Weekly Uploads #5

This "week's" vids took so long as I was fighting The Warden Eternal and gave myself a stress hernia.

1. If a tree falls in the Battlefield does anyone stop to fix the engine?

2. AI using next level trolling tactics. (Credit: CapnLeigh)

3. No hunters; no problem. (as of 9/11/15 this bug still works)

4. Ah the classic Elite-Hijack-and-Smack 1-2 combo.

5. I wasn't very good at this game.

6. I will hurt you for this. A day will come when you think you are safe and happy, and your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth,

Thanks for watching.

-Norris

Halo 5 - And see how our faith has been rewarded

Halo 5 has been out for just over a week now so it’s time to share some thoughts. What I think will strike fans first is how much 343 has brought the series into the modern era of shooters. Chiefly (pun intended) is how aiming down sights has been mapped to the left trigger which for eons has been the home of the grenade. Clicking right thumb stick to bring up your sights is a thing of past and brings Halo in line with more common controller layouts for FPSs. Whilst initially jarring it does make sense. Clicking right thumb stick has always required grace and a steady appendage which in the heat of the moment can be difficult. Countless times have I depressed the thumb stick when I did not mean to and although it was a defining feature of Halo it is a good decision. With infinite sprint and boosters also being standard issue the movement of Halo 5 is also slicker and faster. They’ve also nabbed that handy slide manoeuvre from Destiny. Dare I say it but Spartans actually feel like Spartans now; fast, agile and powerful.

This makes multiplayer a different kettle of fish entirely and 343 have made efforts to distinguish Halo 5 even further through the game types. Depending on your preference the modes are nicely grouped up and locked down in veto-free servers. Arena caters for the E-Sport types whilst Warzone appeals to the BTB fans. I’m split between both which surprises me; I thought I’d be a Warzone purist. Arena offers some of the most satisfying payoffs for winning just a single round of the Tron-meets-paintball style maps. And when you’re bored of being dominated by other teams you can relieve the stress by trouncing AIs in Warzone. The contentious REQ system works well I think; packs are easy to come by as points are doled out consistently for all types of gameplay and the REQ level stops players from simply paying for the best gear and benefiting immediately.

The campaign is a different story though. I enjoyed it as I have enjoyed all Halo campaigns but I was not blown away. Locke and Osiris dominate most of the play-time which is fine in a post ODST / Reach world where we don’t NEED to play as the Chief to have a good time. However, chasing Blue Team and the Guardians just does not fill me with the same sense of discovery and lend itself to moments of mysticism as being Chief on a Halo ring. Perhaps this is where a division appears in the fans though. 343 is clearly moving in a new direction for Halo and are fleshing out the universe nicely but we’re left with a campaign that mentions the Halos maybe twice in a game called HALO 5. I don’t mean I want a physical Halo to justify the title but that there should have been a greater connection to the core concept. In defence of 343 though; like Halo 2, Halo 5 is the middle piece of a trilogy and for me Halo 5 has set up a game I cannot wait to play. Maybe the true pay-off is yet to come. Much like the Godfather 2 for the original Halo 5 has also made Halo 4 and its story better. If Halo 6 gives anything like the satisfaction of Halo 3 I will be giving 343 a well-earned pat on the back.

There are a few more larger points of debate but I will leave them for a second post when I have uploaded some of my capture footage. For now, here a couple bullets to end on:

• The cut-scenes need a serious overhaul. On the major end of things I don’t think there are any that even come close to the “giving the Covenant back their bomb” scene from Halo 2. On the minor end each scene ends in a piss-poor “fade to black” transition which is either inappropriate, lazy or both.

• At longer distances some of the character animations lose a serious amount frames and seems blocky and mechanical. This is particularly true of the Crawlers who frequently stutter around the maps.

• Spartan Charge in multiplayer does not promote good, tactical play and rewards players who sprint around constantly.

Thanks for reading.

-Norris

EDIT: 5/11/15. So it seems I spoke too soon. Having been stuck trying to beat Legendary Solo because of THAT Warden fight I had not yet seen the Legendary ending when I wrote this post. So now with so much egg on my face I take back what I said about the Halos. Bravo 343. You redeemed yourself at the literal last possible moment.

Spectre: Not the Ghost at the Feast

Watch the film before reading this if you care about spoilers.

So it turns out if you go to a premiere there are no adverts before the film. If you take nothing else away from this post at least you have that useful knowledge. Therefore, if you have serious disagreement with anything you read here it’s because I missed the first four minutes of the film which would have changed my opinion to align with yours if I’d seen them.

Let’s get it out of the way then; Spectre is a good film and, more importantly, it is a good Bond film. I feel this distinction needs to be made for a few franchises. For instance, Iron Man 2 is not a good film but it is a good Avengers film. Spectre lays to rest a question that has been hanging over the reboot; are they just rolling the dice and having on/off luck or does someone really know what they are doing behind it all? With Spectre in the mix we’re up to 75% good films.

Now admittedly, everyone has their own opinion of what makes a good Bond film and it boils down to what is the essence of Bond for them. In broad terms I find the division to be along the lines of:

Gadgets: Sci-fi and Deus ex Machina vs Minimal and practical

Cheesy one-liners: Prolific and not funny vs Occasional, mild and self-aware

Extravagant villain: Lives in a volcano/space or has a diamond face vs mildly psychotic with additional flair

(I fear my bias may have slipped in there)

Spectre for me plays the lines nicely. His watch is a gadget but it doesn’t have a laser or a grappling hook; it’s a bomb. The dialogue is genuinely funny (Bond interrogating the rat) and the plot is straightforward (depending on how deeply you look at the cuckoo thing). The villain is odd and pays tasteful homage to the canon (actually maybe the cat was too much). The pacing was also spot-on and does not make the film’s length felt. Although the action may not have been jaw-dropping or even scored by the classic Bond fanfare it felt grounded and real which added tension and grit. Perhaps the highlight of this is the henchman fight on the train. Mr Hinx dominates and throws 007 around with ease. His raw strength and power poses a genuine threat to an aging Bond and it is only with Madeline’s intervention that James escapes.

Of course I do have some minor observations. As I mentioned in my first post about Spectre (http://oldsirnorris.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/inspectre-gadget-lets-hope-not.html) any attempts to retro-actively crowbar in an overarching puppeteer organisation is going to go poorly. The three films are self-encompassing and standalone albeit with carry overs (e.g. Vespyr). There is no suggestion of an as-wide a picture as Spectre suggests in any of them which makes Blofeld’s revelation somewhat difficult to swallow. What’s more the only justification for this is a gallery of pictures of characters in the basement of MI6. It does not detract from the overall experience but in age where post-credit scene Marvel films are an accepted method for linking films together it seems just a bit more fore-planning and effort could have made the overall package that more rewarding.

Bond’s torture by Blofeld is sickeningly visceral. One poor lady left the auditorium in our viewing. If you felt uncomfortable watching Bond’s Double Ohs getting smashed at the end of Casino Royale then this will likely make you writhe in your seat like I did. However, I’m fairly sure Blofeld mentions the operation would affect James’ vision, hearing and balance and yet during the escape Bond displays superb marksmanship and coordination. Again, the second intrusion into Bond’s skull should have influenced his recognition skills as planned but it just… doesn’t… without any real explanation as to why. Well… they DO “explain” it which brings me to:

Piss-poor romance. Bond gets the girl. We all know that. It’s a staple of the franchise that 007 beds at least a handful of women per film. Must we suffer through a LOVE story though? She LOVES him. Really? I know the screen writers need to be mindful of an “out” for Craig’s Bond but the rapid change in Swan’s attachment to James is difficult to contend with.

Some other tertiary thoughts to wrap up on:

·         I loved seeing M doing spymastery spy things. It refreshes the character following Judy Dench's departure.

·         “It’s like poetry; they rhyme”: from hollowed crater vs hollowed volcano to M sitting in the dark office v 007 sitting in the dark office there is a lot of self-referencing in this film and if there’s one thing I love it’s a good reference.

·         We’ve “killed” the henchman (Quotation marks because he didn’t die ON SCREEN so…) “What should we do now?”… sex? My eyes almost rolled out of their sockets.

Thanks for reading.

-Norris

Hag Syndrome and Me

Hag syndrome, an experience associated with sleep paralysis, is normally identified as a period of consciousness but without the ability to move the body. Accompanying this is a sensation that someone is in the room with you or, more alarmingly, that someone is pressing their bodyweight on you from an angle which you cannot turn to observe. The “hag” in hag syndrome comes from a feeling that the person in the room is malevolent. It has been characterised in history and culture and to be honest the rest of what I want to introduce with is on this Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

Now that you’re up to speed I want to present my own personal experience and suggest explore other branches of this phenomenon than the popularised haunting version. First though I would like to acknowledge the problem of medicalising such borderline disruptive conditions as well as the splintering and specialising of conditions. With the former there is a problem of medicating disorders that do not need drugs to address them and the latter pertains to muddying the waters by constantly trying to define and separate ailments. This is not an argument for or against either. This is just an addition of anecdotal evidence.

Some background information: I have been through many stages of sleep disruption. Some were general stress and over-active brain related insomnias that I’m sure many of you have experienced. Others were the side effects of drugs. Doxycycline, for instance, put me through some of the most twisted and vivid dreams I have ever experienced. I am also a chronic sleep-talker but that’s neither here-nor-there (or maybe it is here-and-there; I don’t know what may be relevant to my experience).

My current phase of sleep disturbance includes what appears to be a shade of hag syndrome. Roughly 3 times a month I will wake in the night with the conviction that someone is in or trying to enter the room. Often this will be accompanied by hallucinations varying from the practical to the outright fanciful. The hallucinations will be grounded in something real and physical in the room; items on a desk take the forms of small creatures or a hanging coat will become the clothes of an apparition. My belief in what I’m seeing will last roughly ten seconds and be broken either by the rationale that what I’m seeing cannot be real or interaction with the object when I will realise its true form. If I believe a person is in the room I will often try to talk to them. Unlike stories of hag syndrome though I am never scared of what I believe is happening. On the contrary because I sleep without much clothing on often my first emotion is embarrassment at being found in a state of undress. Sometimes the feeling is that someone has been in the room for a long time and has been trying to talk to me and again, from embarrassment, I will laugh as a way to break the ice and apologise for my rude behaviour of ignoring them. The lack of fear is probably connected to the fact that I rarely believe a stranger is in the room and rather it is a friend or a flatmate. A final critical detail that you may have already picked up on; I do not suffer the paralysis or indeed any other physiological effects such as experience weight being pressed on me. If the situation requires it I can get out of bed and move freely whilst still falsely seeing / hearing. In what could be considered a reversal of typical hag syndrome my body is perfectly responsive but it is my mind that is slow to react to reality.

So there’s some new data to add to the melting pot. Should this area of sleeping issues ever be relevant in your academic circles or even as a “this guy I know” story then I hope this has been of some use.

Thanks for reading.

-Norris

Bus Stop Crowding - An Alternative Theory

In an effort to diversify this blog and produce some more academic content I wanted to start a section I’ll humbly call “Nozology”. Ideas and thoughts stemming from observations or inspired by other great minds that are then shamelessly ripped off.

I’m currently reading When to Rob a Bank: The Freakopeadia by Levitt and Dubner. Like anyone who is reading a “Freako” book they feel a sudden surge of smugness and superiority when faced with life’s trivialities and in my case this has spurred me on to write this entry. One chapter in the book focuses on Dubner’s use of a Manhattan bus and how when it is particularly crowded he will embark earlier down the street at a different bus stop. Although not that far a walk away from the initial bus stop this stop is usually quieter and affords a better choice of seat. Dubner questions why, when such a small amount of effort is required to gain a better experience, does no one else follow suit and also use the preceding bus stop to avoid a miserable journey? His prime theory is herd mentality; the notion that if you see a large crowd using this bus stop then that must mean this is the optimal bus stop to use. How could so many people be getting it wrong after all?

Warwick University (where I went to uni) has a similar example of this scenario. At around 5 o’clock (17:00) on a weekday there is a swell of students wishing to leave campus by bus to return to Leamington Spa. I don’t think many will disagree with me when I say the bus service provided is sub-optimal in terms of capacity and frequency. Often hundreds of students will attempt to cram onto a double-decker or two. The worst spot on campus for this was the “Library” bus stop. A bus stop so named because it was nearest the Humanities building, Engineering building and Sports Centre and, notably, not the library. I assume this was a hive-mind labelling to pacify any potential attempts at ownership of the bus stop by one department who could then chastise others for using “their” bus stop.

Library bus stop was situated on the one artery road that ran through campus. Along this road were three other bus stops. Library bus stop was in the centre of the three. This road was not particularly long as you will see from the following map (Bus stops are marked a Red “B”s in the centre of the map).

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/moac/news_events/dtc_conf/may2012conference/campusmap/university-of-warwick-campus-map.jpg

The first bus stop along the road, “Gatehouse bus stop” (more appropriately named as it was near the university gatehouse but which itself didn’t have a gate) acted as a break point for the drivers before that started another loop of their patch. Often 2 or 3 bus could be found stacked up ready to make a tour of campus and on to Leamington and, once the driver had sufficiently refilled on nicotine, could be boarded relatively easily without wading through a scrum of tired students. This bus stop was a mere 321 metres (by Google Maps’ estimates) from the second bus, Library bus stop.

One final detail; my understanding of New York is that most things are in a grid allowing you to see down the entire street at once. I’d venture therefore that the people waiting in Dubner’s example could see the bus coming and perhaps even the emptier bus stop. Craftily the Warwick uni bus stops are all concealed from each other around bends.

The scene is set so I want you to imagine that you are a student at Warwick trampling out of your lecture eager to get home. You stand amongst the throng and now are faced with a choice; stick with Library bus stop (LBS) or journey down to Gatehouse bus stop (GBS).

I believe Dubner overlooked a couple of elements in his blog on why no one moves and would like to propose a thesis of my own:

1.       Fear of missing a bus. Ultimately the aim is to get on a bus and go home as soon as possible. So; yes, your odds of getting on a bus at LBS are slim but should you start walking and from around the bend comes a bus your odds have shrunk to nothing. Fear keeps you rooted amongst the crowd knowing your gamble could mean waiting an undetermined amount of time until the next bus is released from the traps at GBS. Which brings me to:

2.       Unpredictability of the buses. Warwick uni is plagued by bus companies running lackadaisical timetables. They also live in fear of the bus company throwing the ultimate curve ball; the single decker bus which pushes the ante so high friendships have been forged and broken on the back of who and who has not made it onto the destitute carriage. (A worthy study sample of in-group and out-group dynamics if ever there were one).

3.       Getting home sooner ranks higher than comfort of the journey. Dubner likes to be able to sit with his daughter in their own space. Students (and perhaps the commuting New Yorkers) aren’t as fussed about having a seat (the best seat on a double decker bus by the way is the top deck, front row) as they are about getting to where they are going. Waiting at LBS may take an unknown amount of time (Time until bus arrives) but eventually a bus will come. However, if you leave for GBS you may find yourself stuck in an extended period of waiting if a bus passes you on your way. GBS wait time therefore = Time until bus arrives + potential of extra waiting if a bus comes to LBS whilst you walk to GBS.

Still with me? If not don’t fear because you are experiencing what it is to be a Warwick student as, ultimately, I suggest that herd mentality is not the key cause of mass bus-stopping but that the sheer weight of the decision maths required can cripple a person’s brain to such an extent that it’s easier to just get swept along with the crowd.

Thanks for reading

-Norris

Freakonomics blog in question:

http://freakonomics.com/2007/03/21/herd-mentality-the-freakonomics-of-boarding-a-bus/

Battlefront Beta - Our First Catch of The Day

With the Battlefront beta now closed I wanted to share a few thoughts on what we have seen. It should go without saying but I’ll say it anyway; a beta is a beta. Things will change before release. So take everything with a pinch of salt and prepare for something that could be quite different next month.

Firstly; HALLELUJAH! The “Active Reload” from Gears of War makes a triumphant return. For the non-COGs; Active Reload makes a mini-game out of reloading. When reloading an on-screen indicator slides down past a “sweet spot” and if you press the right button in time the reload will finish immediately allowing you to get back into the fight. Get it wrong and the weapon will jam and make reloading longer than normal. It’s a brilliant and simple risk / reward system that makes a normally mundane action an event in itself. In Battlefront it’s more of an Active Vent than Active Reload as BF features no ammunition. Much like turrets in most shooters all weapons function on a heat up / cool down system meaning you can fire off consistent rapid volleys given you’re good enough with chaining your Active Vents. I love this system and honestly wish it was in every shooter. Bravo DICE!

Sniping is something I have a love / hate relationship with. I get it; it is perhaps one of the most satisfying feelings you can get nailing a long distance headshot and it does take skill to master. However, Battlefront’s cousin Battlefield suffers from having sniping as a core class and rifle option as snipers typically keep back from the core fight to make the most of their copes rather than taking objectives.  Battlefront has taken a different, and in my opinion better, approach to sniping; everyone can have a sniper rifle at any time! This initially sounds like a terrible idea except that each shot is on a cooldown and takes away from having another “hand” (Battlefront’s word for perk). Now everyone can get that satisfaction of pulling off an excellent headshot but still needs to stay in the action to make the most of it as the cooldown keeps them from bunkering down and firing off round after round. The beta was a bit too over-run with sniper rounds pinging overhead but I attribute this to the small number of options for hands available. In the full game with a greater array of hands there should be fewer players opting for the rifle in place of something else.

Battlefront operates a “buddy” system as an alternative to squads as seen in Battlefield. You can spawn directly onto your partner as well as share his primary hand if it isn’t already unlocked. The quick spawn onto partner works nice as a substitute for the revive system (which I understand will not be a part of Battlefront) and means you’re never too far away from each other at any one time. This is an essential to success as Battlefront’s relatively long time-to-kill means that an average player is unlikely to win in a 1v2 scenario. However, with “squading-up” absent from the game it makes it difficult to play with more than one friend at a time as the UI does not highlight friends / party members differently from other team members. This is something I hope will be addressed in the full game.

Vehicles, along with every other object in the game, look the part in Battlefront (I forget to mention that the game looks incredible with no exaggeration). They do not play particularly well though. Air combat does not grant enough freedom of movement in an attempt to make it accessible to all skill levels and ground vehicles aim awkwardly. Thankfully these things are patch-able and I imagine this feedback will be some of the loudest across the community. I cannot fault those Tie Fighters though; audio masterpieces.

Overall I was impressed by Battlefront and am more confident it will take a greater portion of my time in amongst Halo 5 and Fallout 4 when it is released. Just a few more points as I am concise of TL;DR.

·         When hit character models flinch quite drastically without changing the hit boxes. This can make target tracking tricky and was an issue in Battlefield 3 and 4. The flinches were toned down in both these games to accommodate this and I’m sure this will happen again for Battlefront. Strange to see DICE make that mistake AGAIN though.

·         Like I said, Battlefront looks great with many little touches and attention to detail that immerses you in the Star Wars feeling. My personal favourite is the wiping transitions echoed from the original trilogy that pushes the feeling of playing the films.

Thanks for reading. I’ll leave you with some quick clips I took.

When chickens fly:

If anyone can figure out how I died here I'd love to know. Too much flair maybe?

Should have kept his back-plate in:

-Norris

Weekly Uploads #4

This week's vids straight from the console that brought you buying the Games with Gold game the month before it was free.

1. What no bonus points for flair?

2. A modicum of respect.

3. We've all run the simulations... I hope.

4. Cut off a phantom's head and it still has the power to bite.

5. A Covenant commander sticks around to find out why endless waves of Grunts just don't seem to get results.

6. 3 spooky 5 me!

Thanks for watching.

- Norris

Halo 5: Buzzword - Part 1

With the opening cinematic for Halo 5 filtering through Teh Interwebs I thought the time was right to weigh in on one of my favourite gaming franchises. Quick history lesson; Halo 2 was the first shooter I was ever any good at and, like many, was the first to make me enjoy multiplayer for the sake of winning the game (see: modern day shooters that have progressive unlocks as the primary incentive to keep playing). Halo was also a forge for friendships and in many ways the benchmark for other games; Halo 3 being the definitive multiplayer experience and Halo 3: ODST as a contender for my all-time favourite game. Halo has helped to define the all-in-one shooter game from Halo 2 launching Xbox Live to its beautifully scored and engaging campaigns.

Halo 5 is right around the corner and with my Halo 5 controller on pre-order (don’t pre-order kids, it’s ruining the industry) I’m ready to share a few thoughts on what we have seen so far. Despite taking away “couch co-op” the Halo 5 campaign is focusing on a co-op platform that can be played individually. This is a reversal of the standard template where well-formed campaigns could also be taken further with co-op. Franchise Development Director Frank O'Connor has stated that this co-op centric approach will provide extra replayability as well as the meat of “length” of the campaign (insert: meat length joke).

Opening Cinematic

E3 Gameplay

The opening cinematic and gameplay videos show off how Guardians differs from previous iterations. Fireteam Osiris and the ability to give squad orders set Halo 5 apart as you are no longer a towering giant amongst a group of useless Marines. Locke (and presumably Chief with Blue Team) issues flanking, attack and revive orders in a similar way to Ghost Recon / Rainbow Six. As long as the AI are intelligent enough to act out these basic instructions I think this is a welcome edition to the franchise and will help to mix-up the traditional combat style of hoping to kill everything quickly before everything kills you.

The Spartans actually seem like Spartans as well. In Halo 4 there was a moment I thought this moment would come sooner. In the cutscene introducing Palmer and Lasky they are flanked by Spartan-4s and, for but a fleeting moment, I hoped we were to be joined by an AI ally that was capable of living up to expectations. Nope; just Marines AI in a new skin. The videos suggest there may finally be some worthy of the title.

Something I’m on the fence about though is back-peddling on the Prometheans. The mix of these new enemies in Halo 4 was certainly new and different. I have to commend this bold step in a franchise that typically does not try to mess with the system (see: Brute combat not actually being different from Elite combat; plasma, headshot, rinse, repeat). It wasn’t that fun though; Knights were a bit too damage spongey, Watchers were a bit too run-away-y and it seemed impossible to master the Crawler headshot sweet-spot.

343 were at a crossroads gameplay wise when making Guardians. They could either re-use the Promethean enemies and try to change the combat dynamic or they could create new Promethean enemies and create a new combat dynamic. The latter seems to have been the path taken. The problem I have with this is not a gameplay one (After all gameplay is key) but a continuity one. Halo 4 set a precedent that the Prometheans we saw were the Promethean army directed by the Didact. There were no Promethean Soldiers or Captains as in the Halo 5 E3 gameplay video, only Knights. As pedantic as it is I just wish a little more planning or testing of the Prometheans was done by 343 so that they didn’t need to change the enemies one game into their new saga. However, as I said, as long as these new enemies are fun and challenging to fight then the point is moot.

-Norris

Weekly Uploads #3

Another selection of videos from the machine that made you pay £300 to watch a spinning loading animation.

1. Found Robocop in GTA... Or at least the budget version of him.

2. 60% of the time when trying to avoid dying it works every time.

3. Candidate for Spartan IV program.

4. "Hop in. That's not a suggestion"

5.The council will have their corpse.

6. "Do you... Do you want me to get that for you?"

Thanks for watching

-Norris

The Witcher 3 - FINE!

Having recently completed the majority of content for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt I wanted to share a few observations. I immensely enjoyed the Witcher 3 having not played either of the previous two (but, of course, having both available for immediate play in my STEAM library. One day I’ll get to them… one day). It scratched the itch for action fantasy open world game that can linger on once Skyrim has been put to rest. Skyrim it is not though and if, like me, you came into the game expecting Elder Scrolls meets Assassin’s Creed, stumbling around White Orchard can be a bit of a jarring experience.

However, once you get used to the nuisances of combat and Geralt’s… interesting… way of getting around the environment (see: full body mounting and climbing of a 3 foot fence) The Witcher 3 quickly pulls you into its long story and extensive item management. Like Skyrim though, and perhaps this is a sign of the greater appeal of more approachable, casual gaming, The Witcher 3 is not particularly thought-taxing or complex. This aids the overall experience though as the already extensive main story-arch would have dragged should every dungeon require puzzle solving or platforming. Most activities or quests are guided by your “witcher senses”; a monochrome world of dog-like senses that allow you to sleuth out the next stage of action.

The game takes you through some gorgeous environments which are complemented by an emotive original score that befits each landscape. You can really escape into the world and the restricted access to fast travel encourages you to journey from place to place in-game. This puts you squarely in Geralt’s boots as you experience his life of trotting from town to town picking up contracts and running into old friends. For the fantasy newbie like myself the game introduces you to a wide plethora of monsters and ghouls you’ve probably never heard of before. Yes, there’re vampires and werewolves but leshens and noonwraiths will likely be new quarrels for you. It never feels like too much lore or niche-fantasy though and each encounter with these beasts will teach you a little bit more about their behaviour and their weaknesses (you are meant to be an expert in these fields after all).

This is where the game shines most, as the strapline for the game declares; “This world doesn’t need a hero, it needs a professional”. Geralt is not the Dragonborn. As a character he’s not destined for greatness. In many ways his witcher abilities make him a superhero of his time but these are neat gameplay mechanics rather than plot-devices in a story of “the one”. Yes he is searching for the Neo of his universe for most of the game but Geralt is more relatable than most fantasy lead characters because at the end of the day he has a tangible objective; consort with ladies and acquire coin.

There is a wider-picture, real-world appeal to The Witcher 3 as well though. CD PROJEKT RED as company have created a marvellous product that was well marketed. What’s more is they have a real appreciation and commitment to their fans. In an era of games being released broken and the value of games coming under greater scrutiny The Witcher 3 shines as a template for how all games should be released and fans treated by developers. Admittedly, the game has required patches but the game worked out of the box. Moreover, the game was released and then supported for 16 consecutive weeks with free DLC. Yes, some were merely cosmetic items but that is something that other companies would still have charge for. I can only hope that The Witcher 3 will attract the attention of the wider market for its success through pleasing fans and perhaps in the future it will be looked back on as the beginning of the renaissance of gaming. (Too much? I think I went a little too far in some places).

A few other points to end on:

·         Ciri. For a badass, The-Bride-from-Kill-Bill-esque character Ciri’s animations are, for lack of a better word, dainty. This was too much of a juxtaposition for me.

·         Roach. Oh my poor sweet Roach. On an open road with wide sweeping bends riding on Roach the horse is one of the most enjoyable experiences of the game. In every other situation he is the bane of my existence. Frequently stuck immediately upon being summoned or otherwise making a nuisance of himself by standing on loot, the horse-play left much to be desired.

·         Swimming. I normally find it easy enough to switch from one set of controls to another from game to game but every time I hit the water with Geralt I’d inevitably get the controls wrong. The buttons just feel… backwards…

·         FINE! Finally, I appreciate it is difficult to create branching trees of dialogue that ultimately converge back on one option. But!; to have Geralt respond to each request with “Fine!” like a moody teenager in an attempt to cover all possible script outcomes didn’t go unnoticed. Surely this was pointed out in recording at some point?

Thanks for reading.

-Norris

Weekly Uploads #2

Another batch of videos fresh from my already full XB1 hard-drive. What? 1TB version!? Got my money again MS!

1. It's not enough to kill your enemy. You have to humiliate them.

2. Mjolnir working at its finest.

3. Spawning mechanics at their finest!

4. And uh... drones... at their finest. (Honestly didn't even know they could do this).

5. In the brief time I played this game before it screwed me over I enjoyed these moments... this moment... this is honestly probably the only moment of fun I had.

6. Irony hits hard.

Until next time; DON'T GIVE MS ANY MONEY.

Battlefront – A New Hope Pt.4

I promise I will start talking about something else other than New Battlefront (NBF) soon. But I couldn’t ignore the Gamescom trailer for the new game mode; Fighter Squadron. Fighter Squadron pits two teams of pilots against each other in a race to shoot down or defend a fleeing transport shuttle. A criticism of NBF when it was first announced was that it would not feature space battles as per previous iterations. This may placate some of those people looking to get their X-Wing vs TIE Fighter fix.

This was not a particularly damning issue for me though as I always felt the space battles weren’t as exciting as they were made out to be. This was mostly because of the basic flight controls that made dog-fighting tedious as everyone had the same turn radius and “pull up and roll” manoeuvre. The strategies for downing the enemy carrier also became quite repetitive. However, given the popularity of this style of gameplay I would not be surprised if a space combat only game was on the cards. Why sell one game when you could sell two, right?

Reports from those that have played NBF say the controls of the air vehicles are “arcadey” suggesting that the control problem would likely be replicated. It also brings in to question how engaging this game mode can be given the problems of the past. Well DICE has had a thought about that. They’ve added something I have wanted not just from a Star Wars a game but from space ship simulators in general; directing power flow. Your craft can either have its power directed to engines or weapons along a sliding scale. More power to the engines and you’ll outpace your pursuers but your weapons won’t be as effective though. The reverse is true if you power up your lasers; you’ll be an easy target. This simple concept adds that feeling of really piloting a space craft as portrayed in the films (“Full power to guns!”). My only gripe is I wish that they’d have gone as far as the holy trinity; engines, weapons and shields. I appreciate though that this may have been too much.

NBF Fighter Squadron has also brought back another Battlefront staple; AI opponents. To complement the 10 players on your team you’ll have another 10 robots on your wing to provide cannon fodder. For those counting that means we’re up to 42 fighters in the air meaning it should feel pretty hectic. The addition (or rather, continuation) of AI characters can only be a positive. Take Titanfall for example; although limited in its lifespan by a lack of customisation and reward schemes it had a broad appeal to all skill levels as hordes of AI were crushed under your mech’s boots. Lessons have also been learnt from Battlefield’s Air Superiority mode where only the best Top Gun pilots dominated the poorer fliers. AI pilots level the playing field and allow the critical Star Wars experience of swatting down swarms of TIE Fighter (points are points at the end of the match afterall). What may be taking it a step too far though is the “locking on” effect that seems to happen when lining up an enemy. This may be just an ability but if not aerial combat may be a bit too over-simplified especially if you’re missiles already track targets.. You need to at least TRY and get kills.

A few more short points as this is getting lengthy:

1) Contextual destruction; engines seem to be destroyed individually depending where you are hit and, like Luke being shot down by the AT-AT, electricity seems to envelope the cock-pit before destruction. A nice nod to the source material that I don’t think has been done before.

2) Turrets. Looks like to keep you off the floor and out of enemy territory there are stationary guns. Might make for some flair manoeuvres dodging through the trenches.

3) Special craft. The Millennium Falcon and Slave 1 ships are shown (although they should have cut all the Han quips from the trailer). They seem to be special unlocks and for one player only which is a shame as if the Falcon was a co-op vehicle I probably would have broken my “no pre-orders” rule.

4) I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again; dem TIE Fighter screeches!!!

-Norris

Weekly Uploads #1

This week's offerings of videos fresh from shouting; "Xbox record that. Xbox record that. Fuck. Xbox! Xbox! Why does this never work!? Xbox record that!! Thank you!"

1. The explosive empty mag perk for Borderlands weapons can be handy in a pinch. Just be careful if, like me, you're now conditioned to reload after every kill and moment of down-time.

2. "Ooo is that an AmmuNation down there?"

3. A Scorpion always lands on its turret.

4. Perfect split.

5. I obviously don't get these next-gen AI tactics.

6. And finally, Don't think you're safe camping on a roof-top as the commander can apparently crush you with a supply-drop.

Thanks for watching.

-Norris

Battlefront – A New Hope Pt.3

Until there is a substantial amount of news on the new Battlefront (NBF) I will call this my last post on the contentious issues identified so far from the information available. I want to talk today about the necessity for a single-player campaign in multiplayer-focused games. NBF does not have a dedicated campaign for single players. In its place are several short “missions” (see what amounts to: horde mode) that could be played solo but ideally suit co-op play. This trailer gives us an idea of what to expect:

(Aside: Why is “…thank the force.” an acceptable line of dialogue? I’m pretty sure the majority of people in the later days of the empire think of the force as a bit of a joke.

e.g. General Motti; “Your sad devotion to that ancient Jedi religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes”.

((Aside aside: Haha; “tapes”. It’s funny when people can’t predict the future of technology)).

I know the Rebellion seems to bandy around “May the force be with you” but that’s like “good luck” right? Not “May god be with you” and “thank god” as this suggests. Am I being crazy?)

The trailer look stunning visually but also gives an example of the objective-horde gameplay like in Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer. In my opinion this is a vastly superior use of resources than trying to engineer a single-player campaign. In the modern era of gaming it can be safely assumed that the vast majority of console owners are connected to the internet and play multiplayer regularly enough that the amount of hours spent online is greater than the amount of hours spent on the campaign. Short objective-based missions train the player to better play the multiplayer and focus on the team goal rather than go through the motions of the films in a campaign.

Now I must stress that this is just the case for the Battlefield series which tries to dole out a compelling single-player and multiplayer experiences. There are plenty of games that manage to do both successfully but it is my opinion that DICE should favour a purely multiplayer model as they have failed to do both at the same time.

What do I mean by failed? Let’s do a classic comparison; Halo vs Battlefield. Halo has consistently had a popular campaign across its titles. Likewise, it has also had a popular multiplayer component.  Battlefield, despite the efforts of DICE and especially Visceral, does not have the best record of campaigns to accompany their excellent multiplayer experiences. BF3, BF4 and BFH have been poor at best and at worst completely forgettable. Particularly in the case of BF4 where the multiplayer launched in such a shocking condition it seems resources could have been better spent on avoiding that than creating a lacklustre single-player that was over in 5 hours and then cast aside. Halo tells a compelling story in single player with gameplay that draws you back in to play it time and again whilst also delivering an engaging and addicting multiplayer platform.

This is why I am relieved to hear that the single player for NBF has been ditched in favour of more multiplayer focused gameplay. There must have been a great temptation to try and create the ultimate Star Wars experience with a campaign that directs the player through the precise speeder-bike chase/ trench run/ lightsabre fight etc. from the films. However, by avoiding this DICE seems to be betting on the organic nature of a multiplayer match to create the “wow” Star Wars moments. They are attempting to immerse the player in the wider world of Star Wars instead of strapping a Go-Pro to Luke’s head; a brave step for the studio and hopefully one to be commended.

-Norris

Battlefront – A New Hope Pt.2

Continuing on from part 1 on the new Star Wars Battlefront I wanted to make a quick post highlighting a contentious issue; controllable vs. on-rails AT-ATs. For anyone wanting to see where the bar is for how niche a problem I’m preparing to wade in on; here you go.

All Terrain-Armoured Transports 

(you're welcome)

In Battlefront 2 (BF2) AT-ATs could be spawned into on Hoth and charged at a snail’s pace into battle; swatting away just about anything that came near it. The trailers and information on the new AT-ATs we’ve received so far tell us that this is not the case in the new Battlefront (NBF). In the new game mode dedicated to the behemoths, Walker Assault, the Imperial Walkers lumber on under AI control. A gunner (possibly two) can take control of the head mounted weapons and radio-in for a powerful orbital bombardment.

Some have argued this has taken away from one of their favourite moments from BF2 and embittered the sweet taste of full Star Wars fantasy immersion. And, as usual, millions of voices cried out in terror that their childhood was, again, ruined. Well I’m here to silence those voices.

Take a look at this clip from the Battle of Hoth in BF2. At the 5:45 mark you’ll notice the walker is stuck against an invisible wall in its assault on the base.

The pilot has kept the walker moving despite now compromising its use on the field. This unfortunately was not an isolated occurrence on this map. In fact it was so common all I had to do to find it was Google “Battle of Hoth Battlefront 2”.

DICE’s solution to this problem is to remove player control of the vehicle’s movements but keep control of the weapons. Thus one player cannot get the AT-AT trapped and ruin a spawn point for their whole team and the walker’s weapons are kept at their most effective by staying on the optimal path.

-Norris

InSPECTRE Gadget?

The new Spectre trailer came out yesterday following the teaser a few months ago. As a 007 fan I’m keen to throw my odd-job hat into the ring of debate. To validate my own opinion and help you calibrate fan level status; when Skyfall came out in 2012 my university friends and I went to the cinema in tuxedos and my answer to the dinner party question if money was no concern what would you buy? is always the Aston Martin DB5.

-          As an aside I would like to mention that there is an Aston Martin Vanquish owner in my neighbourhood who has the plates JBD 007. However, it’s painted black. It just feels wrong.

I thought I’d give you a few hand-picked moments from the trailer for discussion. Let the nit-picking begin!

Dialogue

Firstly a word on how trailers have tried to tell too-much of the film in their brief two minutes. Whilst I appreciate that this is a trailer and that the actual lines are edited and cut differently in the film there is a lot of ham-fisted dialogue in an attempt to encompass the whole film. The fact is all the Mexico-City scenes could be cut with no impact on the impact of the trailer. Particularly as the “dry-wit” pay-off before the logo isn’t that funny. Ralph Fiennes setting the scene in his first outing as M irks unnecessarily for the sake of crow-barring in a start to the trailer. (Like I said though I know this isn’t how it goes down in the film. See: sitting behind desk vs standing for his lines). For another example see: “Its name, Spectre”; clearly two different non-sequential lines.

Tech

The DB10. Sleek and silver (like it should be) it delivers a healthy taster of the vicarious fantasy life that makes 007 films so appealing.

And then Q ruins it all with one distressing line.

There is one thing I have continually praised the reboot for; keeping the deus ex-machina gadgets to a minimum. I can forgive the endless product placement for this reason as it keeps us grounded in reality by having to use real technology. (Cue a thousand examples of how I’m wrong; Q’s hacking network in Skyfall, Sony Ericsson with ridiculous OS in Casino Royale. Etc.) Bond appeals to me most when he is just a well-trained, brawn and brain spy. He does not when he is Inspector Gadget; saving the day and defying death with the touch of a sci-fi button.  So when Q states the DB10 has “A few little tricks up her sleeve” it gets me worried that we’re slipping back into Brosnan territory.

Old Man

Another credit I give to the reboot is Bond’s and the wider cast’s realness and mortality (see: Fleming’s Casino Royale novel. Praise master book-reading race! Stay tuned for in detail Game of Thrones books vs show differences). James bled his way through the fight with the henchman in Casino and got battered and dusty in the desert in Quantum which stands in contrast to the ever-pristine Brosnan 007 who barely even sweated. It’s comforting then to see old-man Bond huff and puff through his lines on the mountain top. After the M bomb-shell in Skyfall and the threat of a new reboot not far away the chance of slipping the mortal coil is not inconceivable.

Referencing

There are several moments that mirror scenes from the previous films. Now I love a good reference (perhaps more than most). For instance, the classic trope of the “muscle” bad guy and the “smart” bad guy combo from in-series films such as The Spy Who Loved Me (Jaws and Stromberg) and out-series films like Raiders of the Lost Ark (Rene Belloq and the beefy-Nazi-from-the-plane-fight). However, there comes a point where it seems almost like lazy film making. Why do Bond and Q have to sit facing away from each other on a bench à la Q introduction in Skyfall? Is that dogma now? Do we meet new love-interests on trains purposefully now? Can villains only be revealed through hacker gimmicks on a (SONY) laptop?

Perhaps I’m being over-critical (I am). A friend of mine commented that the train scene is deliberately designed (and shot) to remind the viewer of Vesper and put them on edge; will 007 make the same mistake twice? “Make me disappear” likewise acts as a cheeky wink to the audience after the DB10 reveal in reference to the “Vanish” in Die Another Day (this thankfully relieved me of some of my gadget fears – it’s all just a tease; don’t worry).

Something more concerning though is Waltz’s (Blofeld’s??) line of “You came across me so many times yet you never saw me”. A well-orchestrated over-arching plot is a difficult thing to do right and it cannot be made up for after the fact. For example, the Marvel Cinematic Universe does well to plan ahead and tie the plot together throughout many films. On the other hand something that was not done well was J.K Rowling trying to shovel-in wand ownership and make the books retroactively align to that concept. I cannot say right now which Spectre will be. If there are genuine moments we can go back to in the previous films and say “Yes, I can see now this was actually Spectre” then this will be a tremendous bit of plotting. However, if we are now treated to flashbacks of re-shot scenes with Christophe Waltz now lurking in the shadows I will not be pleased.

Best Moment

Bond’s name on the war memorial. Gave me chills. A seriously good bit of cinematography.

-Norris

A final thought.

Andrew Scott given a split second looking evil? Really? Was there no one else to cast as the management level bad guy? I appreciate he fits the bill. I’d appreciate it even more if it’s a bait and switch and he turns out to be 006 or otherwise.

Battlefront - A New Hope Pt.1

Hopping admittedly a little late on the Battlefront news band-wagon (see - "I'll get round to it once work quiets down / I have some free time / hopefully it'll happen magically overnight without me having to put any actual effort into it") I thought I'd give you my two cents on the subject.

With the franchise now placed squarely on DICE's shoulders we have seen in the brief glimpses revealed so far considerable influence of the studio's style on the game. ("It's Battlefront Jim, but not as we know it" - that reference ought to rustle a few jimmies). DICE, known most prominently for the Battlefield series (yes AND Mirror's Edge; calm down) is familiar with how to handle a shooter. They've also gone out of their way to express their love for Star Wars as well. In fact, if you don't feel you haven't been beaten over the head with their efforts to quell the fear of the masses then please do let them know. I'd quite like to see the hope leave Patrick Bach's eyes when confronted with another salvo of "you've ruined my childhood". Jesting aside; DICE do seem to have gone to great lengths to make a video of them going to great lengths to make this an authentic Star Wars experience.

Enough sarcasm.

I do genuinely like DICE and appreciate the efforts they are going to.

Scene setting aside; I wanted to focus on a key area in this post rather than cover the topic as a whole.

TEAM SIZE

One of Battlefield's more contentious issues is the appropriate number of players to map size ratio. 64 player Operation-Locker-meets-rebel-base-on-Hoth would turn me off quicker than I turned off [insert film you love]. On the other hand you have the ghost town Bandar-Desert-meets-Tatooine-on-last-gen-only-with-a-Star-Destroyer-instead-of-an-AC130. There's a broad spectrum of spacing that DICE has really yet to nail. Which is why a 40-player max count strikes me as a decent proposal. 20 on 20 seems to me the perfect balance for objective gameplay whilst not jamming the map with Battle of Pelennor Fields levels of infantry. However, I have some concerns about the number of vehicles on the maps. From the short video we've seen of Walker Assault on Hoth there seem to be a large number of pilotable air vehicles comprising of X-Wings, TIE Figthers and Snow Speeders. This brings up another ratio I find critical to Battlefield enjoyment; vehicle:infantry.

I'll expand on that in two ways:

1) No matter how good you are as an individual solider; Battlefield games can normally be played out by numbers; with superior numbers normally trouncing skill. Anything that detracts from those numbers i.e. players in jets fighting their own separate fight from the rest of game detracts from useful infantry numbers on the ground.

2) In my opinion the best part of Battlefield is infantry combat supplemented by vehicle gameplay, The worst part is having the majority of players in vehicles necessitating playing as an Engineer to deal with this.

With fewer overall player count but a large ratio of available vehicles (specifcially air vehicles) to player count it seems we may fall in to another DICE regular issue of lots of irrelevant air battles with little objective focused ground gameplay (which itself will be dominated by the remaining land vehicles; AT-STs etc.).

I will add that this may be just a feature of the Hoth map. I can't imagine they'll be much air combat on Endor. Despite what I may wish DICE will still try to create a product that appeals to as many styles of gameplay as possible. Some people like the scenario I have described and even more so if it involves playing as a bad-ass TIE fighter swatting X-Wings out the air (or just flying around shooting so you can listen to that sweet, sweet laser sound effect). Having Hoth dedicated to appeasing those players whilst I and others enjoy infantry fights peppered with an AT-ST or two on Endor makes business sense.

- Norris.