The Blog of Xplaced

Demos! Mass Effect 3, Amalur, Bulletstorm

2012-02-23T15:44:00.001-05:00

Tried out a couple demos this week. Mass Effect 3, Amalur, and Bulletstorm.

Bulletstorm's been out a while. Looks like a great coop game though. Good 'play with your friends against the PC' type. I liked it. Wasn't into the whole 'points for kill type' thing. I just had fun blasting hordes of enemies with cool weapons. Might pick it up cheap sometime since it's an older game now.

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning was another demo I trialed. It's pretty good, but I would stick to a console on that one. Or at least, play the game with a console styled controller on the PC if you must get it for PC. It has an odd 'motion lag' with the directional keys, but the mouse console and looking around seem spot on. It's as if you character's vision sways before they start moving in the direction you want them to go when using the WASD keys. I have an Xbox controller I hooked into the computer and it was much easier to control after that.

The big fun though was Mass Effect. I played the single player demo for that and it was awesome. I am not a big fan of the first two, because I had them on Xbox 360. For me though, after trying them out some on the PC, they appear to be WAY better on the PC just from a control standpoint. Typically I'm all for using a controller and simplifying by using the console, but Mass Effect as a whole (the series) just plays (in my opinion!) better on PC. So if you have a gaming PC, do yourself a favor and get it on that platform unless you just love the Xbox/PS3 and need a huge screen for it. I admit it's fun to play on the big TV, but if you're sitting far back from it anyway, then might as well play on your PC monitor and have higher resolution anyway.

Speaking of that, I played the game mostly on 720p on my laptop. It plays fine on 1080p, but I enjoyed the ultra smoothness of 720p with the anti-aliasing on more. Games are getting better nowadays. They don't look 'fuzzy' if you run them at lower resolutions anymore, or a non-native resolution. Skyrim looks good like this too. I run it at High on 720p instead of the native 1080p just because the performance his it minimal that way and everything looks the same while running even better.

So if you have time to pick up a PC demo this week, grab Mass Effect 3 off of Origin. I wish they'd stick to Steam, but now that EA has Origin, it's trying to be greedy and do its own thing. I'd get everything on Steam if I could. All the good stuff is typically on Steam anyway! Origin is ok, but I don't need two services doing the same thing.

Asus Keyboard - Key Stroke 'Miss' Workaround

2012-02-23T11:35:00.000-05:00

So I posted a day or two ago about my Asus laptop having an issue where I'll type and it will miss key strokes randomly. Well I've figured out a workaround. A little annoying but I can definitely live with it until the issue is resolved through a driver update or something.

I uninstalled Synaptics as a troubleshooting step and realized it was what was causing my keyboard lag. This is nothing new, since I knew this a couple days ago. However, when I uninstall the Synaptics software, I can't disable the trackpad. When I go into Device Manager, it won't allow me to disable the PS2 mouse driver, which would disable the trackpad. So that sucks, right?

Well, my BIOS I found out has an option to disable the internal pointing device. So, at boot, I push Delete, go into the BIOS, and disable the trackpad if I'm using an external mouse. Problem solved! If I need it, all I have to do is go into BIOS and enable it and it'll work at next boot.

I left Synaptics software uninstalled, because it appears to be the software itself causing the issue and not the driver for the mouse. However I have not tested disabling the BIOS internal mouse and leaving Synaptics installed. I'm assuming that would NOT fix the issue, because the Synaptics software itself seems to be what is causing the keyboard delay and missed key strokes. I don't use any of the Synaptics driver special features anyway, I just use the mouse pad and 2 buttons like a normal mouse. I don't use gestures, tapping really, etc. I have an external mouse plugged in 99% of the time so that's cool with me. I take one with the laptop in a pack too, so I shouldn't ever need the trackpad unless it's an emergency and my external mouse breaks or something.

So, I've resolved my issue finally. I'm now 100% happy with my new laptop purchase. :) It's a beast and runs games awesome! Skyrim on High quality at 45+ FPS with the new High Detail texture pack from Bethesda, Starcraft 2 on High at 60fps, it's just awesome. Hopefully it'll last a nice long time.

Twisted Metal (2012 release)

2012-02-21T11:23:00.001-05:00

I picked up Twisted Metal for the PS3. So far I'm enjoying it. I haven't touched the single player, and not sure that I will. I got it strictly for the MP smashing, explosions and weapons.

It's fun so far. I haven't played much, but what I have played has been really fun. I haven't had trouble getting into games either so far. I've been using the online match finder, or 'Quick Match' I think it is called. It consistently puts me in good games.

The cars are easy to drive, and that helps a lot. It's really easy to control the cars once you get used to the control scheme. There are 3 schemes so one of the 3 should be pretty familiar to anyone picking the game up for the first time. There's a TM scheme, a Racing scheme, and a Dual Stick scheme.

I'm trying to get my friends into it. We'll see if they get it. What's not to like? Fast cars, explosions, and cool weapons. Seems great to me!

Asus Laptop - Keyboard issue progress, sort of.

2012-02-21T10:08:00.004-05:00

I mentioned in a previous post that my Asus laptop's keyboard will 'miss' keys as they are typed sometimes. I've narrowed it down to the Trackpad software causing it. The Synaptics software is creating the issue. Actually, it could be that it is interfering with something else, causing the issue. Anyway, there is some type of issue going on there.

Using version 15.3.17 has helped the issue. It doesn't happen as much. But uninstalling the software all together seems to eliminate the issue. I'm not sure if it interferes with some other Asus software, a keyboard driver, or what. But it does appear to be the Synaptics software causing the issue. Every other sentence a keystroke will just 'miss' and text appears slightly delayed on-screen when typing. Barely, but noticeable if you pay attention.

I was going to uninstall the Synaptics software totally and just disable the track pad in Device Manager. However, the device doesn't have a disable option, which sucks. I have 3 (yes, 3 for some reason) mice listed there. I use an external mouse so I would assume I'd have two, but the Synaptics must use a drive, the mouse itself must use a driver, and then the Razer mouse I use has a driver.

I use an external mouse 99% of the time, so uninstalling the track pad won't be a big deal for me. I just wish I didn't need to, because it kinda forces me to have an external mouse now. For gaming, I need one anyway. If I take my laptop somewhere though for work purposes or just need to use it on battery for a minute, it would suck to use the external mouse for that when I could just use the track pad.

So for anyone else having this issue, try uninstalling you Synaptics software and see if it helps. I have updated to the latest Synaptics, the latest Keyboard Filter driver, and the latest ATK software. Also the latest BIOS. All of that's supposed to fix the issue, but so far has not. The only sure fix for me has been to uninstall Synaptics software.

SC2 Ladder, Laptop keyboard, etc.

2012-02-20T14:41:00.000-05:00

After laddering some more in Starcraft 2, I'm still stuck at 1st place Bronze. It's nice to be first, but I'd like to maybe get to 1st in Silver at least. I've been playing a lot of silvers and winning half my games at least, so I keep hoping it'll bump me to silver at some point.

On another note, still trying to fix my laptop keyboard's missing keystroke issue. I uninstalled the keyboard driver it uses and rebooted, which lets it reinstall the MS keyboard driver. So far I think it is woring a little bit better, but it still misses one every now and then. I can tell when backspacing that it's missing because the cursor won't move as many times as I press Backspace. And of course while typing, a letter will just not show up that I typed. Frustrating, but not making me wish I'd return it or something. I'm pretty sure it's a software issue that I can correct somehow. We'll see!

Google Apps

2012-02-18T12:43:00.006-05:00

Man, I'm impressed with Chrome. It's pretty fast, seems to work well, and has a lot of features.

Some of the best features are the apps. I mean, wow. If you click the New Tab button, you see some default apps that Google's put in there. Things like Chrome Web Store, Gmail, Google Search, and YouTube.

The awesome thing about these apps is how great they are. I mean when you click one, it takes you to something that looks so awesome. For example, when I click Google Search, it takes me to an app that looks just like Google's search homepage. How cool is that?

The YouTube app though is really killer. It takes you to an app that looks EXACTLY like YouTube. I thought their replication of the YT page was just unbelievable. I mean how did they mimic it so precisely? That's amazing. I don't know how they did it!

The Chrome store is the only one I'm unfamiliar with. I did a search (using the cool Google Search app) and then found a page that was so similar to the Chrome Store app that I thought I was in the Chrome Store app. How awesome! I mean it was so similar.

Yep, the apps Google has put out for Chrome are so amazing. They really are fast and easy to use, and best of all they look just like the web pages that everyone is used to seeing when they go to www.google.com, www.youtube.com, gmail.com and https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/home. I am amazed at the similarities. I'm sure they did that on purpose because, you know, users get confused and stuff if things are changed too much. You really can't go confusing users too much.

If they wanted to change the apps in the future so that they weren't exactly like their corresponding web pages, then that would be cool, I guess. As long as they don't do anything too drastic. I mean, like I said - don't confuse the users. We are so, so very easily confused sometimes.

This was, of course, satire. Google's 'apps' are simple redirects to the actual pages, I know. I just think it's hilarious that they are nothing more than built-in browser hyperlinks and they try to pass them off as 'apps.' Hilarious!

2012-02-17T11:53:00.002-05:00

I got a new computer recently. It's an Asus Gaming laptop, model G53SX. It's really sweet! It replaced my desktop PC. I have a laptop I am selling also, so between that and my tax return the new laptop is paid for, with a little extra. Not bad!

It's a great laptop, and I've had no major issues with it. The keyboard is my largest gripe. Occasionally it will miss keystrokes. There are software updates that should fix it, but so far nothing has worked. It doesn't happen enough to drive me too crazy, so that's cool. It handles games GREAT! It's well worth the price.

The model I purchased has:
Intel Core i7 2720QM @ 2.20GHz
8.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 665MHz
2048MB GeForce GTX 560M
500gb Seagate hard drive
Atheros AR9002WB-1NG Wireless Network Adapter

So far everything works great and I'm really proud of it. Hopefully it will last a really long time for me. I ordered a secondary storage hard drive for it (750gb) so I can put random files (pictures, movies, large ISO files, etc) on there and keep them off my Programs drive so its space doesn't fill up.

Even though the screen is 15", the 1920x1080 resolution gives me TONS of desktop space without things being too tiny. I'm really pleased with it. I almost went for a 17" model but I'm proud of the 15" and think it was the right choice. I sit close to it since it's a laptop, so you do not really notice it's a 15" screen after a day or two of use. All the games look great on it (Skyrim, Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Magicka). Diablo 3 and Magicka aren't really GPU stresses, but they still look great on it. I got he High Def upgrade package for Skyrim, and I play on High quality. I can play on Ultra easily, but I prefer the smoothest play combined with the best looks I can get. For me, that's the High setting. I think Ultra would be fine if I was not using the Bethesda-released HD packs.

The Skyrim HD pack helps some, but not a lot. So if you don't feel like downloading 3+ gigs of HD textures, then you don't need to. Skyrim looks great on Ultra with the default textures. The HD textures to make it look better, but I don't know if they are 3+gb better. There are some HD mods out there too that are smaller (and larger) in size. The biggest change I see after installing the HD pack was your own weapons look better. No more blurry shield in front of your face, it looks more like a shield than a blurry hunk of metal. That to me, was the largest impact. So I guess the HD detail of closer objects is better.

Anyhow, I rate the Asus G53SX a 9.5/10. I dock .5 points for the keyboard issue that's annoying, and because updates that supposedly 'fix it' haven't 'fixed it' yet. But I can live with it. Makes things like typing this blog a little annoying (I have to backspace a lot to correct mistakes) but it isn't so bad that I'd return the computer. So far in games I have only noticed a missed key press maybe once or twice.

Starcraft 2 Laddering

2012-02-17T11:27:00.000-05:00

Hey! After beating Dark Souls twice and playing more Skyrim (which I still haven't beaten - meaning, played the main quest line all the way through) I'm back on some Starcraft 2. I find it tougher this time around (Season 6, I think?). I placed in Bronze, and have been #1 bronze division for the past 2 or 3 days. I sense I will be moved up to silver soon as I've been competing against mostly silver players and winning more than losing, so hopefully that will happen. Somehow for one game I got matched against a Diamond player, not sure how that happened. He beat the crap out of me with a cannon rush + building his base right outside of mine. Too bad I didn't catch it and beat him, that would probably have bumped me up a lot.

I also got into the Diablo 3 beta. It's pretty fun. I'm looking forward to it coming out, hopefully sometime this year... but everyone knows how Blizzard is and release dates. I get that they want the game to release in perfect condition, but they are getting a little old now with dragging things out. The hype they build eases off or dissipates near the type of the game's actual release, so only true fans of the series usually end up buying the games. That's my opinion anyway, no hard facts there.

Hopefully I can rank up more in SC. It's been my goal to reach Diamond, but that goal seems far-fetched when I started off in Bronze placement this season. The first season I placed Gold and moved to Platinum, the 2nd season I was in Platinum, played a few games and won them, then lost 1 match and ended up in Gold. The 3rd Season I think I placed silver, and stayed in silver. I didn't play for a while, came back to it now, and placed Bronze. I don't get how their system works. I guess there are just that many better players playing, but the games don't seem any harder or easier to me than before. My rank is just different.

We'll see how it goes. I'd like to reach Diamond one day, but at the rate I'm going, winning or not, it seems like that isn't really something that will happen anytime soon.

It's amazing to me how a 4 Gate strat playing as Protoss will kick people's butt most of the time. However, when it fails, it usually fails hard. I probably win 3/5 of the games I use that strategy.

My largest issues with Starcraft are army size and keeping up with my opponent. I almost always am behind in army size at the same time in the game. I may start off strong, with a larger army (by a couple units) early in the game (first 4-8 minutes). After that, I am usually outgrown and stomped by my opponent, no matter what class they are playing. It seems like if I don't outright kill them at the start, then I won't win.

My biggest hurdle is probably expanding. I am not sure when to do it without getting myself killed. I see the 400 mineral or 300 it would take to expand and think "That's a lot of units I could make for an army." Then I regret it later when the enemy did expand, I didn't kill it, and they suddenly have nearly twice the income I have. Then they roll in and stomp me. I should just quit after they get their expand and my first attack fails. Ha! Nah, I fight to the death! I hate giving up on anything.

Hopefully I'll make it to Diamond one day. It'll just take a lot of time, work and effort.

Update! New videos for Dark Souls and Skyrim!

2012-01-16T10:05:00.000-05:00

Howdy! Long time no post. I've put up some new videos on my YouTube site about Skyrim and Dark Souls. I'm mostly playing Dark Souls now, but eventually will go back to Skyrim and do what I have never done - play the main quest! I'm the only person I know that's put in 100+ hours (over time) on the game and still only done a max of 2 hours on the main quest. There's just so much to explore and do!

Anyway, be on the lookout for more Dark Souls and Skyrim videos soon. I'm not sure if I'll pursue the Skyrim series that's currently on my site, since I plan to completely start over and do the main quest line. Most likely I will find some way to play on the Xbox as well, since I just enjoy it more that way. The video will be SD instead of HD that way (I only have an SD recorder for Xbox/PS3) but for YouTube that should be fine. 720+ loads too slow anyway on long vids!

Here's the link to my YouTube page: http://youtube.com/thexplaced

Enjoy!

Mouse Mats - some stuff I've learned

2011-07-08T10:22:00.000-04:00

I like trying out different computer mice since I game some. I'm always looking for the most precise mouse. I'm sure I've spent too much money on mice!

When working with laser mice, I've noticed that hard smooth surfaces tend to work best. For example: I have a Logitech G700. If I use it on a cloth mouse mat, it will work well when I have fast movements. However, if making small precise movements, it will skip slightly or hesitate to move. I think it is because the laser is so precise in these newer gaming mice that it detects the small fibers in a cloth mouse mat, and this actually hinders the mouse from moving as smoothly as possible. If I use the mouse on a hard mouse mat (something smooth and plastic) it will not skip like that. There might be some high quality cloth mats that work really well with laser mice, but I would recommend a plastic or some type of hard surfaced mouse mat for any laser mouse based on my experience.

One exception I've had to that was the Razer Lachesis. However, I am pretty sure the mouse itself just had problems instead of the mat being an issue. It's the only laser mouse I've had that would not work on a hard surface very well.

LED mice seem to be more forgiving. I can use an LED mouse on cloth or a smooth hard surface and they seem to be fine. I think their engine is more well-balanced, to be honest. The down side of an LED mouse is that it will not work on as many surfaces as a laser mouse. For example: LED just simply won't work on a dark wood-grain surface. I have a table at my house that's black and wood-grain. An LED mouse won't even move the cursor most of the time if I attempt to use that surface. I have to use a mouse mat. A laser mouse however will work off the same surface.

Laser mice seem to be less effected by color also. LED mice have seemed to work better on lighter color surfaces. Laser mice seem to work on anything from black to white and anything in between.

Laser mice do not like glass however. That makes sense. There are some new laser mice that work on glass, but they have to be specifically designed for that purpose. I have not personally used any of these mice (unless the G700 also touts this feature). However, I have no glass surface that I need to use a mouse on.

If you're picky about your mice moving as smooth and precisely as possible, I definitely recommend getting a decent mouse mat. It will make your mouse use more enjoyable. :)

Starcraft 2

2011-05-02T09:41:00.000-04:00

I've been out of the SC2 scene for a while but decided to hop back in and play some recently. The PSN being down I'm sure had something to do with that!

I played a match and since I had not played any in Season 2 yet, it took my first game to match me with players. After a close loss, I ended up being placed in Platinum at level 34 or something like that.

I played a few more games with some wins/losses all mixed in, and ended up at rank 24 (Platinum still). So hopefully I can keep that up if I keep pursuing SC2 this season and move forward still.

I play mostly for fun and not the rank, though I get caught up in that sometimes. When I do, usually it becomes less fun for me.

I seem to do better when I scout the enemy and play in a reactionary fashion instead of saying "OK, I'm going to shoot for this strategy" from the beginning. The downside is I always feel like I'm playing behind when I am reacting to the enemy strategy, but at least I feel like I'm doing something to counter appropriately.

There are a million strategies out there for SC2, but just countering what your opponent is doing is key regardless of that.

So, we'll see where it goes! I intend to play some 2v2 also with a friend. That's pretty fun, but we never got out of Bronze for some reason. We were rank 1 in Bronze for a while, so I don't know what the deal was on that. Never moved out of it. Oh well! We did some crazy stuff, so that could be why.

League of Legends

2011-05-02T09:32:00.000-04:00

I had heard of LoL for a while, but never tackled it. I didn't feel like jumping into a fast-paced game that is not known to be noob friendly.

Fortunately, that isn't really the case anymore since LoL has a "VS AI" mode now. That has made learning how the game functions more friendly to new folks.

I have been playing LoL some the past day or two, and it is a pretty fun game. I was impressed with it being free and having the good gameplay that it does. It isn't graphically intense and my Sony Vaio laptop runs it at 60fps all the time according to the in-game meter.

I like the pace of the game, and its simplicity. I'm sure it gets complicated in the choices you make (and when you make them) but overall the idea is pretty simple. You control a Hero class and you support your minions (or they support you, I guess) in taking over the enemy's base on a perfectly mirrored map. It's entertaining and fun to keep up with. Knowing when to run away, recall, upgrade and what to upgrade to are pretty fun things to keep up with.

Being able to upgrade your character with all kinds of things is really fun. I enjoy that aspect of the game. So no matter what type of Hero or Champion you're working with, you can alter how they play quite a bit, or tailor it to your wants.

LoL is a fun game, and since it is free I recommend anyone interested in RTS give it a try. The best way I can describe LoL is it's Warcraft 3 or Starcraft 2 without the base construction, and you control one character directly instead of masses of them. You also have gear customization like Diablo, or a similar game.

The look and feel of the game is very similar to W3 and S2 though so if you're used to those games at all you'll be right at home in LoL.

PSN Network Down - Thoughts

2011-05-02T09:18:00.000-04:00

So it is May 2nd and the PSN is still down. It looks like a possibility that it will be back up tomorrow though.

Hopefully credit card info wasn't stolen, but they are not ruling that out. They said the credit card info was encrypted, so hopefully the likelihood of someone actually getting the information after obtaining it is very low.

When the network comes backup, I'll finally get to tackle a little Socom 4 online. While the PSN was down would have been a good time to start the single player, but I was just on Xbox Live playing Black Ops mostly. I also have been tackling some League of Legends and Starcraft 2.

Unfortunately Medal of Honor, Bad Company 2 and Uncharted 2 (of course) are all on the PS3 for me so online play was ruled out. Let's not forget Portal 2 also, since I got that for PS3 so I could have a PC copy also, plus play with PC players.

Hopefully this week we'll get back to some PS3/PSN gaming!

Dollar App Games vs Console Games

2011-04-25T11:58:00.001-04:00

I was reading an ITWorld article that had something interesting to say:

"If there's anything that's killing us [in the traditional games business] it's dollar apps." Capps worries about how to make a $60 game look like a good value when everyone is used to buying $1 games on their phones and tablets. He even worries about whether gamers will bother with the next generation of home consoles."

This is a quote from Epic Games President, Mike Capps.

I'm a console gamer. I used to game on PC only. Slowly I migrated over to the console because I was tired of tweaking things so they would work the best, and also having to spend too much money on another graphics card, RAM or CPU every year when a new game came out that was "pushing the limits".

When I see a comment like that, I kind of wonder why he thinks that way. Just because there is a huge market for $1 apps doesn't mean that console gamers really play into that.

Personally, I have a few games on my iPhone. I play maybe one or two. I've come to realize that the touch interface, graphics, and basically having that small of a screen are not great for gaming. Sure, it can work, but compare that to a console designed for gaming with a gaming controller and a full screen TV and you're not even comparing the same thing anymore.

Sure, console games cost $60. Look at what you get though in comparison. Not only that, but some games are on both hardware. Plants vs Zombies is one example. It's $20 on the Xbox Arcade and around $3 on the iPhone app store. If you base it only on price, then sure, I'd get the $3 app. However, I'm giving up a nice big screen by doing that. So there is a trade off.

Maybe all of this boils down to the type of game. I honestly cannot see the FPS genera being taken seriously on the iPhone. I would think anyone who has experience an FPS on a TV and console, then on an iPhone or something similar, would toss the iPhone out the window when it comes to which device they'd pick. I know I would! There is no way if I had a choice that I would pick an iPhone for FPS gaming over an Xbox, PS3, or even PC.

A game like Plants Vs Zombies I may pick on the iPhone instead. The reason being it is a little puzzle game. However, Portal 2 is a puzzle game. Could you play it on an iPhone? Sure, if they relased a version for it, you could. Would I want to if I could play it on PS3 or Xbox 360? No! Even if it was $5 on the iPhone, the experience would be degraded by the screen size, controls, and graphics. You're paying less for it on the iPhone because you're getting less!

Overall, my point is I don't see the real gamer market that endorses console and PC gaming saying "Yep, I'm gonna do all my gaming on the iPhone now!" or some tablet, or something like that. It just isn't practical or as good.

If they want to drop the console game prices to compete, that's fine with me. However I would not really expect that to happen without a drop in quality too. In my opinion, console games should always strive to be the best awe-inspiring versions of a game. That way, all someone has to do is look at the two and say "Yeah, I'm playing the console version!" because it's so much more awesome.

I mean really, who's going to play:
Uncharted games
Call of Duty games
Battlefield games
Portal 1 & 2
Racing games

... on a portable/tablet device when they can play it on a console and experience the full graphics, sound, and power of the game? You're really limiting yourself if you do.

You give up so much when playing on a portable device. Don't forget they are battery powered, so they cut back on all they can to extend the battery life of the device. They want you to keep playing, not stop after 30 minutes because the battery died.

Anyway, that's my view on the topic. Bottom line: I don't see anyone who really plays games on consoles (or PC) jumping ship to iPhones, iPads, and other tablet/portable devices out there.

I'm sure not!

PSN Outage

2011-04-25T09:33:00.004-04:00

Amazingly, the PSN has been down since Wednesday of last week. Supposedly some hackers took it down, but aside from that I don't know a lot more about it than anyone else. That might be speculation even. However I believe someone found a post from an official source saying so. If I run across it I will post it here.

It amazes me how a multi-billion dollar company can have their network taken down for nearly a week due to some hackers (if that is the case). It makes the users question what type of safeguards are in place.

I guess Microsoft's Live service is doing ok. I've been on that, since the PSN has been down. Thankfully I've been playing some Black Ops lately on the Xbox. However, I did just buy Portal 2 and Socom 4, so I'm peeved that I had a 3 day weekend and didn't get to enjoy either of them online. I don't care to play through the single player on Socom 4, but of course I am playing that on Portal 2. I may review some of Portal 2 later.

Anyhow, if I find more info regarding the PSN outage, I will update this post.

Followup Info:
ITWorld - Sony's PSN outage: why now, and what does it mean going forward?

ITWorld - Sony 'rebuilding' PlayStation Network after attack

Excited about Uncharted 3

2011-04-21T11:37:00.001-04:00

I've been seeing some news around the web on Uncharted 3 lately. From what I have seen so far, it looks like it will trump the U2 (somehow!) and be even more amazing than it ever has been.

There's nothing like having a PS3 and an Uncharted game. I really enjoy each one of those games, and the multiplayer in Uncharted 2 is some of my favorite multiplayer ever. When I get bored with out games, I always return to Uncharted 2's MP. The way the characters move, aiming works, guns work, grenades... all of it is just perfect.

Can't wait for U3! The beta for PS3 Plus users is on June 28th. For other folks, I think it is July 7th. Not sure when the Infamous 2 beta keys work. They might be for the July 7th release. I'm not clear on if there will be an open beta at all around that time, or if it will just be for PSN Plus and Infamous 2 buyers.

Here is more info on the topic:
http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/8911.html

Here is a link on Naughty Dog's website with a LOT of U3 info. Great read and cool video too.
http://www.naughtydog.com/site/post/uncharted_3_multplayer_revealed/

It's shaping up to be a really awesome game, and amazingly it looks like it will be better than Uncharted 2. I'd be happy with more of the same, since U2 is so awesome, but if they can top it that's great too!

SOCOM 4 - Short Multiplayer Review

2011-04-20T14:31:00.000-04:00

My girlfriend and I picked up SOCOM 4 yesterday. We played the beta a few times, so we knew a little bit about what to expect.

So far, I'm enjoying it. When I learn the maps, I think I might be a force to be reckoned with! However until then, I'm kind of helpless as most of the time I don't know which direction the enemy is coming from. On the maps that I do figure it out, I usually end up on the positive side of a KD ratio.

Speaking of the maps, they seem really cool. They look great, and they are fun to play on. Some are more vertically oriented also, so you can get a good vantage point on enemies if you're lucky. So far I believe my favorite maps are Rush Hour and Sacrifice.

The guns seem fun so far. I like some more than others. I haven't unlocked much since I'm only level 5 or 6. However the gameplay has been pretty fun so far.

As with all new shooter games, there is an aiming curve to get used to. I'm thinking I might need to put the turn speed and pitch on their maximum setting, otherwise the turning seems too slow. I wonder if this is something that Zipper will patch, since I've seen a lot of folks in videos put it all the way up and have also read about folks putting it all the way up. The motion is slow at first, but then accelerates at a speedy pace. It makes it a little hard to aim sometimes. I guess I can get used to it. However, it does seem like it needs to be tweaked.

The lack of being able to group with friends before joining a game is annoying. It's actually hard to get into the same game with a friend because it mostly puts you into games that are nearly full already. Grouping with a teammate is difficult. I read they are planning to fix this, but it should have been something available at launch since they did have a beta running for a while.

Overall the gameplay is fun. I'm happy with it and hope to be playing it for a while. Supposedly the level cap is 100, and I don't know that I'll ever see that. But I do intend to enjoy it for a while.

About the names Deathnozzle and Xplaced

2011-04-01T16:43:00.000-04:00

Deathnozzle is a name I came up with to play games online. It was created to be humorous. It's fun to see "You were killed by Deathnozzle!" or "JohnBoy shot down Deathnozzle!" on the screen.

On the PSN, I go by either Xplaced or Deathnozzle.

On Xbox Live, I am DEATHN0ZZLE (someone already took Deathnozzle). However, I'm happy with how DEATHN0ZZLE looks on game screens. =)

Xplaced is a tag I have used for far longer than Deathnozzle. It basically comes from the flub-up Napoleon Dynamite made while talking about the Lock Ness monster experiment. So, that is the special origin of that name.

Currently you can find me playing Crysis 2 and Black Ops on the 360, and Uncharted 2, Bad Company 2, Medal of Honor, and Killzone 3 on the Playstation 3 with my group of real life buddies. Without them I would not enjoy the games nearly as much!

iPhone 4 Review

2011-04-01T16:36:00.000-04:00

I've had my iPhone 4 for around a year now. There are some good and bad things about it. I'll list them out here:

Good
*Looks great.
*High resolution screen. You have to struggle to see pixels. Very, very clear.
*App Store has thousands of useful apps.
*Runs flawlessly. Hardly ever do I have a problem with an app. If I do, it is the app's fault.
*Very easy, very simple to control and get around on the phone's screens, apps, etc.
*Sound quality is good.
*Side buttons for volume and silent/ringer feel like they are high-quality.
*Camera is good. Snaps clear photos, videos, and is easy to use.

Bad
*Reception due to bridging external antennas by holding the phone normally.
*Glass edges are exposed, so if the phone is dropped it can easily shatter the front or back, since the back is glass also.
*Phone is very slick due to being glass, so holding it is sometimes difficult.
*Laying the phone down on hard surfaces (tabletop, desktop, etc) is difficult due to the glass back. It feels like the phone is being laid down harder than necessary, thus jarring it more than I'd like.
*The sides are slick also due to being metal (the external antenna). Phone is hard to pick up if laying flat on a desk or table by grabbing the sides.

Thoughts
The iPhone 4 is a good phone. However, there are some design choices that are very questionable. I personally think the design of the previous phones is better for functionality, but not as good looking. It looks like Steve Jobs decided that going with form over function was the way to go with the iPhone 4, and I think that was a bad choice, no matter how many phones Apple may have sold.

The phone is not bad. I use it everyday and enjoy using it. I do constantly have to pay attention to how I hold the phone or how I lay it down due to it feeling fragile and exposed. The edge of the glass being exposed around the entire edge of the phone is a bad idea in my opinion. One simple drop to a hard surface will completely shatter the phone (this has been shown on YouTube countless times).

I would much rather the back of the phone have been metal or even plastic instead of glass. However the main issue to me is the antenna and reception. I'm left handed, so the phone's reception in low-signal areas is totally cut off if I hold it normally in my left hand. No phone should do this. I agree that phone signals drop just due to being held in the hand, however this is relative to a specific area that the phone is held. The bottom left corner of the iPhone 4 just simply can't be touched in such a way that bridges the antenna gap, or the signal will drop. If you have 1 or 2 bars, you will most likely see a full signal loss (I do).

When my contract is up, I will most likely look hard at Android phones, unless the next iPhone's antenna is internal and the back is more friendly to regular use. As it seems now, the iPhone 4 feels like it needs to be babied when used.

Throw a case on the phone and that takes care of the signal issue as well as feeling the need to baby it. However, I prefer the phone without a case. I have a nice Otterbox Impact case that fits the phone well, and it most likely will be going back into this case. I also have the Apple Bumper case, which is much better than nothing and will also correct the signal issue and will also address the raised glass edge issue. I would feel much better about an iPhone 4 in a bumper case surviving a drop than one that was in no case at all. The Otterbox Impact case would be very good at protecting the phone, better than the Bumper from Apple in my opinion.

If you like using your phones sans case, the iPhone 4 is not a good choice. Though it is probably the best looking phone in existence, I would trade that for more usability (as in holding it, carrying it around, accidental drops, etc). I'm sure Apple could have done better by having the glass recessed and not having the antenna exposed in such a way that holding it normally hurts the signal so much.

Homefront - Multiplayer Revisited

2011-03-29T15:05:00.000-04:00

I find myself playing less of Homefront lately and more of Crysis 2 and Black Ops. Compared to these two games (strictly speaking of Multiplayer), Homefront lacks:

*Customization - not as much weapon customization.
*Maps - the maps are not terribly fun to me. I can think of 1, maybe 2, that I like.
*Weapons - I like the weapons more in Crysis 2 and Blops.
*Multiplayer playability - Homefront still, after being out 2 weeks, has multiplayer issues. Connecting to a server isn't so bad, but playing with friends is nearly impossible.
*Graphics - I thought originally that Homefront was as good graphically as Black Ops (which in my opinion, is not that graphically awesome). After playing more, I think I am wrong about that. It's very difficult to see anyone at range shooting at you because you can't tell the difference between them and a wooden post stuck in the ground. This makes for some pretty frustrating gameplay sometimes.

So after the "new game" excitement has worn off, I can definitely see that Black Ops and Crysis 2 are more fun for me. I may even look into trading Homefront in for some credit to my next game (possibly SOCOM 4).

I like to revisit reviews and update them after a while, due to "new game excitement" making me biased towards a game when I initially get it.

Don't think I'm saying Homefront is a bad game. It is still fun. In my opinino however, when there are better options out there, I'd rather spend my time on those than on Homefront.

Graphics - Consoles vs PCs

2011-03-23T15:39:00.000-04:00

So I hear this a lot, and wanted to weigh in with my opinion on this much debated topic.

With Crysis 2 out for sale now, I'm seeing a lot of posts around the web's game sites with people saying graphics are better on PC and always will be vs a console of any type, and that kind of stuff.

From my experience, the developers have a lot more say in the way their games look than the hardware does. Technically, hardware should be able to control what a game looks like. However, there are plenty of exceptions to this.

Let's take two new games released within a week of each other: Homefront and Crysis 2.

Homefront does not look great. Probably its largest downfall so far (besides some multiplayer server issues at launch) is how it looks. It has 0 anti-aliasing, textures are just okay, and at distance on basically any map it is hard to make out if you're looking at a player who's about to shoot you or a wooden post stuck in the ground.

Now Crysis 2. Polar opposite. You can make out lots of detail on practically anything, anywhere that you can see.

These games are both on the Xbox, and that's what I purchased them for. So I'm speaking from first-hand experience here. The same hardware in my Xbox powers Crysis 2 that powers Homefront. Homefront looks graphically bad (but has pretty good gameplay) and Crysis 2 has great gameplay and also great graphics.

Now, take my PS3. I have Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 for it. To me, both those games beat anything I've seen on the Xbox 360 hands down. You know what else? They both run in 720HD, because that's what the PS3 mostly utilizes. The Xbox will run in 1080p HD if you have a 1080 TV. I did, but am back to a larger TV with 760p as the highest resolution.

I honestly have a really hard time telling a difference between 720 and 1080 unless I'm sitting right on top of the TV. Even then, I cannot honestly say that anything that's 1080 looks better than Uncharted 2 or KZ3 on my PS3, both of which run in 720p.

I say all that to help make the point that even on the exact same hardware, you can have two totally different looking games. Why? It's in how the developers designed it.

To put it bluntly, if a game is designed to look awesome, it has to be written for what it will be running on. With PC games, this is obviously more of a problem because you don't know what the PC user will have. You have a set range that your game will run in, sure. But you don't know exactly what hardware is in every PC that the game is installed on. There are just too many combinations of CPUs, RAM, and GPUs to know what folks will have.

I have Bad Company 2 on PC and PS3. On my PC, BC2 doesn't look as good as it does on my PS3. Why? Because my graphics card isn't as powerful as the one in the PS3. The PS3 is built for gaming. That's all it does. It's a dedicated gaming PC. Same goes for the Xbox 360. If a developer codes a game and codes it properly for those devices, the games will look fantastic if the devs want it to.

In Homefront's case, I think the devs choose gameplay over graphics. The game is not made to graphically "wow" you. It's supposed to be fun. The same goes for MW2 and Black Ops. Neither of those games look as good (to me) as Bad Company 2 or Medal of Honor. Even the Xbox 360 version of Black Ops doesn't look as good as the PS3 version of BC2 and MoH. That's my opinion, but I think there are a lot of folks that would agree with me on that. (I'm talking about Multiplayer here: not the campaigns.)

The bottom line is there are a lot of variables. All this has to fall into place for a game to look its best:

*The game has to be written for a specific system setup, be it a gaming console or a high powered PC.

*The game has to be designed with graphics being a priority. KZ3, Crysis 2, Uncharted 2, these are all perfect examples of this. Out of those 3 games, Uncharted 2 also has an awesome story, so if you get it you really luck up in two ways.

*For the PC, you absolutely need monster hardware to guarantee that a multi-platform game will look better on it than on a console. Back in the Xbox and PS2 days, you could safely bet a PC game would look better than it would on one of those consoles. You didn't need to spend $3000 to do it either. Now, you have very powerful dedicated gaming consoles that hook up to HDTV's running 1920x1080 resolution. Most PCs are not able to run a 3D game at that resolution, much less run it better than a $300 console dedicated to running it flawlessly at 1920x1080. The ones that are cost at the very least 3X what the consoles cost.

So if you have the money and you only play multi-platform games, a PC is probably going to look the best for you. But in all honesty I would not say it is worth it anymore. I know there are die-hard PC fans that will disagree with me on that, but they are the folks who have the money to shell out for a super rig. If you have a $600 PC from StoreMart and want to run Crysis 2 flawlessly on it, forget it. And to get it upgraded to do so, you need to at least put a $300-$500 graphics card in it. Why do that when you most likely already have an HD TV, can pick up and Xbox 360 and Crysis 2 for under $400, and just plug it in and play?

I used to swear I would never play console games. I was a PC gamer at heart for years. But I can't ignore that consoles have vastly improved since the PS2/Xbox days. Acknowledging this, consoles have earned their roles as dedicated gaming computers and will most likely be the future of gaming, regardless of what PC gamers want. The cold hard facts are most people do not have $2000-$3000 to put into a PC that some company built for them, and even fewer folks have the know-how to build their own PC and match all the parts so they work well together. Consoles are a cheap, pre-built package with high output and are a serious force to be reckoned with now.

Besides, it's fun to sit on the couch and play an awesome looking game on the TV. Beats sitting at the computer any day.

Crysis 2 Multiplayer - Review

2011-03-23T11:47:00.001-04:00

I unexpectedly picked up Crysis 2 yesterday. How can one unexpectedly buy a game, you may ask? Quite easily!

While out looking for apartments, my friend called me and said "Hey, I got Crysis 2 and you have to get it too." So I'm thinking to myself "I just picked up Homefront. Do I really want to spend $60 on another game?" So I say to my girlfriend "My friend just picked up a new game and wants me to get it too. Let's run by Gamestop while we're out so I can look it over."

There are 3 main folks I play games with, and have played with for a while now. My girlfriend and 2 guys I've been friends with for years now. My girlfriend and I love Uncharted 2, and we love the multiplayer so we play that anytime we can. We've been playing some FPS lately though, and our last pickup was Homefront (that just came out, really). I'm in the mid-30's level wise with that game, so I'm not near the cap yet and have a lot more shooting to do. So you can see why I was hesitant to look into another new game so soon.

So, after we look at the apartment (which we liked by the way), we decided to go to Gamestop and get a bite to eat.

I go into the store and ask the guy if they have any used copies. He said "The game just came out today." I didn't realize that, so I said "Ok, well just though I'd ask. Never know when you'll get lucky, right?" Then he tells me how he's had folks bring them back the same day and all that, so I don't look too stupid I guess. So anyway, I pick up the game and we head back home.

I pop it in the Xbox and get started with the installation. A few minutes later I jump onto it and start playing.

From what I can tell, it will be a pretty fun game. I played to about lvl 10 last night (I think, I can't remember exactly what level I quit on). I unlocked a few guns, abilities, and other stuff.

For a game I wasn't planning to get, or that I didn't read any hype on at all, I'm really surprised by it. Everyone is talking about its looks, from what I can tell on the 'net so far. That is one aspect of it that's cool. The gameplay itself is pretty darn cool too. It has a lot of fun stuff to do. You can level up, unlock weapons, unlock abilities, and (importantly for me) unlock weapon attachments to customize your killin' tools. I like doing that. That's one thing that I like about Black Ops. That game has tons of customization (though I will always hate the gun recoil in that game, unless they patch it so it's less).

So back to the gameplay. The game itself is pretty cool. Seems to have a few more things to do in it than most FPS out there right now. You can do a lot with your suit. You can do thermal vision, mark guys with binoculars, throw on some armor if a grenade hops or rolls by, or you can stealth with the cloaking device.

I like the cloaking aspect. It isn't like KZ3 where you're basically completely hidden. Well, not when you move anyway. Which, you aren't hidden when you move in KZ3 either, so... I guess they are pretty similar. However it looks different. You'd have to watch a video or play the game to see what I mean. For whatever reason I just enjoy the feel more of the cloaking in Crysis 2 than I do in KZ3. Also you can cloak with any "class" in Crysis, where as you can only cloak with a Marksman in KZ3.

I'm comparing these two games because I have both, and they share a lot of similarities while being very different. Both are highly acclaimed for their visuals, and I agree that both are awesome looking games. However I enjoy the visuals of KZ3 more. That's about the only edge I can give to KZ3 though. The gameplay of Crysis 2 is more fun to me, and I'll tell you why.

Your suit assists you with motion. You can run really fast, shield yourself, cloak, and jump higher because of your suit. There are a lot of options and your suit uses Energy to activate and use all these features, so you have to choose what you want to do with that energy. Mostly for me, due to my playstyle, I am cloaking and walking around a lot, sprinting from place to place while looking out for enemies. That seems to be my best method so far for racking up kills.

The weapons are really nice. I like all of them I've tried so far. I don't like sniping, but I haven't really found a good spot to do it from. I'm not much for sitting in one spot and pegging enemies all day. I might do that if I'm getting tired of running around, but 9/10 times I'm a run-and-gun player. I am eagerly awaiting the unlock of the SMGs. They look fantastic and seem to have good stats, so I can't wait to try them out (hopefully later today!). So far I have used the assault rifle and LMG the most. I like both, and can't really pick one over another at the moment.

The modules (aka Perks) that I use on my suit are mainly to steady my 'down the irons' aiming, make my footsteps quieter, and alert me to nearby enemies. There are a lot to choose from and I'm enjoying all of them so far.

The maps are nice. There are some I like more than others, but I don't have one so far that I hate terribly. Most of them are fun and they all seem to have their own tricks that you need to learn if you're going to do well.

Learning to shoot is a challenge of course. The guns are highly accurate if burst fired, and fairly accurate on full auto. The LMG is only good if you pop off bursts for long shots, and the assault rifle will sometimes let you get a long range kill at full auto, but only I'd say 25% of the time. Typically any long range shots will need to be burst fired.

The acceleration is a little higher than I'd typically like for looking around and aiming, but it isn't bad and something I can get used to. KZ3 is too high for my tastes even at 10% or so. Coincidentally I have Crysis 2 set to 10% or 15% also. This impedes my ability to spin around quickly if I'm getting shot in the back, however my aiming is improved. 9/10 times, I will not win a fight when someone is behind me anyway so I'd rather mow down who I can see instead of who I never see.

The ability to jump up ledges and pull myself to the top of areas is cool, and one I have not used before in an FPS. You can also slide around, or slide under objects if you want. When I do my best, I am not really using these features. I'm playing it like a typical FPS. However, when you want to climb up something quickly, the jumping in Crysis 2 seems to beat most everything else out there. The game has great mobility, and it's cool to play around with. It almost has 3rd person mobility in a 1st person shooter.

One more thing I should mention is the game has 10 multiplayer modes. I won't list them all, but that's pretty cool. In comparison, KZ3 has 3 modes.

Overall I like it, and Homefront and Crysis 2 will most likely be my go-to games right now. They are both fun to play and have a bit of stuff to keep me busy for a while.

I'd give Crysis an 8.5/10 on the rating scale right now for multiplayer. I have not played the single player, and may not. Typically I just play multiplayer in FPS games. I like more story driven games for single player, like Mass Effect, Dead Space, Uncharted and Uncharted 2, and Alan Wake.

To anyone on the fence, I'd say get this game if you enjoy multiplayer FPS. It's worth it. If you're trying to pick between KZ3 and this, I'd pick Crysis 2 just because it has more options, better maps, more weapons, and looks almost as good. KZ3 still edges it out on the graphics in my opinion, but graphics are not everything. Gameplay is most important! Ask any Minecraft player about that!

Homefront - More Multiplayer Review

2011-03-22T10:55:00.000-04:00

I'm revisiting Homefront after a week to let you know if my opinion on the game has changed or if I still find it fun overall. Read on to find out!

Multiplayer Connectivity - There are some connectivity issues going on. For the most part they are ironed out now. However, joining a game with friends is still problematic. Sometimes you get into a game together, other times you're dumped to the "Homefront Servers are down" screen, and other times you will actually get into the game together. Hopefully they are still working hard at sorting that out.
The game itself seems lag free on the dedicated servers. However when joining skirmish games, sometimes the lag makes it unplayable due to this being peer-to-peer hosted vs Ground Control's dedicated servers. Dedicated servers are always better!
I'd say the game is working 75% as it should be, vs launch day where it was working basically 10% as it should. I can get in games fairly easily now, with only the occasional hiccup if I'm playing by myself. If I'm trying to get into a game with friends from the lobby, well, that's another story.

Game Controls - I'm liking the controls. They have a good sensitivity range and a well-paced acceleration curve when aiming. This game feels more like BC2 or MoH than the Call of Duty series as far as aiming goes. However the controller layout is exactly like the defaults of Call of Duty MW2 or Black Ops. I think that's fine, though a lot of folks are complaining about it not having a "Tactical" layout like CoD does. I think that would be helpful, but not necessary. All games have different control schemes, but I'd like to see them all have at least one default one that's used in all FPS games. Overall I rate the controls very good.

Gameplay - The gameplay is great. While there could stand to be more modes and possibly guns, the gameplay is still loads of fun. Weapons seem balanced, as well as attachments. Vehicles are awesome and fun to use while being very easy to control. Overall the pace of the game is fast but not too fast. The map sizes allow you to play at your own pace, be it faster or slower. I see this game as more suited to a larger audience than say, CoD where it is 100% arcade twitch shooting. I find myself running around with assault rifles and SMG's most of the time. I typically use the Proximity Launcher and Phosphorus bomb as my two special options. If sniping, I usually load the marker drone so I can help out my team from both far away (sniper rifle) and at the objective (marking targets so they can take them out).

Fun Factor - This game is 95% of the way there, and that's saying a lot. It's a lot of fun with all the weapons, vehicles, drones and attachments available. The only thing holding it back for me are the graphics. It's about the same as MW2 or maybe Black Ops. The main issue is the farther away something is, it becomes more and more "grainy" so it is harder to tell if it's a rock or a sniper. Snipers can sometimes make your life miserable simply because you can't see them due to the game's graphics being bad at long distances. If they could somehow correct that it would be great, but I doubt that will happen since that's a game engine thing.

Overall it's a fun game. I'm happy with it and looking forward to leveling up to the cap (I think the cap is 75!). I'm currently somewhere around lvl 33, if I remember correctly. The game is getting more fun the more stuff I unlock, so it keeps me coming back.

Homefront - Brief Multiplayer Overview

2011-03-16T12:32:00.000-04:00

So we picked up Homefront on release night. I'm pretty psyched about it, because it has a lot of gameplay aspects that I like.

Pros:

*Gameplay is fun! The controls are great (same as default CoD MW2/Black Ops) and the aiming acceleration curve is awesome. Really fits my playstyle. Guns are really easy to aim and control. Grenades throw more quickly than in other FPS games, which I really like. Also the range you can throw them is good and predictable.

*Weapons - weapons so far are great. They look good, sound good, and are very accurate. Even the ones with more recoil are fairly easy to control at longer ranges with burst fire. This is how an FPS should be. I can see a noticeable balance between assault rifle, SMG and LMG.Assault has better range, SMG will toast someone up close but good luck hitting someone at long range with it. LMG packs some punch, but is slower to wield because of its size and it has recoil that prevents full auto long shots. Most likely someone with an assault rifle will beat you in a long range gunfight vs. an LMG. LMG is very useful for mowing down a group of enemies at medium and short range though.

*Maps are cool. I like the farmlands, fielded areas, messed up buildings, etc. It's a fun landscape to run around and war in. There is a lot of cover to hide behind, but the cover is setup in such a way that you can easily flush out campers. Overall I really enjoy all the environments I've been in.

*Game Modes - There's really only 3 game modes, with a Battle Commander enhancement added to all 3 modes so that it lists 6 modes. The Ground Control BC mode is 24 players vs regular Ground Control having 32. Not sure why that is. Anyway, all the modes are fun, but I have only been able to get into Skirmish very much due to launch day dedicated server issues. For whatever reason I have the most luck getting into Skirmish modes. Hopefully as of today (3/16/2011) they have corrected that, as a post on their official forum said that it would be corrected as of 12am PST on 3/16. From what I've read, it looks like the game might do a combination of both P2P and Dedicated Servers, but this could just be a backup plan due to the lack of dedi servers right now.

Cons:

Right now I only have one con, and that's getting connected to multiplayer matches with friends. Or, just getting connected to multiplayer matches. The game itself, when in it, seems fun and enjoyable. I'm ready for them to have all the connection issues sorted out and be playing it full force the next few weeks!

Funny Co-workers

2011-03-02T14:39:00.000-05:00

Sometimes creative friends can make things fun at the workplace.

Me: you or your buddy over there?
Friend: <--- over there
Me: I don't see anyone to my left...
Me: But if I'm YOU and I sit where YOU are then YOUR left might be <co-worker>.
Friend: ok then:

        >---.
        |    |
   >--^   X
   |
   |
   |
--^

Me:Nice.

One more KZ3 Post - Pros/Cons

2011-03-01T10:36:00.000-05:00

I've posted a couple times already about KZ3, so I'll keep this brief. I wanted to throw out a brief pros/cons list without much explanation behind it, since I go into more detail about some of this in my other posts.

Pros:
*Awesome graphics!
*Sound is pretty good.
*Good music.
*Weaponry has a good "feel" to it.
*Weapon sounds are pretty good. The LMGs sound like cannons, which are pretty awesome!
*Lots of classes and abilities to choose from.
*Classes and abilities are all very unique while keeping a familiar feel so that you're not lost totally when swapping from one to another.
*Maps look cool, and some are pretty big.
*Modes seem fun, though I mostly play Guerrilla Warfare.

Cons:
*Maps get stuck sometimes and won't rotate.
*Can't reliably join Warzone games. Not sure what's up with that. Hear a lot of folks talking in voice chat about needing to "back out" and rejoin to get in.
*Aiming/acceleration curve is too high for me personally, with no way to adjust a setting for it. Using 10% or 20% setting seems too high for me sometimes. It's probably more of a matter of me getting used to the controls more than the game itself. I would have liked to see an "Acceleration" adjustment also. I think all FPS games need this setting.
*Color seems odd sometimes. For example, I don't know if it is meant to be this way or not, but on one map when I am Marksman, I can turn on my cloak and then see farther than I could before. There's a high glare area of the map where the enemy spawns, and I normally can't see there. If Marksman, I can with the cloak on. I'm not sure if that's supposed to be like that or not. I was picking people off without any danger of being shot because they couldn't see me.
*Game color in general seems weird sometimes. High yellow/green saturation sometimes. It appears to be that way no matter what TV I've seen it on. I think it takes away a little from the good looks of the game and its textures.

There ya have it, a quick pros/cons list of KZ3.

What the Playstation 3 Needs to improve Multiplayer

2011-03-01T09:55:00.000-05:00

The PS3 is an awesome system. I love the exclusive games. To me, they are hands down better than any Xbox 360 exclusives. They also look awesome!

However, the system and Playstation Network is not without its faults. I'm going to list some things that the PS3 needs.

*The number one thing the PS3 needs is Party Chat! The Xbox multiplayer party chat experience is much better than the PS3, because PS3 doesn't even have it! Currently, PS3 chat only works in-game, while you are in the same session as your friends. That's terrible! If I get disconnected or dropped from a game, I can no longer talk to my friends. I have to resort to the phone, texting, or PS3 text chat to get back into a game together. I don't have a layout that lets me hook up a keyboard to my PS3, so I can't really use the PS3 chat. Who wants to text chat when you can voice chat anyway?

*Since there is no party chat, the least that can be done is have every multiplayer game required to have a Team Chat, Friends Only chat, and No Chat options. Medal of Honor does this, and they got it exactly right doing it this way. Awesome job guys! However I have not seen any other PS3 game get this right. If we can't have Party Chat, at least give us a Friend Only chat option in every multiplayer game. The last thing I want to hear is everyone else when I'm trying to talk to just a couple folks I know.

*If none of the other options are feasible, we at least need a Mute All option added. Every game needs Mute All. Uncharted 2 multiplayer got this one right. Select the map you want to play, then boom, Mute All. I don't have to listen to a bunch of belching, cursing, high and drunk people if I don't want to.

As it stands, if a game is coming out on both consoles and it is multiplayer, I'd get the Xbox 360 version simply because I will get a game my friends are getting to so we can all play and talk while doing so. It's a lot more fun to Party Chat and talk to only friends. Having the ability to take any other random folks out of the conversations is awesome.

So Sony, if you're listening and reading my blog (yeah, right!), please look at adding these features. I know I'm not the only one out there that buys 360 games when they are cross-platform just for the Party Chat feature. I'd rather have it all on PS3 if I could, but it just isn't feasible.

Graphics on cross-platform games look better on the Xbox 360 also (typically) but that is another topic all together.

Software I Like!

2011-03-01T09:06:00.000-05:00

Here's a quick list of some software I've used recently that I really like.

*aTube is a video downloader, but it has a lot more to it than that. It also has a screen recorder, video converter, and other cool tools. It's the best video downloader right now I think (that isn't a firefox addon).
*Irfan View probably needs no introduction. It's a great, fast picture viewer. I think it has video ability also, but I never use it.
*InfraRecorder is a great free CD/DVD burning suite. Simple and small yet looks cool and functions well.
*Notepad++ is probably another that needs no intro. It's a full featured notepad editor. Great tool!
*Speccy shows you all you need to know about your system. Good tool for techs trying to figure out what's in a system.
*Elby Clonedrive is a virtual CD-ROM. It allows you to load .iso images to the drive and use them without burning them to CD/DVD.

Hope someone else finds these useful if you've never heard of them before!

My DD-WRT Woes

2011-02-28T15:49:00.002-05:00

I don't know how many of you out there use DD-WRT firmware. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's router firmware that is open source, and lets you replace the default firmware on some devices with the DD-WRT firmware.

This is great stuff. It allows you to change a lot about your routers. I got a couple $50 routers from Newegg, the WRT54GL routers, and loaded this stuff on them. The options are numerous and it is pretty easy to use in most places of the GUI. There are some complicated areas, but it is not too bad.

The most complicated thing about using DD-WRT is not the firmware itself, or even flashing some of the units to use it. It's the site itself, and getting the right firmware in the first place.

If you're like me, when you go to a site's homepage, you start looking for where you can get what you need. If you hit the main site page, which is http://dd-wrt.com/, you will see a few links. The most prominent (for me anyway) is the Router Database link over there on the right under the release info.

Unfortunately, this info is most likely wrong, depending on what router you have. I don't know why it is listed there, or why the Router Database is so easy to access because it, too, is wrong in what firmware is best for your router. It lists the wrong Stable and Recommended versions!

The only place to find the real, recommended version of firmware for the WRT54G/GL units is in the Broadcom SoC Announcements on the forum. Even the Wiki had a wrong link to firmware I was trying to get (see bad Wiki link below).

Here is the link to the Broadcom SoC Announcement regarding the latest stable version you will need for Broadcom devices:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=52043

The problem here is there are 3 different parts of the site where you can find information about what firmware you need, and apparently the only part of the site that has the right info and is regularly updated, is the Forum. For me, looking at the DD-WRT homepage, the Forum was probably one of the last places I would look because I would assume the Router Database off the main page would have all the info needed, or even the Wiki.

Apparently not. Though to be fair, the Wiki does have a wealth of info. However, who knows if it is up-to-date!

So, for anyone who is trying to get the latest, best, recommended firmware for a DD-WRT compatible router, visit the Forum and look for an Announcement on Firmware Recommendations for your router's chip type.

Keep in mind the link I posted is for Broadcom devices. If you have another chip in your router, you'll need to visit that part of the forum to get the right info.

So the moral of this story is STAY AWAY from using the Router Database on the DD-WRT site, at least as of now (2/28/2011). The links there that say "stable" and "recommended" are often incorrect, and may even recommend a build that has known problems with a router you have. You'd never know this info unless you visit the Forums though.

DD-WRT needs to get either an updated router database, or a good solid wiki page stating what the latest firmware is and what router it goes to.

If they can't do it, I'll start! The routers I am working with are the WRT54G Version 8, and the WRT54GL.

WRT54G - ftp://dd-wrt.com/others/eko/BrainSlayer-V24-preSP2/2010/08-12-10-r14929/broadcom/
The Wiki states Micro Only for this device: dd-wrt.v24_micro_generic.bin

WRT54GL - ftp://dd-wrt.com/others/eko/BrainSlayer-V24-preSP2/2010/08-12-10-r14929/broadcom/
It looks like Micro or Mini can be used for the first flash: dd-wrt.v24_mini_generic.bin

Instructions for WRT54G V.8 flash here:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linksys_WRT54G_v8.0_%26_v8.2

Instructions for the WRT54GL:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linksys_WRT54GL

There. Maybe that will help someone out who was as confused as I was when trying to wade through all the incorrect info in their Router Database and Wiki!

A Brief Lesson on the word Gib.

2011-02-25T14:34:00.000-05:00

Ok, I have to write about this because it is bothering me.

As a gamer who's been around a while, I see the word Gib misused so much. Actually, I take that back. It isn't misused, just mispronounced.

It is not pronounced with a "Guh" sound like "gullible." It is with a "J" sound, like "jiggle."

I saw a poll not long ago that saddened me. It was "How do you pronounce Gib?" And 3/4 of the polled folks voted for the "G" sound. That made me realize just how many people don't get what the word comes from, or even what it means. They just see "gib" and think "Oh, G sound" instead of wondering "Wait, what? 'Gib' makes no sense... must be like 'jib!'"

The latter is correct. It is pronounced "Jib". Guess why?

It comes from GIBLETS. Ooohhh!

Ah, see? Making sense yet? Back in the Doom days, you blew someone to giblets when you hit 'em with a rocket launcher or the BFG. So it was shortened to "gibbing" someone, or just "gib". Examples would be:

"Man I gibbed that guy!"

"My rocket blasted that guy into gibs!"

"Ha! GIBBED BABY!"

So there you go. A brief lesson in what the word "gib" is and where it game from. Now you can laugh at all the real noobs out there that say it wrong in their nasally voices.

Now go make them pay by gibbing them relentlessly!

Doom rocket gibbing:

Duke Nukem 3D gibbing:

Minecraft

2011-02-24T14:56:00.000-05:00

I was sucked into Minecraft a while back. It's an awesome game, proving gameplay can still trump looks. I'm all about how great KZ3 looks, but Minecraft's gameplay is just pure fun. Nothing beats exploration, randomly generated worlds, and making whatever you want! Plus finding lava and getting attacked my monsters in the dark isn't bad either. Crafting an iron sword to smack some baddies around is pretty fun too.

Here are some screenshots of one of my Minecraft worlds. You can find this great game at http://www.minecraft.net

More KZ3 Thoughts - Multiplayer

2011-02-24T10:00:00.000-05:00

I played more KZ3 last night, and I have to say I'm more impressed than ever. The game just keeps proving to me that quality stuff can still be released, and work, on release day.

I have been disconnected a grand total of 2 times while playing about 6 hours. I'm pretty sure both of those disconnects are related to my own internet connection instead of Killzone 3.

The only complaints I have are that a Friends Only chat system was not implemented. Every single multiplayer game on the PSN needs this. I do not want to hear random people chatting. So what, you say? Just mute them! Well sure, I can do that. But they still hear ME when I talk, and I don't want that either. I want a private friends chat. Medal of Honor did this, and it works great. It's fantastic, and one of the best features of that game. Every single multiplayer PSN game should follow suite.

Anyhow, back to KZ3 specifics. The game runs great, looks great, guns are great, and I'm just overall more impressed with it every time I play it.

It's only pitfalls are the snowy maps are hard to see (I realize this is intentional, but TV brightness plays a big role in how much individual gamers can see on that kind of map), voice chat (lack of features), and I wish there was an option to adjust the acceleration curve in the aiming sensitivity settings. I'm pretty much stuck on using 10% because the acceleration is so extreme that it's all I can get used to. I tried my previous idea of using a higher percentage and just not moving the sticks that much, but that's nearly impossible for me as, like anyone, I freak out and jam the sticks in whatever direction during a spaz moment. I end up doing a 180 instead of just looking 20 degrees over.

I'm also not a huge fan of the pretty large bezel around the assault rifle's sight. It blocks my peripheral view pretty bad. However it is a good long range gun, so I can't complain too much.

The nitpicks I have are just that. There are only small complaints about KZ3, and the main one is the lack of voice chat options and aim acceleration. The latter is more of a personal opinion. In time I might get used to it, but overall it is drastically different to me than say, BC2 or MoH's feel. To me their aiming curve is perfect, and their range of sensitivity adjustment is actually useful. In KZ3 or the Modern Warfare/Black Ops games, I don't understand who could use more than 40 or 50% settings and actually control it.

Overall an awesome game, and I plan to keep playing it for a while!

Killzone 3 - Multiplayer Thoughts

2011-02-23T10:31:00.000-05:00

So I picked up Killzone 3 yesterday and popped it in after work. I got the map pack installed and jumped straight into multiplayer.

I think the game play is pretty good. I'm not blown away by it, but I'm liking it. The overall feel is good. I'm impressed with the way the character moves, the realism of model movements overall, and weapon behavior. Grenades throw pretty well, but have a little bit of a fast "die off" near the end (meaning they appear they will throw farther than you think, but near the end of the curve they drop more quickly than expected). When throwing a grenade you almost throw it more straight at the target. I've often thrown too high, hitting the top of a door frame and foiling my attempt.

Guns are great. They look good, sound good, and are accurate. I'm glad this game has controllable weapons. After playing Black Ops, almost every other game's weapons seem smooth a silk with normal recoil that you'd come to expect in an FPS. Black Ops went extreme with the gun recoil for some reason. However, KZ3 has really good gun control and the sights on all the weaponry are pretty good. I tend to like the Assault Rifle sights most, but I mostly play Engineer so far with the STA3 LMG. That gun rocks! I like how if I crouch, it becomes pretty good at long range shots as well as being an awesome run-and-gun weapon. I've yet to try many other guns in the game for a long enough time period to comment on them yet.

I enjoy the Bot Mode. This allows for learning the controls as well as the maps. I put the Bots on Recruit and just run around, scoping everything out and getting a feel for how the guns work. The awesome part about Bot Mode is that all weaponry is unlocked, so you can get a feel for what classes you might like most in Multiplayer before leveling them up. Nice feature!

The only complaint I have with the control is the acceleration curve. At the default 30% setting, if I move the right thumb stick a small amount, the controls seem ok. However, there's a point that's probably halfway to 3/4 of the way from being pushed as far as it can be left or right that makes it just spiral nearly out of control. If I had my way about it, this acceleration zone would be close to when the stick is pushed all the way over instead of near the halfway over to 3/4 over mark. I'm debating on upping the sensitivity to 40-50% and just moving the stick less, staying out of the curve all together, or lowered it to 10% or so and trying to adjust to the curve. I'm thinking the former is the way I may attempt to go first. The acceleration is so sharp when it occurs that it throws me off quite a bit. If I can just move the stick less at a higher sensitivity setting, then possibly I can stay out of the acceleration curve all together unless I'm needing a quick 180 rotation (that doesn't happen much).

Graphically, the game is awesome. That is almost all I need to say. It's rocking the graphics intensely. Snow looks awesome, landscapes, buildings, textures, guns, player models, gunfire, all of it looks amazing. KZ3 is definitely the highest bar right now in FPS graphics.

Sounds is pretty good. To me, it isn't as awesome as Bad Company 2's sound. BC2 puts you really in the game, especially if you're wearing a headset. I played KZ3 last night with a 5.1 surround headset and it was pretty immersive, but not completely immersive. It's missing some ambient noise I think. More ambient noise would make the player feel more immersed. The jungle map had the most immersive sound atmosphere in my opinion, and it wasn't what I would call awesome ambience.

Gunfire and explosions sound great however. When firing my STA3 LMG with the headset turned up, I smiled at he cannon-like sounds reverberating through my ears. The SMG didn't sound quite as awesome, but then again it is an SMG vs an LMG. The STA3 LMG just sounds like a cannon going off with a good headset or sound system and I was enjoying that quite a bit. Grenade explosions sound pretty bassy and awesome too.

Performance is great. I haven't seen a single slowdown yet in framerate. The game runs flawlessly. I disconnected a grand total of 1 time last night, and that was entirely possibly that it was my internet connection instead of the game's fault. So far, framerate and network performance are top notch and I'm very very happy to say I can enjoy playing the game and not worry about disconnects (I bet Black Ops players wish they could say that!).

Overall, I give it an 8/10. This is just based on my first night of play, so "rating" the game right now is premature really. I've really only tried the Guerrilla Warfare mode, and from what I hear the other modes are really the core KZ modes and I need to try them. There are more maps and a lot more to do with the game yet, so I see my opinion of it, and my score, going up to a 9/10 easily if not a 9.5/10 after I get a good couple weeks under my belt with all the modes.

Hopefully this will be an FPS I can stick with for a while. While BC2 and MoH are awesome, they are wearing thin now. I can't say that for Uncharted 2, as it just keeps bringing me back for more because the gameplay is just so freaking fantastic. As far as FPS go, hopefully KZ3 will keep me busy for a while. Homefront is looking good too, and hopefully will fill shoes that MAG did not. We shall see!

Game Videos

2011-02-20T14:22:00.001-05:00

If I have time, I plan to upload some game videos. It will be mostly camcorder vids since I don't have a great setup for recording PS3/Xbox video yet from HDMI. But surprisingly the cam vids looks pretty good. So, look for those in the near future!

My Opinion: PS3 vs Xbox 360. What's best?

2011-02-15T16:48:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I'm going there. The great Console War. Which console do I think is best? (And no, I'm not including the Wii in this.)

I'll lay it out straight right now. Hardware wise, I think the PS3 is the best. It looks slick, the hard drive is included in both models, the controller is nice, and the quality of the build is excellent. The inclusion of Blu-ray is a great touch, preventing me from needing yet another disc player on the shelves of entertainment.

However, the Xbox 360, especially the new 360s, is pretty darn awesome too. The best feature to me of the 360 is Party Chat. I can get in a chat with a friend on there and not need to call them via phone or send them a text message first. If they're online, I can talk to them. I don't have to be in the same game session (like the PS3). However, Live costs. $60 a month is a whole game, so I'm not happy about the price. If you're lucky you can renew for a lower rate ($45 or so). It's a double-edged sword.

The PS3, when a game is exclusive to it, is unbeatable. The graphics are amazing on PS3 exclusives. Killzone, any Uncharted game (UC2 especially), Demon's Souls, Infamous, basically anything exclusive to that console is going to look really, really good.

The Xbox doesn't exactly have slouches in the looks department either. But, in my opinion, you can't beat PS3 exclusives when it comes to graphics. Also my opinion, it's hard to beat Uncharted 2 single player, and it's got great multiplayer too.

One place from experience that I've seen the Xbox beat the PS3 over and over again however is multi-platform games. I think this is due to the Xbox being easier to develop for. It's like a PC. If a game comes out on PC, it is easy to make it work on the Xbox and look good. The PS3 is a different animal from what I understand. This makes it automatically not as fun to work with, and porting a game to the PS3 when it isn't designed for the PS3 makes the game play worse than on Xbox or PC. A big example of this that I've personally seen is Black Ops. Black Ops looks great on Xbox, but on the PS3 it didn't look so hot. The textures on PS3 were just not nearly as crisp and clean as the Xbox version. There are quite a few people up in arms about this if you do a little searching on the 'net about it.

Overall, right NOW, if I had to pick one console for multiplayer gaming, I would pick the Xbox 360. The voice chat over Live is great, and the ability to hook up with friends in games is second only to playing on a PC. Having a separate service for voice that stays running when a game drops is a very wise decision by MS. It is too bad however that they charge so much for it. It should be, in my opinion, max of $25 a year.

However, for the best graphics and exclusives, I would no doubt pick the PS3. Also having a Blu-ray player doesn't hurt, if you're really into that. I mostly use Netflix, so Blu-ray isn't really my thing yet. I have seen some Blu-ray movies, and they are good looking, but I'm not all that impressed with it so far. Then again I don't have a $1000 TV to play them on either, and probably never will! Netflix streaming works for me.

It's a tough call. If I had just the Xbox 360, I would never have played Uncharted and Uncharted 2. I wouldn't want to pass them up for anything. They are some of the most awesome game experiences I've ever played. To this day, I really enjoy UC2 Multiplayer. It's awesome, and still is the best feeling third person shooter in my opinion ever created. Gears of War isn't bad, but it does feel a little clumsy next to UC2.

Having both consoles is really the only way to do it if you're one who enjoys all kinds of games and doesn't want to feel limited. If gaming is your hobby and you can afford both, definitely get both. Both consoles can be purchased for $600+tax now, where the PS3 originally was $600 itself (that was a big mistake Sony!).

If you can only afford one, and multiplayer gaming is NOT a primary focus, I say go PS3 all the way. If you DO focus on multiplayer games and don't like third person shooters or the Killzone games, then I would say stick to the Xbox 360 side of things. Halo is fun, but in my opinion it is not as fun as Killzone, or something like Battlefield Bad Company 2 or Uncharted 2 multiplayer.

It's all in what ya like.

Medal of Honor Multiplayer - Quick Overview

2011-02-15T15:55:00.000-05:00

Medal of Honor is one of my favorite FPS. I play on the PS3. I used to be primarily a PS3 player, but any mulitplatform game I generally now pick up for the Xbox 360. They typically look better and run smoother on the Xbox 360 vs the PS3. However, PS3 exclusives are overall the most amazing games I've seen.

On to my quick overview of MoH Multiplayer!

PROS:
*Graphics - they look great, especially the Combat Missions. I really love those. The Shahikot Mountains are awesome. I imagine it would look better on Xbox 360 or a very high-end gaming PC with high resolution, but it is no slouch on the PS3.

*Gameplay - very balanced gameplay, perhaps the most balanced I've seen. You can take out a sniper with an assault rifle (if you see him first). The guns don't have massive recoil like in Black Ops (Black Ops gun recoil is absurd in my opinion). Assault rifles and SMGs have very little kick so you can shoot a bullet stream very easily from close to medium ranges without having to burst fire. Long shots still do best with burst fire.
        There are not many weapons to choose from, and not that many setups for the weapons, but the weapons and addons that do exist are very good. The iron sights on most weapons are good enough if you like playing that way, and the red dot sights are great on both Assault Rifles or SMGs.
        Sniping was pretty awesome when the game first debuted. For the first month or so that the game was out, the bolt action rifles were one shot guns, pretty much with any hit. I could blast someone in the foot and it would kill them. While that's pretty fun, I do think that was overpowered. Unfortunately they have now over-corrected this matter and the high powered bolt action sniper rifle is practically useless now. I prefer the Combat Rifle now. you can use a Red Dot sight or a Combat Scope that (I assume) is around 4x. Not great for the really long shots, but still doable. The Combat Rifle takes two shots to take someone out, and they are semi-auto with at least 10 shot magazines. The G3 Combat Rifle however, I detest. It takes too many shots to provide a kill. I stick with both faction's first combat rifles.

*Models - they are great in this game. People look right running around, guns look great, and gameplay models in general look good.

*Game size - fun with 12 on 12 in Combat Missions. That's mostly what I stick to. I occasionally play Team Assault. I did buy the extra modes, and regret it because they were not as fun. Also on the PSN, last time I checked there are 0 people playing the new modes. They were played some when they first came out, but aside from that they are deserted.

*Maps - the Combat Mission maps really shine. They are sectioned off similarly to Rush in BC2, but more bottlenecked. You can easily discern where someone is coming from, and defenders can setup well and attackers can be strategic and find the appropriate paths to reach their goal. Grenades, especially Rifleman smoke grenades, are very key to reaching almost any objective in the game on Combat Mission mode.

*Three Cool Classes! Rifleman, Special Ops, and Sniper. Rifleman and Special Ops are very similar, but Rifleman get smoke grenades vs Special Ops getting frags. Also Special ops has an SMG option and Rocket Launcher for taking out vehicles. Riflemen, as their name implies, can use the widest variety of automatic rifles. Snipers can mainly use bolt action powerhouse rifles with high powered scopes or combat rifles, which are good for being a sniper and running right into the fight. Snipers can use C4 also.

*Score Chains - I like how this works in MoH. To me, the system is better than Killstreaks in the CoD games. However both are fun. Score Chains unlock multiple things, from predator-type missles to strafing runs, plus a lot more. The cool thing is you have the option of choosing an offensive or defensive score chain item. For example, I can use either a missile attack or I can pick Intel. Intel gives me a guaranteed amount of points, but the missile attack can potentially earn more points if used correctly. It can also be more important to use a middle if you know where a group of enemies are hiding out, vs using the Intel to allow your team to see enemies. Intel is basically a Spy Plan type of option. There are multiple score chains which are very awesome, and score chain offensive strikes build points up for the next score chain also.
Sound - like Battlefield games, the sound in MoH is awesome. Put on a headset and enjoy!

CONS:
*Lack of Weapons - MoH needs more weaponry. While what it has is great, it can use more. It gets boring using the same weapons for a long time. My favorite weapons were the first available ones. I used them most throughout the whole 15 levels of each class (except the sniper class).

*Weapon Unlocks - Weapons are unlocked at odd intervals. Instead of unlocking some powerful weapons at 15 (the top tier in MoH) you unlock the ability to use 3 grenades instead of 2. What? Lame! A powerful weapon should be unlocked at the highest level in my opinion. No one cares what they unlock past level 12, when the veteran weapons are unlocked, because there isn't anything cool to unlock after that really. Well, maybe level 13, when you get to use other faction weapons. But, still, that is kind of lame also.

*Weapon addons - there's basically one red dot site, one combat scope, and one scope type for the rifleman, special ops and sniper classes. Iron sights, while good on some weaponry, isn't really an "option" to me like a Red Dot or Combat Scope with a little zoom. At least the ability to adjust the reticle would have been nice, similar to Black Ops customization. Even color change alone would have added something extra. In my opinion the reticle customization in Black Ops should be put into every FPS from now on. It's too cool to leave out.

*Lack of Maps - I think MoH could use a few more Team Assault maps and definitely more Combat Mission maps. While the ones that are there are cool, like any game, having the original 4 gets old after a while. They really should have released a map pack instead of the extra modes they tried to push on players. No one likes the extra modes, we need new maps instead. I'd really like to see the makers take the money from that failed experiment and make 4 new maps for everyone and put them out for free. I highly doubt that will happen however.
*Bolt action Sniper Rifle nerf - The M24 sniper rifle was heavily nerfed. It was a one-shot weapons for the first month of online play. However, I assume due to complaints from gamers, the gun was nerfed so that unless you hit someone in the head it is no longer one-shot. While that might sound fair, it isn't and I think the proper thing to have done would be to make it a one shot gun if hit in the torso or head and two shot if hit in the limbs. The current weapons is practically useless unless you are an amazing headshot artist because 90% of the time it takes two hits to kill the target, and 90% of the time you won't get a chance to shoot the same target twice with that gun because you have to unshoulder, reload, reshoulder, then sight again before shooting the 2nd shot. The maps are close enough that even the farthest shots can be taken with a combat rifle, and since the combat rifle kills in two quick pops, there is simply no reason to use the M24 bolt action rifle anymore in my opinion. The only plus it has is a higher powered scope. Heck, the combat rifles kill in one headshot too! Almost zero reason to use the M24 anymore.

Wrap up
In a way, MoH feels like a half-Battlefield game. Scaled down to more of a Call of Duty size with the maps (except for Combat Missions) and with fewer weapons and maps to play on, it's a great game but one that can be tired of quickly due to not having enough. The game would have new life breathed into it if a new map and weapons pack were released. Two new weapons per class and four new maps would make the game worth picking up again for gamers who have maxed out to 15 in every class. At this point I think the developers are mostly finished with MoH and are looking to the future of Battlefield 3, leaving MoH as-is.
        The game is quick. If you play much, you can max out all 15 classes pretty fast. Playing a couple hours a night during the week after work, I think I got to 15 with each class in a month's time. It might have been a month and a half. Somewhere in there. I actually created a new Playstation name so I could level up again, to feel like I was achieving something in the game. The unlocks are a fun part of leveling up, however as mentioned it isn't really worth it in MoH since your starting weapons are pretty awesome already. Unlocking the Red Dot sight is about the most key thing you can do in the game, and that happens somewhere around level 5 or 6 I think. It doesn't take long to get to level 5 or 6. Levels 10 to 15 take longer, but still do not take very long if you have some good matches.
In my opinion, Medal of Honor is not deserving of its low player population for multiplayer. On the PS3 it hovers around 2k to 5k people online, which is plenty to get into a good game. It is just a shame to see so many people on Black Ops when I think MoH is a better game, as far as gameplay itself goes. Black Ops is more flashy with more options though.
        MoH is a really fun game, one of my top FPS games of all time. I would have to say my favorite is Bad Company 2 right now with MoH a close second, with MW2 next and Black Ops a distant fourth.

Black Ops Multiplayer - Quick Overview - Xbox 360, PS3

2011-02-03T11:53:00.000-05:00

Call of Duty, Black Ops - so far I have a love/hate relationship with this game. There are a lot of things I really like about it, and some things I have a hard time getting used to.

First, let's get the dislikes out of the way.

*Graphics - I had this originally on the PS3. A friend of mine had it on the Xbox 360. Compared side-by-side, hands down the Xbox 360 takes the graphics trophy. Since some patches have come out, the PS3 does look much better and I would say they are closer to even than before, but the graphics king is still the Xbox 360. There is no doubt in my mind that the game was written to work on Xbox 360 first, PS3 second. I traded in my PS3 copy for the Xbox version, which also alleviated some lag problems that the PS3 version was having at the time. This may be resolved now. Also the PS3's lack of party chat is a big problem when hooking up to play with friends. You can only chat when you are in the game on PS3, there is no chat outside of the game.

*Acceleration curve when aiming - I would like to see it halved, so that settings 1 to 5 become 1 through 10, so that I can have more minute sensitivity changes. Moving from 1 to 2, or 2 to 3, is a large jump in sensitivity compared to other shooters such as Medal of Honor or Battlefield Bad Company 2.

*Movement models - I think they could do a lot better here. When players run in Black Ops, they look unnatural to me. Hunched oddly at the waist, bowed legs, but most of all the legs seem to move out of sync with the speed the person runs. Its as if their legs move slower than they are moving on screen. Just a personal peeve I've noticed with the game. It's not normal to see a guy slide out perfectly sideways when his legs look like they are running forward, and see his legs look like they are moving half the speed they should be in relation to the speed he's moving across the screen.

*Lag - the game is P2P based, which is not as good as having dedicated servers. P2P can work all right (Uncharted 2, Halo Reach for example) but is never as good as dedicated servers. That being the case, Black Ops needs to improve their P2P networking. Other P2P games do a much better job (Uncharted 2, Halo Reach). MoH and BC2 have dedicated servers and I am lag free 99% of the time on a 3mbps down/0.40mbps up internet connection.

Now for the good stuff!

*The customization is great. It's nice to have different reticles, colors, camos for guns, perks, killstreaks, attachments... all of it is nice to have. Other shooters need this level of customization also.

*Maps - some are pretty fun. The map sizes vary pretty well and modify the style of gameplay well. The same style won't do well on Jungle as does well on Nuketown for example.

*Gun selection - there is a pretty good selection of weapons to choose from, however I do usually stick with the Commando, Famas, AK74u and Galil. Sometimes the AUG.

*Joining friends already in game is pretty cool. Other shooters do this too, but some games don't (Halo, Uncharted 2, etc).

*Some of the graphic textures on the Xbox 360 look pretty good. Walls, rocks and things like that are mostly clear and fairly realistic looking. Overall the game engine for Black Ops is very old now and needs to be updated to keep up though. Other games are starting to leave it way behind in the graphics department. Crysis 2 MP demo on the Xbox 360 looks much better than Black Ops. I know games are not all about looks, but to say it's all about gameplay is just as close-minded. Looks do matter!

*Fast games - you move from game to game quickly, which keeps things fresh. There are no long games typically unless you setup some kind of weird rules on a private match. I don't know about you guys but I don't play many private matches.

*Wager Matches - these are unique and interesting, though to be honest I don't touch them much after trying them a few times. They don't seem to have lasting power to me like the regular modes do. The modes I enjoy most are Team Deathmatch, Domination and Ground War. Ground war is just larger Team Deathmatch and Domination groups (18 players vs the usual 12).

That's my quick overview of Black Ops. While not overly impressed, the game does have a lot of fun aspects about it. If I had to pick one shooter to play everyday though, it would probably be Battlefield Bad Company 2. Black Ops has a lot to keep coming back to, but there are some gameplay issues that get on my nerves enough that I would put it second or third on my list of shooters. Killzone 3 Open Beta comes out today, so we'll see where it ranks soon. Hopefully it will be my new favorite shooter.

Welcome!

2011-02-03T10:26:00.000-05:00

The Blog of Deathnozzle will have everything from reviews of games and movies to general musings. Enjoy!