Top 5 Games of the Year! [Thompson Edition]

2013 was a good year with many quality titles finally seeing the light of day. I've been surprised by many games, disappointed by a few and some lived up to my high expectations. What will follow is a list from 10-1 with 1. being my GOTY. Bare in mind it's my opinion so don't be offended, if you have a different opinion you're simply wrong. Fight me.

5. Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon
Look, this may just be a DLC expansion but I count it as its own game because... Well, it is. Blood Dragon is not related to Far Cry 3 in any way except the fact that they use pretty much the same core gameplay. Other than that it's its own badass retro adventure where you chew bubble gum and kick ass, and you just ran out of bubble gum.

4. Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
I was a skeptic from the start, first a game about Raiden, please. Then Platinum Games took over, how could anyone but KojiPro make a Metal Gear game? Insanity! Luckily I was wrong, sure it was insane, insanely fun that is! That they managed to create a hack-n-slash game where the sword you wield actually feel like a sword, all in 60fps with so much going on... Truly impressive, can't wait to see where they go from here!

3. Tomb Raider
Another pleasant surprise, I must say they really messed up the marketing for this game. Only like a month before release they actually talked about the game and it was enough to get me interested enough to get it. Before I was expecting them to turn it into Uncharted with the very hectic gameplay and set-pieces but boy was I wrong. It was tense, you had freedom and the whole survival aspect payed off just fine. I love both Uncharted and Tomb Raider and it showed there's still room for both of them.

2. Grand Theft Auto V
Maybe not so shocking to have on my list after the huge success and popularity, but sometimes it's all warranted. The new three-character system was really fun and the heists were amazing and felt good to pull off (a bit few though) and I play the very fun multiplayer to this day. As long as you can stomach some glitches it's a ride worth taking.

1. The Last of Us
How could it be anything else? This game really came close to perfection to me. I'm big on good stories which is why I love this game so much, the storytelling, characters and cutscenes are all so perfectly done it was impossible for me to not make it my number 1 game of the year. Hell, maybe even of this generation. There's not a single aspect of it which I dislike, the crafting was fun, story like I said was great, and the combat is very dynamic with amazing enemy AI. Can't wait to see what Naughty Dog cooks up for next gen!

Hurray for Joel and Ellie! 

"This thing isn't up to my highest standard, ergo it SUCKS!"

THIS BLOG SUCKS!

There's one thing I can't stand on the internet today... No it's not the console wars, spoilers, trolls or dumb memes. The thing I'm sick of is when people overuse the phrase "it sucks". I hear it too much, "this isn't as good as that one, it sucks!", "I didn't like this feature, so it sucked!" and so on... 

Whatever happened to "I just don't like it", "could've been better" or just explaining the flaws from your perspective? I mean, when you've been on the internet for as long as most of us have you get used to it, but really, that's not helping. This mentality is what fuels most conflicts on the internet anyway, console wars? Would be a thing of the past of people could just stop dismissing everything they don't view as good, as crap. Newsflash, it can still be okay or even good even if you don't care much for it!

If you don't have the time or energy to give any critical argument except "it sucks" then you'll save you and many others problems that can so easily be avoided. I know there are trolls out there too and they're the ones that say stuff like that the most, they can too easily be ignored. I'm talking about the guy who wants good discussions on forums, or the rare guy who isn't looking for a fight on Youtube. Think before you write something, it's so rare these days but it doesn't have to stay that way.

Change start with a few, I've made my choice a long time ago, to not indulge simpletons who commit this sin on a regular basis. However there are always things that will get to you no matter how much you try, and this is one of them for me. Just remember, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it sucks, there's always someone who loves whatever you're trashing so just try to be more sensitive to that fact. If even one person who reads this takes this advice the internet will already become more pleasant.

Please note I'm not trying to be some moral police over here. I'm a morally depraved asshole just like anyone else on the internet, I'm just trying to make it a slightly more enjoyable place to be that morally depraved asshole.

Gta Online, an abusive spouse

As many are aware of, Gta Online launched about 3 weeks ago, and boy what an unstable start! First I couldn't even download it, screen went black and my console locked up completely. Then I couldn't go past character creation. Although things started looking up 2 days post-launch, things still shaky, I never lost the character that finally stuck with me, I never lost money or bigger progress. However it still feels like it's kicking me in the balls on a regular basis. 

Much of what's still wrong with Gta Online is glitches that may be patched at some time, but much is also the system Rockstar has built for us. They're trying to fix glitches best they can but they're also patching in things that make things somewhat painful for those of us who can play the game without many problems. Just now have they reduced the penalty for death from 1000-2000 in-game dollars to no more than 500 dollars. They seem to believe we still have to loose money when we die but hey, it's a start.

Look, I like Rockstar, I'd say they make some of the best games out there, what they make today will probably be remembered by many future generations. However it seems they might be going down a dark path with this one, sure I suppose they would want to balance things so a lvl 10 guy don't roll around with expensive sports cars and the most expensive apartment but still, I'm lvl 43 and making money is really tough. I'm just hoping it's not simply to push us to buy their Gta dollars for real cash when that becomes available. That's a real concern.

Rockstar recently reduced the amount of cash you receive from jobs you can do in the game, so now there's little to no point in doing them. The average job may pay about 3k, yet half of that can go to buying armor and ammo. Just imagine when you still lost 2k for dying, you could loose the earnings if you happened to spawn next to some asshole. Often the people you went on jobs with who were good to work with during the job turns to rabid dogs hungry for blood as soon as you enter freemode again.

Personally I tend to do mostly survival these days, I do it for me, I'm good at it and it makes me feel alive (cookie of you saw what I did there). Also the cash for completing it is totally worth it. Although even that seems to not be okay for Rockstar, I was kicked out when playing the Boneyard map because I sat on the roof for too long. The second time I noticed what was actually going on. Seems like they've done so that you can't sit on the roof while on survival anymore. It has come to that now, they're restricting us that much in what's on paper an open-world sandbox game.

Open message to Rockstar; You might not be trying to screw the gamers over, but it does look like it, please don't beat us down into submission. You're better than that. I keep coming back for more now, but how long will that last if you keep restricting us?

Consoles aren't going anywhere

People are predicting that the next console generation will be the last, often based on the increased popularity of tablets and phones and the gaming to be had on them. When are people going to learn that one doesn't always exclude the other, it's like saying people will stop driving cars because the bus was made. No, consoles are their own thing that will be there for a long time thanks to one basic thing, simplicity. 

So, the post-E3 madness has died down, Sony went in and killed Microsoft, who in turn did a 180 on their policies simply to catch up with the trail of dust Sony left soon after all while Nintendo sat around playing with themselves since everyone else seem to be ignoring them. With all the hype for next gen consoles it's looking great actually, seems like home entertainment will continue to go strong, yet many doubt it will last... Because of what, tablets and phones with Angry Birds (Note that I'm aware of the fact that there are better games than that on tablets and phones, just an example)?

Mobile gaming has been around for quite some time, and the PS Vita for one is really powerful, yet people do like sitting on their couch, TV in front of them and controller in their hand. Personally, I'm never as relaxed as when I'm sitting comfortably with the controller in hand, all I have to look at is the TV, there are no extra shit to deal with. I don't have to make out what's on a tiny screen, I don't have to do vague finger movements to accomplish anything, just me and my controller, am I alone in that? Doubt it, so while me and my generation is around I don't think consoles will become redundant.

Of course, it may come in a different shape and size as time goes on, maybe built directly into the tv or with more and more functionalities? All I know is there is a market for consoles, the pre-orders for each respective next-gen consoles should prove that well enough. Perhaps there will be a day when everyone can build their own high-end PC, perhaps there will be a day when a phone is powerful enough to run games like Gta 5, and even via TV's, but it is not this day... I grow tired of hearing how the age of consoles has passed when all evidence indicate otherwise, it's going to take a very good alternative to permanently kill off console gaming, end of discussion.

MGS V, Hayter conspiracy... I think not!

Ever since Kojima announced that David Hayter, the voice actor for Solid Snake and Big Boss in the MGS franchise for 15 years, wouldn't return to voice Big Boss in the upcoming MGS V there has been plenty of speculation about it. Some say it's simply okay, whatever, some said sure he'll return, it's just trolling, some said he'll still be in it voicing someone else. Especially after Keifer Sutherland was confirmed to be the voice of Snake/Big Boss in MGS V.

After Sutherland was confirmed to be Big Boss, some people still want to think Hayter will appear in MGS V, I'm here to say why this is likely just wishful thinking. Believe me, I want Hayter to return, but it's not happening. So since Sutherland is doing Big Boss, people have started to think Hayter will return to do Solid Snake, the clone of Big Boss. While the idea is fun, this is not the case if we really listen to the reasons behind the voice actor change in the first place.

They replaces Hayter with Sutherland because they wanted a big Hollywood actor, they really emphasize this, that they want someone with a fitting voice who's also able to do face capture and motion capture. While this is all good and all, it's not the first time a regular voice actor does all this, and it's not like Hayter lacks face muscles, but this is the way it is, they want someone who they deem worthy actors. It's clear that they don't see Hayter as such.

Furthermore, Akio Otsuka, the voice actor for the Japanese Solid Snake, will continue to do the voice for Big Boss in MGS V. You people know what that means? If Solid Snake were to appear the Japanese VA would have to stand there talking to himself, this is a big reason to why it won't happen. Kojima seems to be really focusing on the western version, for some reason, having the game itself modeled after the western actors and all. So while fans never asked for it, Kojima saw it fit to take away a very iconic part of the franchise in order to have more believable acting in it, it's all practical really. And all I can say is that I hope it's worth it.

Moving on, now that they have Sutherland, what happens with future MGS titles if there are any? Will future budgets even allow them to rehire Sutherland? Will Sutherland even bother coming in again to do perhaps cameos if not full roles? I don't know about that, that's the thing about big Hollywood actors, you don't know if they'll stick around. Hayter would have been willing to do Snake (whichever) forever, now when they've broken that in favor of someone who might not. I fear it would make it appear as if they had some split-personality thing going on, it would be unavoidable if multiple actors end up doing Big Boss in their own way.

Look, to me Hayter will always be Solid Snake as well as Big Boss... Good for them who accept this so well, saying how the two were different characters to begin with and all that, good for you. Fact remains that the Japanese voice still stays the same, so that different voices for different characters is okay as long as it wasn't coated in big fat hypocrisy. I respect Kojima, he knows how to make great games, but on this it feels like he's wronging fans of a beloved franchise simply to attach a big Hollywood name to it, and I don't know if I can be okay with it.

Don't get me wrong though, I will buy the game, I don't support boycotting because of this. I will buy it, play it, probably even love it, but still always remain a bit bitter over the fact that the character in front of me isn't the one I've gotten to know.

Hayter be haytin'

E3 2013 Prediction Extravaganza!

E3 of 2013 is nearing, and there's lots of hype surrounding it every time. While it can be disappointing, this year we got a new console generation to see and the games it brings. Perhaps we'll be blown away, perhaps we will be left wanting, no one knows yet. I will post my own predictions here, agree or disagree if you wish. 

While Nintendo will pretty much be a no-show, Microsoft and Sony will both be bringing heavy artillery. Both companies will be talking about the next console generation, and how long everyone have waited for the next gen. While I do think most of us will be happy with games that most likely will be shown, with the never-to-be-pleased PC elitists being the exception, I do think people might not be very impressed with what they do with the consoles themselves.

Microsoft, to put it bluntly, fucked up with their "big" Xbox One reveal, so E3 for them will probably be lots and lots of damage control. They have promised more and better stuff for E3, but as Jim Sterling pointed out recently, they also thought the Xbox One event was worth showing us, so it's hard for them to guarantee that their E3 presentation will be worth anything as well. Sure, they could probably still turn it around, they still have a big user base, and they still dominate the American market. Only time will tell if the damage can be repaired and if they'll even bother for that matter.

If we look past the shitty details about Xbox One, being the name, issues with used games, online requirements, Kinect... Okay pretty many details there, but lets take a look at what really matters, the games. Will Microsoft deliver on that front? Well, they may deliver something, it's hard to tell really, they promise big things, yet little have been done to give us confidence to trust their promises. While they'll probably announce more games, like a new Halo, perhaps more Gears of War, maaaaybe some new IP's... I don't know if they'll actually show that much.

Worst case scenario is that they only mention a few games and just show a demo of next gen Call of Duty and call it a day. Honestly I don't think they care anymore for the core gamers even if they say they do, don't expect them to go big on exclusives or anything like that, better keep expectations low with Microsoft for now. However they are going to have to have really strong titles to get a good crowd of core gamers to go for Xbox One to make up for the online stuff, used games confusion and all that, if the games are good enough then there will be costumers.

So, Microsoft have a lot to make up for and then also push forward to become relevant again, what about Sony then? To be honest, they will probably do really good or really bad. That's the price of being on a roll for so long, they opened strong earlier this year and has gotten praise from developers ever since hyping it up more and more. With the Xbox One reveal making them look even better they really need to up the ante to keep this going on, how could it fail then? Well if they do announce that their console will also be making a fuss with used games, to have some forced online feature, simply put, don't have any huge drawbacks attached to Ps4.

Especially considering that Xbox One already has gotten a lot of shit for bad stuff that may just be rumors, it would be dumb to announce that they're doing it as well. What they need to do is be more user friendly, be more about just letting us play, win the people over by having the console that will be there for your gamer needs, not the console that needs your wallet and could care less if you end up happy about it or not. Sure, publishers might like added control, but I think they'd prefer actually selling their games before controlling every single purchase. Sony can dominate next gen, all they have to do is do what they're doing now while being less demanding than Microsoft.

I would like to think that Sony has learned from the Xbox One reveal, what not to do that is, and not have us worry about if our friends are going to be able to borrow a game of ours without paying any fees or something like it. Instead, they could just reassure everyone that they won't turn into dicks for next gen, show the actual console and even more importantly, the games! They've already announced some heavy hitters, they could go further and I'm hoping they will.

While they did actually show some gameplay at their Ps4 reveal, there's still more they can do to show off what the Ps4 is really capable off. I'm really thinking they will show off InFamous: Second Son more, being completely next gen exclusive they could really use it to show off what the hardware can do. I'm also hoping they got some surprising announcements, perhaps reviving some older franchises, perhaps a new The Getaway (personally, I still want another Syphon Filter game)? A bit too early to announce a new Naughty Dog game though, although I'd expect to hear about the next Naughty Dog game this year still.

What else... Well there's still the other big publishers like Ubisoft, EA and Activision to deal with, anyone getting exclusive deals with them could possibly get anyone an advantage. Although considering it's DLC deals I wouldn't put too much weight on such deals since it all boils down to who gets to give them money first. So far, Sony seems to be on real good terms with Ubisoft, Activision is clearly in the Microsoft camp, EA is harder to pin down since they want to get as much money as possible from everyone but if they were to be "bought" by anyone I'd say Microsoft would be in the better position to make such a deal.

There you have it folks, my thoughts, hopes and predictions about E3 2013. We will know what they're all up to by June 11-13 2013! If nothing else, E3 always seem to spawn amusing memes.

Xbox One, what is this huge retro-box?

Xbox is now more, just a box

I assume there's an explanation behind why it's called "Xbox One", however as someone who don't know the story I find it a bit silly. Sure, calling it Xbox 720 wouldn't have been much smarter, but this seems illogical, how is it Xbox One when it is in fact the third? To be fair though, naming their Xbox successor Xbox 360 didn't leave a lot of room for logical successor names unlike Ps3 to Ps4. 

The announcement event is going on as I write this, so I won't have all the info by the end, why not wait? Well gotta act while the iron's hot, a humble blogger got to take the time into consideration as well. So what has been revealed so far? Well some game announcements, the console was actually shown, and they've talked a bit about specs and what it can do. I have to be honest, so far, the only thing which caught my attention was the game from Remedy, perhaps MS will have something else but shooters next gen. 

Lets start with the box itself, while I was never a fan of the original design and them having neon green colors around it, it seems like they've abandoned all the character it had in favor of... Eh, I dunno to be honest. It looks like a VCR from my childhood, it made me a bit nostalgic actually, I wasn't alone in this. Seems big and not very practical, I assume you'll be seeing slim models popping up perhaps at E3 of 2014. Also, while one would think that at least it's consistent in being a box, the thing they've done in making one half matte black and the other glossy black still manage to make it look messy. 

There's other details like that it was confirmed false that the console would be always-online, which is good news. However, it joins Ps4 in being non-backwards compatible. I was under the impression that they talked about the specs at one point but I got lost since they started talking about other features available, all in all the event has felt a bit unfocused. One minor thing though, when an official representative says "the best controller in the world" I can't trust what they say anymore, perhaps it's just me but that's an opinion in my book. Go ahead, brag about what you do, but when they start making their view, their opinion into facts, I have to call time-out. It's up to us fans to bicker about which controller is the best controller in the world, the company itself should appear more objective and back up why their controller is good, not throw around statements like that, I dunno, seemed slightly off.

Now, the games, games are what makes a console. They've said something about how they plan to have 15 exclusives within the first year, that sounds good and all but lets remember that they might be pushing Kinect with some of them and not all of them might be big games or even that exclusive. Nothing suggests that core gamers will get many exclusive games to look forward to, perhaps Halo or Gears will appear. Who says that Remedy's Xbox One exclusive game will be that exclusive? Alan Wake was 360 exclusive until it appeared on PC, why buy the console if the exclusive games might be available to me anyway on a decent PC? This might be cynical speculation, but I'm assuming they will push several more casual Kinect titles and smaller perhaps indie games and have one or two bigger core games.

After reading this you might have picked up I'm not that thrilled, that's true, I am in the Ps4 camp. Although while I might not have jumped to the new Xbox regardless of what they've shown they've done little to impress me. Exclusive next gen CoD content? Please, they haven't showed much to make Xbox One look a lot better than Ps4. Announce that you won't have to pay to play online this time around, go big with some costumer loyalty program, do anything that will really make it shine. As it is now, they haven't used their opportunity to impress the gaming community, even Playstation fans, very well. 

Batman overly excited about DLC

Not even Batman can handle this "bonus"

Pre-order DLC allowing you to play as Deathstroke in Arkham Origins coming fall 2013 has recently been announced. While it's understandable that they want to offer something for those who pre-order the game and they did it with Catwoman in Arkham City, I can't help but wonder, isn't it a bit early, eh? (Drinking game: 1 shot for every time DLC is mentioned)

Day-one DLC, pre-order DLC, so much DLC... It's everyday business these days, many are sick of it, but since we like the games and the industry is putting tons of money into it DLC seem to be here to stay. However, could they at least actually show us the game before talking DLC? We barely know anything about this game, Arkham Origins, and yet they're showing it off, is this really good strategy? I know pre-order bonuses are supposed to be incentives for buying the game, but shouldn't the actual game be the biggest incentive?

They're really pushing DLC-practices in weird directions, Metro: Last Light which had a difficulty level as a pre-order bonus, that's bad, and now showing off bonus content before actually showing the game? Sure, it's likely been done before, but this is just silly. It feels like the industry is loosing touch with what gamers want, how to advertise games to us. We don't really care about pre-order bonus, right? What we care about is getting good games, guarantee us that and you will sell your games, when did that become so hard?

Bigger companies are so focused on making money that they forgot that they're dealing with actual people, not walking wallets that will continue to pay for whatever they do. They mask their games so they look better than it actually is, then milk as much as they can from those who were fooled into buying it with various DLC. Pre-order bonuses used to be more about retailers trying to get your attention, but now it's more like developers saying "sure, our game might not be that polished, but then again... Bonus character?"

While Arkham Origins might not be the first game to do pre-order bonuses, it's weird of them to announce it this early without showing the actual game. I can't help but to feel that not a lot of effort is in fact being put into it, which would be a shame since the Arkham games have so far been an excellent franchise. I read some what I think were rumors about how much is actually being put into this game, and I hope it's true, would be a shame to half-ass this game simply to cash in on the success of Arkham Asylum and City.

I suppose this post wasn't so much about Batman: Arkham Origins as it was the DLC-thingy they're doing and what it says about the industry today. DLC isn't what sells a game, it's the game that should sell the DLC, if the game is good, you will make money from it. Quality and actual substance is what should sell games, that's what you should be advertising at this point, not some extra character you get to play as if you order now...

Shooting the faceless in the face

We only do this to support our families! D:

The enemy in games and movies today are too often just faceless canon fodder for the hero to cut down without remorse. Isn't it time to push the limits of what our entertainment is? Sometimes it works, but lets not overdo it, eh?

I see how it was necessary in the past to have the enemy be a faceless goon, with perhaps a balaclava to hide any kind of identity or just have weird monsters coming at you. But you know, I think it's time to put a face to whoever you have to shoot in the face, let it have an impact. Of course I know that you can't be forced to get to know every single person you waste in a game about wasting hundreds of people but it could be a nice change of pace to take the Die Hard-way, not many bad guys all in all but all of them have had other stuff going on than being killed by the hero. Would it not work to have a game with fewer bad guys but instead make it a bigger deal when you have to take one down?

I don't mind all the time, many games work very well with just having faceless cannon-fodder. It just seems to me that far too often they do the Rambo-thing and just put a lot of "evil" Russians or terrorists between you and your ultimate goal, often killing the main evil Russian or terrorist. So, while I don't mean that games like that have to cease to exist, I would ask for some more mature stories where killing people isn't just something you have to do to proceed forward. It makes it weird when you're in a situation when you're like in a team and someone in that team dies, I always think that how is it that these psychopaths care about the death of one of their guys, often a guy who's not a very prominent part of the group, when they slaughter hundreds of people on a daily basis.

Seriously, every "evil agent" you kill is a part of a group, he has friends, family... I find it funny when there's a guy out for revenge for loosing his brother to some thug, and he goes through an army just for this one guy, an army of family member with their own brothers and sisters, shouldn't everyone of them have their shot at revenge as well? Ah, many would tell me to "lighten up", but then you're missing my point here. I've said I don't mind such games, killing virtual people is fun! But I'm big on stories, I'm a huge fan of MGS, LA Noire and Max Payne, games with really entertaining and at times touching stories. Sometimes the killing of anonymous people is a part of the story, like MGS, and LA Noire did actually try to do much more than killing random people, but is it too much to ask for something... More?

Of course, I also have to acknowledge that a game where everyone you kill have to "mean something", that every bullet is personal wouldn't fly over well with the dudebro-CoD-audience. But you know what, horror games could be successful even before they became shooters and you didn't kill everything that moved, why couldn't a game more heavy on story get away with it? Yes I know Heavy Rain might be what I'm looking for, haven't played that game yet actually, perhaps I should, but I kind of what my games to still feel like games, not quick-time-event segments. 

Would it be possible to humanize your enemies? I say yes, I think every kill can mean more than being a necessity to proceed through the level, one game that so far is looking to do this is The Last of Us. By showing enemies in a different light, being that they're survivors just trying to get by in their own way just as you, pretty much so since the protagonist Joel says at a time that he's been at both sides of ambushes. Even the "zombies" have some level of conscience at the early stages, when the fungus have just taken control the person still exist on the inside trying to fight it, trying not to mindlessly kill you, the player. I am impressed that someone even attempts to blurr the line, that not everyone you kill absolutely deserve it. No matter if Naughty Dog succeeds or not in such an endeavor, the thing is to show that you don't always have to be an American superman fighting the devil disguised as an middle-eastern terrorist.  

We love you! <3

Grand Theft Auto V, the ultimate game?

Things are looking good

Grand Theft Auto V is coming September 2013, are they going to blow us away with the ultimate sandbox experience or will it leave people disappointed? Lets examine this beast a bit closer... 

While I understand many were disappointed with Gta IV which according to many was stripped of many fun features while adding bad ones and overall was just plain boring. I for one disagree though, I loved Gta IV and I play through it every now and then to this day. Sure the smaller amount of weapons was bothering me at first, sure your cousin calling every 15 minutes were a bit annoying, and sure the game felt a bit empty after actually finishing the game, but it was still great IMO. The story was a lot more mature, the whole game was more realistic with a great new engine to back it up and lets not forget the innovative multiplayer that for once wasn't a mod.

Moving on, many complained about the new direction of the series, while others like myself didn't quite fall for the over the top wackyness that at times was going on in the previous installment, Gta San Andreas. That's right, I didn't love it, while it's undoubtedly a great classic, I liked Gta IV more with Vice City being my absolute favorite. Now, I don't think no one will actually have a problem with Gta V, so far it seems like a marriage made in heaven... The more mature and realistic direction is still prominent, yes, but this time around it will have tons of customization options, a big selection of weapons (including minigun, bitches) and three distinct characters to cater to our every need... Seriously, what more could you wish for?

I must say that the new three-protagonist-thingy Rockstar is doing this time around is actually quite brilliant, instead of giving us just one character that some would have liked and others would have hated there's three you can play as and on top of that customize to your specific taste. Before I knew about the three protagonists, I hoped for a traditional gangster to be the protagonist, they're the closest to what I would be if I would be a criminal, dresses like me, looks like me, and acts like me. Then there was those who wanted a "gangsta" type since it's Los Santos and that was one aspect that many liked in San Andreas, I wasn't a big fan but hey, now everyone can be happy! So that's Michael and Franklin, but that wasn't enough, no, then there's also Trevor.

Trevor is simply put, insane, the joker in an otherwise sorted deck of cards. Rockstar have themselves said that this guy is meant to be played by the player who only want to fuck around, the player who put story second to causing chaos, this guy is chaos. This just shows that Rockstar aims to make us happy with their biggest open world game to date, no matter what we want from a game they seem to want to provide it. Of course there's much more to this game than the varied protagonists.

Isn't this a sexy mofokka?

Of course, this blog would be too long for me to list them all... So I encourage you to visit http://www.gtav.net/ since they offer all the details you could possibly want. But let me give you a idea of what could be the most exciting, apart from added customization and so on... Heists which you can plan and decide how you want to tackle, you can buy houses and property again, a new skill system which gives each character an unique skill, Michael as an example can slow down times when in a gunfight (similar to "Bullet Time" in Max Payne) and the combat has overall been improved upon, it's more like Max Payne 3 so you will be able to run and gun this time around.

Point is, simply put, that I see no reason why no one wouldn't be excited for Gta V, seems like they're doing a good job to please everybody. I haven't heard a valid reason to why some people look at this game and say "meh", I would love to discuss the matter since I might be missing some flaws in it. Granted, they may be promising too much, I haven't been that hyped until the recent barrage of new info anyway, so perhaps it's not that far fetched to think that someone not in the loop isn't hyped. However, I'm still doing my part to spread the word about possibly the biggest game this generation, and perhaps even the next if it sees a next gen re-release? Who knows.

Games getting too ambitious?

I see it too much these days, games that seem to be reaching beyond the skies and then end up feeling... Lacking. Latest being Bioshock Infinite, don't worry I still like the game, it's really good, but it could've been better. It was a really ambitious project that's been in development for quite some time, it was looking really special. However, I personally felt like it wasn't as special as it could've been, it was too much like everything else.

Bioshock Infinite not only continue on the whole "one great city lead by one great man"-thing Bioshock had it also has some of the most generic combat I've played in a long time. It didn't feel good, yes the Vigors are good for spicing it up but it wasn't that special, even if you can ride along the sky-lines with your sky-hook. When games like Tomb Raider and Far Cry 3 are coming out with excellent combat which feels fluent, natural and special the combat in Bioshock felt very stiff and generic.

Not only that, I mean that may be forgiven in a big game like this, but the combat situations show up in very scripted manners. It felt more like I was playing CoD than a Bioshock game when combat happened, which is a lot and you can't do much about it. I don't know what happened with the E3 demo from 2012 where combat seemed more like it might happen, not that it will happen regardless of your actions. It was also said some year ago that this would not happen, that it would be more like the wild west where combat may be avoided if you keep your gun down. That sounded awesome, that would've made the game anything but just another shooter, which it is but it could've been better, as stated earlier.

It's kinda ironic actually, Rapture in the original Bioshock there had already been a war that "killed" the city, yet Rapture felt a lot more alive to me than Colombia did even when I walked around in areas populated by plenty of average Joes. Bioshock had plenty scripted encounters, yes, but it was never as obvious as in Infinite. I don't know, it felt kinda phony to me, it's hard to describe or pinpoint what exactly made it that way, but it was something.

Moving on, this post is not about Bioshock Infinite specifically, but it was a good example since it's a very recent release as of now. Point is, it's just another game that has seemed really ambitious, but when you get into it you see that it's still limited the same ways as every other game. It doesn't tap into some magical power elevating it above all other games. It was ambitious, too ambitious I'd say, they obviously changed a lot from their original vision in order to sell it to the masses or some shit like that.

It's been a lot these last couple of years, first game I really noticed it in was Uncharted 3, that game had amazing stuff in it, but in the end it fell short, too many interesting ideas and not enough time to do much with any of them in the end. Once again, still a great game IMO but it was lacking compared to the previous installment. So, afterwards that I started noticing it again and again, Max Payne 3, Hitman: Absolution, Assassin's Creed 3, Far Cry 3, Tomb Raider... Great games, some were really fantastic but all seemed to fall short of true greatness.

The reason I'm talking about this is because I'm afraid for the future, I was always skeptical about Bioshock Infinite due to choices like having a two weapon limit and health regeneration (which was altered, not great but it works well) but I was still let down by it. Games that in my mind ought to be great, not only great but really stand out to be above all others in possibilities still are games like Gta V, The Last of Us and MGS V, those games are looking really fantastic and there's big potential in what they can do to break free from the stale old ways. Although after seeing what have happened before I can't be so sure anymore, I've been fooled before by amazing looking stuff only to see what hid behind it all, should we not expect developers to achieve what they set out to do? I know that gamers on the internet are some of the most cynical bastards you can find, but more and more I think the industry is validating it, how can one stay positive about ones hobby if it keeps failing to impress?

Perhaps it's because developers have gotten a habit to bite off more than they can chew, it's not been this big of a deal in the past. Uncharted 2 was a really solid game, a clear story and all throughout the game, focus was lost as they went on. That's what I think games lack today, focus, in games like Uncharted 2 or MGS 3 which are both regarded as the peak in their own respective franchises the focus is clear. They don't have a lot of extra faffing about on things that don't matter or we don't care about, they do what they wanted to do and they did it well.

I know that this post has been a bit vague, but hopefully some of you may make some sense of it, and hopefully agree with it at least a little. Until next time!

Replaying in the name of Exploration

Often you hear people complain about linear games today, often older gamers used to more "complex" games. The complaints are many times valid too, military shooters that already are very linear and still feel the need to have big arrows pointing out where to go. It can really feel like these games not only seem to think you're stupid, but also make you stupid. To be honest, I've noticed this myself, I've played many shooters this gen and when a more complex games comes along I can find myself exhausted because it's more complex then following a neon lit corridor full of baddies to blast away. However, I don't think the issue is as big as many make it out to be.

Hint: Continue forward, stoopid

A problem it is, but I don't know, lately I've gotten the impression that such games are becoming the exception, not the rule. No offense to linear games of course, there are many great linear games IMO like Metal Gear Rising or Uncharted, games that make the most out if the limited space. It's the games like CoD that merely have a somewhat good looking shooting gallery throughout the game that makes it hard to figure out why it has to exist in the first place. Though as I said, I think games like that are dying out, you can't do that anymore and expect a huge success. Games like Far Cry 3, Tomb Raider and Bioshock: Infinite are the ones people seem to want these days, and developers are trying to meet that demand.

Although, regardless linear or open world structure, exploration is something that not everyone gets right. CoD doesn't leave much room for exploration, not interesting. Then again, games like Assassin's Creed does, but it's not always interesting either. Just because it's big doesn't mean it's interesting to walk around and see everything. There isn't many games that include deep exploration that makes it fun to return again and again. Games that I think have done exploration fun are MGS, Gta and Fallout, to name a few examples. Not many have been able to do what they did, not only make it fun to explore, but make it rewarding.

That's something not many seem to get, sure, you put in an extra area for us to explore but why should we? When all you reward us with is trivial bullshit. In Metal Gear Solid 3, if you went off to explore, you could find awesome stuff like a crocodile cap that could camouflage you in water, fun and useful. Stuff like that kept me replaying the game many times to see and find everything, and I can only assume there's still stuff to see. Most games today don't have that, after finishing most games today it feels like you've seen it all already, no point in going back.

Where to begin the exploring?

I suppose it goes hand in hand with unlocks, where did those go? Did it all become DLC instead of stuff you unlock by just playing the game? I hope not, the example I'm going to use here is Uncharted, specifically Uncharted 2 and 3. Uncharted 2 had lots of stuff in it, it was a big game that was fun to replay over and over again, that game had some exploration, not too much but it was backed up by having actual unlocks. A menu for stuff like skins, modes and weapons that you could unlock by simply playing the game. A great feature that many games don't have anymore, so why, just why did they cut that for Uncharted 3? Obvious reasons would be that the project was kinda rushed, don't get me wrong I still liked the game but it feelt like a lot lighter package than Uncharted 2. No unlocks for the singleplayer campaign this time around, no fun skins to use, no weapons, no nothing. No worries for Naughty Dog's next game, The Last of Us, though, since it's been in development by the Uncharted 2 team since, well, Uncharted 2, have faith in those guys.

I don't know, personally I'm having high hopes that true exploration in games which is fun, interesting and rewarding is coming back. Though it seems like the industry has been lying in the ditch for a bit too long, it's going to take some time for them to learn how to make it really interesting again, Tomb Raider had it but it wasn't really interesting to be honest. After finishing it I've never had a need to go back, same with Far Cry 3, I'm even having a hard time going back to Bioshock: Infinite for a second playthrough. I don't get it, they made Bioshock, that game had great exploration, not as enjoyable this time and is often just some annoying backtracking to unlock some chest or something similar.

Suppose that's my take on it, I like exploration, it's the essence of what makes games immortal classics, at least to me. Here's hoping that it makes a strong comeback along with my favorite franchise ergo Gta V and MGS V!

Word of Thompson, new name, updating blog!

Just a quick announcement, I'm going to update my blog in some regards. For one, since I've missed that there's a thing actually called the "Thomson effect" (note: Thomson, not Thompson, but aaanyway...) and since I do want to have a somewhat unique thing going on here, I've decided to change the name. The new name will be "Word of Thompson", I'm sure you can see what I'm playing with here, since I'm a fan of blasphemy and my own words I couldn't think of a better name at this moment.

Alas I shall never restrict myself to one thing, but now is a good opportunity to pick a new and hopefully better name as it's getting more air under its wings. I might change more stuff, all visual of course, the material will remain pretty much the same. I suppose that's pretty much it, The Thompson Effect is soon to be Word of Thompson.

Cheers!

5 things Bethesda must learn for Fallout 4

Okay so Bethesda recently made it clear that they're now pretty much done with Skyrim and are moving on with their next project. We can also assume it's Fallout 4, although what can be expected? And what should be expected? I don't know, never been a big fan of Bethesda's games, they're fun in the beginning but quickly get dull to me, but I'll give my opinion on the matter anyway. There is potential in their games, can't deny that, but several flaws keep holding them back, in my opinion at least.

So here it is, my list on 5 things they have to learn to make a game that keeps me interested after the intro sequence (didn't that sound egotistical?), bare in mind that I will mostly use Skyrim as a reference since that's their latest game, and the games are really similar (Fallout 3 = Oblivion):

1. Allow me to make a noticeable impact on the world, in Skyrim I didn't ever feel like I did anything that mattered. Point and case, there was a civil war going on, apart from the bigger battles there was nothing to indicate that a war was even going on, okay sure there were a few signs but that's it. If I went on to do other stuff during that war I could go on for a long time, and forgetting I was even a part of that stuff.

Skyrim was very restricted, so most of the time you need to have permission to do stuff, wanna know how to do this right? Just look at Obsidian's Fallout: New Vegas. There's also a war going on there, a lot more active, you see that shit going on, and if you pick a side, be ready for people to take notice of you. Not only was the war an active part of the game, you could do stuff on your own that affects the world in various ways. Example, a solar plant you come across early, if you in a quest choose to cleanse the place of Faction A, Faction B will occupy the place soon afterwards. Your action matters, Faction A may start sending assassins after you, Faction B may become friendly, and later on you can choose to fuck over both factions and be your own boss. Nothing like that in Skyrim or Fallout 3.

2. Skip that level scaling shit, it's simple, I see where their going with it, but they can't make it balanced. In Fallout 3, the Broken Steel expansion? That mission where you're supposed to save a bunch of people out of a mutant infested building, I did fine, but due to my high level the people who ran out with me got slaughtered by the new enemy types that were meant to challenge a level 20+ character.

And Skyrim, well, it seemed like the main enemies in the story didn't level scale, they did have recommended levels, after all. I was a high level when I went after the final boss, it was a walk in the park, very anti-climactic to say the least. Then, I wandered through the forest, and wouldn't you know it, a bandit arrow hits me, then another, then another, and BAM! Dead, I was taken completely by surprise, how did a bandit kill me with just a few arrows when I had a good set of armor and had just returned from killing a monster threatening the entire world. Excuse me but I feel like the bandit shouldn't be a threat at this point, they should have sent the bandits instead, being able to take down the Dragonborn himself just like that.

3. Don't stop me from doing whatever I want when that's exactly what you advertise, this is similar to point number 1. but different. Bethesda always promise great freedom, but I feel that all they do is give me freedom to do exactly what they want me to. I did kill the final boss, not because I wanted to necessarily, but because the game wanted me to. What I didn't do, was kill random characters I didn't like, why? Because the game didn't want me to, too many people are immortal because there might have been need of this character at one point.

New Vegas did this right, I could march right up to the boss for Faction B and kill him, if I was strong enough. Naturally, unless you're beefed up and an awesome hero of the wastes, you can't just walk in and pop him in the head, no, but that's the point. You got the freedom to do it, but the game was smart in how it prevented you to do it. He's not immortal until some guy gives you permission to go and kill him, he'll just kick your ass if you go in without being prepared. So that's basically it, Bethesda, if you promise freedom, give it, technically every game gives you absolute freedom to do exactly what the developers intended, show that you can go beyond that like the developers behind Dishonored did. It's all about bending the rules.

4. For once, less is more... What in the end seem to make Bethesda's game fall flat is them trying to put too much in there. There's nothing wrong with ambition, but any competent developer need to understand when they have to cut down their product in order to make the content in there as good as possible. Having repetitive quests just for the sake of having tons quests does not make it fun.

What they really need to learn is just that, focus their attention to what's worth it. Do we really need a huge map full of nothing when we could have a slightly smaller map that's full of more interesting things? I, for one, say no. Bethesda can do interesting stuff, but I do think that they spread it way too thin. Perhaps it's system limitations, but it gets way to clear when someone has bitten off a bigger chunk than they can shew. I'm afraid Rockstar Games will do the same with Gta V, promising that the world will be bigger than some of their biggest games combined, I really hope they can fill that up with stuff to do. Although to be honest, I trust Rockstar more than Bethesda, since only one of them has kept doing the same mistakes over and over again.

5. If everything else fails, then at least recognize my efforts. You know what the most rewarding part of conquering the world is? People acknowledging your supremacy. Now I know you can't do that in any of Bethesda's games, but you can come pretty close. In Skyrim, you're witnessed to kill dragons and being the "Dragonborn", I also became head of the guilds, became a war hero and saved the world, more or less. Yet, when I walk among these people that should be hailing me as a hero, savior, and perhaps leader, all I get is people mocking my character like he was a simple peasant.

Why do I have to take that? That's where many previous points come into play as well, I can't take over anything myself, and I can't destroy a village for the mockery (due to immortal peasants, bah), it's really an immersion breaker. Not only that, but feedback is an important thing to every game, if I defeat the bad guy people should take notice, goes for any game, even Farmville gives you feedback to your actions. Any glory you get is so fleeting, there were moments that make you feel great, but they were gone as fast as they arrived.

So, that's my take on it, I hope they fix some of the mentioned stuff. Agree or disagree, gotta admit I make some valid points, eh?

I'm super serious! 

Ubisoft, you're alright...

Prepare to terminate evil cyborgs as Rex Colt in FC3 Blood Dragon

I know many like to trash Ubisoft these days because of shitty DRM, milking AC and so on.... But truth be told, after things becoming more clear about how things are right now, they're not so bad. Besides, I don't buy their games for PC but didn't they stop or at least make their DRM less bad? I dunno, seems like with all things considered, Ubisoft are one of the good guys today. Perhaps some may find that hard to believe, but allow me to explain...

Tomb Raider this year failed to meet sales expectations, it sold over 3 million copies. There's all the proof you need to know that the industry isn't in a very good shape. No wonder we're seeing online passes, questionable DLC and micro transactions, even the biggest companies are having trouble. Sure they still suck, but keeping this in mind, look at what Ubisoft is doing...

The recently announced Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon is DLC that not only is awesome, but it's a standalone story which don't even require a copy of Far Cry 3. One could imagine that experimenting like this could be dangerous, if they released a full game that's like this it could go bad, perhaps they will do something like this as a bigger thing if this piece of DLC is successful? Because aren't we all tired of the same old? Perhaps that's what they're trying to see with DLC like this, if stuff that isn't the same old could succeed as well as the tried and tested? I don't know, just getting good vibes from Ubisoft right now, not only me right?

Not the first time their doing this either, the very recent AC3 DLC about a greedy and corrupt King Washington shows that they are indeed willing and able to play with expectations. This year, they're also one of the only ones really going for it with a new IP, that being Watch Dogs, so I'm really optimistic for future products from Ubisoft. As consumers, we ought to stay updated to we can support that which we like, still seeing lots of hate for Ubisoft so I just thought it might be good to show them in a more positive light.

On a side note, while it's good to see new IP's like Watch Dogs and The Last of Us, many franchises seem to be making strong returns as well... Gta V, MGS V, if the industry wasn't going down a very shitty toilet right now, I would say it's a good time to be a gamer right now.

Announcing the Bioshock PSN giveaway winner!

Friends and random readers, I am happy to announce that of all of the participants a winner have been found! The name of the chosen one is "Patrick Jones", as he will receive the codes that grant him a free copy of the original Bioshock game... I congratulate you and I hope others do as well!

May your vacation to Rapture be rewarding!

For those of you who didn't win this time, why don't you follow this blog and see if you may win future giveaways/competitions? Who knows what could happen if this blog grows? :D

MGR:R Jetstream DLC is cruel, and unfair

Yeah, keep smiling asshole

Okay, wow, a DLC that gives some insight into the character Jetstream Sam, a rival to Raiden in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, sounds coo, no? While the story aspect is pretty interesting, they went batshit crazy (Raiden's words, not mine) with the gameplay however... I might not be the biggest hack n'slash fan there is, and I might not be very good at those games, but I never had any problems with the vanilla game. I never felt that the game was being unfair in any way (except the last VR missions, maybe), this DLC however is downright brutal. Also a bit short.

Anyone who has played MGR:R knows that the combat is fast paced, it's also pretty challenging but fair nonetheless. Sure it became easy if you did a certain parry exploit and then also had a fully upgraded Fox blade... But that's besides the point, I assume they felt they had to up the difficulty with this DLC, and holy shit did they do just that! Playing on normal, sure I got through, but the final boss? Excuse my language, but fucking donkey tits here it goes too far... I know this might sound like whining, perhaps I am, but listen to what they've basically done here. They took the fast combat, made the enemies much faster and YOU the player much slower.

With enemies also having more attacks, the final boss especially having seemingly unblockable attacks, it seems rather unfair. Sure MGR:R had gameplay flaws, but this DLC seem to do its best to bring them up and push them in the face of the player. I don't know what it is exactly, it's a some time ago now since I played the original game (well, some weeks) but I don't remember gameplay being this clunky and... bad? Seriously Platinum Games, what went wrong? Frustrating gameplay, overpriced (for the same amount of cash you can buy Gta Vice City off PSN, I recommend that instead), short (ergo overpriced) and worst of all, they completely wasted a potentially cool back-story! Sam is a cool character, why try to explain the character with such a shallow and poorly executed DLC? Also, why did they have to remove the ninja kill?

I don't know what more to say about this, a shame really. You might read this and think "well you just suck at the game, quit whining!", I say to you: I enjoyed the original game, this DLC is simply frustrating, there's a difference between that and actually challenging. The Big Boss difficulty in the MGS games is challenging, this is ass. I hope the Blade Wolf DLC is better, more thought out, but you can be sure that I will be more careful before I give them my cash.  I suppose if you're a patient guy who felt you were skilled at MGR:R could think of picking this up, but for the average joe? I dunno, I feel you might be wasting your money, I read this before I bought it but didn't believe it but you're better off watching the thing on Youtube.

Thatcher, another false idol

This is another one of those "serious-face" posts, this one in particular about the late Thatcher and what the Swedish Jonas Gardell wrote about her. If you understand Swedish go right ahead and find everything he said on -> http://www.expressen.se/kultur/gardell-margaret-thatcher-ingen-hjalte/

Day 2 of serious subjects,  don't worry this is still a gaming blog and won't go on for too long... I'm just going to try and reach out for opinions on the matter and perhaps influence and/or enlighten others on said matter. I had heard of that Thatcher lady, or Iron Lady to some, but since the only politicians I'm interested in are those who've done great stuff in my own country or those featured in games and movies I had no idea who she really was. In fact, the first I've read about her is the linked Swedish article where Gardell trashes her, and don't worry I will explain for the non-Swedes among those reading this soon enough!

So basically, she's famous for changing a lot about how the government works, closed some coal mines long ago, apparently saving the British economy and so on. Oh and also for being very stubborn and stuff, ergo the "Iron Lady" title. So she's hailed a hero among the conservatives while being vilified among the more socialistic people for smashing the unions or something like that (note that since English is not my native tongue I might be saying that wrong).

Although as Gardell wants to point out that some actions and beliefs would be enough for anyone to dislike her. She apparently revoked free milk that was given to poor schoolchildren, giving her the nickname "the milk snatcher", and apart from that was very homophobic and in general had weird views. When the disease AIDS came to Britain she is supposed to have expressed a desire to send gay people to gas chambers like another historical figure had done in the past and also said in public that children should learn good morals instead of thinking they got some kind of right to be gay. Oh and she also dismissed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. If you add all this together does it sound like a nice person who you can look up to? If you do then odds are, you're an asshole.

I never cared for this Thatcher person, nor will I in the future, I will most likely not remember her name by the end of the week, so this is not really about her. I was curious on idols, I got some of my own, but honestly they've shown themselves not to be that perfect so it just caught my attention that this woman is one who may be praised by many without them knowing what kind of person she really was. Same thing with Mother Teresa, literally classified as a saint, yet that was only thanks to the fact that the church pulled a media blitzkrieg on her and showered great publicity on her. In reality, she was a shady person as well, rather greedy and stuff.

Why do we need these false idols? No person is perfect, and the better they look odds are they hide some big dark secret, be it hidden by themselves or powerful friends/media. Would we not be just as good without looking up to false idols? Are they needed? Would we be better of thinking these people have no faults instead of digging them up? I don't know, honestly we don't have many worldwide idols. Gandhi is one, Martin Luther King is one, but those also had their vices. Although to be fair those people were pretty darn awesome, and whatever their faults were they didn't do much harm.

What was my point with this post? I don't know, I suppose I could end this with these words: Whoever your idols are, whoever you look up to, do not think their perfect, admire instead the good actions and strive to match them and possibly surpass them. Humans are after all, only human, I suppose the only thing we can do is make sure the good stuff we do far outweighs the bad stuff we do.

North Korea, just think about this...

Same shit, different times

Okay, lets be serious for a moment, topic being that North Korea is not a joke. Although if that was what you're thinking, I wouldn't blame you, who could when every humor site on the world wide web is making fun of the country and its leaders? But I suppose no one ever really thought about what's going on with North Korea right now and what might actually happen or what they're capable of. That's what this post is about, just to give this whole affair an extra thought.

First, lets look at what North Korea is, it's a dictatorship, that's for sure. What more, they aren't a primitive (well perhaps compared to the developed countries of the world) dictatorship, they got a big army that will fight to the death, should it come to that, missiles, and likely some atomic bombs. Why are we laughing at them? Well it's natural, really, we always make fun of a threat, the civilians in that country isn't the only ones affected by propaganda. We made fun of the Nazis once upon a time as well, it's human nature, it's easier to handle conflict if we make fun of it, it's all fun and games if we're not the ones dying, eh?

Personally, I wish people wouldn't be so nonchalant about the matter. What you are doing is that you're making fun of a rabid dog behind a fence, sure it is behind a fence but don't be surprised when he jumps over said fence and bite. Make no mistake, this dog is being backed into a corner, and somehow it's not helping that it has access to nuclear weapons (probably). I'm just saying, they are setting shit up, and they have encouraged foreign diplomats of evacuating South Korea (if I'm not completely wrong).

I don't know why people find this so funny, North Korea is not known for being a funny place. Ignorance is dangerous, and the people of that country has been fed nothing but ignorance for such a long time. They might be treated badly by their government, they may live under constant threat of being killed or taken away by the government, but they're still told and believe that everyone else is still worse, particularly South Korea and the US is the devil to them. They have no reason not to fight if they believe that we are attacking them.

Look, I'm not saying that we all need to be afraid either, living in constant fear of nuclear war is not the thing to do either. All I'm saying is that we should not take North Korea as a big joke, they have waged war before and technically it never ended, we got no reason to think they won't do anything if they're pushed far enough. Consider that their hate for most of the world is very fanatical, like the extremist terrorists of the middle easy, except this is an actual nation armed to the teeth and full of people willing to die for their country. If shit hits the fan, I'm pretty sure it won't be a laughing matter, so I suggest you don't take this so lightly, don't be afraid, but don't assume a nation being ruled by nutjobs won't do something crazy.

This blog has deviated from my usual subjects, being games, but I thought I should say something about this particular subject nonetheless. On a happier note my giveaway for codes granting you a free copy of Bioshock on PSN is still going on until this Friday 12.04.2013.

[UPDATED] Bioshock PSN code giveaway! Until 12.04.2013

Update: I had entered the wrong email, I'm sorry for the blunder but it's fixed now, feel free to enter if you're still interested!

To celebrate that my blog is growing and improving I'm giving away ONE code that give you a free copy of Bioshock if you enter them on the PSN store for the Playstation 3 system. This is a lottery, as you might have guessed, but how do you enter, you might ask? Super simple, just do this:

1. Send a mail to thompson.blog@live.com
2. For me to know what you want, just include "Bioshock PSN" and your name (Note: Doesn't have to be your real name if you're a shy person, just a nickname of some sorts since I will post it in the winner announcement) in your message
3. Wait until next Friday 12.04.2013 to see if you've won, I will announce the winner so you'll know for sure how it turned out
4. If you win, I will simply send you the codes by mail, as I said, super simple!

Don't hesitate to enter, while this is a celebration that my words have not been ignored I do not have many readers so you're chances are good! Anyone who own a Ps3 and have missed out on the original Bioshock should definitively consider entering, best of luck!

Better do as the man says.

Always-online Xbox confirmed?

#YOLO

While neither the next gen Xbox or its functions has been properly announced yet, we all know that it's coming, along with some nasty rumors. However, seems like the creative director Adam Orth have indeed confirmed that the next Xbox will be an always-online console with the following statement: "sorry, I don't get the drama around having an 'always on' console. Every device now is 'always on'. That's the world we live in. #dealwithit". Add the fact that a recent anonymous source said that the next Xbox will not only require an online connection, but if the connection goes away for 3 minutes your gaming will simply shut itself down, anyone hoping to jump on the Xbox-train for next gen should be worried. 

Still, lets examine what he said just a bit.... It's a pretty bold thing to come out and say something like that now, after the Sim City thing that happened and previous Diablo 3, people are getting sick of sugar coated DRM. I'm thinking this is some weird attempt at damage control, I mean, since we must assume this guy is no idiot, would it be fair to assume that someone who knows that the next Xbox wouldn't be always-online would say something like this? Would it not be more logical that he said that simply to let it sink in until the announcement when we instead can just sigh and say "well, I suppose it was unavoidable...."? 

With Sony flat out saying that their console won't be always-online, and people causing "drama" over the always-online rumors on the next Xbox, I suppose Orth was feeling stressed or something since he expressed his thoughts in such an aggressive way. I really have a hard time believing that someone with nothing to worry about in that regard would make such a statement, that's all. Also, anyone care to guess how much shit he has to take from his employers right now?

To be honest, MS has really had it rough lately from a PR perspective. They're loosing support from the industry, devs, indie devs in particular, are praising Sony while pretty much talking shit about MS. I don't know many people who are confident MS will deliver something good for next gen, so far I've only seen a few business men who think MS will "win" next gen because they have a lot of money. Look, dictators don't "win" anything if they go to far in screwing over the people who make their power possible, lets leave it at that. 

Microsoft can't really make it much worse for themselves right now, perhaps that's the tactic, crash their reputation so that when they do what they should've been  doing from the beginning they look like good guys. To me, it's still pretty far fetched that they would really do what the rumors claim, I mean, they would have to be pretty damn stupid do make such a controlled console and make the competition look so much better. Putting it bluntly, it would be commercial suicide.
Original story: http://uk.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-creative-director-doesnt-get-the-drama-around-an-always-online-xbox-6406464

Eight Days would be perfect for Ps4

"Eight Days" screens released 2009

While this game was also a part of the controversy when Sony showed CGI "demos" as actual gameplay demos, it still had a lot going for it, not to mention that they did show pretty interesting gameplay later on. Of course I'm also aware of the fact that nothing has been heard about this game in the last few years, and what was said then was "it's on hold"... But you know, have to remain hopeful for the future, doesn't hurt to talk about it, that's for sure.

Now, this was always a very ambitious project, here's the description I took from Wikipedia (because I'm lazy): "The game was to be set over the course of eight days, and to be set in eight different states, which would have made it the largest game map at the time. The game would have also included a real life clock. If the game was being played at night, it would be night in the game. The player would be able to choose between two characters, one 'good' and one 'bad'. In the 'bad' characters storyline, he attempts to get revenge on a mob syndicate. The other storyline would follow the 'good' character, a detective searching for the same mob syndicate, after he kidnaps his son. The two characters end up crossing paths, and eventually work together." Sounds pretty interesting, no? Although to be honest, way too ambitious for Ps3, which is probably a reason why they decided to put in on hold to begin with. 

With all this, would it not make sense to bring back this game to really show off the new hardware with Ps4 which could actually handle this? Sure if you look at the gameplay (at the end) you may see that if it was released like that today then it might not be impressive, but it's still more interesting than many other cover based shooters today. Also, they could add new elements to keep it fresh, who knows what the new hardware could allow them to do.... I for one would love to see it! It's also stated on Wikipedia that one reason for them putting it on hold was the lack of online capabilities, that's fine, there's proof today that gamers do want that. What I would suggest is that they use this game to show off AI capabilities, realistic graphics and physics, large environments... Show us that they will continue to support the offline players even though the added focus on online functionalities. 

I know there will be other games doing this, I doubt InFamous: Second Son will focus on multiplayer, or that Killzone: Shadow Fall will have a half-assed singleplayer.. But you know, considering they are launch titles, they're probably not going to be all that Ps4 games can be, they need new IP's (even if they've been around in the shadows for a long time) to carry making gaming fun for us, the gamers. Furthermore I will admit that all this may just be the crazy wishes of a madman who saw potential in a forgotten game, but if there's people out there who agrees then the first step to get Eight Days back on the radar is to start talking about it, so lets talk about it!

That's enough for me I suppose, feel free to tell me if you agree or disagree! Here's the gameplay video:

Star Wars finally dead?

I got the story from here: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/04/03/lucasarts-lays-off-staff-moving-to-licensing-model

So it seems that due to layoffs LucasArts will no longer produce games, if I've understood it all correctly. This means that the very anticipated Star Wars 1313 won't be made and any hope for Battlefront 3 ever seeing the light of day is pretty much gone as well. However, it seems like they might let other people use the license to decrease risks on their side, that might be really good or horribly bad, we could get another Aliens: Colonial Marines from that.

Is this the end of Star Wars? Could be, there doesn't seem to be much excitement about it these days, today I look down on the franchise mostly due to the prequels... But to be honest I used to be a fan, back when it was a great trilogy and Battlefront wowed us. Now that Disney has bought them, they're going to make more movies, and even when some of the original cast (like Harrison and Hamill) returns people seem really skeptical. Is the franchise truly dead, are they just beating a dead horse?

As I see it, the worst enemy to the Star Wars franchise is the creative minds over at Lucas Arts and Lucas Film, Disney being involved in the films might be good, they're behind popular movies like Pirates of the Caribbean and The Avengers, right? So who knows, maybe it will blossom into something great, of course I'm skeptical as hell and quite frankly, I'm not that excited... On the gaming side, if someone competent (that is, someone that isn't Activision or Gearbox) gets a shot at making a Star Wars game, I suppose it could turn out pretty good, depending on how restricted they would be.

I could be totally ignorant on this matter, truth be told this is the first time I'm really paying attention to what's going on with the franchise since Star Wars 1313 was announced... But who knows, perhaps it's a sinking ship waiting to be consumed by the depths of the sea, or it could be just the lift they need to make it to shore, and maybe, just maybe be the cause of something good again.

Note: I know my knowledge of this whole affair is limited, if I've stated something completely wrong feel free to correct me.

The David Hayter dilemma regarding MGS V

Warning, this blog contain one bigger spoiler for those who haven't played MGS4. Also contains useful links.

I will keep this as short as possible since I know this subject has been discussed heavily already, I just want to throw in my opinion since I've been a long time MGS fan. First off, quick back story for those who don't have the full story, last week Metal Gear Solid V was officially announced and around when they showed the gameplay demo (link will be provided at the end for both the trailer and gameplay) many noticed the absence of the iconic Hayter-voice. It was later confirmed by Kojima that Big Boss will indeed have a new voice actor, however it was also discovered that Hayter was never asked or told that he had been replaced and he has expressed sadness over that fact.

First off, changing the voice of Big Boss in MGS V might sound like a logical thing to do actually, seeing that the man is getting older and (spoiler ahead) an old Big Boss was voiced by Richard Doyle in the end of MGS4 so it would be understandable. That's of course if they didn't keep the original Japanese voice actor (Akio) for the same part, when you know that the whole affair seems more questionable. Kojima has explained the VA change by saying that he want to "recreate the Metal Gear series" and that he wants it to reflect it in the voice actor as well. Isn't it safe to say that's bullshit then when the Japanese VA remains the same?

Some has said it's a big joke, that either Hayter will return as Big Boss or that he will return as the one and only Solid Snake. I don't know what to believe to be honest, Hayter has been a bit too cool about it all, and him not even being told anything about the whole thing is a bit fishy... But if this is all some big joke that both Kojima and Hayter is in on it's a pretty elaborate joke and quite frankly, it would be of pretty bad taste that has already made many fans (yes, including myself) bitter.

So therein lies the problem, either it's as they've said and they're changing the voice actor while totally ignoring the iconic voice that so many of us love for very vague reasons, or they're making a very cruel joke. If Kojima was this disrespectful towards Hayter on purpose I assume he have some problem with him, I then wish he would just man up and say it instead of dancing around the subject with contradictory statements. Don't get me wrong, I will support this new Metal Gear, and I'm still a big fan of both Kojima and Hayter, but I'm still pretty disappointed in all of this.

All we can do, no matter if you're on the "I want Hayter back!"-camp or "I'm fine with a new voice actor"-camp, is to simply voice your opinions. I suggest that if you do want Hayter back, even a little, that you say it, the comment sections on Youtube, your own blogs, site forums or sign petitions, it has helped before. Whatever happens, I do urge all fellow fans to stay somewhat positive and civil about it.

Links
- Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5t45tEPWQ
- Gameplay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PisJDUCdPqI
- Petition to bring back Hayter: https://www.change.org/petitions/kojima-productions-bring-back-david-hayter-as-the-voice-actor-for-snake-in-mgs-v#share

* April Fools *

I have nothing interesting to say
Yes that's pretty gay

I mean no offense
Shit just got tense

I shall continue to write
As long as someone bite

Now enjoy April first
While I quench my thirst

...That was pretty horrible, was it not? :D

Welcoming controversy, ignoring the vocal minority

With Bioshock: Infinite being released this week, surprisingly causing little controversy (only for being true to the time period, lots of racial discrimination and so on...), I've been thinking a bit about the subject of "controversy"... Why shy away from it? Why not embrace the taboo? I'm not saying to make games or movies about raping kids just for the sake of controversy, I'm just saying that what's considered taboo today shouldn't hinder developers from making whatever they want.

Why not include children in open world games? Why not have you play as an extremist terrorist? Why not strike where it will make an emotional impact? Because soccer moms and Fox News says it's wrong? Bullshit, we and the developers must ask ourselves, who buys games which has been deemed controversial? It's not the old, conservative, extremely religious or overly sensitive parents that buy these games, why cater to them?

The people being vocal about all these controversies are the ones not buying these games anyway. I doubt a radical feminist would ever buy a Duke Nukem game, so why would it be logical to censor it to please the radical feminists? We sometimes hear the phrase "if you don't like it, don't buy it", I wish we could use that phrase more liberally instead of letting non-gamers dictate what gamers get to play.

Surely I can't be the only one wanting to be shocked every now and then? I suppose it's like liking horror games, just an itch you want scratch, ironic too since horror games are rare today as well. Though, every now and then a game comes along that actually shocks me, not always because the content itself is very taboo but it's because it's emotionally shocking. The twist in Bioshock and Spec Ops: The Line as examples, hold your nipples I'm not going to spoil them, I'm just going to discuss emotions that they made happen. While I was uncomfortable at the time, Spec Ops: The Line specifically made my head spin, but afterwards I really liked what it did, it made an impact, it was memorable. I will remember that game a lot longer than lets say, Cod MW2 because it made me feel something other games don't.

Another thing that comes to my mind is Gta V, it's supposed to include animals, this is in my opinion a step in the right direction. It made me feel uneasy, any Gta player has at times just decided to drive over a bunch of pedestrians on the sidewalk, if you're one of them did you feel anything? I don't, random, virtual humans whom you don't know anything about won't make you feel guilty for driving them over, but what about a dog? Most people work that way, we hear about how millions are starving to death in third world countries, wars... We don't care, but when we hear about how some crazy person has killed a puppy or kitten? Then we see red, that person should die a horrible death, we've never seen the animal victim, but we just feel strongly about it. So what would happen then, if we play a game where we're used to running over people, we suddenly hit a dog? Well, just thinking about it makes me feel uneasy, uncomfortable, what to do about it? Well, it makes you want to avoid it, without forcing you you avoid it, without making them immortal (like the children in Fallout 3), that is how you should do it, IMO.

True freedom, choices, just like the real world, what's the point of being good if that's your only option. You're not really a good person if you do good things because that's the only thing you can do. However, the shock value here isn't in simply having it there, and avoiding it, it's in doing it by accident. You don't mean it, but it happened anyway, will you change your ways, or will it harden you? That's exactly what would make the game a more personal experience, games shouldn't always have to force these moments, they should just let them happen. Controlling moments that shock you is just another way to censor games anyway, the point is simply that I want more "taboo" things in games, not only moments but an ubiquitous theme perhaps that lasts throughout.

So that's my opinion for the day, more controversy and fuck anyone offended. Don't like it, don't buy it.