that will probably overshadow this until parents have to make a decision as to which game to buy twelve-year-old Tommy so he can be happy swearing at the television with all of his other friends online.  But anywho, on to other, better, and maybe interesting things.

Game producer Activision is continuing its Call of Duty franchise with Call of Duty: Ghosts.  Developer Infinity Ward, famed for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and its sequel Modern Warfare 2, is stepping back into the “modern shooter.”  The last time I considered Call of Duty to be modern by any standards was with Call of Duty 4.  But anywho.  The Call of Duty franchise has always been placed into the realm of “realistic” shooters. Blasphemy.  My most recent memory of playing CoD: Black Ops 2 (installment of 2012) involved being destroyed by submachine guns at long range by an enemy who is jumping, hip-firing, and spitting obscenities in his pre-pubescent wails of vengeance.  This is all occurring while I was staring down the sights of my assault rifle (with its superior range, damage, and accuracy) trying to hit the damn bugger.  Did I mention that there was some CONNETION ISSUES?  Black Ops 2 came with a movie mode, so you can look back on your recent games from any perspective, record your most desirable moments, and upload them directly to YouTube.  Good concept, but there was no way to compensate for the amount lag each player has when each of their games is recording the games from every imaginable perspective.  To illustrate, there are twelve players in each match (six per team) all playing in the same limited environment.  This means that there are twelve recorders simultaneously recording the exact same perspective of the match.  Try stacking the same video cameras on top of one another, hooking it up to a dog in your living room, and record the same two feeds onto one DVD.  Whoops.  Plus there is this crummy thing called “lag compensation”.  What it does is change every player’s connection speeds to mimic the weakest signal received from another player.  So even if you’re plugged directly into the Internet hotspot and have the most amazing connection on Planet Earth, the game has to appease the ten-year-old in Wyoming.  Did I state that there is no realism in the game?  Do I need to lead an enemy soldier to kill him as he runs across the street?  Nope.  Does only my weapon’s fire rate determine whether I win a firefight? Yes.

So now that that is all off my chest, I am hoping that this new game either is changes everything again, like its grandfather Call of Duty 4 did.  And I don’t mean different weapons, a new way to equip my character, or “prettier” graphics.

Now I already have reviewed Battlefield 4 earlier, I based my reactions on just the cinematic single player preview.  There has been no hint as to what the multiplayer has in store, not until E3 at least.  But what I want to see, as do many players of the game, is a reconstructed class system.  Battlefield 3 has four classes to play as in-game, each with its own specializations and weapons.  The Medic carries an assault rifle, medical packs to heal teammates, and defibrillators to revive downed teammates.  There is a Support class, whose job is to lug around an inaccurate light machine gun, C4 explosives, and an ammunition pack to throw free ammunition at teammates.  Engineers have carbines, rocket launchers, and a repair tool, so they are primarily for vehicle-based combat.  And the Recon class has a sniper, a laser designator, and a spawn beacon.  Each class has its own role, but things just fall apart quickly.  Light machine guns despite their huge damage output, are so inaccurate that it couldn’t hit three barns in a row.  Recons have great long range capabilities, but use their spawn beacons to return to their sniping positions.  Engineers can hold their own, but many players just use their rockets to blow a hole in a wall instead of attacking a tank rolling down the damn street.  The Medic class is the only “balanced” class.  Its assault rifles shoot an virtually any range, with a very precise accuracy model.  And with the medical packs, they can be virtually invincible.  But I will say it provides a more realistic combat experience than Call of Duty.  Weapons are distinct, bullets are affected by gravity, and submachine guns get crappy after fifty meters.  Plus the added bonus of hopping in a tank, jet, helicopter, or numerous other vehicles makes the experience memorable, unlike the kill-box that makes up CoD.  However, the console versions of Battlefield 3 fell slightly short of its true making.  Graphics were dumbed down, the amount of players and map sized decreased to support the aging Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.  On PC, the game was superb, having massive 32-vs-32 engagements online at once.  “If only,” I sighed, gazing at my Xbox 360.

Finally, from deep in the realm of PC gaming, comes ARMA 3.  Most gamers look at me strangely when I talk about this to them.  “ARMA?” they ask, fingers twitching because I tore them away from Call of Duty.  Yes, ARMA, you idiot.  The most realistic war game one can make without going to a military base and strapping on loads of laser sensors to play war games with the real guys.  ARMA 2, released in 2009, showed me how real someone can get with a few lines of code.  All weapons are just like the real ones, vehicles are limited by the number of rounds they can pump out and gasoline, and the maps are to scale.  My final statement is illustrated by this: if you want to get to the next town where the fighting is going on, don’t expect a loading screen or a just a few steps down a road.  Instead, find a jeep, tank, or hitch a ride with a guy in a chopper, cause five miles is five freaking miles.  Also, getting hit by a bullet takes you down.  Your character may be knocked out for a few seconds until a corpsman comes over to patch you up, but you are completely incapacitated.  There is no “red screen” like in Battlefield or Call of Duty, where your body automatically heals until you are combat fit.  You’re down and out.  What else is amazing is the sheer scale of engagements.  The number of players that can be on at once is staggering.  Fifty, sixty players can be on at once, fighting each other or another fifty or sixty computer controlled enemies.

So this begs the question: who cares?  Well, frankly, a lot of people.  With the advent of the new console generation from Sony and Microsoft, the gaming platforms will change to become the most advanced and technologically sound machines we have seen.  However, only Call of Duty: Ghosts and Battlefield 4 are marked to be released on these systems, as well as a PC version.  ARMA 3, due to the raw power it necessitates to manage graphics, players, and a slew of other features, is to only be released on PC.  All of these titles will be released around the holiday season, in case you are interested.

Sometime in the near future I am going to take a glance at the upcoming Xbox and its comparison to the PlayStation 4, and then how both of these are nothing compared to the power of PC.  Please comment and review so I can fill the time with something else.

Until next time.