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.