Disclaimer: I didn't take the time to proofread this blogpost as well as I usually do and when I wrote it I really just wanted to get my thoughts down on paper so it really isn't as structured as I normally would want it but please, bear with me

Here we are, fresh off the Xbox One reveal show, and it's time for all us video game bloggers to pour all of our feelings and opinions into a blog post. 


Is it just me or does Don Mattrick constantly look like he's high??

So where do I stand after the reveal?

Well after having stayed with Microsoft for the better part of this generation, eventually gliding my way over to Sony's PS3, I'll have to say, based on what they just showed us, I'll probably be hanging my hat over at Sony's place this time around

I will just make it clear right here and now that this is not about fanboyism, I own all the current consoles (except for the Wii U) and a high end PC, I originally bought the 360 because it was cheaper than the PS3 and offered games like Mass Effect and Gears of War. Over the course of this generation I've mostly played my games on the Xbox, but gradually I went over to playing the newer releases on my PC, and leaving the consoles to the exclusive games (or the bargains I could get online). 

I have occasionally voiced my opinion in the fanboy wars that has plauged this generation, but as I grew older, I realized the folly of it, and now view myself as an impartial observer

So, back to the matter at hand, What did I think of the reveal?

First off, I think that Microsoft really needs to find out who their target audience is with this thing, While there are plenty of features that would interest everyone from the casual to the core gamers, There really wasn't any focus on either. 

LiveTV

They showed some features with LiveTV that looked interesting, but all in all those are wasted on people like me. I have Netflix, HBO Nordic, Crunchyroll and live broadcasts over the internet with my current internet provider, And since I live in Norway, these features probably won't come here anyway.


They showed off how to access TV Guide via Kinect

So thats two demographics the LiveTV stuff don't appeal to: People who live outside the US and people who are like me, Now I don't claim to speak on behalf of all core gamers out there, But I think if you are in my age group (I'm 23 so that would be in the group 20s - 30s) You get most of your TV through the internet in someway, or you are disinterested in TV all together

Specs

Sony did it right back in february, They were completly transparant about the hardware choices they had made with the PS4. Microsoft.... Not so much. While they said they'd have 8GB RAM and 8 Core CPU, They failed to state the speed of the RAM chips, or the size of the CPUs. These are numbers that I atleast would find interesting, and I feel that by not releasing that information upfront really speaks to their confidence in the system as a whole. 


Microsofts description about the specifications are vauge at best

It's not always in the specs off course. The PS3 was a powerhouse when it was first released but the high price point intially turned gamers away from the system, and when the PS3 only ended up getting ports of multiplatform games (some of them terrible ports) the awesome hardware really didn't do the system any favors. But in february Sony really showed us that they had done everything in their power to help the developers make awesome games for the PS4. Microsoft didn't even adress this, maybe because they think that after the success of the 360, it's a given that the developers will return to their console next generation? Time will tell, but I think that not being totally transparant about their specs might hurt them in the long run


Add-on's

The current console generation saw a couple of fads come and go, but none was as persistant as motion gaming, While the Nintendo Wii was designed with motion gaming in mind, For better or worse the PS3 and Xbox 360 jumped on this train after the success of the Wii. They had some ups and downs with their concepts and execution but it opened the flood gates for something that I think, if not changed, marked gaming for the forseeable future

Add-on's.

No, I'm not talking about Microsoft's fancy word for DLC, I'm talking about Sony and Microsoft selling us peripherals like the Kinect and Playstation Move so that we could access new features of their respective consoles. Now Nintendo is leading the charge again with their tablet controller, and wouldn't you know it, the other two are right on their tail with Smartglass and the PSVita

One of the selling points for the Wii U for me is that I can continue my games on the tablet if someone else wants to use the TV. Sony made it clear that this will also be available on the PS4. But so far Microsoft has been really quiet wether or not they will support this via Smartglass.

Will Microsoft be the only console developer that won't support remote play?

Appeal

As I stated earlier, I really don't get who Microsoft is trying to reach with their advertising and who this console really is made for. I'm not totally uninterested in the TV features, but it won't be what sells me on the console, The event really didn't show anything that made me go "Wow", Which Sony actually managed to do quite a few times with their reveal of the PS4. 

They seemed to be less focused on showing their strength when it comes to both multiplayer gaming (which has been a major selling point for the 360) and their continued efforts to offer us new and exciting original games (though they did say that they had 15 exclusive games, 8 of them original IPs)


Sony took the chance to reveal Jonathan Blow's new game "The Witness" at their event

PS4 event had Killzone, Infamous Second Son, Knack, and even Watch.Dogs, The Xbox really only showed us more of the same (except for Remedy's game). They showed us Fifa, Madden, NHL, NBA and COD. And while those games were great on the 360, the Xbox One needs something new to excite this guy.

I know we haven't heard about Sony's potential countermeasure when it comes to used games, but I will say that the ones that were announced for Xbox One does not help the situation for Microsoft

Conclusion

When it comes down to it, the Xbox One reveal event didn't do anything to make me really excited for the system, More of the same is all and well but when your main competitor shows up with an intent to woe the core gamers from your system over to their system, It is never the right strategy to change your target audience the way Microsoft seems to have done


While I'll still hold out until E3 to make my decision, It will take alot to steer me away from Sony this time, Fingers crossed Microsoft.

What did you think of the reveal? Have you made your mind up for the next generation yet?

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post about the troubles I were having with reviewing Heavenly Sword, The response I got was great and now, a few days after I finished it, I'm ready to write the review that I promised



Heavenly Sword was one of the early PS3 games, in fact it was one of the first games that made me look at Sony's wonder machine and go: "I want that". The game is a hack and slash action adventure game in the vein of games like Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Rising and God of War, but manages to carve its own identity with solid gameplay and impressive visuals

Heavenly Sword is set in a fantasy world where the player control Nariko, Whose father is the leader of a clan who has long protected the Heavenly Sword, which they believe were passed down from a legendary godly warrior who once defeated the evil Raven Lord. At the start of the game Nariko's village is under attack by the evil King Bohan, who seeks the sword for himself. From this day Nariko is charged with protecting the sword.



One thing that I really can't stress enough throughout this review, is how beautiful the game looks. The scenery, animation and cut-scenes are quite spectacular considering the game has been out for almost 6 years. I am sure that this feat, at the time of the games release, could only be accomplished with the PS3 and if it hadn't been for the occasional drop in frame rate, the games presentation along with the voice acting superb voice acting from both Anna Torv and Andy Serkis would get an instant 10/10

The game's combat is solid, if a bit repetitive at times, but the game really sells you on the feeling that Nariko with the Heavenly sword is a much better fighter than Nariko without the Heavenly Sword. 

There are three stances that the combat makes you switch between during your encounters, but the game does have some issues of letting you know when you switch stances. For instance, sometimes a heavy combo gets blocked and you circle through your stances, only to find you had to time your heavy combo better to make it hit the enemy


The large scale battles are truly something to behold


Where the game fails though is in its use of Sixaxis controls, I really hate the segments in the game where you have to use it. Quickly explained: there are sections in the game where Nariko or the other playable character Kai is forced to use projectiles as either weapons or for puzzle solving, This can either be Kai's crossbow, Nariko using a ballista or throwing a disc. Aiming these projectiles is very inaccurate so you have to guide them via a feature called Aftertouch where time slows down and you have to steer the projectiles to their respective targets.

Using the SIXAXIS on the best of days is a nightmare and having the game force you to complete these segments before moving on is a sure way to get people to rage quit the game. The game isn't unfair at any point, but the whole task is so tedious and time consuming and I'm left wondering if the game wouldn't have been better served if these elements all together

What these segments do right however, is introducing us to the character of Kai, She is easily one of my favorite female characters of a game ever after having played this game. She isn't forced into any kind of storytelling tropes (except for maybe one very small damsel in distress scenario) and is very much left to just being: Kai.

She is a very hard character to explain but I really urge you to either play the game or look her up on Youtube, she is really something special.



Overall I'm pleased to say that I had a really positive experience with Heavenly Sword, The game does suffer a little bit from being made 6 years ago, if one is to compare it to contemporary titles like DMC and Metal Gear Rising but all in all it was a solid experience and I wouldn't mind a sequel somewhere down the line.

I give the game a 4/5.

I'm sort of in a conundrum. As I've said in earlier blog posts, I bought a PS3 about a year and a half ago, and I'm trying to work my way through the back catalog I have on the system. Having traversed all of the Uncharted games, finished Solid Snake's story in MGS4 and generally having a great time with LittleBigPlanet 1 and 2, I've now arrived at a game that I was very excited for when I first saw it announced alongside the PS3.

The game I'm talking about is Heavenly Sword.




For those who don't know, This was Ninja Theory's (the guys who did the new DMC and Enslaved: Odyssey to the West) first game of this generation, and the first game they developed under that name. Wikipedia says that it's and action adventure hack and slash game where the gameplay resembles a martial arts title focused on melee combat while featuring opportunities for ranged attacks. In my words: I'd say it's sort of like God of War, sort of like Onimusha, and sort of like Devil May Cry.

I'm not very far into the game, but I started writing down notes for myself so that I could review it here on my blog when I'm done, but therein lies the problem. How do I review a game that was released 6 years ago?

Do I hold it up against contemporary titles like DMC, God of War Ascension and Metal Gear Rising Revengeance, or do I try to compare it to titles that were available around the same time as Heavenly Sword?

On one hand, there have been several games I've come across from the early PS3 era that have aged far better than this game has. and on the other hand video games have come along way in 6 years, and I am really liking the game, despite its flaws.

If the game had been released today, I'm not sure that I would have liked it as much as I am. (so far that is, still got a ways to go in the game) I mean why should I give this game any special treatment? There are several games that I've just flat out stopped playing because it had one or two things that annoyed me, and this game has several things that annoy the heck out of me, but despite those things, I'm actually enjoying the game.



There have been one other game that I experienced this with: The original Bioshock. While I did play it around the time the game was released, I truly hated some of the gameplay mechanics that Irrational had implemented in that game, but still I hold it as one of my favorite games this generation.

Have I missed out on game experiences because I was too easily annoyed at some of the choices the developers had made? I think I might have..

Will I ever get around to review Heavenly Sword? I hope so, This challenge that I'm facing could really help me become a better video game reviewer.

How will I treat it in the review?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see

I own a PS Vita, and as much as I love the damn thing, there's no hiding the fact that post launch support have been lacking. There aren't nearly enough games to capture a wide audience, and the handheld itself is stuck somewhere between wanting to be a dedicated gaming device or a sort of casual gaming/tablet device. In fact, the games that I've been primarily playing on the device is either ports of console games or ports of PSP games that I missed because I didn't own one.

That is not to say that there aren't good Vita games. Uncharted Golden Abyss feels and plays like a full fledged Uncharted game. Gravity Rush is lots of fun (even if the mechanics got tiresome after a while). And I'm sure that there are more Vita games that I just haven't gotten round to play yet.

But what I feel the Vita really needs, is an Indie Revolution!

Ever since Sony's PS4 reveal in February, There's been a steady trickle of news every week about the new direction that Sony wants to take with their gaming platforms. At the Playstation Meeting in february, they made it pretty clear that Sony wants the PS4 to be a place where Indie developers can practice their crafts, and over the last few weeks we've been hearing that the PS Vita will also be a part of this new directon.

On the March 22, IGN reported that there were coming More than 100 games for the Vita in 2013. Among these were indie games like Thomas Was Alone, Lone Survivor, Frozen Synapse and others

A few weeks ago, a game called Guacamelee was released, and short summarized. the game plays amazingly on the Vita. The controls are tight, the gameplay is fun and the game itself looks fantastic. Another indie game that is coming to the Vita soon is the ultraviolent Hotline Miami, and after having played it on PC I can say with 100 percent certainty that the game will be perfect for the Vita.


Guacamelee! really showcases indie glory on the Vita

I think that the Vita has the perfect fan base for Indie developers to test their games on. Threads on Neogaf like the monthly Vita thread is one of the places where Playstation Vita owners encourage each other to try the different games that are being released on the handheld, and they discuss their experiences with the games in a way that could be really helpful to an up and coming Indie developer

That is not to say that I ONLY want indie games on my Vita, I want the next portable Uncharted game, and just last week the news came that there's a sidescrolling 2,5D Batman Arkham Origins game in the works and I really want that too, But indie games can really help fill the gap between the big releases so that the Vita doesn't end up gathering dust.

I believe the PS Vita could be recognized as one of the best handhelds in history, but I think it will need the help of indie games to get there. Sony also needs to realize that what we Vita owners want isn't ports of console games but original games that can only be found on the Vita, That's how Nintendo did it with their Wii and DS/3DS and it's been working for them.


The PS Vita is a technical marvel, but hardware alone doesn't sell systems, You have to have the software too.

I reaaaaaally dislike yearly installments. There's no way around that fact, so I figured I'd just spell that out right in the beginning here and get it out of the way.

Yearly installments only serve to make the developer and publisher more money by exploiting the fanbase of an established series. They serve up some tweaks to the previous games but nothing that really pulls the series forward, and in the end it only hurts the series in the long run

Back when Assassins Creed (the original) was announced I was really excited about it. The game looked right up my alley: It had stealth elements, were set during the crusades and looked like it drew some inspiration from two of my favorite series: Hitman and Thief

When released back in 2007, the game had it's problems, but overall I enjoyed it. Not nearly as much as Hitman Blood Money or Thief 2, but still, I liked it and I was excited for the next installment. Two years later in 09 Assassins Creed 2 hit the shelves, and was met with critical and commercial acclaim, I loved the game and it's one of the few cases this generation where I've finished the game multiple times (once I even did it with the Italian Dub) I hearted that game so much, and again my nose turned towards the next installment in the series, Getting ready to wait another 2 years (which I was content with to be honest=

In 2010 Assassins Creed: Brotherhood was announced, Well it wasn't really announced, or that's not how I perceived it at that time, I actually thought it was an expansion pack of some sort. some big piece of DLC for the copy of Assassins Creed 2 that I already owned. Not being opposed to good DLC's I had half a mind to pick it up when it released. but when the marketing more and more told us that this was a stand alone game,, I was kind of confused for a while and didn't pick it up initially, because I didn't want to play another Assassins Creed game so soon after having completed AC2 for the second time

But before the year was out, I had gotten and played Assassins Creed Brotherhood to completion. and I was left somewhat disappointed, the game did all that AC2 did, and in some ways improved the formula by adding new elements like the ability to train and manage your own assassins, but it just wasn't enough for me to give me the same feeling Assassins Creed 1 and 2 did before.

Then the next year, Assassins Creed Revelations were revealed, and I kind of saw the picture of what was going on. What started out as one of my favorite series this generation had all too quickly become one of those series that releases yearly installments

New installments each year that basically gives you the same game all over again, just with a new story and some tweaked elements. and that's when I gave up on Assassins Creed.

Same thing happened to Call of Duty. While Call of Duty has been able to keep it somewhat fresh in the multiplayer, delivering short but intense single player experiences, there is very little that differentiates one installment from another. In the case of Call of duty, I can condone it, since it's mostly played for the multiplayer (not by me as I rarely play multiplayer games) it needs that feeling of familiarity too it, so that the skills you learn in Modern Warfare can be transferable over to the next Black Ops

But in an action adventure game like the Assassins Creed series that people predominantly buy for the single player experience, there really is no good reason to keep pushing yearly titles, except for Ubisoft to make some more money. I don't care how much time Ubisoft claims they've put into their individual titles, They should know better than to give their fans basically the same game three times over as they did after AC2

What I'd like to see Activision and Ubisoft do with their franchises is to halt the yearly installment cycle that their are doing and rather focus on bringing some of the innovation back to their respective series. Activision could dedicate a small team to support Black Ops 2 with additional multiplayer content one more year, so that there's a bit more breathing room between the installments, Breathing room where they can focus on making the next game that much better

What do you guys think about yearly installments?

The CEO of Crytek sat down for an interview with IGN where he discussed The Many Faces of Free to Play

In the interview, Yerli expressed his feelings toward "disconnected single player game experiences":

"I think the notion of a single-player experience has to go away, However, I'm not saying that there will be no single-player experiences ... it could be it's called Connected Single-Player or Online Single-Player instead.

"Online and social can reignite single-player in a new type of context and provide benefits that will make you want to be a part of a connected story-mode rather than a disconnected story-mode. Sure, if the technology forces you to play a traditional single-player game online, that doesn't make sense but if it's offering actual benefits to be online then you want to be part of it.

Jim Sterling wrote a comment on the statement Cevat Yerli (Head of Crytek) made in an interview with IGN

While I wholeheartedly agree with Jim's viewpoints on this subject, I thought that I would share a few thoughts that I have when it comes to the statements made by Cevat Yerli

I'm predominantly a single player gamer, And I have several reasons for that is that:

I enjoy games like I enjoy books or movies, I let myself get immersed in the experience. For me, roaming the fields of Hyrule in Ocarina of time for the XXth time gives me the same feeling as reading Lord of the Rings for the XXth time

If I'm constantly reminded that I'm not alone in the experience, I don't get that same feeling of immersion.

Just imagine if George RR Martin would have written into every other page of his books something that would completely take you out of the experience. I wouldn't personally have gotten past the prologue of Game of Thrones if that was the case

Another reason is that as a person, I'm just not that big a fan of multiplayer games, I've made peace with the fact that there are people who are better than me at playing certain video games and I really don't have anything to prove in that arena

Now I'm not here to tear on gamers that predominately plays multiplayer games, There's a reason the Call Of Duty series has such a strong following and it's not thanks to the single player elements.

And Cevat expressly say that he doesn't want single player experiences to go away, he just wants to add more online and social elements to, in his words: "Reignite single-player"

That is where me and Cevat strongly disagree, because I really don't think that single player experiences needs this re ignition that Mr. Yerli is proposing. Online and Social elements are not at all what I personally want out of a game.

Sure I'd like to see what my friends are playing, and later talk to them about our experiences with the games we've played. But when I'm playing, I want it to be about me and the game, not about leaderboards, not about asking my facebook friends for help, and not about microtransactions.

In May 2012 Diablo 3 came out, And while being a single player experience to many (myself included) Blizzard had implemented features into that game that required the gamer to be "Always Online", and as I remember that didn't end especially well

I believe that if the developers continue to reinvent themselves and their respective genres (like Crytek once did with Crysis), single player experiences will continue to be relevant and we can shake of this notion that we need to merge them with multiplayer

To round out this blogpost, I'd like to make a suggestion to Mr. Yerli:

If you want to create multiplayer experiences with social elements, Go ahead and do that, But don't say that single player experiences have to die for you to make that happen.

Don't make a half assed prediction about where you think single player experiences needs to go to remain relevant when in reality single player experiences has never been more relevant than they are today.

And last but not least: Listen to your consumers, create games and content that they want to see instead of telling them how they are going to be playing your games in the future.