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.

Disclaimer: This will be a semi review of the Disney movie Wreck-It Ralph, I will use elements from the movie as examples and some spoilers will occur, Ye be warned

Well I just came back from having watched Wreck-it Ralph with my sister and my nephews (5 and 3), and I have to say, that movie made me think. As a kid who grew up playing games like Q*bert, Pac Man, Sonic the hedgehog and the likes, this movie hit it home in several ways.

First off: the premise of the movie



The movie takes place in every old school gamers favorite place, The Arcade, And just like Andy's room in Toy Story, The real action happens when none of the humans are watching. We are shown that every game that we play, are a masterfully orchestrated "play" where all the game characters plays their respective roles. When the game is over, The characters go back to their starting positions. When the arcade is closed for the night however, the game characters are free to do whatever they want to do, as long as they are back to their starting position when the arcade is open the next day.

Enter Wreck-it Ralph. He's the main antagonist in a game called Fix-it Felix Junior. where he acts as a sort of Donkey Kong to Felix's Mario (Jumpman) in the old arcade game Donkey Kong. Ralph's job every game is to try and hinder Felix from fixing the damages he's made, and eventually, when the player gets through the game, to be thrown off the very building he was trying to wreck.

All of this would have been fine with Ralph if he'd just gotten some appreciation from the rest of the game characters within his game, But for them, he's the villain, and Felix the hero, So they celebrate Felix at the end of each day by giving him medals, and shun Ralph, forcing him to sleep outside "off screen"

Ralph, feeling left out, wants to be recognized for the part he plays in the players experience. and is told by the other characters that only a hero gets to be in the spotlight, and to be a hero, you'd have to have earned a gold medal. Ralph, seeing that he'll never get a gold medal in his own game, leaves on a quest to get the medal in another game.

Along the way he meets a myriad of characters from the golden age of arcade and 16 bit gaming, Characters like Bowser, Dr.Robotnik, Satan and Kano appear in a Bad Guys Anonymous scene where Ralph debates his mindset with his fellow game antagonists. Ryu from Street Fighter is show visiting Tapper's Bar after hours. The list goes on...

Even Sonic appears on an infomercial that serves to tell the viewer, that if you die outside your own game, you won't re spawn, causing perma death for that character.


Wreck-It Ralph introduces several old school characters to a new generation of gamers

The movie is a homage to all the hours my generation have spent with these characters, and even serves as an introduction for many of them to the gamers of tomorrow. I was shocked when my five year old nephew knew who Zangief from Street Fighter was. I mean I wouldn't be shocked that he knew Sonic and Mario, Afterall I introduced him to those games, but Zangief?? To my knowledge he's never even played a Street Fighter game. But thanks to Wreck-it Ralph, He now knows the character, and might actually look up the series some day.

The movie's depiction of the arcade is more akin to the golden age of arcade games than the way arcades are today. And just like Andy's toys were scared of not being played with, The game characters fears the day their game is "Out of order" and they'll be shipped off to a storage, never to be played with again..

And that's what I want to touch on with this blog post: What is the future of Retro Games

A worst case scenario for retro games is that when my generation has left this earth, Games like Street Fighter II, Sonic the Hedgehog, Castlevania won't be played anymore. As time goes by more and more games are being introduced to the market, And if there hadn't been so little creativity and new content out there, these games and their characters would have been left in the dust long ago. Which is a damn shame in my opinion.

Nintendo, off course, is the best at keeping their old series alive. Virtual Console keeps the old games alive and they continue to make new installments of Super Mario, Metroid and Zelda, series that were created 20 - 25 years ago.

But still these series have seen an overhaul from time to time. The great Super Mario 64 brought the series for the first time into a 3D environment, shaking up and changing the way we play Mario, a change that still lingers today with titles like Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2.

There is little in the 3D Mario games that remind me of the original Super Mario Brothers. except for the plot and characters of the games.


Old school Vs. New school

The Zelda series experienced something similar with Ocarina of Time, shifting from the top down perspective and exploration element to a more story driven 3D experience

But I do think Nintendo realized that there were a market for old school games, having released New Super Mario Brothers. on their handhelds, then later porting it to their flagship console Wii and later Wii U. And even the handheld Zelda games (espcially the GBA games Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons) acts as throwbacks to a simpler time.

But things change over time...

Sega, who were a direct competitor to Nintendo back in the 16 bit era, had to withdraw from the console market with the commercial failure of the Sega Dreamcast. After the death of their console efforts,
they tried desperately to keep their intellectual properties relevant, something that resulted in a series of crappy Sonic games that near on killed the franchise. It wasn't before the recent Sonic Generations things finally started to look up for Sega.

Midway filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Acclaim was rendered defunct in 2004. And recently Atari, after several years of hardship, trying a last ditch effort to save their brand.

These brands will have a hard time bringing their series back, or releasing game collections that newcomers will be willing to buy, due to their financial problems. And we all know that playing the old games on newer systems aren't the same thing as playing them on the old school consoles

So where am I going with all of this. Oh yeah, I remember. What about the games of old? What will happen with them when people stop playing them?

Will the Retro games of today one day be replaced by the "Current games", Will New Super Mario Brothers 2 replace Super Mario Brothers 3?, Will Skyward Sword replace A Link to the Past?

And what will happen to the retro games that have no counterpart in today's market? Will we be able to visit them in the museum or will they just pass out of all memory and time?


Will games like Street Fighter II end up being museum pieces?

Well hopefully, All that won't happen. and I'll tell you how we can stop just that from happening

My dad have been my gateway into the music that I like. Through him I've learned about bands like Deep Purple, AC/DC, Pink Floyd to name a few. And so my "horizons" when it comes to music have been broadened. I appreciate new music as well as "old" music, And I don't think I would have taken the time to sit down and listen to the "old music" if it weren't for my dad being willing to open that door for me.

And I believe that the way we can preserve the cultural heritage of games, is to act as that gateway for the gamers of tomorrow, when they ask us which games we played when we were kids, let's show them Old School Mario, or Zelda, Let's show them Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat

I've even gotten a head start at this, collecting old school consoles and games. so that when my son grows up, he'll at least have the opportunity to experience the games that made his father the gamer he is today

And so we can save our collective retro game heritage from extinction