Legacy of Kain - Will 'Nosgoth' do the Series Justice?

Recently a bit of news came my way that did nothing but fill me with a unique, refined type of joy that i haven't felt since the glory days of the PlayStation 2. I learned that the people at Square Enix have been working on the latest installment to the long since dead Legacy of Kain series.

In order to understand the true gravity of this news, one first has to understand just how much impact Legacy of Kain had on the gaming community. It was a game series that held all of its strengths in one area of its being, story, rather than focusing too much on pandering to gameplay mechanics. Its story was vast and complex and built up of so many factors; all of which impacted one another to form unexpected and intellectual plot points. Because of this devotion to writing the series didn't even need to be conveyed through digital gaming to be a success, but as digital gaming was able to provide unmatchable capability for portrayal of the story, the two factors fell hand in hand; leading to a certain degree of synchronization between the story and the method of telling it that is rarely seen. Because of this expertly crafted architecture to the design of the series, it quickly became a measuring post to evaluate the strength of the story aspect in other games. My own personal rule being that if you can understand Legacy of Kain, you can understand anything.

It was during the PlayStation 2 era of console gaming that the series finally came full circle with its storyline, eliminating the need for any further releases. Though other factors may have led to the series ending where it did, it is an undeniable fact that the given story did reach its conclusion.

But even with this fantastic story driven experience the lore of Legacy of Kain and the world to which the characters lived in was the weakest aspect. The reality of the writing was that the story of the infamous Vampire Kain was simply the pillar to which thousands of other stories were centered around within the world of Nosgoth. There was so much more to explore; more to the world, to the eras and to the stories of supporting characters that were only briefly touched on in game.

Initially i believed this to be the reason that Nosgoth was being developed, to give some focus to the world of Legacy of Kain rather than to Kain and Raziel. Only now after their recent Q&A livestream on Twitch TV do i realize how wrong i was.
During the Q&A i asked whether or not the game would be an MMO as i had originally thought it was, or simply a PVP Platform. They answered my question by saying that the Nosgoth is simply a game designed for players to easily 'get into' and have fun with. Initially this was worrying for me as Nosgoth was confirmed to be a project entirely focused on PVP gameplay and with no real

conveyance of story beyond world design. I had feared this after looking at the gameplay footage and thinking that it seemed far too lack luster to be an MMO. The problem with the idea of using Legacy of Kain for an online PVP Platform is simply that it would feel like too much of a waste, player vs player is something that can be made easily without the need for story direction where as this series in particular thrives on story direction. In my mind, they came off as two pieces of a puzzle that don't fit together; which would go far to ruin the famous synchronization of design that came with Legacy of Kain.

However, after looking a little bit closer i did finally come to a conclusion which gave me a positive perspective on the project. Whether we as gaming enthusiasts like it or not, the games industry is a profit obsessed, bureaucratic business which is just as hungry for money as anything else. With large companies expecting profits in the millions from singular game releases it becomes harder and harder for long since dead, diamond in the rough, game franchises like Legacy of Kain to be revived. My meaning being that despite its solid fan base, the development of another 'true' series installment may not have been realistic. We need to remember that these developers need to make money too, they have to be paid and to provide for themselves and their loved ones.
So why would Square Enix develop Nosgoth when its both 'free to play' and not 'pay to win'? What money is there to be gained from this?

I chose to believe that Nosgoth is an awareness project, using focus on gameplay development and player to player interaction to try and expand or strengthen the Legacy of Kain fan base. By doing this there is a chance that players who are not familiar with Legacy of Kain could actually be intrigued and seek out the previous titles. This works as a better method of reviving the franchise than simply releasing another single player title. It increases awareness and creates a dynamic where players can give truly valuable feedback to shape the face of future installments to the franchise. During the Q&A it was confirmed that future single player installments are not out of the question. This leads me to believe that perhaps Nosgoth is simply a clever way of preparing for things to come. This is of course simply my theory and shouldn't be taken for the truth. But i would like to the think that Nosgoth aims to prepare the market for Legacy of Kain, not hold the franchise on its shoulders. Only time will tell...

Thanks ever so much for reading, your support is very much appreciated. Please don't forget to find me on Twitter and Steam! And be sure to check out the Nosgoth website and show your support for the people at Square Enix!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/McGinnBen

Steam:  http://steamcommunity.com/id/BenMcGinn/

Nosgoth.com: http://nosgoth.com/blog

Civilization 5 - Review

I am actually pretty surprised that this particular strategy game even caught my eye at all if i am honest. You see i often tend to avoid strategy games as i find that eventually they either become to easy or too hard, or if you are in it for the long hall, cluttered. Its very ease to devise a gameplay formula and get it wrong in certain areas but for a strategy game it is basically unavoidable, through all of the numerous strategy titles i have played they all seem to suffer from some kind of monumental deal breaking problem that fractures the gameplay.
However, despite my better judgement i actually gave this game a chance as it seemed like something that i should at least try and do once in my reviews.

This game goes into its gameplay with the same basic architecture as every other turn based strategy game i have ever played and does this without any form of self awareness to its own simplicity. But perhaps this is good? Though turn based games do tend to break the immersion of the game itself while sending the gameplay into a calculated rut of uninformed decisions, we all know what happened to Tom Clancy's End War when they tried to take out the turn base system. The fact of the matter is that though this game operates from a dated structure, it does everything it can to encourage the player to make the best use of its assets. A player cant actually press the button to end the turn until all units belonging to the player on the map have either been issued a command or specially told to do nothing. This is something that no other strategy game, that i have played, has ever done before. It actually ensures that the player uses the turn well and cuts out the risk of blind spots. Not to say that this isn't annoying however. Though its a useful mechanic it quickly becomes tedious when a player owns large amounts of units and is forced to tend to them all, even the ones who aren't particularly useful at that given time. I find that the unique design of this games turn based system cant seem to commit to a good deed without committing a sin at the same time, so it gains the not so impressive rating of average.

The gameplay does however offer a great deal of challenge and variety in enemies. The game allows you to face off against other empires as they progress just as you do but through different or similar areas, combine this with city states to ally with or fight against the result is a tone of playability.
This brings me on to the games presentation, does the art style fully complement the game itself? No!
 The game goes for a sort of cartoon design choice with itself, which isn't a bad thing in its entirety, but in some ways it can drag the game down. Part of this style includes the size of units, when comparing a unit of soldiers to a city, it feels like you are commanding giants. It has that melodramatic feel to it that breaks my immersion, the feel of being a commander of an army or the ruler of a nation is broken when you notice that the units aren't designed to be taken seriously. Some could argue that this is simply a visual representation to make the unit visible to the player, but i wage a counter argument that size is equal to amount with a game like this. The more accurately sized soldiers there are, the more visible they become. But this is at best nit picking on my part and i chose to discard this complaint simply due to the fact that any game should be free to take whatever artistic and design based direction they want.
Though the design style was not exactly tailor made for the pursuit of realism or impressing me, it goes excellently with the games story direction. Well in actual fact i wouldn't call it a story direction, though the game can provide a 'scenarios' game type, the core formula is to simply follow the progression of human history from start to finish with various empires. Now this is where the game really gets playful.

As the game allows you to chose certain empires you as the player can select one that peeks your historical interest the most. However alongside this the game gives a progression system, through fields of research that grant new abilities for an empire and  certain smaller factors like science points, an empire is able to progress through various historic eras. This is the most displacing part of the game if you aren't open minded, as you can for example see the Greek empire ruled by Alexander the Great progress to the renascence era. I imagine that the fact that the game is riddled with historical inaccuracies would really frustrate a history buff. But if you are able to keep a more open mind and remember that gaming isn't always designed to be serious, you can actually enjoy it. Its cool to see more early age empires progress to the modern eras and its also addictive to get enthralled in the progression system.

I will say that this is a good game but i found it most enjoyable for the simple fact that it isn't all based on war. With this game the success or failure of any empire is based upon the policies the player may chose to undertake as a leader and the level of effort the player puts into cities. It becomes less about fighting and more about deciding what you want your empire to be, a hub of social culture, a thriving centre of scientific pursuit or a more militaristic state. It goes far to let the players make what they want which is especially cool in the multiplayer. Because of this i feel that it does in some way go further than most strategy games to differ from the standard formula, but as per always...MORE IS NEEDED FOR IT! This game suffers its largest draw back from the fact that even MORE emphasis needs to be put onto the building of an empire and less on the wars. In conclusion, this game certainly is worth the money and it is very easy to run on a middle market PC so its good in my books!

Steam - Good or Bad?

Okay so in celebration of free time away from education i decided to not only re download Steam for my fairly UN-impressive PC but also actually spend money on it. This is kinda a big deal as i have often wanted to call myself a 'Steam User' so that the more aggressive hardcore gamers would stop with the angry phone calls but the truth is that i didn't feel like it was worth spending money of games that my PC wouldn't be able to run.

Luckily i hit a revelation from my newly liberated moment of madness when i realized that Steam actually has far more to offer than just the typical mainstream AAA titles. Looking back i don't really know how i didn't see that coming because Steam is for PC and the PC is the central hub platform for all creative digital media, so of course there will be more choice of retro to classic games. It holds entire libraries of not only old to new games but also games made my independent developers, to mods and DLC as well as games adapted for the PC platform or modern operating systems. They key fact is that when stripped down; a digital distribution system is nothing without the content that it is selling and Steam's best quality is not only that they sell shit tones, but that they sell shit tones with a great deal of diversity that are always consistently fresh paced.My point being that i can go from playing Counter Strike which is by nature a budget title with dated graphics to Bioshock Infinite, a newer and more mainstream game, in no time at all.

However, aside from the strength of content Steam is more successful than any other major system of its species because of two things. The first is the prices, Steam is able to sell most of its games for dirt cheap and the rest for a very least a reasonable amount. During the highly frequent Steam sales a user can see price reductions of up to 80% with a game of any type or age. I personally found this out through the recent Summer sale. The great part about digital distribution is that it completely

eliminates manufacturing and shipping costs for retailers, leaving only royalties left to stand between a retailer and the profit margin. Valve seem to realize this and as a result sell their games for as cheap as they can possibly go, resulting in smaller profit margins but increased unit sales. I wish that other systems like PSN or Xbox Live would wake up and realize that the key to success in digital distribution is penetration pricing and that they can afford to get away with that technique of market share expansion as a result of their unique market. Of course this does require an understanding of the business world so it comes as no surprise that neither Sony or Microsoft could figure this out.

The second is its ability to completely change how a user looks at PC gaming to make it feel like a more slick and professional experience. If you are a console gamer coming over to PC you will notice that a personal computer focuses on application software, not just games, so if you are a hardcore gamer its hard to separate the gamer from the every day PC user. However once a user gets Steam he/she will find as i did that it creates a library of games and software for you, and allows for categories to segregate the content. It feels not only more worthwhile but just nicer to access your games from the Steam library rather than manually through your desktop or start menu. As well as
this Steam allows a user to create a profile and share content, news and online play between other users in the same way that PSN or Xbox Live does. Any game downloaded from Steam will use it as a multiplayer client and will also allow access to the achievement systems. I particularly enjoy the achievements as i found them to be the best quality of a console, to see them on PC games not only helps to show the user how Steam is just as good, but it also extends the playability of any game. All of the above counts towards the second key strength simply because it offers all of the great ideas from a console only with a great deal more freedom both in and out of the software itself and does so without being essential to bog standard gaming.

Its kinda hard to notice any flaws in the design when this system just works so well and so seamlessly with PC gaming. There are off course some ideas that could be pretty cool to see that aren't currently there, one of my own being Valve creating its own Emulator and attaching it to the Steam system so that retro gamers can enjoy older titles for older platforms. Now i know it isn't a valid criticism to highlight, that it doesn't have something that i thought of myself, but i mention it just because if anyone can actually do something as outlandish as that, its Valve. Part of the fun of a console experience on a PC is the vast amounts of freedom that the platform can offer.
The only real world complaint that i have is that Steam is still mostly something made for AAA gaming, so most users will need a high end PC in order to get the full experience out of Steam as a gaming client. As Steam basically gets involved without a great deal of things on your computer, i would have hoped that it could advise you on whether or not you could run a game you wish to buy, before buying it. This seems like the kind of feature that a gaming client for PC would need to save its less educated users from disappointment after final purchase. But in the end it comes down to the user taking responsibility for his or her own machine and knowing what it is capable off, so its kind of a good thing that you can retain some independence.

In all honestly i don't really feel that there are a great amount of deal breaking problems with Steam, and if i can say this, sat here typing away on my crappy computer; literally anyone can regardless of preference. All in all i am extremely impressed with what i found and i can proudly say that i credit Steam not only as a gaming client, but as a more impressive client than any that exists on a current or future generation console.

World War Z - Movie Review

So what did i think about World War Z? Well that is a tough question to answer as i left the theater with largely mixed feelings. But then again i entered the theater expecting a largely generic film which would make use of outdated concepts for an outdated brand of the horror genre, so i guess my respect for the film was at the least elevated when i left.


The film follows the story of 'Gerry' an ex military type who is apparently only good for making pancakes, which we come to believe through his rather unrealistic portrayal of a typical American father up until the point where he starts calling upon his military skills to bash the shit out of zombies.
The character transition between everyday family man to all on all pro of zombie apocalypse survival is completely non-existent which makes for a displacing feeling later on in the film when he seems to spend half his time surrounded by soldiers.

This is explained by his back story mostly throughout the mid section of the film, but a back story is only helpful when backed up by some form of real time evidence, like a flashback for example. How can we as the viewer be expected to enthrall ourselves in the contents of 'Gerry's' seemingly gritty CV when that entire aspect of his character takes place off camera? Some movies can do much the same thing and get away with it, but with this many of the key characters as in some way associated to it, and involved with 'Gerry' as a result of his past. This makes for confusing character placement and led to me spending half of my time trying to understand why our protagonist, who was supposedly a family man, was getting calls from government officials for no reason. What? I am supposed to understand the motivation for such contact just because "for old times sake" was seamlessly wived into the dialog?
As for the rest of the core cast, all of the characters are forgettable and seem to in some cases just be there for the sake of camera filling. Throughout the entire movie characters are introduced as parts of core story elements and then almost immediately dismissed. There is absolutely zero chance of relating to any of the characters as the only ones who stick around who aren't soldiers are 'Gerry's' family, who are more annoying due to their bad acting than engaging.
Building on this much of the characterization seems to be placed to specially shape the films direction, as we are introduced to our protagonist who is the typical every day civilian up until the mid section of the film where his back story doesn't seem like its being explained by a Scotsman trying to speak Japanese.
It puts us in the mindset that we are about to watch a story of one mans experience through a zombie outbreak, like Zombieland only without the critical humor. But then the film mostly revolves around stereotypical soldiers with big guns, turning our perception around to the film being more about the global effort against a zombie outbreak rather than the individual who makes no impact. Its a real mind fuck to see the film change its face like that and seems way too broken for it to have been on purpose. Though this is small to a typical audience its something that you need to consider when treading into a zombie story.

As for the plot, it seems to make no sense throughout the majority of the film. Brad Pitt; as our shiny family man 'Gerry', is called in by the remains of the US government because of his military

background, to help a scientist solve the mystery of the zombie outbreak, starting by going to its supposed origin point North Korea, oh what a surprise shouted EVERYONE EVER. But when they arrive they seem to achieve nothing other than the scientist tripping over and shooting himself a few minutes after landing, and showcasing how every zombie in Korea isn't actually Korean, and therefore bad casting.
From then onward the story seems to go nowhere significant, simply following a hazy trail of mysteries that no one would give the time of day to in real life, only to discover that the real answer to stopping the zombies wasn't actually anything to do with the investigation that sent 'Gerry' flying all over the globe. Gerry notices the solution by chance through a number of odd occurrences that he witnesses on his travels, and then tests his theory with one big life threatening risk at the end, like we didn't see that coming. But i must admit that from that from the point where he notices the solution onward the story is fantastic as it differs from the typical 'zombie formula'. Man goes on dangerous quest to find cure. That is how is starts, but then it evolves and becomes something different and even gives a reason if you are intelligent enough to see it as to why the film is called 'World War Z'. And in a way the films seemingly pointless events throughout most of its run time do contain at least two hints that i saw about what the overall plot twist is. These hints are to the film what an Easter egg is to a game, only there for small satisfaction, but are appreciated simply for what they are.

By the end of the film you come to like the premise and therefore you seem to glorify the overall experience despite its poor execution. And if nothing else the film succeeds with its wall to wall action which though typical, seems to keep you on the edge of your seat as you know that if Gerry dies, his family will be kicked off of the American Ark of salvation...an aircraft carrier. That little addition to the formula gives the intense action reasoning and therefore a reason for me to enjoy it without having to walk away feeling filthy for being so easily impressed. But then that is killed when Gerry's family are kicked off and end up basically fine.
Which leads me to my point of how the film can never seem to get two things right at the same time, nor sustain them for a significant duration of run time. But in the end, it does at least get them right so in some way credit is due for the originality that it brings to the table.

Even if you aren't perceptive or even enthusiastic enough to notice all of this you will still find a reason to walk out of the theater engaged in debate about it with your friends, because its a zombie film and that is what happens when you watch a zombie film. Though its something that is REALLY over done it is just that because of its mass popularity, people go mad for this stuff. I sat there and through parts of the film and got frustrated with Gerry's actions just because of how i knew that they were stupid things to do in a zombie apocalypse, and at other points admired his actions because of how smart they were. Its calls out the inner 'know it all' from the audience to at least give us something to talk about when we leave.

By the end of the film i cant say it will make it onto my movie library, but it has faced me with the question of whether the producers and writers of the film are just lucky, or geniuses. And still, anything is better than After Earth.

By Benjamin McGinn

8th Gen - Death for Console Gaming?

Today’s gaming world seems to have taken something of a turn for the worse, in order to properly analyze the climate of the current digital entertainment market it is important to first look back to our routes. 

In my own case, I remember being a small child not much older than six or seven years of age when I first played the Sony PlayStation 2. I am able to recall it being a machine used to play video games and something that gave me hours of unique entertainment and enjoyment through a number of games. Back then I found that it was much simpler, I could put a game in and simply play it, be able to enjoy what the game could offer as a result of the platform capabilities. When I look at today I find that console gaming is much more frustrating and even PC gaming comes with the requirement of technical knowledge. Much of this could be down to the fact that I am now much older and therefore able to perceive the inner workings of a console and its sales, but at the same time much of it could be down to the methods in which they are made and marketed.

The idea of a console is to be an affordable way to enjoy high spec video games, and to make it much simpler to do so. What I mean by this is that a console would come complete with its own high end computer hardware and unique operating system, bios, firmware and drivers which are all designed to handle the complicated stuff for the user. By doing this one could simply turn it on, put in a disk and play the game through a relatively simply GUI. But in our days consoles seem to be just as bad as PC’s in the sense that if you don’t have a vast understanding of computer hardware and software, you could ultimately fall short of buying the best evaluable product. I give an example; it was with the original Sony PlayStation 3, if you were not ‘computer savvy’ you would fail to notice that the form structure and coolant methods were unable to sustain such a high end processor and graphics card, and ultimately resulted in the machine overheating and melting vital soldering on the chipboards. The underlining point being if you weren’t aware of certain form structure concepts like ATX or Micro ATX you would fail to notice this problem and potentially end up with a broken console. This was something of a bad example as it was specific to the physical design, so I venture a second for good measure. The Xbox 360 had a firmware problem which resulted in the now famous ‘red rings of death’ which would cripple the machine and render it useless.  

 Such massive problems like this were never present with the 6^th gen or any generation before that. Obviously these problems have now been accounted for, but it seems that in order to get the most for your money you must have to keep track of the various advantages and disadvantages to each available option. One of the best things about the PS2 was that I only chose it over and Xbox or Game Cube because it looked far cooler in my book. This argument renders the debate of ‘which console is better’ void, as I find that I am worrying less about which console is more capable for the hard processing requirements, and more about which console will last the longest before it craps out on me. This is odd when considering how I have an original PlayStation 2 that has outlasted two PlayStation 3’s and an Xbox 360. 

This raises the question, are we building them wrong? Many could say that the strengths in consoles is mainly down to the more modern line ups due to advanced graphics, gameplay parameters, and multimedia housing and sharing. But I say that all of that is worthless if the console can be outlasted by a much older and much simpler design. I write this with the goal of getting my point across on whether or not console gaming is even a worthwhile commodity anymore, this being a topic that has been brought to my attention with the arrival of the frankly disappointing 8^th gen line up.

When I look at a console today I find that it is less about the cool games that it can house and more a showcase of advancements in modern computer technology. I am already well aware that new form structures, chipsets and concepts are being devised in order to make bigger and better computer components, so I do not need it showcased with a console that I only want for the sake of gaming. That said I know that computer advancement is something of an inevitability with gaming, as it always has been. But I find that people are now more interested in things like one console having slightly more central processing power than another, and for what reason? Surely if someone cared that much about performance, to the point where he/she hinges on the tiniest details, this individual would consider an investment in a performance PC to be worthwhile?  All I can realistically see as an explanation; is that big brand names like Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony have been around now long enough for people to grow attached and form loyalties as consumers and therefore wage verbal wars with each other online in an attempt to protect their beloved corporate saviors.

 If this observation of mine is accurate, I do find it a little worrying that people can so easily fall victim to marketing hype, but then that is more of a representation of a failing education system that a failing gaming market.

With all of the above considered I find that the judgement boils down to two essential qualities specific to consoles. The first being; that a console in our days (PS2 onward) should be a lot cheaper than a PC but with near the same capabilities. When looking at the 8^th gen soon to be realised, with starting estimates of £600 per unit, and considering how they will also be more expensive than the 7^th gen units, the price seems too high for it to be classed as an ‘affordable alternative’. And I imagine that prices would only increase from there with every generation, meaning that the 9^th gen could be even more.  As for the same price one could buy a decent PC, and upgrade it over a year or two from afterwards for the same amount it would cost of Xbox Live membership and digital distribution purchase, or hell even with buying a new one when the console breaks. The second being; that a console should be simpler and easier to operate, with less high tech computer know how required from an average user than with a PC. And in regards to this I find that consoles are so much like PC’S they may as well exist in the same spectrum, as with each new generation a more vast understanding is required for sustained use. With the greats like the NES and the PS2 I didn’t have to know shit about the ins and outs of gaming, but now it seems that if I don’t study up and learn I will end up wasting more money than I can afford to. Luckily I am already well educated and professionally advancing through this field, so it is no hindrance for me, but to others this is something of a problem.

As console line ups can no longer meet these two requirements, what is the point of them? It isn’t like they can get through just on their controllers, especially when PC literally has unlimited input methods. What it comes down to is that there is no point to a console anymore, not now that they fail to meet those requirements, and not now that a PC can do it better anyway.

So is this the end? Well, possibly. The 8^th gen could well be the end of console gaming, which wouldn’t be a massive loss now that consoles have clearly made what I would call a turn for the worst. But luckily I do find that there is some good news to this, as without consoles people will turn to PC gaming, and with all the demand, companies like ‘NVIDIA’ and ‘RAZOR’ will thrive. The more people who buy from PC specific companies like this, the cheaper the unit costs become, as these companies buy in bulk and can therefore afford to lower their prices for such high demand. Making PC gaming; cheaper and easier, so in a way; thank you 8^th gen.

Thank you for reading and i hope you have enjoyed what i have to say on the subject, if you would like to give any feedback or opinions in regards to the subject matter you can contact me at Twitter via the link below.

https://twitter.com/McGinnBen 

The McGinn Perspective - The Last of Us

I would just like to say for the record that i am extraordinarily excited about this post, as this time i will not be reviewing, instead covering some of the details that i noticed from the footage released for the game "The Last of Us" for the Playstation 4 console.

So what is this exciting new game, and who has brought it to us? Well "The Last of Us" is a survival horror game developed by "Naughty Dog Studios" and is part of the generation of games to mark the transition to the latest consoles. Now before anyone gets too worried, this game is going to appear on the PS3 as well as the PS4, so drinks all round in that respect.
However i would say that with many games made for both consoles, it is probably the safer bet to invest money in the latest generation and buy the game for that, simply to avoid performance issues which will become noticeable as they have already with many other games...*Cough* Skyrim! *Cough*.

Okay so on to the purpose of this blog, and i want to say right now that i will not be covering the storyline. Instead i will be analyzing certain features in the gameplay footage that was released not too long ago.

I will start off by saying that this is a Third Person Shooter, which is a class of games not held in the highest regard when realism is concerned. After looking at the gameplay, what becomes most obvious is that they have really worked well to make the character movements seem naturalistic, so you as a player cannot notice that transition between gameplay and cut scene. I don't think that i have seen enough to decide whether or not it works, but i have faith that it will show "Assassin's Creed" how it is done.
As far as graphics go the game seems  to be pretty sound, i personally will not be buying a next generation console for its graphics, instead i will be buying it for the potential of better quality gameplay and expanded possibilities. But it is nice to see that the developers have really worked hard to create a believable landscape, and it will be nice to see that the PS4 will be able to sustain such a high standard of visuals, as a PC would, without the constant lag spikes that frustrate me to the point where my moral limits are tested.

Okay so AI, that is the big story to tell about this game, as the AI represents a higher degree of capabilities present in digital games. During gameplay i noticed that the AI seems to adapt itself, for example: "You the player, are suppressing an enemy by, over the shoulder, firing at its cover, suddenly you run out of bullets, the enemy hears that you have ran out, and adopts braver tactics." I was pretty impressed when i saw the enemies could use tiny little situational details like that to alter their own tactics, assuming that this type of quality will be present throughout the entire game, it is much more than a simple gimmick. But it really goes to show how the enemies do not simply consider themselves cattle, to be killed and replaced, instead, they attempt to preserve themselves almost as if they are trying to survive you as much as you are trying to survive them.
A more impressive example is how enemy AI are able to initiate what appear to be interactive cut scenes at their own will, cut scenes that both interact with the environment, and other characters filling it. For example: "An enemy AI sneaks up behind you, the player, as you are engaged in a firefight with two other enemy AI, he grabs you and holds you up. While doing this, the other two enemy AI notice and start to shout 'Keep him still so we can shoot him!', at which point the begin to take advantage of the situation." The in game scenarios far to show how the enemy AI is able to be self-preserving and think about the best course of action, so we as the player, get real difficulty and challenge rather than receptivity, and seen as this is a survival game, challenge will be everything.

I am genuinely excited about this game for this simple reason, that the AI looks amazing, if anyone reading this is unaware of this soon to be released title, i would strongly advise that you give it a chance. Based on what i have seen you can look forward to a very strong story driven experience, with vast attention to detail. But above all, if you are a lover of true gaming challenge, then this is a survival game that stands a good chance at satisfying that need. But i guess we will have to wait and see.


Find me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/McGinnBen

Check out my Youtube channel to directly view my content: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRuHF6kkh8VhlBOLLGftjRw?feature=mhee

The McGinn Perspective - Firefly Review

Okay it has been long enough, i have recovered from the state of grief i was thrown into when Fox cancelled Firefly. And so now it is high time i reviewed it, as there is much to say. So what is Firefly? It stands as one of the most controversial Sc-Fi television shows in the world today, with its mix of classic Si-Fi and Western to create an unprecedented hybrid genre.

So first let me introduce you to the plot of the story if you are unfamiliar. The Firefly series focused on the crew of a Firefly transport ship called Serenity, and features their struggle to make their way in the "vers" as they would call it, by taking jobs where they come. Of course right from the pilot episode there was always more to it than this, like back stories for the lead characters, some of which tying into key events in the Firefly universe, that will ultimately impact the story.
What really stood out for me was that unlike other Sc-Fi stories, there was no sort of ultimate purpose, in the sense that the characters literally did what they did to keep themselves fed and their ship flying. Not giving the characters any cause makes for a sense of misdirection to be created for you, the viewer, that keeps you guessing and therefore interested.

It is no secret that Firefly was discontinued on the air, but this is a shame as it was a story designed to properly passe itself, never revealing too much at once, keeping the overall story shrouded in mystery. But even with key story elements being rationed in such small portions, you as the viewer can get so much from one episode. Tiny details in the dialogue or even brief sound effects go far to immerse you in this universe that Joss Whedon has created.
When looking at the scenery in some episodes it is easy to feel like they were limited in actual places off set where they could film, as sometimes it seemed pretty bland. But the story and the genre explain this very well, not making it more pleasant, but at the least acceptable.

As for the cast, there is a mix of some well-known actors and some not so well-known actors, but just the fact that there is a Terminator on screen must have done the show credit. The key point being that if you aren't familiar with one of the cast now, after watching it, you will be, with very little chance that you will dislike his/her performance. Even if you as a viewer are not interested in this form of television, or simply just not adventurous enough to trust a hybrid genre like this, you could still step back and admire the performance of some of the cast, as all throughout the series they are able to give a truly riveting standard of acting that few others could do.

But then of course we come to the black mark of this otherwise sparkly clean story, which is of course the instalment of the film "Serenity". The film was made as a result of fans acting out in anger after the series was cancelled, and acted as a way to tie certain loose ends in the storyline. From the beginning it was clear that this was never going to work, simply because Firefly held countless details and story elements, all designed to be spread out over entire seasons of televised episodes. All that planned content could never be packed into one film, regardless of how hard they may have tried.
Part of what made the film such a kick in the teeth for the fans was the fact that it changed the storyline completely, massive elements to the story had to be changed to suit the film, and so much planning for future seasons had to be discarded.Therefore certain characters met different outcomes than they would have had the series been able to continue. The most noticeable being the development of the character "River". Where as by the climax of Firefly we were only just getting indication that she could have been giving special abilities as a result of her being tested on, by the beginning of the film she becomes a mind reading ninja warrior. Though of course this isn't something that could be controlled by good old Joss, perhaps this film, made to satisfy the fans, would have been better off never being made. Basically, where as Firefly was good television all around, Serenity failed across the board.

Overall i found the Firefly universe to be utterly engrossing, and a brave step to push the boundaries of conventional television, however the film was a major problem. As much as i hate this fact, the film is cannon, no matter how much we, as the fans, wish it wasn't. It is because of this clear fact that the storyline we all came to love over the course of the series has turned soar.
But i would recommend the Firefly series to anyone who has a keen appreciation for Si-Fi, as even with only one series, Firefly is able to immerse you so well as a viewer. I would however, ask that you stay clear of the film if you do go on to enjoy the storyline.


Find me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/McGinnBen

Check out my Youtube channel to directly view my content: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRuHF6kkh8VhlBOLLGftjRw?feature=mhee

The McGinn Perspective - The Halo Series

Halo is a name that few Xbox owners wont know, as it has quickly become one of the most popular and well-known gaming franchises Microsoft has ever had in its pocket. Growing up i remember there being two major exclusive titles that Xbox owners would worship, first being Gears of War and the second being Halo.

Halo is a long standing first person shooter series, taking place in a science fiction universe, the key premise being that you have to fight aliens or some such bollocks.

Firstly i look at my key concern with the title as a series, which is its gameplay. I was drawn to the Halo series as everyone talked about it like it was the answer to some massively important question, but when i started playing i didn't see anything special. Sure some of the scenery and environments in the game looked pretty visually dynamic, to the point where i could even say that it was adventurous for its time. But the gameplay itself offered very little variety, this was excusable with "Halo Combat Evolved" but as the games progressed through the generations they seemed to remain fixed, never moving forward with the times. I would play a more recent installment into the series like "Halo Reach" and notice that the gameplay never differs from the standard point, shoot, reload, shoot. When considering how other shooters of this generation have been able to provide more variety, like for example a secondary fire on each weapon in the game, it feels almost unacceptable that Halo is unable to develop as well. My key argument with gameplay being that it is uninteresting now, and needs to be spruced up. I would any day chose a more modern shooter like "Resistance" for the PS3 over Halo, simply because its gameplay would have far more to offer me as a player.

The next feature that i found fault with was the story element, which with some of the more hardcore Halo fans is considered the best part. What i could say about the overall story is that it is simply bland, almost as if the writers themselves aren't interested. Part of the reason that the story element fails so badly is that the games do nothing to help explain it to the player, the first game simply dropped you into this fictional universe and expects you to understand all the goings on. Other games have done this but been able to quickly give the player an initial understanding of the storyline, and allow it to progress from there. But with every Halo game i play, the storyline seems to develop further, becoming more complex as it does, and then still do nothing to help the player get a full grasp of the basics. You know that this is a problem when a player can play through one of the games, entirely focused and paying full attention, and still have questions to ask that should have been answered during the course of the game. But generally i find that understanding the storyline is probably worse, as you cannot compare Halo to a true Si-Fi. Try as i might to take the story seriously it is rendered impossible by bad writing, extremely poor art design and twists in the story that aren't even noticeable.

So who do we thank for this gift to the world of gaming? Well we have Bungie Studios to thank for the initial creation of this franchise. So when noticing all the faults that i have highlighted is it fair to direct blame at them, i wouldn't say so. I would say that it is 343 Industries that have stunted the growth of this franchise. While it is easy for me to sit here and type away, bitching about this series like it has caused me deep emotional pain, it is important to remember that Bungie are legitimate game developers. As far as i am concerned "Halo Combat Evolved" was a good game, as with any it had its little problems, but it was with the times and was challenging enough to keep the gameplay interesting, so surely this isn't a black mark on Bungie's reputation?
I would say that 343 are to blame for Halo's obvious problems, but Halo has become one of Microsoft's most profitable enterprises so what the hell do i know.

Overall, i hold very little hope for the Halo franchise, mainly because most of its appeal is in its multiplayer, and i simply cannot respect a game that is held up primarily on multiplayer rather than its single player.
The key point is that of recent years Halo has become increasingly less popular, even with the recent installment of "Halo 4". So the developers need to get their act together and realize that Halo has been left behind by the very genre it belongs to.

Find me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/McGinnBen

Check out my Youtube channel to directly view my content: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRuHF6kkh8VhlBOLLGftjRw?feature=mhee

The McGinn Perspective - What has gaming become?

We all remember the days when a guy could spend a great deal of money on a game, and spend at  least a week having a basic play through in the game. A great deal more than that if you were looking for all the bonus content and secrets in that first play through. But now, it is so much different, the style of structure for games has undergone a drastic paradigm shift with the introduction of powerhouse consoles like the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 which went above standard gaming needs and delivered a full entertainment experience for the user.
The introduction of advanced graphics and gameplay capabilities completely changed how designers perceive games, and how they think it should be structured. Consoles like the PS2 and Xbox were able to gain the best of both, retaining both the older and newer style of game structure in their titles. This shift in how we see games wouldn't be all that bad were it not for the fact that it made many games spoon-feed the player, and swapping challenge for repetitiveness.

For example, in a first person shooter it is not enough merely to put more enemies in a certain sequence of the game, and give them a long process to run through in game to beat each one, like disarming them via button meshing. That isn't difficulty. Instead, it is better to engineer an improved AI quality for the enemies accessible via a higher difficulty setting. This is what makes game design a skill, as it is much more impressive to engineer an AI that keeps you on your toes, than it is simply to place enemy after enemy, and assign them to a simple button pressing sequence. This difference is something that most game designers seem incapable for understanding nowadays, it is almost as if they have fooled themselves with their own insistence to design games for all audiences.

Many game critics (Myself Included) are now complaining that game designers must think us to be completely stupid, and therefore feel that they need to give us constant guidance throughout a game. This mentality also leads game designers to hold off on challenging scenarios in game, and make the entire game too easy just in case the game is bought by someone who isn't smart enough to do it on his/her own. I personally believe that there are two ways of fixing this problem, the first and most realistic of which, is dividing titles into two categories upon release to the market, these categories being: "Mature" or "Casual". Purely being based on solid research into what age a person is able to take on more demanding challenges in a game. Now i know this may seen redundant when all games are given age ratings already, but obviously this system doesn't focus on challenge as i have seen people well over 18 who have no learning defects, be completely stumped by the simplest in game puzzles for a 16 certificate game.

The second and much more harsh being that this is the gaming industry, maybe we should get out of this current generation mind-set that digital entertainment is a commodity for everyone? Maybe we should focus specifically on true enthusiasts to the industry, making games become more difficult again, and therefore making people who aren't cut out of digital gaming become disinterested and move on to other forms of entertainment more suited to them.
This may come off as harsh, but the simple fact is that over the past ten to fifteen years, the gaming industry has focused less on its core consumer audience and more on other audiences for the purpose of expansion, and ultimately to make more money. Though from a business perspective, this has merit, it means that the quality of gameplay will deteriorate over the coming years. I merely say that they should take care to not lose the respect and interest of the audience they have already roped in since digital gaming first took off.

In conclusion, the gaming industry is mutating - not evolving, and we, as the core consumer, cannot rely primarily on the rare times when a truly good game is released.

For more of my content, check out my YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRuHF6kkh8VhlBOLLGftjRw?feature=

Or Follow me on Twitter, where i post new content whenever i can upload it: 
https://twitter.com/McGinnBen 

A big thanks to Jenny Lucy Ann Nott for her help and support