Destiny Review

If you've been around the internet for the past couple of weeks you have probably heard a decent amount about Bungie's new game Destiny. The game has been a commercial success bringing in $325 million in its first five days and earning the title of the best-selling new video game franchise in history. But while the game has been commercially well received, the reviews from both critics and fans have been somewhat mixed. I've spent an inordinate amount of time playing it recently so I figured I'd weigh in on the game myself.

The very first thing that I noticed about Destiny when I booted it up is that both the visuals and the gameplay are tremendously impressive. The game provides a cornucopia of fantastic visual backdrops and locations from the swamps of Venus to the craters and caverns of the moon. All of the weaponry, characters, projectiles and other environmental graphics are rendered beautifully on the PlayStation 4 and Destiny is one of the best looking games I've played.

Similarly, the gameplay is as fluid and dynamic as you would expect from the creators of one of the best first-person shooters of all time: Halo. Bungie knows how to make you feel comfortable using your weapons and balance the enemies so that you never feel totally overwhelmed or like you are about to breeze through the level. The challenge amps up very well over the course of the game and you will not become bored with the gameplay (assuming you enjoy shooters in the first place).

While Destiny is not a first-person shooter game only, that is definitely the best aspect of the game at large and I believe is one of the main reasons why this game has done so well commercially and has so many people playing it. The game is great to look at, even better to control and a ton of fun to play.

But we can't leave it there or else we'd have a near perfect game and that certainly isn't what Destiny is. While the actual mechanics of the combat are fantastic, the game also incorporates MMO and RPG elements that are not nearly as fleshed out and are definitely not explained well enough in game.

Players can use either the online multiplayer (called the Crucible) or story-based missions to rank up their experience and get to the level cap of 20. This first portion of the game will take a decent amount of time (depending on how well you can manipulate the system) and basically serves as an incredibly long introduction to the game world.

After level 20 players can continue to rank up but now experience no longer means anything and you need to find equipment that has a high amount of "light." How do you get this equipment? You can buy advanced equipment from vendors in the Tower (the social hub for the game) or you can do random strike missions or regular missions hoping to pick up some good loot from enemies along the way.

This would all be fine if the way of buying the equipment wasn't so difficult. Throughout the 20 level "intro" to the game you utilize a currency called "glimmer." Once you reach level 20, you can only buy advanced equipment with different types of currency like Vanguard and Crucible marks. You also need a certain reputation level with those vendors (which you get through missions, multiplayer matches and bounties) to buy some of the equipment.

It isn't the most complicated system but it is frustrating because of how long the strike missions take to complete and how few marks and how little reputation you earn. I will routinely do 30+ minute strike missions only to get 2 Vanguard Marks (for reference, most of the good armor requires 120+ marks).

While you aren't given the greatest rewards for completing activities, it is fun to play the game and that is one of the reasons why Destiny is doing so well; it is flat out fun to play. Even when you are grinding through the same strike missions over and over or doing patrol missions on the different planets, killing the same enemies constantly, the gameplay is so smooth and fun that it is addicting.

Destiny does a very good job of balancing the PvP with the PvE elements to create a complete package of gameplay but the other major gripe that I have with Destiny (aside from the complicated and frustrating leveling system) is the fact that the storytelling is not very good.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the people who is blasting this game for "not having a story" or "having a crappy story" because the story itself is intriguing and fun. The problem that Destiny has is in the actual way that is explains the story. Huge story elements are glossed over in the beginning to bring players into the gameplay early. To appease fans that don't want to sit and watch cut scenes all day, the story throughout the game is haphazardly told through almost non-related story-based encounters with various enemies with a few cut scenes sprinkled in.

The world that Bungie has created is exceptionally vibrant with tons of rich story elements and great characters to explore, but none of them are explored well in the game. Much of the backstory is told via Grimoire cards on Bungie's website and that just isn't an effective way to tell a video game's story.

Destiny spans several different genres of video games but doesn't really get any of them totally right. Its storytelling is not good enough for a story-based first-person shooter, its dialogue, class options and leveling systems are too streamlined for a good MMORPG and the game just doesn't have a handle on all that it is trying to be.

This review could go on forever as I would continue to explain more good and more bad about the experience but in the interest of everyone's time I'm going to wrap it up here. Destiny is an ambitious project that attempts to put a ton of different genres of games together and appease everyone. While it doesn't work on all fronts, it does deliver an addictive single player and multiplayer experience that will keep fans coming back for more. Even though the game has a bit of an identity crisis, it is still a phenomenally fun game and one that I am looking forward to playing a lot more of in the future.

8.5/10

Ghostbusters: The Video Game Gripes

It's been a very long time since I first played and reviewed Ghostbusters: The Video Game (over four years to be exact) and now that I just recently replayed the game, I figured it would be a good time to go over some of the major gripes I had with the game. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but it is nowhere near perfect and there are so many things I wish had been done better or had been expanded on.

Lack of Trappable Ghosts

I noticed this back when I was playing it once or twice a day (yes, full playthroughs once or twice a day) but it became more obvious to me this time through. The game has plenty of ghosts to trap but most of the enemies are enemies that you just blast into nothing. Some levels have a pretty good balance (the Museum level is probably the best) but some- like Lost Island- don't have any. I get that the trapping process might be a bit daunting at times but it is the iconic way that the Ghostbusters capture ghosts and it needed to be just a bit more prevalent.

Cool Ideas Aren't Given Enough Exposure

The Super Slammer trap was brought into the game in the second level and it allowed gamers to use Ecto-1B to trap ghosts via a large slam trap on the roof. This was one of the coolest things in the game and it helped allow for more trappable ghosts in that level (since all you needed to do was slam them into the trap) but after that it was never used again.

Sure, the Ecto-1B was escorted through the Central Park Cemetery at the end of the game, but the Super Slammer got damaged before it could be used. It's just a big tease in that level and the final non-boss battle encounter would have been much cooler had it been there.

Similarly, the possessor ghosts only made one quick appearance in the museum and then were hastily never heard from again. The concept that these ghosts could take over human bodies and would require exorcising (via the slime blower) was a great idea and made for a really cool gameplay mechanic. The scene at the museum gala is great but we never get to do that again in the game and that's a real shame.

I'm A Ghostbuster, Not A Doctor

People have brought this up before and they are absolutely right, the Ghostbusters need reviving WAY too much (especially on the higher difficulty settings). The revive system is similar to Gears of War but instead of the occasional wounded comrade, the other Ghostbusters are constantly being knocked down.

This makes certain encounters ridiculously hard and many times you can't fight ghosts for a while because you are running around trying to help all the other Ghostbusters.

Missing Presentation

Ghostbusters: The Video Game features some great CGI cut scenes that are beautiful, but the in-engine stuff is ugly and just not up to spec. The lip synching is dreadful, the character models are OK but their movements and facial expressions can be wonky, and I think there are some missing lines.

There are times when characters react to nothing like a line was said (case in point: Peter says "Come on Ray, I'm the one who gets a face full of slime every time "the little green buddy" escapes" after Ray has said no line that would warrant that reaction).

These presentation hiccups become more noticeable over time and the lack of polish really hurts the overall experience.

Plain Jane Multiplayer Options

The multiplayer in Ghostbusters: The Video Game is actually really fun and being able to play as any of the four Ghostbusters or the Rookie is a cool way to let players into the boots of those characters. However, the game suffers from a dull leveling system that is WAY too easy to max out (level 20 and you are done) and no real customization options. The uniforms change as you level up-which is cool-but instead of being able to go back to other uniform colors, you are just stuck with what you have.  I've been at level 20 since June of 2009 and I can't change the uniform color so that kind of stinks.

The Most Wanted Ghosts system (where random ghosts will appear in multiplayer matches that the player has a chance to catch) is a cool idea but it was marred with glitches on launch and takes some serious grinding and hassle to complete even now.

No DLC

The game was supposed to have a level that takes place at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade but it was cut and we never saw it again. Why was that level not DLC? Some of the cut scenes had been made since parts of them made their way into trailers for the game so there was clearly a lot of the work already done.

The game also never got any map packs even though some artwork of a River of Slime map (the Van Horne stations to be specific) surfaced later. Why did the game never get even one map pack? This would have helped the multiplayer immensely but it never came to fruition.

I love Ghostbusters: The Video Game so much but it really is not perfect and the more I play it, the more I see the things that my love for the franchise blinded me to back then. I don't want this to be a downer, I just wanted to open up my end of a dialogue on what could have been better and what I have noticed as I have played the game more and more.

What is the Next Generation?

With E3 2013 over and the next generation of games finally beginning to come into focus I can't help but feel that the term "next generation" means more than just the next consumer product that will be made available to gamers. Since gaming's infancy, the "next generation" has given gamers more and more immersive and realistic experiences and this coming generation needs to figure out what it will give gamers besides just pretty graphics.

When we talk about the next generation we immediately think of the fantastic graphical power of a game like Battlefield 4 or The Witcher 3 but do better graphics completely define the next generation? I don't think so, and I think that gaming history is full of generations that not only added graphical power but an X factor that pushed gaming farther and farther.

Look at the difference between the second generation of game consoles and the third generation of game consoles. The second generation was dominated by the Atari 2600 and it focused on "high score" experiences that were simple and fun. A gamer's imagination needed to be pretty solid to immerse themselves in the world of those early games.

The third generation saw the emergence of the Nintendo Entertainment System and 8-bit gaming. 8 bit gaming was much more visually appealing (actually doing a pretty good job of representing what each object was supposed to be) but the graphical boost was not what made the third generation so much better. It was the kind of experiences that were possible with this new technology.

Not only had the control scheme been refined with the gamepad, but the ability to save allowed large RPG experiences like The Legend of Zelda to be imagined. Now instead of striving for high scores, gamers were taking characters through grand stories.  That innovation is ultimately what pushed gaming forward and made experiences more immersive and fun for future generations.

3D gaming, first-person perspectives, co-operative play, competitive multiplayer, and online components have all been the true reasons that games have gotten more immersive, not the fact that they look better than they used to. Graphics are an important part of immersion in a game but I think they are often overrated in the conversation of what makes a game tick.

So as we look into the next generation of gaming, I am waiting to see how gameplay innovations are spurred on by technological advances and how that will help evolve gaming in the future. The Xbox One, Wii U, and the PlayStation 4 (and of course, PCs) are all connected to the internet in some way (whether you like it or not in the case of the Xbox One) and that seems to be what will catch on as we head 5-10 years into the future.

Many games that are picking up hype in the gaming community are connected and living worlds that will be inhabited by thousands (if not millions) of gamers and molded by their participation. That move towards an always-connected world seems to be what is going to push gaming forward in the future and it will be interesting to see if that pans out.

E3: Final Thoughts

So E3 2013 has finally come to a close and the show gave us a ton of games to gawk at and a new generation of consoles to look forward to. Overall the conference was a lot of fun and I think that the next generation of games will definitely be something to excite gamers and challenge them to play in new and unique ways. Here are my final thoughts about the show. Get ready, cause I have a lot to say.

-Sony Won E3 

Gamers love to decide who "won" each E3 and this year it seems like the core gaming audience is vehemently for the PlayStation 4 over the Xbox One or the Wii U. Sony's PR team did a fantastic job of spinning Microsoft's willingness to speak out first against it. Microsoft repeatedly came out and explained the way that things were going to be on the Xbox One and Sony just let them speak until they dug a hole. Sony then made that hole even bigger by jabbing its own "policies" (which are the exact same as the system in place right now) at its press conference.

Sony deserves a lot of credit for swaying gamers' opinion in its favor and I think that right now, the PlayStation 4 is receiving quite a boost from that favorable opinion among gamers. Gamers determine the winner of E3 and it seems like Sony has won over the vast majority of hardcore gamers (you know, the ones who actually pay attention to E3)

-Microsoft Is Not Really in That Much Trouble

As much as the internet and Sony fanboys would like to make you believe that Microsoft has somehow already lost the next generation, that really isn't the case. The Xbox One might be in a bit of a PR nightmare coming out of E3 but lets be honest, most people who buy the Xbox aren't really watching E3 anyway. Parents of young children and casual gamers have flocked to the Xbox 360 and are most likely not watching the coverage of E3.

The price point for the Xbox One is going to be a bit of a hurdle and that might hurt sales. The used game policies and the "always-online" (I put that in quotes for a reason) will definitely sway some gamers away from buying the console. But overall, the Xbox One is still going to sell well and we have a lot of time before these consoles actually ship.

Used game fees are up to the publishers on both consoles (though Microsoft has created a convoluted system that Sony does not have in place) so you have to think that each publisher will do the same thing across all consoles. The Xbox One needs to connect to the internet every 24 hours but for most people who are willing to shell out $500+ for a video game system they probably can manage a two second connection once a day. Even spotty internet works some of the time.

Policies aside, Microsoft has a Kinect that might actually do something useful (more on that later) and a plethora of exclusive titles that will entice gamers. Overall, the package is going to be impressive and I can see plenty of people choosing the Xbox One once we better understand some of these policies.

Will the Xbox One beat the PlayStation 4? No one can say but right now it appears that Sony has jumped out to a bit of an early lead. But this race hasn't really begun so it's kind of useless to call it one way or the other.

-Nintendo Had a Quietly Solid E3

Nintendo has become a bit of in enigma in the gaming world because of how the niche the audience for its games seems to be. "Hardcore" gamers usually don't even seen Nintendo as a viable competitor to Sony and Microsoft so the company tends to be ignored a lot. But Nintendo seems to be doing well by its fans and it could seriously help them out in this console cycle.

The Wii U has never been the graphics powerhouse of the generation (even before the other consoles are out we can say that) but Nintendo doesn't necessarily need that raw power as much. Nintendo has survived for a very long time with more cartoony and stylistic game franchises that look at art direction in games in a way other than "it needs to look real."

This has turned off many gamers but for Nintendo's franchises the system works well and leads to some really nice looking games. Nintendo's E3 showing was full of games from Super Mario 3D Land to the next incarnation in the wildly popular Smash series. And for the gamers who prefer the more realistic games, the Wii U has proven that it can handle third party titles like Assassin's Creed IV and Watch Dogs pretty well.

Many people at E3 have remarked that Nintendo's booth seemed to be buzzing the most as many people in attendance wanted to try out the new games and regardless of the fact that "hardcore" gamers might have left Nintendo behind, there are still a ton of people who care and are probably going to be thrilled with Nintendo in the coming months.

-Kinect 2.0 Might Actually Be Cool

The Kinect for the Xbox 360 was a gimmicky device that promised to immerse players in their games more and instead had them flailing their arms around and jumping up and down to play silly games. The implementation of the Kinect into more "mature" experiences (like shooters or RPGs) has not gone so well and it caused a rift with many gamers who were upset with Microsoft's insistence on using the device.

This was exacerbated by the fact that the Xbox One comes packaged with the new version of the Kinect and it has to be connected in order for the console to work. This also seems to have affected the price point, most likely being the reason that the Xbox One is $100 more than the PlayStation 4.

But if articles like this one on the Verge are to be believed, developers may have finally found a cool way to use the Kinect. Instead of replacing the controller with your voice and body, developers seem to be using your voice and body to enhance your experience while keeping the controller the main input method. Hearing about the voice commands in Ryse: Son of Rome or the Kinect interactivity in Dead Rising 3 have made me feel that it may be more than gimmick.

Will the Kinect revolutionize every game that we play? Most likely not, but the ability for it to enhance our experience in ways that are only limited by a developer's imagination is pretty cool and definitely something to keep an eye on.

-Connected Experiences Are the Way of the Future

As much as it pains me to say this seeing as I am usually a single player only kind of person, connected worlds and multiplayer experiences seem to be the way of the future for games. While many games at E3 2013 were either single player experiences or multiplayer experiences (or both), a good amount of the titles that generated a lot of interest were the always-evolving connected worlds.

Look at Tom Clancy's The Division, or Bungie's Destiny, or Titanfall, or Need for Speed: Rivals. These are just some examples of games that are basically grand multiplayer experiences that will call for a lot of interactivity between players and an almost "always online" component to function at full force.

While some games can be played completely solo (Need for Speed: Rivals doesn't require multiplayer interaction) many of these games are not meant to be tackled solo and some can't even be tackled solo at all. Titanfall is a multiplayer game, even Respawn confirmed that focus. Destiny is basically an MMO. The Division is also a completely connected experience that will depend greatly on the online community.

Game developers have been trying to find ways to make the internet work for the benefit of games as a whole for quite some time now and it seems like we are beginning the push towards a highly connected future. Does this mean all single player games are gone? Of course not, plenty of games at E3 were shown off as single player experiences and they will continue to make them in the future.

However, the fact remains that the huge titles of E3 were mostly centered around some form of connectivity and that seems to be the big way forward for developers to push the gaming experience and make the medium more mature.

-Murdered: Soul Suspect Deserves Our Attention

While there have been several new titles that have caught my eye at E3 (Ryse, The Division, etc) Murdered: Soul Suspect might be more of a surprise to many gamers who decide to take a look. The game begins with the murder of the main character (a detective named Ronan O'Connor) and you will need to solve this murder as Ronan.

Ronan now lives in a place called "The Dusk," a limbo-like stage where ghosts with unfinished business roam after they die. While you cannot directly interact with the environment, you can possess people to ascertain information and put the pieces together to solve the mystery of your murder.

But "The Dusk" is not exactly the friendliest place; certain spirits who never resolved their issues turn into demons who will try to attack Ronan and eat his soul (yikes). Ronan can fight back against these spirits but only by sneaking up on them and tearing them to pieces.

The non-traditional gameplay and the intrigue of a murder mystery could easily meld well with the supernatural elements to create a really fun game. Definitely check this game out if you are into supernatural games or action adventure mysteries.

-Mad Max Might Be Able to Tide Over Fallout Fans 

Fallout 4 has been on every single Fallout fan's mind since Fallout 3 was released. Even after New Vegas hit store shelves, the next installment from Bethesda proper (New Vegas was developed by Obsidian) has been the talk of fans worldwide. When Mad Max was unveiled at the Sony conference, I'm sure every Fallout fan was praying it was Fallout 4.

But now that we know it isn't, Mad Max might actually help make that wait for Fallout 4 more bearable. While Mad Max is set in a different universe with a different mythos, the basic premise of a post apocalyptic open world is there. Vehicle combat looks to be an important part of the game (possibly similar to RAGE) and the team that is making it is known for the massive open world playground of Just Cause 2.

Regardless of whether or not the game is phenomenal, we pretty much know that is will be an enormous open world to explore and that might help tide over Fallout fans while still providing a springboard for a new type of experience.

That's about all I have to say for now but I'm sure I will think of a ton of other things to comment on. If you would like to know my take on anything I haven't spoken about or if you would just like to sound off with your opinion, feel free to do so in the comments or tweet @jamespungello

More E3 Thoughts

I have finally caught up with a lot of the demos that I had missed out on (mostly following IGN Live but Gametrailers has some good coverage too) and I thought I'd share some E3 thoughts after a few hours of watching demos and listening to interviews.

-Quantum Break Gets Better by the Minute

I already thought that Quantum Break looked amazing when I saw it at the Xbox One reveal and then when we saw a little bit of it at the Microsoft press conference. However, when I saw two interviews with Sam Lake from Remedy and he explained more of the premise, I got even more hooked.

Quantum Break is going to be a single player experience that includes episodic content in the form of gameplay and a live action series. The live action series will follow different characters but the events will be the same, so you get to see two sides of many events. Your specific gameplay choices will not only affect the game, but the show as well.

As Sam Lake notes you will get your own "director's cut" live action series that responds to the choices you made in the game. This idea sounds really cool and much more manageable than the TV show/Game combo that is Defiance.

The idea that time itself has been broken can lead to an interesting storytelling and gameplay device and that fact that you will play as the main bad guy in key moments (determining how the story will continue forward) is interesting.

-Arkham Origins Looks Great

I saw the gameplay demo several times and heard two different developers from Warner Brothers Montreal go over the game and I am impressed. The graphics don't look all that much better than Arkham City but that is to be expected since it is not a next gen title.

What really impresses me is the fact that the game is taking a very interesting approach to a Batman "origin" story. Instead of seeing Batman turn from Bruce Wayne into a vigilante, we instead see a Batman who has dealt with vastly inferior foes (regular criminals) for a few years and is now finally being tested against some villains who can best him.

This means that the game centers around Batman being taken aback a bit by these new criminals and learning  something about himself in the process. I think this will help the storytelling immensely and is leaps and bounds better than rehashing the "my parents got shot so now I need to fight crime" story again.

Other than that, the changes to the combat (characters who can counter you) and the detective mode (the crime "recreation") all seem to be phenomenal while still maintaining everything that made the other games great. It will be a long wait until I can play this one.

-Need for Speed: Rivals Has my Attention

I can't say I'm the biggest fan of racing games but I do enjoy the occasional romp in  Burnout: Paradise. However, Need for Speed: Rivals has completely sold me on the concept of the game. The Frostbite 3 engine makes this game look so gorgeous and the idea of using the cops vs racers angle to give more than one experience in the game is pretty cool.

The sensation of speed, the graphics, the ability to seamlessly go from single player to multiplayer, and more  all had me excited to get my hands on the game and I think it is going to be a very solid racing title when it is launched.

-Ryse: Son of Rome is One of the Best Looking Games at the Conference

At this point I have seen quite a few game demos and many of them are absolutely stellar in graphical quality (Watch Dogs, inFamous, Quantum Break) but Ryse: Son of Rome is the one that sticks out in my head as the best looking game at the conference.

The facial animations, the environments, the character movement, and the whole package is just incredibly impressive. The combat itself seems to rely heavily on QTEs (though the developers vehemently disagree that it is a QTE) but that isn't a huge problem for me.

One thing I was impressed with was the idea that you are "a warrior with the controller and a general with your voice." Using the Kinect for general squad commands while you are engaged in combat (like asking for assistance from archers while you are in the middle of fighting) seems to be one of the most practical ways of integrating the Kinect into a game that hardcore gamers will want to play.

Ok that is probably enough for tonight, I will be sure to give my thoughts on some more games that are being showcased (and cover a few that I have already seen but neglected to talk about). Check VGU.TV for E3 coverage (we are planning on a lot of podcasts and some great feature pieces are on their way) and let me know what you thought of these games or anything at E3 in the comments or you can tweet @jamespungello.

E3 Press Conference Thoughts

So I thought I would update this blog for the first time in forever to give a basic overview of what I personally thought of the E3 press conferences now that the most hectic day of the year for me is over. These are just some thoughts with a lot of personal opinion so take them as such and be sure to let me know what your opinion is as well.

-Microsoft Had a Better Overall Conference than Sony

Sony won the E3 press conferences (more on that in a minute) but not because its conference was better. Microsoft hit the ground running with Metal Gear Solid V and never really took the foot off of the accelerator throughout the course of the show. Tons of exclusive games that looked awesome were shown off and even the multiplatform stuff had some exclusive angle (like Battlefield 4's first map pack coming to Xbox One first).

Microsoft also did a good job adding some value to Xbox Live Gold by giving members two free games per month and allowing account sharing with other members of your household. The conference skewed heavily towards games and exclusives like Ryse: Son of Rome, Quantum Break, and Halo were highlights of the show for me.

Even when the conference wasn't at its highest, it never dragged and I had a legitimately fun time watching it. Sony, on the other hand, was a bit of a chore to watch and cover. The conference moved along at a snail's pace as the PlayStation 3 and Vita were hammered into the ground for about 1/4 of the conference.

Even when the PlayStation 4 stuff began, it was slow and boring. Some games looked kind of cool but they were choppy and AC IV totally pooped out at the end of its presentation. Kingdom Hearts III was announced but there was barely anything there. It seems like every time I was about to go "all right, let's get into it" they moved on to the next game.

Sony did a good job of pricing the PlayStation 4 ($100 cheaper than Xbox One) and basically telling Microsoft to "shove it" when Jack Tretton came out and said PlayStation 4 plays used games just like PlayStation 3 and  it doesn't need to connect to the internet. But other than that the conference was just boring, and they masterfully slipped in the fact that online multiplayer is now a premium service on PlayStation without much groaning.

Sony's handing of the "hot button topics" for gamers is what won the company E3 but the showing from Sony was lackluster and I didn't enjoy watching it all that much. I was hoping for so much more.

-Quantum Break Blew Me Away

For a game that didn't show a ton of gameplay (the demo was in-engine but it was basically a cut scene) Quantum Break was SO amazing. I'm not sure if it is just bias because I know Remedy is making the game but it seems so interesting and I KNOW the gameplay possibilities will make it a fun experience.

The idea that "time" has been messed up and these weird "rifts" seem to be making certain people move slower than others (or maybe they are going faster) is an intriguing one and I can't wait to see it implemented in the game itself.

NBA Live 14 Might Actually be Really Good

I know many of colleagues at VGU.TV aren't that big into sports games (apologies to those who are) but I personally love sports titles and NBA Live 14 was not one that I was looking forward to.

But EA took the gloves off and really showed a cool mechanic in the new physics-based system to for ballhandling. The game looks like it may rival the NBA 2K series in quality and after having seen what 2K had at the Sony conference, this will be an interesting year for basketball games.

Overall, I think that Microsoft had a solid showing, Sony was lacking in most areas but found a way to beat Microsoft anyway, there were tons of cool games shown, and I think next gen gaming is going to be a lot of fun!

Check out VGU.TV for E3 coverage including news, reactions, analysis, and more!

I Want Free Microsoft Points!

http://vgutopia.com/earn-microsoft-points-for-playing-halo-4/

As you can see in that news article, Microsoft is giving out points for playing Halo 4 multiplayer until you literally drop in the month of November. I want my free Microsoft points so I have applied for a rewards membership and should get it all locked in by the end of the week.

So why am I telling you this? Because I want you guys to help me get there but playing multiplayer matches with me and making it even more enjoyable to run up my parent's electricity bill all month long. It will take a ton of dedication to make it to 140 hours but 70 seems like a reasonable goal for someone with as much time on my hands as me. If you want to play with me on Xbox Live my gamertag is Pungello1988. Follow me on Twitter @jamespungello to find out when I am playing or just let me know when you are going to be playing and I'll jump on with you.

I'll be posting gameplay videos, coordinating live streams for the site and doing all kinds of other cool stuff with the ridiculous amounts of multiplayer I'll be playing over the next few weeks so stay tuned. I hope to have another multiplayer madness edition up soon, with tons of Halo 4 stories.

Multiplayer Madness #1

So I have attempted to pick up my online (and overall) gaming over the past few days and I've had relatively good results. If you consider getting sniped over and over again Halo: Reach, hustled in NHL 13, and not being able to play Modern Warfare 3 online good results. I'll explain all of that as I give you all a rundown on my quest to become a better online game player.

The Custodians Use This?

The first game I decided to try out was Halo: Reach and I got the mixed bag that I was expecting. The first few matches proved just how out of touch I was with the game. Reloading, meleeing, and using armor abilities all seemed foreign to me and I didn't really get a handle on  the controls until I was a couple of matches in.

To make matters worse I continually got caught with the Team Snipers game mode, which I am horrible at. During one particularly gruesome match, where I got 3 kills and 20 deaths, I knew I wouldn't be competing so I figured I would take a look around to get a better feel for the scenery. I forgot the name of the map that I was on but it was the one with several large buildings and a half complete bridge in the center of the map. Anyway, I was in one of the buildings and I saw that the name of one of the lifts was called the "Custodian Lift."

The lift is a large fan that blows you up into the air (remember, you are an incredibly heavy Spartan not a normal human) so the question becomes "do they really make custodians use this?" I mean, imagine working for a place that basically made you use an indoor skydiving fan to go up to the next floor. It seemed a bit weird but I guess humanity works a little differently in Halo's future.

I eventually began to do better in matches and even began to get positive K/D spreads so the practice is helping out. Every now and again I got a bad matchup but skill does play into that and the skill of the opponents seems to change drastically every single match. 

Getting Hustled

So remember how I said that playing sports games online was a longshot for me? Well, I decided to take the plunge and play some NHL 13 online to see how I would do. The matchmaking process is pretty easy and I was in a game in no time. 

One thing that you need to learn if you want to play online is how to effectively pass and deke, something you don't really need to know how to do on easy mode. Defenders would fly at me more aggressively than usual and pokechecks are the norm, so you need to protect the puck. I lost my first few matches but stayed competitive. I wasn't doing great, but I wasn't getting blown out either.

Then came one of the most frustrating games I've ever played. It started with the team selection as I chose my New York Rangers but this guy decides to go for Team Canada. It's a bit of a jerk move to use an international all star team against a NHL team but whatever. We began to play and he played like a complete and utter fool; skating around in circles, airmailing the puck over my goaltender, and allowing me to get to the net. I took a 2-0 lead going into the third period and that is where it got weird. He suddenly turned on the skills and began to do crazy dekes, take accurate shots, and just began to destroy me. I got lucky and scored a goal after he had scored 3 so we went into OT tied at 3.

He messed around a bit in OT but I couldn't capitalize and he finally won the game with a wrist shot at the 4:53 mark of the OT (that's seven seconds to go, btw). It was demoralizing, this guy had been toying with me the whole time and I never had a chance. I eventually got some wins and even won my first shootout last night but the lingering feeling of being toyed with remained with me. At least I have a fun story to tell.

Modern Warfare 3?

The final game that I decided I would try online was Modern Warfare 3 but I never made it to multiplayer matchmaking. I couldn't access any of the playlists without some free DLC that I hadn't downloaded. I tried to download the pieces I needed but they just refused to start downloading. I gave up and played some Survival where I did pretty well and am approaching level 42 now. 

That's it for my first installment in the Multplayer Madness blog series. I had a decent amount of success in online gaming and was able to kill some valuable time that would have otherwise been occupied by things like working out, job searching, or other useless things like that. 

Back in the Saddle

It has been quite some time but I am back with a little more life experience and a new direction for this blog. When I started this blog back in 2008 I was looking to get some experience writing about video games and see where it took me throughout my college career. After I graduated from college I began to volunteer write at GamerGaia.com and this blog became an advertisement for that site.

I have since moved on from GamerGaia and am now the Editor in Chief for VGutopia.com. I have seen some great stuff in the past few weeks from a re surging site and am excited to see where VGutopia goes. However, I don't want this blog to turn into a big advertisement for my site, I want it to be its own thing. A place where I can vent out what I want to say in a less than formal setting.

Will I never link you guys to VGutopia stuff? Of course not, if I have a good opinion piece up or something I'll let you guys know but I would like to leave this as a general place to discuss my thoughts on trying to enter the video game journalism field, playing games as I get older, and anything else that enters my mind (exactly what a blog should be).

So I will begin by talking about how "out of shape" I felt while playing Halo tonight. I was bored around 11 o'clock or so (shortly after the Giants finished kicking the crap out of the Panthers) and decided to pop in a disc and play some Xbox. I mulled over a choice in game and landed on NHL 13 after a bit of deliberation but after destroying the Minnesota Wild 8-0 and then beating the Canadiens 4-3 in OT, I was looking for something different.

So I took another glance at my games and decided I'd give Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary a go. I decided against another roll through the campaign and instead decided to try something I hadn't done in a while; play online multiplayer. I'd been a big Halo online guy years ago but I had basically stopped playing online games (even though I still shell out the cash for Live every month). I quickly realized this was a mistake.

The first match was incredibly brutal, with the other team beating my four man crew 50-9 (I contributed one of those nine kills by the way). I began to wonder if maybe I had lost my touch. The second match turned out to be better with my team winning and me actually pulling out a +3 K/D ratio (usually I'm in the negatives) so that wasn't too bad but it didn't shake off the rusty feeling I had.

Atrophy is a term I only used to describe what happened to my biceps when I stopped working out but now I see its uses in my gaming life. My skills at Halo (and most likely any game online) have severely atrophied over the past few years of almost non-use. I see  this as a problem, especially if I am going to be a video game journalist for a living. How could I possibly have any credibility among my audience if I thoroughly sucked at the games I played?

So I've decided to change my fate and get my online gaming skills back up to snuff. It won't be easy; real life obligations, single-player RPGs, and laziness might get in the way but dammit I am going to try! I'll start with a healthy dose of Halo before moving on to titles like Call of Duty and then maybe I'll venture into the uncharted waters of sports games online but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. I'll keep you all posted and we'll see if I can get my "online legs" back under me.

Why I'm Looking Forward to a New Halo Trilogy

With the announcement of the new Halo trilogy of games that will feature the Master Chief and Cortana there are bound to be people who will either love the idea or hate it. Some will say that the franchise has grown stale, others will say Microsoft is trying to milk more money out of the franchise, and still others will enjoy the ability to go back into the universe of the Master Chief. So, are video game sequels like this a good thing or should the industry shy away from them? Will Halos 4, 5, and 6 be as good as the previous entries in the series? We will have to wait and see but I’m here to give my 2 cents on if these games are a good idea or not.

While I can’t say for sure if the game will be any good until I play it, I can say what I think about the idea. I personally love the story of the Master Chief and Cortana and would like to see a continuation, here is my reasoning. In any medium, we encounter characters that we know, love, and would like to see more of. Most of the time in movies, for example, we see a character that is engaging, funny, interesting, and we want to see more of him and his adventures. This is why sequels are popular in the first place in the movie business and why spin-offs are popular in television (because sometimes the main character isn’t the most popular or interesting) but something a little different happens in video games. Because games are interactive the gameplay element adds to the overall value of the game on top of the story telling, which is the most important aspect of film and TV.

So when a game series, like Halo, gets the gameplay right, we want more even if the story isn’t always the greatest. What usually determines a good game from a bad game is the gameplay. The story (and other, smaller factors) usually separates a good game from a great game. So the story takes a backseat to the gameplay and isn’t necessarily needed to create a good game. That’s one reason why game sequels can be tricky. Gameplay needs to be expanded for the game to be regarded as good because a rehash of gameplay is like a rehash of a movie plot. Plots can be rehashed in a game and be accepted more readily than gameplay. What we, as gamers, want is for the developers to keep what worked from previous titles and add in better elements in place of what didn’t work. This can cause the games to be much better and is why sequels have better luck in the video game world than in the film world, the gameplay and graphics are easier to enhance for a sequel but are non-existent in a movie.

So, in many cases, a game series will continue to get honed and better as time goes by whereas a film series will wither away without some kind of new spin. This is why I like to see game franchises last longer because the content might be getting better and better, at least from a gameplay standpoint. I don’t think films get better (with rare exceptions) but games do a whole lot more often.

So, why all the comparisons to movies and what is my point? Well movie sequels are the closest kind of sequels that I can think of to compare to for games. But the real reason I went through all that is because I wanted to show that if the gameplay is up to snuff then the games will be worth making. People have complained that the story will be dried up for Halo 4 but that really isn’t the central-most aspect of what will make the game. Granted, story is becoming much more important and it needs to be there, but I really want to see more action from the Halo franchise because of the gameplay. The Halo series has offered some of the most accessible and fun gameplay and that is what I am really looking forward to.

Continuing the story arc of Master Chief and Cortana will be exciting and I hope the writers are up to the task but I am really looking at 343 Studios to churn out the same level of gameplay that Bungie gave us and that we loved. Playing Halo online or offline with friends is awesome and I want to be able to continue that experience with even further expanded elements. 343 can take what Bungie did right and expand on it.

But, with all that said, this still seems like a cash-in and I am questionable about the quality considering Bungie isn’t at the helm. It is clear that a lot of love was put into Halo: Reach and it turned out fantastic. Can 343 give us that kind of game? No one can really know right now but suffice it to say I will be surprised if Halo 4 is as good as Reach. Sure the game is a cash-in but can you really blame Microsoft? Do you honestly think you wouldn’t want to milk that cash cow as long as you could if you were at the helm? Let’s just hope that Microsoft and 343 don’t see this as a cash-in while making it and the quality doesn’t suffer.

But, in general, I am more open to seeing more entries in the franchises that I love because it is a chance for the gameplay experience to get even better. It is more realistic to assume that the experience will get better on a AAA title than it is to assume that the gameplay will get worse because developers have the chance to get feedback and make the games better. The fact that 343 is behind the game is the real hiccup. Will they learn from what Bungie did right or will they go their own way and toss the dice? Time will tell but what do you all think? Are these new Halo games, or video game sequels in general, a good idea or something you will pass on?

Why Don't Video Game Movies Work?

Similar to superhero games, video game movies should have some success but never seem to be that great. Many of the best video games have been brought to life on the big screen (Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Max Payne) but they rarely hit the mark and are criticized high and wide for their poor acting, bad story, cheesy effects, or any combination of those things and more. It has been a curiosity of mine why video game movies don’t work and I have put a lot of thought into the topic. I think I may have come up with a solution and I’ll try to piece it together for everyone. I think the main problem can be boiled down to several points, the most crucial being: non-gamers’ involvement, poor writing, expectations, and a passive medium.
The first problem that I believe most video game movies suffer from is the involvement of non-gamers at a high level, like the director for example. These people aren’t bad at what they do but they don’t fully understand video games either. They think that the best way to create a “video-game” atmosphere in a game is to make the movie as much like the game in as many little ways as possible. They abruptly and openly reference the games with shot-for-shot comparisons (look at the end scene of Street Fighter) and other, smaller, details like ridiculous looking costumes and stuff like that.
Now don’t get me wrong, I love that they utilize the source material and try to make it authentic but sometimes it doesn’t work too well, mainly because they choose to focus on the wrong subtleties (like looks) and not the important ones (like characterization). Most video game characters have distinct personalities that are only parodied in video game movies. But this issue is not really the big problem with video game movies; the other problems are much more serious and require more attention.
The second problem that I find with many video game movies is that the writing is not very good. Apparently the writers believe that dialogue for the movie needs to be just as cheesy, if not more so, than the dialogue in the game itself. Video games are a growing entertainment medium and can’t be clumped in the same maturity level as the well refined movie genre. Motion pictures have been around for almost 100 years whereas games haven’t been around half that long. So, when you take the cheesy dialogue of a game and insert it into a film, the medium itself (by its very nature) spits it out. The film medium is not perfect by any means but it does require more maturity than video games. Why do you think cheesy dialogue in a game is accepted but that same dialogue in a movie is hated?
For video game movies to be successful, they need to take the video game dialogue and atmosphere and adapt it for the big screen. Character development is more important in a movie than a game (this is changing but is still by and large true) so this needs to be a priority for the movie. Also, the action needs to be more like action movie action and less like crappy movie action pretending to be video game action. A bigger budget would help with this but there need to be some great video game movies before big budgets are handed out by studios.
The next big problem with video game movies is people’s expectations. Part of the reason people don’t enjoy movies is because they hype it up so much that the finished product could never live up to their hype. Most video game movies are based off of highly popular video games and their fans are very excited to see a big screen adaptation. The problem is, they have these really high expectations because of how great the game was and these expectations can’t be fulfilled most of the time. Add to this the fact that video game plots are usually tailored to an interactive experience not a passive experience and you have my next, and most crucial, point.
Video games are an interactive medium; you step into the shoes of a character (or create your own) and you do the action. How the game unfolds is up to you and when something needs doing that is your problem to deal with. Movies are a passive medium; you sit, you watch, you enjoy. There is no interactivity in a movie and that makes people long for it, they want to be the character so they buy the licensed game even though it is usually bad. This doesn’t work the other way around people don’t want to step out of the game and watch the character. This disconnect is the biggest problem with the transition from video games to movies, people want to control their character in a game and they can’t do that in a movie. This difference is what makes the medium of video games great but it also makes it difficult to transition to other passive media like television or, as we have been talking about, movies.
Does this mean that video game movies can’t work? Of course not, they just need to start doing things differently. They need to start taking themselves as serious, self-contained, movies and not video game movies. Video game movie is almost a paradox because of the differences in the two media. The movie needs to first be a good movie, and then be associated with a good game. This is the same thing that a licensed video game based on a movie needs, it needs to be a good game first and foremost, and then it can be associated with the movie. The medium that is chosen needs to play to its strengths first before invoking another, conflicting, medium of entertainment.

Top 5 Mass Effect Supporting Characters

For this list I’ve decided to count down my favorite supporting characters in the Mass Effect series. Over the course of two games we have seen many supporting characters but the number is still relatively small so I’ll count down my top 5. Here we go

5. Urdnot Wrex

Wrex is a Krogan which, for those of you who aren’t initiated, means he’s a badass. The Krogan people are a war like race and it shows in Wrex. You first meet him on your way to confront Fist in the Citadel; you want information, he’s been hired to kill Fist. Wrex is always the first to jump into a fight and his redundant nervous system makes him a powerful ally. As long as you have some pull with him you can save him from the Virmire mission and see him as clan leader in Mass Effect 2 and, apparently, in Mass Effect 3.

4. Ashley Williams

Ash is one of the most developed characters in the first Mass Effect game because of her close relationship with Shephard. She comes from a military background but still can’t get too far because of her ancestor who was the first human to surrender to an alien force. She speaks about her family and is open about her beliefs and other things that make her feel like a real person. Her feelings and thoughts seem in line with what the average person would think, she is straight forward, blunt at times, but always knows when to call BS and what to do about it. She seems like she will be a crucial part of Mass Effect 3 and I’m glad because her cameo in Mass Effect 2 made me disappointed. I can’t wait to see how her character has changed from the first game to the third game.

3. Mordin Solus

Mordin is one of the only characters that has surprised me with his abilities. Not only is the Salarian a brilliant scientist, but he is also a very skilled combatant. His line “thought I was harmless did you?” is pure gold and he is almost always in my squad. His character is well developed as well, he has cold and calculating morals (see: revamping Krogan genophage) but also has a softer side (see: singing Gilbert and Sullivan parody) It is apparent, especially in his loyalty quest, that he has some mixed feelings about the things that he has done and this fleshes out his character very well. I am hoping to see a lot more of him in Mass Effect 3 where, from the demos shown, he seems to be trying to help the Krogan.

2. Liara T’soni

Liara underwent massive changes from the first game to the second. In the first game we saw her as a naïve archeologist studying the Protheans. She was helpful to the cause with her biotics and her knowledge of the Protheans but she wasn’t a particularly interesting character. Yes, her species was interesting, but she wasn’t, at least not until Mass Effect 2. Liara became a powerful information dealer rivaling, and eventually taking over the place of, the Shadow Broker. She became more cold and imposing as evidenced by the first thing we hear her say in Mass Effect 2. She repeats a line that her mother, Matriarch Benezia, said in the first game about humans facing an Asari commando unit. She seemed more ruthless but reverted as soon as she saw Shephard. Hopefully Shephard’s influence on her will keep her honest and stop her from becoming a ruthless killer, which seemed like where she was headed. Mass Effect 3 should hold some great stuff for Liara and I can’t wait to see how it all turns out.

1. Garrus Vakarian

Garrus went through a lot of changes in character from Mass Effect 1 to the sequel, and these changes served his character development very well. Garrus started out Mass Effect 1 as a fed-up C-Sec officer who wanted a chance to take down Saren and do it without any red tape. He seemed pretty capable right off the bat (he took down the thug with an impressive headshot in the clinic) but Shephard still seemed to be his militant superior. When we see him in Mass Effect 2 he is much more grizzled and jaded. He has been fighting the bad guys in any way, including sniping them on Omega, and it has clearly taken a toll. However, his skills are much more honed and he seems to be a more formidable opponent. The injuries he sustains to his face only serve to make him look, on the outside, like his character on the inside. He is a broken-hearted, jaded, and bitter man who seems to be spiraling downhill from the righteous path. He killed Sidonis and though it seemed just for what he did, it still seemed cold and unlike Garrus, even Shephard noticed and made a comment. I can’t wait to see where Garrus goes next, will he have an epiphany and turn back to the stalwart hero or stay the jaded anti-hero of the second game? Only time will tell.