I tried to get on my Xbox 360 about 27 hours ago, and I noticed my Xbox live wasn't working. It would connect to the network, the internet, but not Xbox live. It didn't give any status or why it wasn't connecting (I honestly thought it was an issue connection on my side.
On Sept 22, 2012 Xbox had put a status on www.xbox.com/service alerts stating that there was an issue connecting with some Time Warner / Road Runner ISP users to connect. It states that if you're having an issue, be patient and they are trying to work out the problem
It doesn't state how long the issue may go on, only that they will keep us updated. I hope if there is much time lost they will at least renew the time that I can't get onto Xbox live since I have to pay a yearly membership to use it.
I had posted a video on youtube stating this
You can see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3oIYrGOgz4&feature=plcp
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Expendables 2 (Movie Review)
Expendables 2 was released in theaters in the United States in August 17, 2012. Just like the first expendables it brings an all star cast of 80's action film stars (plus some other action stars in their own right) Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Chuck Norris, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Liam Hemsworth and Bruce Willis. As you can see it has a great cast.
One of the problems usually seen in movies with a big cast is too much is happening with the actors, or not enough, and the movie just tends not to be good. The story is slow, too many people to not be able to connect with any of them, etc.
We saw in the first Expendables movie that this is not just about one actor, and it doesn't show like one actor tries to out do the others in the movie, and offers plenty of introduction to the characters, and gives a purpose in redemption of Stallone's character (Barney Ross) in the movie with going to save a woman who is being held by the enemy.
The second one starts out straight into action, with the team dispatched to Nepal to rescue a Chinese businessman. They also rescue a captured mercenary (Arnold Schwarzenegger). A great action sequence showing what the men are capable of (especially Liam Hemsworth characer Billy the Kid as the sniper) After the mission they are on the helicopter, Jet Li drops with a parachute with the chinese businessman saying "Maybe I will return, maybe not" (He doesn't, not for this movie anyway)
Afterwards, while the team is celebrating Barney Ross goes off on his own to collect his thoughts, and runs into Willis's character Church, who informs him that because of what happened in the first movie he owes him, and needs a mission done to retrieve an item from a crashed airplane shot down in Alibania. And they are also getting a teammate Maggie Chan (Yu Nan). During the mission they retrieve the mission they retrieve the item, but this is when they are introduced to Jean-Claude Van Damme and his band of mercenaries who want the object. They are holding Billy hostage, and the team is forced to give the item over without causing bloodshed.
From there it becomes about getting the item back, because it is proven that is has a location for an abandoned mine with five tons of refined plutonium. So, with personal reasons and retaining the item the team is set on taking Van Damme (Jean Vilan) down.
My Thoughts
There is a lot more action within this time around, since there is no need to introduce the characters there is a lot less down time. There is still some, like hanging out after the first mission, and relaxing in between missions, that can cause for some humor (which is pretty good0. But the action and story has a better feeling this time around. In the first Expendables to me it felt like Rambo did, with him going to save a woman for redemption, just had a better team in the Expendables. So it was nice to see it revolve more with the team this time around.
This movie shows the introduction of Van Damme as the bad guy (and he does a damn good job and proves to be ruthless), and Chuck Norris (who the team meats along the way). Along with the return of Arnold and Bruce Willis for this one.
While Arnold does his one liners "I'm back" of course, the movie actually pokes fun at the actors one liners and catch phrases back in the 80's. And yes, Chuck Norris even does a Chuck Norris fact in the movie, which was hilarious.
It was great to see him back on the big screen after a few years, and he still looks good and kicks some serious ass in it. As does everybody else.
The Ending
Don't worry, I'm trying to be as spoiler free as I can, but the last battle has every one in one great shootout. Showing why all of these actors were and are complete bad asses. And the fight between Van Damme and Stallone was like a dream come true.
The movie was a great, better than the original, and it makes me look forward to another Expendables (don't worry, there will be another one). I'd love to see who may make an appearance in that one.
Final Score: 8/10 (Bad ass, and I will buy it on blu ray)
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes
This is not Metal Gear Revengeance that is getting ready to be released. Hideo Kojima has announced that a new Metal Gear Solid game named Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes was shown at a PAX presentation
This is an open-world Metal Gear game, which I believe is going to be just a lot more to do as Big Boss. Yes, I did say Big Boss because this will be a prequel to the Metal Gear Solid games, with Big Boss back in Foxhound, before he turned into a bad guy.
Now I myself loved to play Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater. I know that I had a great time playing as Big Boss, and did enjoy the love interest, (or lack thereof at times), with Eva. It was a great story, with some very memorable quotes to gaming history to me. It wasn't at the time when Metal Gear became over with too many cutscenes (Metal Gear Solid: Guns of the Patriots was way too much for cutscenes)
I love the idea of learning more about the history of the legendary Big Boss. The story was told at the end of Guns of the Patriots, but I would love to see how it plays out. I love to be able to get Metal Gear Solid in an open world. While this is uncomfirmed on the type of interactions that the characters will have, Hideo Kojima said in an interview that he liked the Deus-Ex style social interactions with different characters. But didn't go any further in an interview stating "...if I say more the female ninja public relations officer, who is behind the door, I will be carved up into pieces" So they are obviously trying to be tight lipped about the project because as early as it is with any production.
If there is one thing Hideo Kojima is good at is being tight lipped and not induging much information (such as the surprise to many fans about playing as a different character named Raiden all together in most of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty)
I myself can't wait to hear more about this game, and I love the idea of taking Metal Gear Solid franchise into an open world. Giving Snake more interaction with people, more places to go, and much more time to play as the character instead of the linear gameplay that has seen this franchise so much. I just hope it doesn't take away from the sneaking element and CQC style fighting that Big Boss has become legendary for.
Only time will tell, but to see a video of the gameplay that is shown for Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes check this link here
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Heavenly Sword 2 Artwork
Heavenly Sword was a game that was developed by Ninja Theory and was exclusive on the Playstation 3. The game was released on September 12, 2007 in North America and Japan.
While the combat of heavenly sword played much like God of War, you would play a female protagonist "Nariko" who uses a weapon called the Heavenly Sword. There was also another female character "Kai". With Kai you would use the Siaxis controller to control the arrows to try and reach their target (as intriguing as it was a pain in the ass)
"When we set out to do Heavenly Sword ... we wanted it to be a three-game story," he said at around the 11-minute mark. "We've had the story for the sequel for awhile now. Hopefully if this game is successful, then there's no reason why there shouldn't be a sequel and we'd very much like to go into that." Was said during in interview with AMN during E3 by Ninja Theory Co-founder Tom Antoniades.
On March 21, 2008, on G4's Attack of the Show it was listed on the scrolling banner that Ninja Theory is not planning to create a sequel for Heavenly Sword, and instead has decided to work on a new project (most likely Enslaved: Odyssey to the West). Though information on the decision and the aforementioned project was sparse, it was stated that production time for the new project will span well over two years, and that the project, like Heavenly Sword, will be extremely cinematic.
It always makes me wonder why they didn't go any further with the game. It sold over a million copies in 2008, the biggest complaint was the games short length (honestly with new games sometimes that happens and then a story is expanded upon and made longer in a sequel)
Artwork from Heavenly Sword 2
Since it has been stated that a sequel, even a trilogy was planned, it's not surprising to here there was artwork even probably some of story was done to a sequel. It is nice to see Nairiko would have seemed as much of a bad ass,given the ending to the first Heavenly Sword. It also also a reminder and pisses me off that this may be the only thing that is ever seen with the Heavenly Sword games.
I honestly hope maybe an outcry will be received from fans with this artwork that another game will start to be made, and they can see they had a franchise here, and there was no reason to abandon the story or characters.
It's great to see, but upsetting that this was never made into another game. The story and character were strong enough to make a sequel. The gameplay was exciting (not new but exciting), and it had a lot of a story that could have been expanded with. Here's hoping one day maybe we'll see more of this series. But for now this is the artwork to enjoy
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
WII U Thoughts
There has been nothing on the Xbox 720 or the Playstation 4. That wouldn't slow down Nintendo for their new console, the Wii U. Nintendo is going to be hosting a Wii U Press Event in September to reveal more about its console. Maybe on the release date and the price the Wii will be sold at.
Even though there have been no confirmed dates for release, there have been rumors going around the internet about a mid-november release date of 2012. Nintendo's past consoles the Gamecube and the Wii arrived in North America on November 18 and 19 respectively, so some consider this a good bet on the rumors, but maybe we will find out in a few weeks if the date is true.
I'm just going to give a quick look at the design and specs of the system, and then I will give my thoughts on the new Nintendo console
Looks
- The screen is touch screen, using either fingers or the Stylus.
- The gamepad is used as either a second screen within the game (accessing extra maps, equipment, other things while playing), or a second screen while the TV is in use
- The design has the look of a tablet and portable gaming device (like a PSP and 3DS)
- Has a built in a camera and microphone on the gamepad
- A Power Button, and a TV remote button to control things like volume and other things on TV from the gamepad, whether playing a game or not
Size
The console is approximately 1.8 inches high, 10.5 inches deep and 6.8 inches long
Weight
Approximately 3.41 Pounds
GPU
AMD Radeon - based High Definition GPU
CPU
IBM Power - based multi-core processor
Backwards compatibility with Wii games
Wii Compatibility
Nearly all the software and accessories can be used with the Wii U
I've already discussed the gamepad design and specs above
My thoughts on the entire system
I'm not a big fan of specs, because you can make any system sound good on paper, but the question is will it be able to run like you say it will.
Will the game play be as enjoyable with the extra screen from the Wii U gamepad?
My biggest concern is while it looks like it can run at high definition games that can look like the ps3 or xbox 360, with the lineup I'm not too enthusiastic about the HD games to be released because the ones coming out about the time the Wii U does are games that have had their run on the Xbox 360 and PS3 (Like Batman Arkham City and Mass Effect 3)
While great games in my view, they are the same game with the extra screen to use as a map or extra inventory type spaces, doesn't seem to be anything new or breaking ground that seems to jump out at me to say "Damn, I can't wait to play this"
I feel like if I do end up getting one, it will be because the Xbox or the Playstation are probably still a couple of years away before a new console release, while the Wii U comes out in 2012.
If you ask me it is a good strategy by Nintendo, with the console release in 2012 they will not be competing with a new xbox or playstation, which can give them good sales of the console with no direct competition
While it does sound like a cool concept, I feel like if I wanted to play games from an extra screen they could have just updated the console for hd graphics to put out, and make an App for Ipod, Iphone or Android to be released to be able to play with the games.
I just don't feel there is the need for an entire new system and this love child controller of a 3DS, PSP, and a Tablet.
Conclusion
While from the announcement of the Wii U I have not find myself eager to see it hit the shelves. But I will admit I was very pessimistic against the Wii also, I didn't like the idea of having to hold tv remote type controller to play games, but the games were very enjoyable (at least with friends for most part)
So we will see, maybe this one will look as ridiculous as the Wii did, but it may be as enjoyable as the Wii was. A console made to be played with friends and have a good time, maybe it can stand more to be played solo than it's predecessor, or maybe it is a lot of hype into a system that will just not be new and intriguing enough to have a long life span.
I love gaming, I have a Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and PSP Vita, so I hope I am wrong about this system and I'm just worrying too much about how the game play will actually fair with this gamepad idea. I want to see this be a good system, enjoyable for all ages for doing the games that Nintendo does best (like Mario of course) and delivering new ideas that only work to their advantage. As they almost always have
So here's hoping to you Nintendo, and you deliver on what the Wii U will be set to do, and continue to be in the gaming industry for many years to come (if not always)
Monday, August 27, 2012
Where is my Kingdom Hearts on a console?
Now I know I am not the only fan of the Kingdom Hearts series. I do have to call it a series, because plenty of games have come out for Kingdom Hearts, and only two of those have seen a console release. Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 and the Playstation 2.
Here's a list of all the games:
- Kingdom Hearts (PS2)
- Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep
- Kingdom Hearts 2 (PS2)
- Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days
- Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep
- Kingdom Hearts Coded
- Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream Drop Distance
Since the first game of Kingdom Hearts was release September 17, 2002 in the U.S. I would think a 10 year anniversary HD Collection of the titles would be nice to see on the newer consoles. I'd also love to hear any more info on what is going on with Kingdom Hearts 3.
No, instead a 10 year anniversary box consists of Kingdom Hearts 3d, Kingdom Hearts Re:Coded, Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days, a Nintendo 3DS cover, and 12 postcards. What the hell is that? Nothing against the 3DS, because I have one and it's ok to play, but why is this 10 year box only things for the Nintendo DS and 3DS. 10 years ago it was on Playstation 2, I think 10 year anniversary it should see something on the Playstation 3. You can see what the Kingdom Hearts 10 year anniversary box looks like here
I have not understood what seems to be such taboo to get a Kingdom Hearts back on a console. I mean do we really have to wait to the next generation for a possibility of it? Or is the only way we can enjoy it right now on handheld devices?
To me it's an easy suggestion of getting an HD Collection to release on a current generation console, then they can make Kingdom Hearts 3 on the next gen consoles. I'd just love to stop seeing this great franchise treated only with portable releases. It made its home on a console to begin with, and I'd love to see it back home soon on a console where it belongs
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Homefront 2 News
Homefront 1
Homefront was released March 15, 2011. The developer was THQ and Kaos Studios. The year set in 2027 in which America has fallen into a savage occupation by the Greater Korean Republic. It was the player's job to join the resistance
During the mixed reviews I wasn't sure if I was going to hear anything about a sequel to it. The game did leave it open in the end for another one, but I wasn't sure if the company would spend the money to make it since the first one didn't sell like I'm sure they were expecting it to.
Crytek now leads Homefront 2
It was announced in 2011 that THQ had closed the doors to th New York based studio Kaos Studios in 2011. That wouldn't stop the production of Homefront 2, which a few months after was put in the hands of Crytek UK, the company that has bought the game Crysis , Far Cry, Ryse and other ones is now set up for production for Homefront 2. The game will make use of its CryEngine 3, which looks absolutely beautiful in the videos that I have seen. I can't wait to see more of this. Below is a technical video to show the CryEngine 3, or you can check this link
While the studios are keeping the secrets of the game right now, it has been said that it would take part in a different place of North America.
Homefront 2 is stated for a release by THQ's FY14, which takes place in between April 2013 and March 2014. While still early in production, nothing has been released. Once it gets closer to the release dates there will be trailers, more fill ins about the game. I know I certainly can't wait to hear more about this.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Battlefield 3 vs Modern Warfare 3
Battlefield 3 VS Modern Warfare 3
Now this is going to be a hard one for me to write, because I do love both games. These are also games which you can find issues with, but they are usually so good it is easy to look past any of the flaws and see great games.
Note: That this is only my personal review, and I have games for the xbox 360, so that's what I'm going to be doing my view of them on (can't do any other system if this is the one I have them on, and don't want to steal somebody else's review or comparison and just slap it in here and say that it was my view of it)\
Graphics
As a note each of them is beautiful, but as I have said this is just my comparison
Battlefield 3
These are beautiful graphics, some of the most beautiful I have seen in any first person shooter at this time. The glare that you can get, the animations, the view, everything while at times can be a little overwhelming does make the game absolutely gorgeous and more realistic in my view
Modern Warfare 3
While these graphics are beautiful, they didn't impress me quite as much as Battlefield 3 graphics did. They were of course updated from Modern Warfare 2, but that's all they are is updated graphics, so a newer game running on a new engine is going to have better graphis, that's kind of a given
Winner: Battlefield 3
Gameplay
Now I'm going to do a rundown of a few different things, since you can say one plays in the other I want to view it on different perspectives
Single Player
Battlefield 3
Destruction - this is obviously a big play into the game, the destructible environment. This is something MW3 doesn't have, so I have to give it props to that (Good)
Enemy AI - one of the issues I did see with the game, because there were times I felt the enemies used absolutely no tactics. Numerous times when I am shooting an enemy from a distance, and then multiple enemies would follow just to die with my incoming rounds. (Bad)
Vehices - Another thing that MW3 is lacking, and it is nice to break up the shooting scenes through gameplay with the occassional levels with either a tank or a jet (which is the most memorable level of the single player campaign to me) (Good)
Partner AI - this proves to be something needed since you will pretty much always have a partner AI, except as many times as they would help me, I always felt like it would have been just as easy to be trying to fight the enemies on screen by myself. As much as they would help they would also get in my way and I would see the good old 'Friendly Fire Not Tolerated' across the bottom of the screen. So they can either help or stay the hell out of my way (Bad)
Modern Warfare 3
Warfare - as the name says that is what this is about, and through the destructed cities that have already been ravaged, it does make you feel like you are in the middle of world war 3, while as in Battlefield it's more of the destruction that gets done while you are fighting, this is the destruction that has been done in the storyline already. (Good)
Enemy AI - I didn't have the problem with enemies following eachother to their emminent deaths, but I had no issues waiting a few seconds for the enemy to pop their head out (which you could pretty much time in any first person shooter, so I can't really minus any points for that since they all do that) (Good)
Partner AI - I connect more General Shepard and John "Soap" MacTavish, but I didn't notice the partner AI near as much throgh the US military campaign. I guess having 3 games to build up the characters leaves an easier taste in my mouth with partners, so it may be a biased opinion on this one (Good)
Winner: Modern Warfare 3
And I'm saying that even though I didn't get into detail because of the stories. I don't want this to be an hour long read, and with explaining the stories that would take a long time with both games. I loved the story in both of them, but I just feel that Modern Warfare 3 story sticks with you longer after you turn it off than the Battlefield 3 story does
Multiplayer
Battlefield 3 Goods
- destructible environment makes multiplayer the best I have ever played
- bigger maps making for longer gameplay during a single game
- Premium accounts allowing early access and maps all year long
- Different classes (assault, support, recon, and engineer
- Points for different objectives throughout the game (not just killing)
- Renting you're own server to host you're own multiplayer game
Battlefield 3 Bads
- Base spawn killing, this shit pisses me off and I hate when people do this
- Knife kills only work if snuck up, consider yourself dead otherwise
- Renting server (if you can't get anybody to connect to it)
- Hard to communicate with people with teamwork that i needed
Modern Warfare 3 Goods
- Smaller maps make for easier single kills (harder for teamwork though)
- Elite accounts allowing early access and maps all year long
- Added kill confirmed, great addition to the multiplayer
- Different classes for assault, support and specialist
- No longer overpowered M203 grenade launchers
Modern Warfare 3 Bads
- Overpowered shotguns, these things shouldn't beat my assault rifle long range
- Quick scope, I have always hated this quick shot shit that doesn't require much
- Too much talking over chat, which would be fine except usually bitching
- Overpowered kill streaks
- Stop putting me on a damn team when I get on that loses 5 seconds later
Winner: Battlefield 3
Obviously these are only quick goods and bads I see in the games, and I'm not basing my decision solely on these, because there are so many more that I can't even think of rigth now, but it's just my feeling that I can find myself playing a lot more Battlefield 3 multiplayer than I can Modern Warfare 3
Conclusion
Now as I've said I own both games, and can play plenty of hours into either one of them I want, but as for the conclusion of which I think is better
Single Player Winner - Modern Warfare 3
Multiplayer Winner - Battlefield 3
That is just my perspective, but I am a fan and love both games and can't wait for more to be released. I hope one never beats the other out into submission. I honestly hope there will always be room for Battlefield and Modern Warfare
Now this is going to be a hard one for me to write, because I do love both games. These are also games which you can find issues with, but they are usually so good it is easy to look past any of the flaws and see great games.
Note: That this is only my personal review, and I have games for the xbox 360, so that's what I'm going to be doing my view of them on (can't do any other system if this is the one I have them on, and don't want to steal somebody else's review or comparison and just slap it in here and say that it was my view of it)\
Graphics
As a note each of them is beautiful, but as I have said this is just my comparison
Battlefield 3
These are beautiful graphics, some of the most beautiful I have seen in any first person shooter at this time. The glare that you can get, the animations, the view, everything while at times can be a little overwhelming does make the game absolutely gorgeous and more realistic in my view
Modern Warfare 3
While these graphics are beautiful, they didn't impress me quite as much as Battlefield 3 graphics did. They were of course updated from Modern Warfare 2, but that's all they are is updated graphics, so a newer game running on a new engine is going to have better graphis, that's kind of a given
Winner: Battlefield 3
Gameplay
Now I'm going to do a rundown of a few different things, since you can say one plays in the other I want to view it on different perspectives
Single Player
Battlefield 3
Destruction - this is obviously a big play into the game, the destructible environment. This is something MW3 doesn't have, so I have to give it props to that (Good)
Enemy AI - one of the issues I did see with the game, because there were times I felt the enemies used absolutely no tactics. Numerous times when I am shooting an enemy from a distance, and then multiple enemies would follow just to die with my incoming rounds. (Bad)
Vehices - Another thing that MW3 is lacking, and it is nice to break up the shooting scenes through gameplay with the occassional levels with either a tank or a jet (which is the most memorable level of the single player campaign to me) (Good)
Partner AI - this proves to be something needed since you will pretty much always have a partner AI, except as many times as they would help me, I always felt like it would have been just as easy to be trying to fight the enemies on screen by myself. As much as they would help they would also get in my way and I would see the good old 'Friendly Fire Not Tolerated' across the bottom of the screen. So they can either help or stay the hell out of my way (Bad)
Modern Warfare 3
Warfare - as the name says that is what this is about, and through the destructed cities that have already been ravaged, it does make you feel like you are in the middle of world war 3, while as in Battlefield it's more of the destruction that gets done while you are fighting, this is the destruction that has been done in the storyline already. (Good)
Enemy AI - I didn't have the problem with enemies following eachother to their emminent deaths, but I had no issues waiting a few seconds for the enemy to pop their head out (which you could pretty much time in any first person shooter, so I can't really minus any points for that since they all do that) (Good)
Partner AI - I connect more General Shepard and John "Soap" MacTavish, but I didn't notice the partner AI near as much throgh the US military campaign. I guess having 3 games to build up the characters leaves an easier taste in my mouth with partners, so it may be a biased opinion on this one (Good)
Winner: Modern Warfare 3
And I'm saying that even though I didn't get into detail because of the stories. I don't want this to be an hour long read, and with explaining the stories that would take a long time with both games. I loved the story in both of them, but I just feel that Modern Warfare 3 story sticks with you longer after you turn it off than the Battlefield 3 story does
Multiplayer
Battlefield 3 Goods
- destructible environment makes multiplayer the best I have ever played
- bigger maps making for longer gameplay during a single game
- Premium accounts allowing early access and maps all year long
- Different classes (assault, support, recon, and engineer
- Points for different objectives throughout the game (not just killing)
- Renting you're own server to host you're own multiplayer game
Battlefield 3 Bads
- Base spawn killing, this shit pisses me off and I hate when people do this
- Knife kills only work if snuck up, consider yourself dead otherwise
- Renting server (if you can't get anybody to connect to it)
- Hard to communicate with people with teamwork that i needed
Modern Warfare 3 Goods
- Smaller maps make for easier single kills (harder for teamwork though)
- Elite accounts allowing early access and maps all year long
- Added kill confirmed, great addition to the multiplayer
- Different classes for assault, support and specialist
- No longer overpowered M203 grenade launchers
Modern Warfare 3 Bads
- Overpowered shotguns, these things shouldn't beat my assault rifle long range
- Quick scope, I have always hated this quick shot shit that doesn't require much
- Too much talking over chat, which would be fine except usually bitching
- Overpowered kill streaks
- Stop putting me on a damn team when I get on that loses 5 seconds later
Winner: Battlefield 3
Obviously these are only quick goods and bads I see in the games, and I'm not basing my decision solely on these, because there are so many more that I can't even think of rigth now, but it's just my feeling that I can find myself playing a lot more Battlefield 3 multiplayer than I can Modern Warfare 3
Conclusion
Now as I've said I own both games, and can play plenty of hours into either one of them I want, but as for the conclusion of which I think is better
Single Player Winner - Modern Warfare 3
Multiplayer Winner - Battlefield 3
That is just my perspective, but I am a fan and love both games and can't wait for more to be released. I hope one never beats the other out into submission. I honestly hope there will always be room for Battlefield and Modern Warfare
Assassin's Creed III
Assassin's Creed III
Assassin's Creed 3 is a game developed by Ubisoft, set for release in the United States on October 30, 2012 on the Xbox 360 and the PS3. A PC release is set for November 20, 2012
Character
Most of the game is set to take place during the American Revolution fromn 1753 to 1783. Starring as the main protagonist, a half-English and half-Native American named Connor Kenway. The last few games have starred the main antagonist as Ezio Auditore de Firenze (Assassin's Creed II, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, and Assassin's Creed: Revelations). Prior to Ezio Assassin's Creed starred Altair ibn-La'Ahad. And in between them all there has always been the present day Desmond Miles, the protagonist in all the Assassin's Creed games, tying in all his ancestors into present day. He has this present day battle with Abstergo, and has been able to connect to his ancestors through the past through Abstergo.
The stories have been able to progress through each game, leaving the players begging for more of the character. I didn't feel overwhelmed when Ezio starred in three of his own games for the Xbox 360 and PS3, and I always wanted to learn more about Altair within the stories.
There can be many different supporting characters to go through, but not many of them are remembered once you disconnect from the game other than the entire company of Abstergo, and Lucy Stillman, none of them prove to be very memorable after, or sometimes even during the gameplay.
"On this land, I am torn. Part of me wants to fight and repel all outsiders. The other part of me is the outsider. In the name of liberty, I will fight the enemy regardless of their allegiance. While men of courage write history of this day, the future of our land depends on those who are truly free." Connor Kenway - Assassin's Creed 3 (I honestly think this character will be the most memorable of the series, but it is to early to tell)
Environment
While the graphics have been through the Avil game engine, the new Assassin's Creed 3 is running on a new system called AnvilNext, which will be able to provide the obvious better graphics with enhanced lighting. AnvilNext will also provide a new camera mode, improved crowd AI, and a dynamic weather changing system.
The crowd will be able to be in the thousands, where in older games it was only able to be in the hundreds. This new engine was needed to be able to provide the battles going throughout the game while you are playing.
Controls
This is obviously going to be impossible to review, other than having ideas of how the previous Assassin's Creed games have played, with the easy free running across the city. Assassinations to do in either a showy fashion or from under cover. The gameplay has only approved throughout the games, and I know that the addition of the environment and other aspect will only prove to be an amazing experience that just won't let me wait until a future Assasin's Creed game.
But to have an idea for how the gameplay looks, it never hurts to get some ideas, and this video shows a demo of the gameplay. It isn't letting me upload video for whatever reason but for the youtube link for the gameplay of Assassin's Creed 3 click here.
Single Player and Multiplayer
When asked about the overall length of Assassin's Creed 3, Hutchison stated that the game would last for more than 30 hours. It is inferred that this game length would be that of an average play through for the normal player.
One of the big things always seen in the old Assassin's creed games was walkthrough of the ancient buildings made out of stone. The main places in Assassin's Creed 3 will be New York and Boston, with wooden buildings, giving a completely different look with the game.
Another thing about the buildings is always the buildings, because the characters would be free running and doing parkour in and around these buildings. The big element for the character to get around now is trees, obviously providing a different dynamic to the free running, and more enjoyable experience. (I mean come on, who hasn't wanted to run through the woods to take down enemies. I've wanted to do that since the movie Predator)
Weapons - another big change is Connor's ability is to grab weapons on the move. While running to an enemy, Connor can grab a weapon that is lying around and use it to stab the enemy with the bayonet, or shoot them down.
There are changes through the gameplay, so it is a time and tell to see how well it plays, but through the gameplay I believe it will be the best in the series.
Conclusion
I mean I could easily talk all day about the Assassin's Creed series, I have always been a fan since the first one. I can't wait till Assassin's Creed 3 and all of the following games to come afterwards.
Assassin's Creed 3 is a game developed by Ubisoft, set for release in the United States on October 30, 2012 on the Xbox 360 and the PS3. A PC release is set for November 20, 2012
Character
Most of the game is set to take place during the American Revolution fromn 1753 to 1783. Starring as the main protagonist, a half-English and half-Native American named Connor Kenway. The last few games have starred the main antagonist as Ezio Auditore de Firenze (Assassin's Creed II, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, and Assassin's Creed: Revelations). Prior to Ezio Assassin's Creed starred Altair ibn-La'Ahad. And in between them all there has always been the present day Desmond Miles, the protagonist in all the Assassin's Creed games, tying in all his ancestors into present day. He has this present day battle with Abstergo, and has been able to connect to his ancestors through the past through Abstergo.
The stories have been able to progress through each game, leaving the players begging for more of the character. I didn't feel overwhelmed when Ezio starred in three of his own games for the Xbox 360 and PS3, and I always wanted to learn more about Altair within the stories.
There can be many different supporting characters to go through, but not many of them are remembered once you disconnect from the game other than the entire company of Abstergo, and Lucy Stillman, none of them prove to be very memorable after, or sometimes even during the gameplay.
"On this land, I am torn. Part of me wants to fight and repel all outsiders. The other part of me is the outsider. In the name of liberty, I will fight the enemy regardless of their allegiance. While men of courage write history of this day, the future of our land depends on those who are truly free." Connor Kenway - Assassin's Creed 3 (I honestly think this character will be the most memorable of the series, but it is to early to tell)
 |
| Altair ibn-La'Ahad |
 |
| Ezio Auditore De Firenze |
 |
| Connor Kenway |
Environment
While the graphics have been through the Avil game engine, the new Assassin's Creed 3 is running on a new system called AnvilNext, which will be able to provide the obvious better graphics with enhanced lighting. AnvilNext will also provide a new camera mode, improved crowd AI, and a dynamic weather changing system.
The crowd will be able to be in the thousands, where in older games it was only able to be in the hundreds. This new engine was needed to be able to provide the battles going throughout the game while you are playing.
Controls
This is obviously going to be impossible to review, other than having ideas of how the previous Assassin's Creed games have played, with the easy free running across the city. Assassinations to do in either a showy fashion or from under cover. The gameplay has only approved throughout the games, and I know that the addition of the environment and other aspect will only prove to be an amazing experience that just won't let me wait until a future Assasin's Creed game.
But to have an idea for how the gameplay looks, it never hurts to get some ideas, and this video shows a demo of the gameplay. It isn't letting me upload video for whatever reason but for the youtube link for the gameplay of Assassin's Creed 3 click here.
Single Player and Multiplayer
When asked about the overall length of Assassin's Creed 3, Hutchison stated that the game would last for more than 30 hours. It is inferred that this game length would be that of an average play through for the normal player.
One of the big things always seen in the old Assassin's creed games was walkthrough of the ancient buildings made out of stone. The main places in Assassin's Creed 3 will be New York and Boston, with wooden buildings, giving a completely different look with the game.
Another thing about the buildings is always the buildings, because the characters would be free running and doing parkour in and around these buildings. The big element for the character to get around now is trees, obviously providing a different dynamic to the free running, and more enjoyable experience. (I mean come on, who hasn't wanted to run through the woods to take down enemies. I've wanted to do that since the movie Predator)
Weapons - another big change is Connor's ability is to grab weapons on the move. While running to an enemy, Connor can grab a weapon that is lying around and use it to stab the enemy with the bayonet, or shoot them down.
There are changes through the gameplay, so it is a time and tell to see how well it plays, but through the gameplay I believe it will be the best in the series.
Conclusion
I mean I could easily talk all day about the Assassin's Creed series, I have always been a fan since the first one. I can't wait till Assassin's Creed 3 and all of the following games to come afterwards.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Metal Gear Revengeance - Evolution of Raiden
Metal Gear Revengeneance - The Evolution of Raiden
First I'd love to say what a fan of the metal gear series that I am, I have loved it since back on NES when Metal Gear came out for it. It was beautiful to get the Metal Gear Solid for the Playstation, and it has just built up to be a greatseries from there in my book.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
I love the character Solid Snake, a complete bad ass who has always been my definitive guy I would love to be. Hell he even made a mullet look bad ass. In Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty we were introduced to a new character, Raiden, who was met with a very mixed reaction for obvious reasons.
Raiden was played in the US Version by Quinton Flynn, who has done alot of voice over work including: Mass Effect 2 & 3, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy and many others.
The way he was introduced definietely didn't help him, trying to sound like Snake, but sounded like a little boy trying to do the deep voice of Solid Snake (played by David Hayter). He didn't have the attitude that Solid Snake possessed. No matter what Snake had been through he was always tough as ever, Raiden on the other hand you would feel like he was trying to be, but he would complain to much. Not exactly a fun time when most of the codec conversations with Raiden and his girlfriend Rose are about the problems they are going through, or have had with eachother and their relationship. Kind of a snooze fest there.
And we all would say the part where Raiden is running around naked and refuses to to do any grappling (but for some reason has no problem doing a cartwheel while still holding his junk is a little ridiculous)
The character of Raiden in Metal Gear Solid 2 left a lasting impressions with fans, but it just wasn't a good one, and a lot of heat was received to Hideo Kojima for that surprise into the game. Which they rectified with the fans into the next Metal Gear game.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater even sought to make fun of the character Raiden, with the similar character who looked like Raiden, whose name was "Ivan Raidenovitch Raikov", funny enough. And you would play as Big Boss, codenamed Naked Snake. Snake and Major Zero would have conversations that would poke fun at the character, since the Raiden character wasn't as well received as they hoped, and nobody seemed to like the secret of playing almost all of Sons of Liberty as a different character then Solid Snake. As you can see in this video they had no problem poking at the charcter for the fans
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
We would see the actual character of Raiden reappear in Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots with a complete makeover. Raiden made out as a ninja, in a complete cyborg look (sort of like what Deepthroat and Mr X showed in the first two Metal Gear Solid games on the Playstation and Playstation 2) Made to look like a complete bad ass in the series, taking down these huge Gecko with ease, taking down multiple ones at the same time. In the trailer he is shown fighting Vamp, and it is an great battle between those two, culminating to some bad ass moments in the game with the character. Though he wasn't in the game much in Guns of the Patriots, the creator Hideo Kojima wanted to portray the Raiden character as bad ass, while not overwhelming him into the game causing more issues with Raiden being thrown into our face again.
Helping Old Snake along the way, he proved to be a viable asset throughout different parts of the game, coming along to help whenever Snake really needed it and showing up at the perfect times to be one who was protecting Old Snake from what appeared death numerous times in the game. I know the game has been out for a couple of years, but I don't like to give away anything, so SPOILER FREE: Raiden along with everybody's story seemed to wrap up at the end of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. So when I heard about a new Metal Gear Solid game starring Raiden, I was skeptical, thinking that it would take place in between Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty and Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots.
It has been revealed that the story takes place 2 or 3 years after Guns of the Patriots, so I'm wondering how well the character can go when his story seemed completely wrapped up with nothing else to tell after the end of the game.
Metal Gear Rising
When the game was first announce it had the name Rising, which I believed showed an decent amount of action, but at the beginning with him jumping from the shadows I believe i could have shown a decent amount of stealth within the game too. One thing the Metal Gear series has always been known for is its stealth element As you can see the trailer of Rising from E3 2010
Metal Gear Rising was into production, and it seemed like it was going good. The game news started to give issues, and I didn't hear much about it until the game had changed devlopers to Platinum Games (which has made games like Bayonetta). The game was formally changed to Metal Gear Revengeance (Revence and Vengeance together) http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2012/08/18/kojima-productions-explains-choosing-platinum-for-metal-gear-rising/ is a quick reference for me to why Hideo Kojima explains why the game was handed over to Platinum.
Metal Gear Revengeance
The game still stars the Raiden character, but has had a complete makeover as to how the gameplay is. The stealth that I believe was shown before has completely been taking out, starting as a action-stealth game to a hack-and-slash style game. I'm not sure how I feel about this, because the Metal Gear name as I said is known for its stealth, which has been taken out of this game and replaced with just slashing at any enemy that can be seen.
While the action seems very intriguing, I am hoping it will be able to keep me entertained, but I am sure in the back of my head I will be missing Solid Snake. I will admit that when I played Metal Gear Solid 4 I wished to be able to play as the cyborg ninja Raiden, but I have my doubts on the game right now, but hopefully they will be wiped away once I get some hands on with the game myself. The way I am approaching the game is I am in now way thinking of this as a Metal Gear game, in my mind I have even taken out the Metal Gear completely from the title, so i call it Raiden - Revengeance. (As long as you know the character you don't need the Metal Gear name in there, but I understand they kept it, because while it is a spinoff, it still has the character from its Metal Gear series)
As seeing the new trailer for Revengeance, you can see how the gameplay is going to be, and it does look exciting and I can't wait to see how well it plays
I am looking forward to the game to play as Raiden, but I think no matter how much they do to the character he will not match up with the legendary Solid Snake.
This Raiden does still look like a bad ass. With Cyborg suit and all (which it has been said in interviews that through the majority of the game Raiden will appear in a black cyborg suit. Different from the one of Guns of the Patriots which seems like it could not just give the darker look to the character, but maybe the darker feel. Time will tell and I can't wait to get some gameplay in myself to see how this game turns out. So Raiden, let's see if you can completely kill the look that plagued you after Metal Gear Solid 2, and now cement yourself into the series, standing next to Solid Snake.
First I'd love to say what a fan of the metal gear series that I am, I have loved it since back on NES when Metal Gear came out for it. It was beautiful to get the Metal Gear Solid for the Playstation, and it has just built up to be a greatseries from there in my book.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
Raiden was played in the US Version by Quinton Flynn, who has done alot of voice over work including: Mass Effect 2 & 3, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy and many others.
The way he was introduced definietely didn't help him, trying to sound like Snake, but sounded like a little boy trying to do the deep voice of Solid Snake (played by David Hayter). He didn't have the attitude that Solid Snake possessed. No matter what Snake had been through he was always tough as ever, Raiden on the other hand you would feel like he was trying to be, but he would complain to much. Not exactly a fun time when most of the codec conversations with Raiden and his girlfriend Rose are about the problems they are going through, or have had with eachother and their relationship. Kind of a snooze fest there.
And we all would say the part where Raiden is running around naked and refuses to to do any grappling (but for some reason has no problem doing a cartwheel while still holding his junk is a little ridiculous)
The character of Raiden in Metal Gear Solid 2 left a lasting impressions with fans, but it just wasn't a good one, and a lot of heat was received to Hideo Kojima for that surprise into the game. Which they rectified with the fans into the next Metal Gear game.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater even sought to make fun of the character Raiden, with the similar character who looked like Raiden, whose name was "Ivan Raidenovitch Raikov", funny enough. And you would play as Big Boss, codenamed Naked Snake. Snake and Major Zero would have conversations that would poke fun at the character, since the Raiden character wasn't as well received as they hoped, and nobody seemed to like the secret of playing almost all of Sons of Liberty as a different character then Solid Snake. As you can see in this video they had no problem poking at the charcter for the fans
Helping Old Snake along the way, he proved to be a viable asset throughout different parts of the game, coming along to help whenever Snake really needed it and showing up at the perfect times to be one who was protecting Old Snake from what appeared death numerous times in the game. I know the game has been out for a couple of years, but I don't like to give away anything, so SPOILER FREE: Raiden along with everybody's story seemed to wrap up at the end of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. So when I heard about a new Metal Gear Solid game starring Raiden, I was skeptical, thinking that it would take place in between Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty and Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots.
It has been revealed that the story takes place 2 or 3 years after Guns of the Patriots, so I'm wondering how well the character can go when his story seemed completely wrapped up with nothing else to tell after the end of the game.
Metal Gear Rising
When the game was first announce it had the name Rising, which I believed showed an decent amount of action, but at the beginning with him jumping from the shadows I believe i could have shown a decent amount of stealth within the game too. One thing the Metal Gear series has always been known for is its stealth element As you can see the trailer of Rising from E3 2010
Metal Gear Revengeance
The game still stars the Raiden character, but has had a complete makeover as to how the gameplay is. The stealth that I believe was shown before has completely been taking out, starting as a action-stealth game to a hack-and-slash style game. I'm not sure how I feel about this, because the Metal Gear name as I said is known for its stealth, which has been taken out of this game and replaced with just slashing at any enemy that can be seen.
While the action seems very intriguing, I am hoping it will be able to keep me entertained, but I am sure in the back of my head I will be missing Solid Snake. I will admit that when I played Metal Gear Solid 4 I wished to be able to play as the cyborg ninja Raiden, but I have my doubts on the game right now, but hopefully they will be wiped away once I get some hands on with the game myself. The way I am approaching the game is I am in now way thinking of this as a Metal Gear game, in my mind I have even taken out the Metal Gear completely from the title, so i call it Raiden - Revengeance. (As long as you know the character you don't need the Metal Gear name in there, but I understand they kept it, because while it is a spinoff, it still has the character from its Metal Gear series)
As seeing the new trailer for Revengeance, you can see how the gameplay is going to be, and it does look exciting and I can't wait to see how well it plays
I am looking forward to the game to play as Raiden, but I think no matter how much they do to the character he will not match up with the legendary Solid Snake.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
A view for the Xbox 360 Kinect
A Review of the Kinect for Xbox 360
To me the Kinect no doubt had a lot of potential to be a great gaming accessory, allowing the gamers teh ability to get the chance to play some fun games while playing around, and the hardcore gamers extra accessibility to add functions into games. An example of an extra is the Siaxis controller for the ps3 (not many games used this), but tilting the controller allowed for extra movement or balancing in parts of certain games (like balancing on a log in Uncharted). Which in truth that proved to be more frustrating than fun at most times, but I am getting off the topic at hand.
When I bougt the Kinect it had already been released for about 8 months, giving it time to work out any problems that intially come out and go down in price a little. I want to make a list of what I think is good and bad about the Kinect, and review as much as I can with my expierience with mine has been.
I'll start with the bads, because I don't like to end things on a bad note:
BADS
1: Controls
This is a hard one to explain since the Kinect has no controls, and it is based off the movement it reads from the players. Now this is a hard killer towards the Kinect for me, because the main function I have seen in games tend to have more problems than not. I tend to find myself arguing more with the kinect on what movements I am trying to make, and it would be making moves that i wasn't even trying to do. It's enjoyable at times, but to me a lot more frustrating in games when I am trying to play.
2. Games
While games like Mass Effect 3 have came out to utilize the Kinect with voice commands, which work really well in my experience. I am talking about the games that utilize the Kinect for its potential. Games that have been released solidly for Kinect were the type you would find on the Wii with little variation. The sports games and family games types, which most would play much easier from the Wii or PS3 Move because the Kinect has a harder time reading than those. For a hardcore gamer with a full around experience to get from playing on just the Kinect. Let's face it love Call of Duty or Battlefield? Those types of games just would not be able to utilize the Kinect in its state to make it an enjoyable experience. If you want to work out or dance, then the Kinect may just be what you're looking for
3. Other Players and Viewers
Now another big problem I have is the Kinect has a hard time keeping myself and maybe another play in the game without reading someone that is sitting behind me on the couch watching me play. All of the sudden there is another player with the guest character going ape shit because the person is only sitting down trying to watch me play and not participate. If no one is in view of the Kinect to read it does fine, but I don't like having to move people and furniture around just to play a game.
GOODS
1. Voice Commands
I honestly believe this is the best part of the Kinect, and this is the issue that I normally have no problems with. I'd love to see more games initiate the voice commands into the games, but other than not a huge selection in those types of games it is very functional on the xbox to move around, and understands my saying very well. For example "Xbox, bing Metal Gear Solid HD Collection", and it would come up in the Bing Search, I love that.
2. Xbox 360 Utilizing Kinect
When the Kinect first came out not many things utilized what the kinect would do, so more often than not you still needed to use the controller. To do most anything from the Xbox 360 dashboard and apps, you can use voice commands and hand gestures to go through it. I'll admit it was nice to be able to go through Netflix with simple commands.
3. No Controls
While this still has a lot of kinks to get worked out, I do love the idea with games of being able to play without using the controller. But I do believe that if this system is perfected they should do it to where the player has the choice in the game whether to play using the Kinect or the controller, and not be forced either way.
As you see with the goods and bads I wanted more of an even tone through out, because I like the concept, but it has just not been able to reach the hype that it set for itself. Too many issues and the lackluster gaming choice make it hard for me to give this a high review for myself. Like I said it can be fun, but it can be frustrating. It's gotten to the point I don't even try to utilize the Kinect as much any more for gaming, as much as I do for getting around the dashboard.
MY FINAL SCORE
6/10... I want to rate it higher, but I believe it shows enough potential to be a good gaming accessory, but not enough behind that has backed it up to show me otherwise. I'm sure this won't be the only type of system to utilize this technology, and I can't wait for the next one that may have been polished out to be a great gaming accessory for everybody
To me the Kinect no doubt had a lot of potential to be a great gaming accessory, allowing the gamers teh ability to get the chance to play some fun games while playing around, and the hardcore gamers extra accessibility to add functions into games. An example of an extra is the Siaxis controller for the ps3 (not many games used this), but tilting the controller allowed for extra movement or balancing in parts of certain games (like balancing on a log in Uncharted). Which in truth that proved to be more frustrating than fun at most times, but I am getting off the topic at hand.
When I bougt the Kinect it had already been released for about 8 months, giving it time to work out any problems that intially come out and go down in price a little. I want to make a list of what I think is good and bad about the Kinect, and review as much as I can with my expierience with mine has been.
I'll start with the bads, because I don't like to end things on a bad note:
BADS
1: Controls
This is a hard one to explain since the Kinect has no controls, and it is based off the movement it reads from the players. Now this is a hard killer towards the Kinect for me, because the main function I have seen in games tend to have more problems than not. I tend to find myself arguing more with the kinect on what movements I am trying to make, and it would be making moves that i wasn't even trying to do. It's enjoyable at times, but to me a lot more frustrating in games when I am trying to play.
2. Games
While games like Mass Effect 3 have came out to utilize the Kinect with voice commands, which work really well in my experience. I am talking about the games that utilize the Kinect for its potential. Games that have been released solidly for Kinect were the type you would find on the Wii with little variation. The sports games and family games types, which most would play much easier from the Wii or PS3 Move because the Kinect has a harder time reading than those. For a hardcore gamer with a full around experience to get from playing on just the Kinect. Let's face it love Call of Duty or Battlefield? Those types of games just would not be able to utilize the Kinect in its state to make it an enjoyable experience. If you want to work out or dance, then the Kinect may just be what you're looking for
3. Other Players and Viewers
Now another big problem I have is the Kinect has a hard time keeping myself and maybe another play in the game without reading someone that is sitting behind me on the couch watching me play. All of the sudden there is another player with the guest character going ape shit because the person is only sitting down trying to watch me play and not participate. If no one is in view of the Kinect to read it does fine, but I don't like having to move people and furniture around just to play a game.
GOODS
1. Voice Commands
I honestly believe this is the best part of the Kinect, and this is the issue that I normally have no problems with. I'd love to see more games initiate the voice commands into the games, but other than not a huge selection in those types of games it is very functional on the xbox to move around, and understands my saying very well. For example "Xbox, bing Metal Gear Solid HD Collection", and it would come up in the Bing Search, I love that.
2. Xbox 360 Utilizing Kinect
When the Kinect first came out not many things utilized what the kinect would do, so more often than not you still needed to use the controller. To do most anything from the Xbox 360 dashboard and apps, you can use voice commands and hand gestures to go through it. I'll admit it was nice to be able to go through Netflix with simple commands.
3. No Controls
While this still has a lot of kinks to get worked out, I do love the idea with games of being able to play without using the controller. But I do believe that if this system is perfected they should do it to where the player has the choice in the game whether to play using the Kinect or the controller, and not be forced either way.
As you see with the goods and bads I wanted more of an even tone through out, because I like the concept, but it has just not been able to reach the hype that it set for itself. Too many issues and the lackluster gaming choice make it hard for me to give this a high review for myself. Like I said it can be fun, but it can be frustrating. It's gotten to the point I don't even try to utilize the Kinect as much any more for gaming, as much as I do for getting around the dashboard.
MY FINAL SCORE
6/10... I want to rate it higher, but I believe it shows enough potential to be a good gaming accessory, but not enough behind that has backed it up to show me otherwise. I'm sure this won't be the only type of system to utilize this technology, and I can't wait for the next one that may have been polished out to be a great gaming accessory for everybody
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)