I'm very excited for Mass Effect 3. I think its the first time I'm reading news article every night before I go to bed and replaying my second playthrough this time with a female Shepard.
But recently there has been an ongoing debate that has appeared on my newsfeed. It started when a friend of mine showed me a Youtube video informing what EA and Bioware has done. A link to the video is here
In short, Bioware has decided to release a day one downloadable content (DLC). While Bioware has done it before in the form of Zaeed through the Cerberus key network, this time Bioware has insisted we pay for the new DLC.
So what's the problem? The problem to many people its that the DLC was completed before the launch date and it was essentially stripped from the game apparently. To Bioware's defence, the content was created by a different team who so happened manage to finish it before the game went gold.
*Spoilers Ahead*
The content? An extra character who is a Prothean character who happen to somehow survive 50,000 years. While I'm excited to find out how the character survived and how he/she would impact the game. I hardly feel impacted by it. An extra character, new sidequest, new weapon and different appearance for your squad will not make a huge difference to me. And oh, the price is $10 and those who got the Collector's Edition will get it for free.
While the gaming community debates over this, I think its one the stupidest debate to talk about. There isn't any great philosophical topics nor some huge ethical debate. Yes, if Bioware & EA deliberately cut out content that is supposed to be in the final game, then I have to say it's unethical. But, in the past DLC that Bioware has done for Mass Effect 2, the characters are not even interesting to talk to. So, do I hold my hopes up for the new DLC character? No, I don't.
It was my intention to get the Collector's Edition from the start. In fact, when Amazon sold out their Collector's Edition, I still didn't go running to get a standard version. I waited till another opportunity presented itself and I'm getting the Collector's Edition through BestBuy. Reason being, I told myself, if this is the last game of the trilogy. I better go all out because I enjoy and love what Bioware has done to Mass Effect.
For $10, I feel that almost everyone can pay for it now. As for the matter of EA & Bioware; there are a business and in the business world if a profit can be made, why not? Sorry gamers, but its high time we learned that game companies won't hold our hands anymore and give nice little gifts.
In conclusion, the solution is very simple, either you buy the game or don't support it. If you think that Bioware & EA has become another scumbag game developers then stop buying games. Invest the time and money into something else. I'll always have photography to lean back on to and there's always something to do besides gaming.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Singapore Toys Games Comics Convention
Last night, just finished editing my photos for Singapore Toys Games Comics Convention. Its quite a huge project for me seeing I had about 250++ pictures when I started out. Overall, I'm extremely pleased with my work on it.
This is because the previous year I haven't purchased my DSLR before visiting STGCC and some of the pictures are not great quality. Here are some examples below:
These are a few selected are the good ones I shot. For the full album you can visit here
This is because the previous year I haven't purchased my DSLR before visiting STGCC and some of the pictures are not great quality. Here are some examples below:
These are a few selected are the good ones I shot. For the full album you can visit here
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Modern Warfare 3
I recently finish playing MW3 singleplayer & spent quite a few hours on the multiplpayer experience. And how did I like it? Fairly be warned, spoilers alert. If you want to skip it just don't read the entire post and I give MW3 a 3/5.
The singleplayer experience is what every Modern Warfare has done. Engaging and exciting because we all love a good shooting experience and we are looking forward to the ending of the trilogy that it was built upon in the first Modern Warfare. I personally find it entertaining but there are several issues I come across.
First I felt the story while engaging and enjoying, it lack the closure I want. For starters, you don't get to play with the characters from Modern Warfare 2 I.E. the U.S. Rangers who orders you to do everything under the sun but instead you get a brand spanking new team to play with.
It just seem like an offhanded throw at us gamers because I'm sure we all spent a great number of time on the Modern Warfare games and by then you would have be familiar with most of the characters. Granted by now, if you haven't play the game, Modern Warfare does a great job of killing of people left and right.
While I examine the storyline closely, there are several parts which makes you go "why didn't he do this in MW2?" or "why show a BA survivor who dies in the end because of some flesh wound?"
But of course this to milk the franchise as much as it can with stupid plot holes that just makes you wonder why did you buy the game in the first place? Of course the destruction of several key places in the world is just plain awesome to see. But I'm sorry, nothing comes close to seeing that nuke go off in MW. That still tops my list in one of the most WTF moments in all my gaming experience.
While it was fun to see Russia invading U.S., I just wish it that storyline was slightly longer because its always fun to see two of biggest superpower nations in the world go head to head. Maybe one or two extra missions along the side because I'm having issues that Russia was kicked out of U.S. soil in 1 mission. Whereas in MW2, we clearly see the U.S. army in total disarray and chaos and victory seems far.
But at the end, yes it was satisfying to finally finish the trilogy. And Infinity Ward did asloppy great job of simply just killing everyone which means almost no loose end to be bothered with. The last mission allows you to get really personal with Markarov and I enjoy that a lot.
On the music front, we have Brian Tyler who did several notable movies such as Fast Five, Battle For L.A. and several others which Wikipedia can help provide. As I listen to it, I recognize his style was more heavy rock theme which tells you that its time to kick ass and finish this game. I feel the music is divided in two different styles. One which is the rock style of military fighting and the heavy percussion emotional drive like what Lorne Balfe & Hans Zimmer did in Modern Warfare 2.
Then we have graphics. I really cannot give a good one seeing I'm playing using a laptop but from what I can seen, I still see some of the graphic that were being reused in Modern Warfare 2 again. That being said, it still feels like the same thing I played on Modern Warfare 2 with maybe a slightly higher graphic but nothing really stands out to me.
Moving onto the multiplayer, I still feel saddened its still not like Modern Warfare. I miss playing with 24 players on a long set limit of score and time rather than being confided to maybe 10 minutes max or 7500 score limit. Clearly it's a depart from Modern Warfare and still going back to Modern Warfare 2 all over again with only fancier weapons and perks and new killing spree unlocks.
I was for one glad the removal of certain perks *cough* Commando *cough*. Some of the new ones are equally annoying. For example, Stalker: you strafe faster when aiming. Or even Steady Aim which allows you to aim faster after sprinting. This little additional added perks which are added onto the perk system makes it such different game that it just frustrates me.
The maps are just like Modern Warfare 2 and it feels equally frustrating. I love the Modern Warfare maps where you can hide out in some places and people can never find you. Gone all the days when sniping was so much easier because the potential of being backstab has increase threefold. I personally still enjoy the maps in Modern Warfare and the ability to customize matches then forced to be dictated by a new set of rules.
Now that all has been said and done, seeing everyone is talking about BF3 vs MW3. I find BF3 more interesting than MW3. I mean 64 players on a huge map? Heck yeah, I'll play that. Squad spawns? Yes please. MW3 multiplayer gives more of a quick shooter without much way to be a team player except the perks. So if you love VERY fast-paced games then MW3 is for you. But if you prefer team-work and huge maps, pure destruction go with BF3.
I mean you can't just beat this:
And on a random note, I find more immature players on MW3 than BF3.
The singleplayer experience is what every Modern Warfare has done. Engaging and exciting because we all love a good shooting experience and we are looking forward to the ending of the trilogy that it was built upon in the first Modern Warfare. I personally find it entertaining but there are several issues I come across.
First I felt the story while engaging and enjoying, it lack the closure I want. For starters, you don't get to play with the characters from Modern Warfare 2 I.E. the U.S. Rangers who orders you to do everything under the sun but instead you get a brand spanking new team to play with.
It just seem like an offhanded throw at us gamers because I'm sure we all spent a great number of time on the Modern Warfare games and by then you would have be familiar with most of the characters. Granted by now, if you haven't play the game, Modern Warfare does a great job of killing of people left and right.
While I examine the storyline closely, there are several parts which makes you go "why didn't he do this in MW2?" or "why show a BA survivor who dies in the end because of some flesh wound?"
But of course this to milk the franchise as much as it can with stupid plot holes that just makes you wonder why did you buy the game in the first place? Of course the destruction of several key places in the world is just plain awesome to see. But I'm sorry, nothing comes close to seeing that nuke go off in MW. That still tops my list in one of the most WTF moments in all my gaming experience.
While it was fun to see Russia invading U.S., I just wish it that storyline was slightly longer because its always fun to see two of biggest superpower nations in the world go head to head. Maybe one or two extra missions along the side because I'm having issues that Russia was kicked out of U.S. soil in 1 mission. Whereas in MW2, we clearly see the U.S. army in total disarray and chaos and victory seems far.
But at the end, yes it was satisfying to finally finish the trilogy. And Infinity Ward did a
On the music front, we have Brian Tyler who did several notable movies such as Fast Five, Battle For L.A. and several others which Wikipedia can help provide. As I listen to it, I recognize his style was more heavy rock theme which tells you that its time to kick ass and finish this game. I feel the music is divided in two different styles. One which is the rock style of military fighting and the heavy percussion emotional drive like what Lorne Balfe & Hans Zimmer did in Modern Warfare 2.
Then we have graphics. I really cannot give a good one seeing I'm playing using a laptop but from what I can seen, I still see some of the graphic that were being reused in Modern Warfare 2 again. That being said, it still feels like the same thing I played on Modern Warfare 2 with maybe a slightly higher graphic but nothing really stands out to me.
Moving onto the multiplayer, I still feel saddened its still not like Modern Warfare. I miss playing with 24 players on a long set limit of score and time rather than being confided to maybe 10 minutes max or 7500 score limit. Clearly it's a depart from Modern Warfare and still going back to Modern Warfare 2 all over again with only fancier weapons and perks and new killing spree unlocks.
I was for one glad the removal of certain perks *cough* Commando *cough*. Some of the new ones are equally annoying. For example, Stalker: you strafe faster when aiming. Or even Steady Aim which allows you to aim faster after sprinting. This little additional added perks which are added onto the perk system makes it such different game that it just frustrates me.
The maps are just like Modern Warfare 2 and it feels equally frustrating. I love the Modern Warfare maps where you can hide out in some places and people can never find you. Gone all the days when sniping was so much easier because the potential of being backstab has increase threefold. I personally still enjoy the maps in Modern Warfare and the ability to customize matches then forced to be dictated by a new set of rules.
Now that all has been said and done, seeing everyone is talking about BF3 vs MW3. I find BF3 more interesting than MW3. I mean 64 players on a huge map? Heck yeah, I'll play that. Squad spawns? Yes please. MW3 multiplayer gives more of a quick shooter without much way to be a team player except the perks. So if you love VERY fast-paced games then MW3 is for you. But if you prefer team-work and huge maps, pure destruction go with BF3.
I mean you can't just beat this:
And on a random note, I find more immature players on MW3 than BF3.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
New Year
The New Year has come and gone and though I wish I spent it back at home with friends and suffocating family.
Nevertheless, I just recently finished Modern Warfare 3 singleplayer experience. I will get to that sometime down the road about it. But a quick update to myloyal readers, its the New Year and I have to plan out what should I do about this blog.
Primarily I want to make this a review blog for anything I find interesting and worth talking about to me. And I know it says through a lens which means I will have to get to the point of taking pictures again and posting them. I have a few albums to finish doing but I just can't bring myself to do them at the moment. Call it a photographer's block at the moment and I should really get my butt on it.
My Picasa Web album can be viewed any time and most of the photos I done are always on my Facebook account. Twitter updates for those days without a blog post. Could be an article or some random quirks.
Oh well, here's to the New Year with a post every week or so on this blog or the other.
Minum!!!
Nevertheless, I just recently finished Modern Warfare 3 singleplayer experience. I will get to that sometime down the road about it. But a quick update to my
Primarily I want to make this a review blog for anything I find interesting and worth talking about to me. And I know it says through a lens which means I will have to get to the point of taking pictures again and posting them. I have a few albums to finish doing but I just can't bring myself to do them at the moment. Call it a photographer's block at the moment and I should really get my butt on it.
My Picasa Web album can be viewed any time and most of the photos I done are always on my Facebook account. Twitter updates for those days without a blog post. Could be an article or some random quirks.
Oh well, here's to the New Year with a post every week or so on this blog or the other.
Minum!!!
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Movie Review: Conan: The Barbarian
I grew up watching one of the animated series of Conan where his sword was one of the few weapons in the world which was created by a special rock that came from a meteor. And then I can remember only a bit of watching Conan: The Barbarian with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
When the 2011 remake was being make, I didn't feel the need to watch it because I just felt it's going to be another movie with sword & magic and the hero will always win. Just that he has to struggle a lot along the way, gain companions and so on.
Spoilers ahead
The movie is something I would plainly avoid. I had the pleasure of watching of an uncut version that I know some certain places would cut certain scenes. Yes, there is nudity in the movie and a sex scene. A movie simply cannot sell without a sex scene these days.
The movie does set up pretty well the origins of Conan. How he is born and what kind of person he is. Jason Momoa who plays as Conan does a good job of representing Conan who is both a kind yet cocky person. And Rachel Nichols as Tamara plays her role well. Tamara is able to hold out against most enemies and I like that. I have seen too many movies where all the female character does is scream and call for the Hero to save them. But not her, Tamara is able to hold out well and I'm glad the writers of the movie did justice to that.
Stephen Lang who plays Khalar Zym didn't really live up to my standards. Coming from the total BA from Avatar, I was hoping that he showed a bit of it. But the reasons for his behavior in the movie can only be explained by the movie script writers who give a very simplistic of a man wanting to see his wife again and the desire to be God. Rose McGowan apparently played his daughter and I didn't see that coming. Her performance is somewhat cast to the side and she only had a few moments that truly stood out for her.
Regarding the story, I felt personally the first part of the movie was well done. It sets up the plot, the motivation and the origins of Conan. But towards the middle of the movie it got a bit stale with the romance thrown into it. While Nichols played her role well, I really could not stand some stupid scenes that the writers put it. For instance, Tamara is supposedly a monk. I said supposedly because she develops feelings for Conan which is understandable. But Conan doesn't really like her until suddenly one scene where is giving a leather and armor because she apparently dresses like a harlot.
I don't mind that scene, in fact that is the first time we see Conan showing some sort of affection towards Tamara. But the next scene lines up with her having sex with him. And I'm not a big fan of plots that we need to include sex scenes because it sells. I prefer the affection that two couples display to one another than just full blown sex which seem Hollywood's idea of relationship.
Another thing that bugged me is that Conan's sword wasn't really emphasize a lot in the movie. I remember watching the older movies and animated series and I can remember the logo of Conan because of his sword. But the movie fails to deliver that, instead the sword ends as the final item Conan receives because Zym's daughter so happen decide to save it from 20 years ago. I mean it's supposedly the symbol of Conan yet it was push back to almost the end and I felt somewhat betrayed about it.
In conclusion, the movie is not great. I would give it a 2/5 because it fails to deliver in terms of storyline and the writers seem to lose their direction towards the middle to the ending of the movie.
When the 2011 remake was being make, I didn't feel the need to watch it because I just felt it's going to be another movie with sword & magic and the hero will always win. Just that he has to struggle a lot along the way, gain companions and so on.
Spoilers ahead
The movie is something I would plainly avoid. I had the pleasure of watching of an uncut version that I know some certain places would cut certain scenes. Yes, there is nudity in the movie and a sex scene. A movie simply cannot sell without a sex scene these days.
The movie does set up pretty well the origins of Conan. How he is born and what kind of person he is. Jason Momoa who plays as Conan does a good job of representing Conan who is both a kind yet cocky person. And Rachel Nichols as Tamara plays her role well. Tamara is able to hold out against most enemies and I like that. I have seen too many movies where all the female character does is scream and call for the Hero to save them. But not her, Tamara is able to hold out well and I'm glad the writers of the movie did justice to that.
Stephen Lang who plays Khalar Zym didn't really live up to my standards. Coming from the total BA from Avatar, I was hoping that he showed a bit of it. But the reasons for his behavior in the movie can only be explained by the movie script writers who give a very simplistic of a man wanting to see his wife again and the desire to be God. Rose McGowan apparently played his daughter and I didn't see that coming. Her performance is somewhat cast to the side and she only had a few moments that truly stood out for her.
Regarding the story, I felt personally the first part of the movie was well done. It sets up the plot, the motivation and the origins of Conan. But towards the middle of the movie it got a bit stale with the romance thrown into it. While Nichols played her role well, I really could not stand some stupid scenes that the writers put it. For instance, Tamara is supposedly a monk. I said supposedly because she develops feelings for Conan which is understandable. But Conan doesn't really like her until suddenly one scene where is giving a leather and armor because she apparently dresses like a harlot.
I don't mind that scene, in fact that is the first time we see Conan showing some sort of affection towards Tamara. But the next scene lines up with her having sex with him. And I'm not a big fan of plots that we need to include sex scenes because it sells. I prefer the affection that two couples display to one another than just full blown sex which seem Hollywood's idea of relationship.
Another thing that bugged me is that Conan's sword wasn't really emphasize a lot in the movie. I remember watching the older movies and animated series and I can remember the logo of Conan because of his sword. But the movie fails to deliver that, instead the sword ends as the final item Conan receives because Zym's daughter so happen decide to save it from 20 years ago. I mean it's supposedly the symbol of Conan yet it was push back to almost the end and I felt somewhat betrayed about it.
In conclusion, the movie is not great. I would give it a 2/5 because it fails to deliver in terms of storyline and the writers seem to lose their direction towards the middle to the ending of the movie.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Weird Dreams
I might as well throw in a simple post. I'm actually trying to write a movie review for In Time. But I seem to lost my motivation due to course works and the fact that I been having dreams lately.
Its irritating to me because I don't seem able to have relax and while I try to regain my sanity. Even my pictures that I recently took has to put on hold till I get over two things this week. A sales presentation that is tomorrow and an exam on Friday. I normally feel pump to do them, but I'm not 100% at the moment sadly.
On a bright note, the new Ultimate Comics Spider-Man I been reading has taken quite a cool turn in the series. I won't spoil it but it's great that they are slowly mending the ties with what makes it so great to read.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
In Time Review
Before I begin, here's a short summary from IMDB. Forewarned, this review will have spoilers.
In a future where people stop aging at 25, but are engineered to live only one more year, having the means to buy your way out of the situation is a shot at immortal youth. here, Will Salas finds himself accused of murder and on the run with a hostage - a connection that becomes an important part of the way against the system.
I like the movie. The idea of that live can be literally bought with money is rather interesting concept. As seen in the trailer, imagine that 4 minutes can buy you a cup of coffee. Interestingly enough, I wonder how would the economy of the world sustain itself when money is change to time instead. Everyone's remaining time is shown on a green stamp on their left arm and is publicly shown unless someone choose to wear something to cover it. By the age of 25, everyone's clock will start and they have a limited time to live.
The concept of the movie deals with similar problems with the world. How the rich still oppress the poor and the rich being able to continue living because they are rich. To get an idea of how poor someone is: a person who works a day job gets 24 or slightly more or less. A day is just enough to get through the day with some small luxuries that they can afford. A month and you're considered rich in the ghetto where most of the story's take place.
While the rich however, live in places where it cost a month to stay in a suite in an expensive hotel. What Andrew Niccol has done was to give the viewers an idea of how the poor day to day live by showing how much it is to spend on things and the struggle to simply live each day. When Salas gets a century, I began to wonder what will he do with it and like every man on the planet, he spends it.
Going into the "rich" zone cost you from 1 month to 2 months to 1 year in total. Also the price increases because this a way for the economy to be controlled. In essence a man could live up to 100 years if he can but that would be overpopulation because nobody can really die of natural causes. But the government control the prices and can change the price at any time in order to control the economy of the world.
The score of the movie wasn't really outstanding or out there. It was just there to provide the mood building that it requires. Overall, I like the movie, it's my first review and I'm giving this four out of five. My only problems was that the ending scenes became messy and it didn't had any WTF moments that blew me away.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)