I am sure most of you guys who follow gaming news closely would be aware of the recent firing of Gamespot Editor in Chief Jeff Gerstmann, which was reported in many major gaming sites, such as PA, Shacknews and Kotaku etc. Apparently (though it still is considered a rumor, since none of the Gamespot staff nor Jeff stepped out to comment on the news, at least publicly) it was over the less than glamorous review he had wrote for the new game Kane & Lynch: Dead Men by Eidos, which has been fervently promoting the game with its conspicuous and all over the place advertisements through Gamespot. It was rumored Eidos was unhappy with the review, both written and video versions (the latter was removed from Gamespot strangely), and pressured Cnet, the parent company of Gamespot, to fire Jeff. Of course, Cnet has denied it, but still, it did not in any way alleviate the anger among the gamers, especially Gamespot members, who have since flooded the site's forum, expressing their unhappiness. Eidos' official forum was hit the worst, it was flooded with many outraged gamers registering and spamming the board with all sorts of vulgarities and obscene images, prompting the forum to go down hours after the attack. Back at the Gamespot's forums, countless threads regarding Jeff's dismissal were locked and the admins seemed to be under a gag order, with none making any replies or comments with regards to the incident.
Other than the firing of Jeff, the rest of the news are currently just rumor, with no confirmation publicly by any of the related personnel, but personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it indeed was the case.Looking at the excessive advertising of K&L at Gamespot, I would suppose the ad deal was very lucrative, and if Eidos had retracted the deal, Cnet would lose a lot of money. However, this at the expense of journalism integrity is a price too heavy, and I am sure Jeff knew it too, which is why he sticked to the mediocre rating for the game, which apparently cost him his job.
If everything about the incident were true, it would be very detrimental to Gamespot. Already, people are cancelling their subscription accounts, and more importantly, people would look at any reviews by Gamespot in a different light, especially ones which have their advertisement on the site. It's a lose-lose situation for Cnet/Gamespot now, because no matter what they do (rehiring Jeff, which I doubt they will, and even if they did, Jeff probably would not take up the offer; remain silent and just wait for everything to die down), they are going to be remembered for this unpleasant incident, and their credibility has taken a massive damage.
Gamespot video review of K&L by Jeff, which was removed from Gamespot.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Rise of the Videogame
Thought I'd post something in the midst of my study break. I chanced upon this video when I was surfing Spikedhumor (do check out their site, they have quite a lot of interesting and hilarious videos; don't worry, most of them are safe for work ;) ). It's a documentary on the Discovery Channel regarding the rise of the video gaming industry and how video games started (I never thought it started out that way!) Anyways, do check out the 2 clips below if you are a gamer to learn more about the history of video gaming.
For some reasons I keep getting errors when attempting to embed these clips. Here are the links for the time being while I try to sort out this problem:
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/133552/Rise_of_the_Videogame_pt_1.html
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/133553/Rise_of_the_Videogame_pt_2.html
For some reasons I keep getting errors when attempting to embed these clips. Here are the links for the time being while I try to sort out this problem:
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/133552/Rise_of_the_Videogame_pt_1.html
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/133553/Rise_of_the_Videogame_pt_2.html
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Exam Break
There will not be much updates during this period of 1-2 weeks as I'd be having my exams. No time to blog :p Cya after Dec 1!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Call of Duty 4 Review
Yes, I'm writing the review for CoD 4 before Episode 2's. Because it's such a wonderful game, and I want whoever's reading to know and go the game immediately.
I was hooked to the game when the original Call of Duty came out some 4 years ago. Unlike many WWII shooters back then (I'm looking at you, Medal of Honor), Call of Duty placed you in a big battlefield, alongside many other fellow soldiers, fighting against an equal amount of enemies. No longer are you the "special one", infiltrating enemy base Rambo style, taking down an obscene amount of enemies by yourself.
Call of Duty 2 adopted a similar gameplay as its predecessor, and strangely enough, I still enjoyed the game as much as the original, even though it was still set during the WWII period.
Infinity Ward recognized the over-saturation of the WWII shooter genre in the market, and hence in its latest Call of Duty 4 (Call of Duty 3 was developed by another company, and was console-exclusive), the stage's set in the modern era. And this time round it's not the Germans you are fighting; instead, you'd be fighting both Russian ultra-nationalists and a rebel force in the Middle-East that's planning to stage a coup. And in the past CoD games, you get to play from the perspective of the the American, British and Russian army; in Modern Warfare, you'll only get to play from the British SAS and US Marines' point of view, but that doesn't mean the fun is compromised in anyway.
The plot's pretty simplistic and linear; the head of the Russian ultra-nationalist army has collaborated with a rebel group in Middle East (the name of the country was not mentioned throughout the game, probably to avoid any controversies), with each group wanting to overthrow the current regiment in their respective countries and set up a new establishment. Do not expect any major twists in the plots; the main objective throughout CoD 4's 5-6 hours of single player gameplay is simply chasing down the leaders of the ultra-nationalist and rebel groups. However, the linear plot does not in anyway spoil the fun of the game, such is an instant where a simple plot actually does work in favor of the game.
The plot may be linear and simple, but Infinity Ward sure did make an outstanding presentation of it in the game. One of my favorite sequences in the game was the hostage part (I'm not gonna delve into the details, you really should go experience it yourself); the atmosphere was intensified by the excellent score by Harry Gregson-Williams, the very same composer for the Metal Gear Solid series. Also, there were some parts which sort of caught me by surprise, and I was very pleased with the way Infinity Ward handled the story.
Missions in the game vary a lot, ranging from storming a tanker, searching and rescuing fellow soldiers through heli-evac, air bombing etc. The mission styles are barely repetitive, making the overall gameplay all rounded and at the same time intense. People may complain about the similar type of gameplay of CoD 4 as compared to the previous CoDs, but hey, isn't that what made the CoD series stand out? Why change something that isn't broken?
If you think the goodness stops at the single-player, think again. CoD 4 has one of the most robust multi-player gameplay (at least in my opinion). It has various achievements and a leveling system which allows one to unlock new weapons and perks (a feature that allows you to customize your character), and various modes of gameplays for one to choose from. Yes, you may say that the achievements and leveling gimmick has been used in the Battlefield series before, however, I personally didn't find the BF series as fun. The reason CoD 4's multiplayer is so intense is due to the fact that the sizes of the map are just about right. There's no tiring running from one end to the other (yes, I am looking at you, BF) and dying even before you made any contact in the frontline of the war. In CoD 4, you can constantly hear firings and explosions in your proximity, causing one to be cautious in every steps and corners he/she makes. To make things even more intense, the guns in CoD 4 are able to penetrate through relatively thin covers, forcing one to constantly change his hiding spot. Then there are the airstrikes and helicopter assist, which I feel is a little overpowered, but still it adds to the fun in the multi-player gameplay.
The only complaint I have with CoD 4 is the short single-player campaign, which lasted about 6-7 hours for me on Hardened difficulty. However, the short duration of the game is fully compensated with the non-stop action during these 7ish hours of gameplay. That for me, is more than enough reason to overlook the shortness of the game.
Score: 9.5/10
The good: Everything you liked about the old CoD series is intact; modern warfare setting a fresh and interesting break from the over-saturated WWII games; robust multi-player.
The bad: Short single-player campaign.
PS: screenshots to come soon.
I was hooked to the game when the original Call of Duty came out some 4 years ago. Unlike many WWII shooters back then (I'm looking at you, Medal of Honor), Call of Duty placed you in a big battlefield, alongside many other fellow soldiers, fighting against an equal amount of enemies. No longer are you the "special one", infiltrating enemy base Rambo style, taking down an obscene amount of enemies by yourself.
Call of Duty 2 adopted a similar gameplay as its predecessor, and strangely enough, I still enjoyed the game as much as the original, even though it was still set during the WWII period.
Infinity Ward recognized the over-saturation of the WWII shooter genre in the market, and hence in its latest Call of Duty 4 (Call of Duty 3 was developed by another company, and was console-exclusive), the stage's set in the modern era. And this time round it's not the Germans you are fighting; instead, you'd be fighting both Russian ultra-nationalists and a rebel force in the Middle-East that's planning to stage a coup. And in the past CoD games, you get to play from the perspective of the the American, British and Russian army; in Modern Warfare, you'll only get to play from the British SAS and US Marines' point of view, but that doesn't mean the fun is compromised in anyway.
The plot's pretty simplistic and linear; the head of the Russian ultra-nationalist army has collaborated with a rebel group in Middle East (the name of the country was not mentioned throughout the game, probably to avoid any controversies), with each group wanting to overthrow the current regiment in their respective countries and set up a new establishment. Do not expect any major twists in the plots; the main objective throughout CoD 4's 5-6 hours of single player gameplay is simply chasing down the leaders of the ultra-nationalist and rebel groups. However, the linear plot does not in anyway spoil the fun of the game, such is an instant where a simple plot actually does work in favor of the game.
The plot may be linear and simple, but Infinity Ward sure did make an outstanding presentation of it in the game. One of my favorite sequences in the game was the hostage part (I'm not gonna delve into the details, you really should go experience it yourself); the atmosphere was intensified by the excellent score by Harry Gregson-Williams, the very same composer for the Metal Gear Solid series. Also, there were some parts which sort of caught me by surprise, and I was very pleased with the way Infinity Ward handled the story.
Missions in the game vary a lot, ranging from storming a tanker, searching and rescuing fellow soldiers through heli-evac, air bombing etc. The mission styles are barely repetitive, making the overall gameplay all rounded and at the same time intense. People may complain about the similar type of gameplay of CoD 4 as compared to the previous CoDs, but hey, isn't that what made the CoD series stand out? Why change something that isn't broken?
If you think the goodness stops at the single-player, think again. CoD 4 has one of the most robust multi-player gameplay (at least in my opinion). It has various achievements and a leveling system which allows one to unlock new weapons and perks (a feature that allows you to customize your character), and various modes of gameplays for one to choose from. Yes, you may say that the achievements and leveling gimmick has been used in the Battlefield series before, however, I personally didn't find the BF series as fun. The reason CoD 4's multiplayer is so intense is due to the fact that the sizes of the map are just about right. There's no tiring running from one end to the other (yes, I am looking at you, BF) and dying even before you made any contact in the frontline of the war. In CoD 4, you can constantly hear firings and explosions in your proximity, causing one to be cautious in every steps and corners he/she makes. To make things even more intense, the guns in CoD 4 are able to penetrate through relatively thin covers, forcing one to constantly change his hiding spot. Then there are the airstrikes and helicopter assist, which I feel is a little overpowered, but still it adds to the fun in the multi-player gameplay.
The only complaint I have with CoD 4 is the short single-player campaign, which lasted about 6-7 hours for me on Hardened difficulty. However, the short duration of the game is fully compensated with the non-stop action during these 7ish hours of gameplay. That for me, is more than enough reason to overlook the shortness of the game.
Score: 9.5/10
The good: Everything you liked about the old CoD series is intact; modern warfare setting a fresh and interesting break from the over-saturated WWII games; robust multi-player.
The bad: Short single-player campaign.
PS: screenshots to come soon.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Shooter's Paradise
Just when you thought you had experience the year's greatest shooters in Bioshock and The Orange Box... Well waddya know? There are more to come this holiday, with Call of Duty 4 and Gears of War already out in the shelves as I make this post. Then there's Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis which have already gone gold and are expected to be out within November; this is probably one of the best years for all shooter fans out there, with so many solid fps games for them to choose. Personally, I won't be picking up Gears of War (need more $$$!), so you can check out the reviews over here, or here. So many games... yet so little time, I probably have to wait until my exams are over before I can give my final verdict on CoD 4 and Crysis. In the meantime stay tuned for the Episode 2 review and my Hellgate London impressions!
Update
Sorry about the lack of update to the blog last weekend, had to settle some personal stuffs. The Episode 2 review will be out shortly. And also, the first impressions of Hellgate London will soon follow too; just got the CE for S$80 last Saturday. I'm playing the SEA version, whose server is hosted by IAH and not FSS itself, and so far the results have been... quite dismal, I must say. Patch 0 isn't even out on the server, and IAH have only raised the level cap from 22 to 50 TODAY, almost a week after the launch of the game. The condition of the server is pretty bad, with usual issues of lag and network disconnection. Gameplay wise, I feel that it's quite fun, although it seems that reactions to the game have been pretty mixed so far. I'll put up a post of the game impression as soon as I've played the game enough to make a judgement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
