Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Can Project X compete with PUBG?

Hey Guys, this is actually new and I'm early to commentate on it! Okay, we all know what Player Unknown's Battlegrounds is due to its crazy amount of popularity and concurrent players. Seriously, this game is just killing it. Since I'm a console peasant, I'll have to wait until the Xbox One version of the game releases to be able to get into the action.
Image Provided by Eurogamer

















We got a couple of details from the developer, Automaton, that the game will support 400 players in a Battlegrounds inspired gameplay. There was also a couple of screenshots, but it's nothing special since it doesn't really tell us anything important about the game. These maps are going to be huge (they are aiming for 12km by 12km) in order to accommodate the amount of players on a server.

Okay, I know what most of you are thinking. This is just aiming to be a Battlegrounds clone or merely aiming to profit off of Battlegrounds's success. It's arguable for sure.

If you've been following my blog for a while, you'll know I'm not a fan of big open-world games if there is nothing to do in them. What makes Battlegrounds so different to this exception is that the map decreases over time and you have to explore to get better items and weapons. It gets the adrenaline pumping!

If Project X is too similar to Battlegrounds in this regard besides just being bigger, then it's just a rip-off at that point. According to an IGN article,"In addition to its Battle Royale mode, the MMO will feature dynamic weather, roaming wildlife, social hubs, and a "player-driven" story". The final half of this sentence reminds me of The Division. That's not a good thing. I didn't like Tom Clancy's Pedestrian Simulator. The game has gotten better, but that's besides the point.

The point is, if this game doesn't do something avoid being similar to Battlegrounds then its in trouble. What's the point of being bigger if there's no soul?

Honestly, I'd rather stick to PUBG. I like the idea of 100 players. Anything above that is just too much for me. If you are liking this idea, that's fine. It will be releasing in 2018. Because of the popularity of PUBG, I don't see anyone switching over to Project X any time soon.
Till Next Time!!

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Should you buy the Super Mario Odyssey Nintendo Switch Bundle?

Hey Guys, there was a ton of news from Nintendo Direct. I was planning on talking about how Doom and Wolfenstein 2 were coming to the Switch and having a discussion about how the Nintendo Switch should be considered some serious competition. However, I think it's time to talk about if it's the right time to buy one.
Image Provided by IGN




















Although Nintendo isn't exactly friendly when it comes to content creators, we cannot deny that every game developed by them is pure gold. So far, the console has some damn good exclusives.

Seriously, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is already considered to be one of the greatest games of all time. The recent Mario and Rabbids isn't even developed by Nintendo and is getting some pretty good reviews. How could Super Mario Odyssey be a bad game? There hasn't been a bad Super Mario game in a long time.

This bundle is coming with a game that is going to be good, a pair of red Joy-cons, and a carrying case. If you're on the go, how could you pass up on the offer of a carrying case coming with a bundle like this?

Honestly, the main issue with this bundle or even future Nintendo Switch bundles is that it doesn't come with an SD card. If you're planning on getting as many exclusive games as possible, then you're going to be disappointed with how much room is available on the Switch.

If you just want Super Mario Odyssey by itself, then you can get it on Amazon. You get that discount if you're an Amazon Prime Member after all. Just use this link right here, Super Mario Odyssey - Nintendo Switch.

The bundle will be releasing on October 27th. You can't get it on Amazon at the moment, but keep an eye out as I see these selling out quickly.
Till Next Time!!

Monday, September 11, 2017

PewdiePie vs. Sean Vanaman: My Thoughts

Hey Guys, PewdiePie has once again caused controversy over the internet again. Want to know what he did? While livestreaming some Battlegrounds, he dropped the "N" word. Of course, some people didn't like this one bit while other normal people knew that he was just messing around. Racism isn't the main point of this article as there are arguments on both sides of this. The main point of this article over the actions of Firewatch dev, Sean Vanaman.

Image Provided by Twitter
















I want to make this known that I am not a PewdiePie fan by any stretch of the imagination. It's been a while since I have watched any videos made from him, so I am going to have an opinion on this from the perspective of someone who believes in the first amendment.

While Sean Vanaman was the creator of Firewatch and has the right to refuse to have his products show up in PewdiePie's vidoes, he has no right to use DMCA takedowns on his videos. Do you know what a DMCA takedown can do to a channel? It can lead to the death of a channel! No person deserves to have their channel taken down by bullshit like this unless they are our right stealing content. You know... like reaction channels.

While this particular tweet from Vanaman has a good point in the sense that your words can get yourself incriminated IN A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, I guess what he means that PewdiePie got himself into this situation by saying a racial slur. Using his logic about his steam not being commentary, what about other big steamers? Aren't they technically getting ad growth to their brands? These people have to make a living somehow.

"Our game on his channel= endorsement". What. The. Serious. Fuck. You give 3,000 keys to streamers and you gave one to PewdiePie. This was the same man who you can arguably say contributed to the YouTube adpocalypse. You're telling me you didn't do the same action when this happened? I'm not saying he should have, but as soon as PewdiePie dropped the "N" word he's like "fuck this I'm taking down his Firewatch videos".

Let's be honest, PewdiePie still has the most subscribers on YouTube and still pulls millions of viewers a day. Any game he shows on this channel essentially is being promoted. The fact that Sean Vanaman is bending over the man that helped bring Firewatch to popularity is already a dick move.

Have your own opinions, but when your actions are going to threaten someone's lifestyle-especially one who helped you- then you are no longer deserving of sympathy.
Till Next Time!!

Friday, September 8, 2017

Update: The plan ahead, Destiny 2, and other stuff

Hey Guys, just wanted to make a quick update as my viewership has gone down significantly. I'm not dead, but I have been busy for the past week.

Anyways, September isn't my month for games. I'm not buying Destiny 2 day one. Will I even buy it? Maybe I'll get it once every expansion pack releases for it, but that means that Destiny 3 will be released shortly after that happens. I hear it's better than the original game, but I still don't want to be grinding missions for three hours at a time.

I have the Xbox One X pre-ordered. I never mentioned this, but I had it pre-ordered on the day it was announced for pre-orders. The PS4 Pro is good, but I want to play my multi-platform games on my Xbox One X since they are going to run so much better. Although I don't have a 4K TV yet, the games on it are going to run a lot more smoothly. I'd rather have my games run at 1080p at 60fps than at 4K at 30fps.

After months of hiatus, I decided to go back to Rainbow Six Siege. The game has gotten a lot better over time, but the amount of players who are new to the game are just everywhere! Seriously, I just love this game and it's as good as I remember.

With October coming up, I should be able to post a bit more frequently. When the Xbox One X releases, I'll be sure to have a review for it.
Till Next Time!!

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Rise of the Bots

Hey Guys, anyone over the age of 13 or with a half a brain can tell you what a bot is. Normally, you'd come across them on chat sites or porn sites. However, they have started to make their way towards both Xbox Live and PSN. If you want to see what inspired me to write about this, please read this post.
Image Provided by NeoGaf


















Personally, I have experienced this myself through my Xbox messages. Literally, as soon I saw that stupid phrase saying they were "bored" and "found your name in __" I could tell it was a bot. I wish I had the message of this conversation I had, but I guess the account got deleted or something because I can't find the message.

If you come across one of these bots, please don't give them any kind of information. As a matter of fact, report them if you can. The user in the screenshot made the good choice of asking this account if he knew him/her. The response afterwards makes it obvious that it's a bot.

I'm guessing these bots are trying to get you to go to some cam girl shit. Why people pay for those I have no clue, but people are free to do with whatever they want.

I'm not completely sure because they send you a website that has cam in it. Regardless, they are going to ask you for a credit card to "verify" you are 18 or older. ANYONE with a basic understanding of how the internet works would know this is bullshit and a security risk! I guess they are trying to scam little kids because kids are stupid, but I doubt they are stupid enough to steal their mom's credit card to see some boobs.

The best that could be done is to report these bots or to just ignore them. I have no clue how Microsoft could implement a system that could prevent these accounts from being created, so I guess we'll have to deal with them for some time.

Stay safe on the internet, guys. Please don't give out your credit card information unless it's to a trusted source. If you want to see naked women, just know there are free HD videos on Pornhub.
Till Next Time!!

Monday, August 28, 2017

The Importance of Timing Game Releases

Hey Guys, this is a topic that I feel should be talked about more often because people often overlook the development time for a game and when developers feel is the right time to release games. I recently stumbled upon an interview on Polygon where Shannon Loftis, general manager for Microsoft Studios Publishing, stated, "I think we probably announced Crackdown too early"(Loftis).
Image Provided by DualShockers


















Okay, Crackdown 3 was announced back in June 2014. Literally, over three years at this point. Now, it's being pushed back into "Spring 2018". I say that in quotes because we don't know when in the Spring and we don't know if there is going to be another delay.

The usual development time is about 2 or 3 years. With that in mind, you'd think that Crackdown 3 would be released sometime between 2016 and 2017. However, Crackdown 3 was in very early development when it was announced. Additionally, the Xbox One wasn't even out for a full year at this point and Microsoft was talking about cloud computing...in a multiplayer game.

Cloud computing really hasn't been done before in a multiplayer game let alone on a console that hasn't been on the market for very long, so announcing Crackdown 3 will be utilizing cloud computing technology that early in development is absurd.

At the same time, I guess Microsoft wanted to release more exclusives because the community's main criticism is the lack of Xbox exclusive games. Thus, having people hyped up for Crackdown 3 is needed to keep Xbox users coming back or to have a new audience. However, this could have been announced at either E3 2016 or E3 2017.

It's also a good thing that this isn't being pushed around the holiday season because there are already enough games coming out in Broketober.

At the end of the day, we don't even know if Crackdown 3 is going to be good. For all we know, this could be another disappointment and we'll be talking about how this game was in development for years and how Microsoft has been hyping this game up to be the definitive Xbox exclusive fans have been asking for. Is this game really going to take advantage of the Xbox One X's power? We don't know.

If Microsoft-or at least someone from Microsoft-admitted that Crackdown 3 was announced too early, then you know something is wrong. I guess we can be thankful that they don't want to rush the release. However, let this be a lesson that video games should pick a schedule and stick to it. Don't release a game too early that we need to wait for it to be finished or release a game too late to where it could lead to it being either disappointing or forgotten about.
Till Next Time!!

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Xbox Live: Free Games of September 2017- A halfway decent month...

Hey Guys, I can't believe that August is almost over. I also can't wait until the cold weather starts coming as it's the perfect sign that Broketober is coming! Anyways, the next free batch of games for Xbox Live Gold members have been announced. Let's get down to it.

Image Provided by Major Nelson's Blog


















I've never been a big fan of racing games, but Forza Horizon 3 caught my eye despite the fact that I've never played any of the Forza games. I hear the main difference between the Horizon and Motorsport series is that one is on a race track while the other is not. Although I'd prefer to go into the Horizon series, I'll try out Forza Motorsport 5 to see if I'll get into it. I want to make sure that racing games will catch my interest.

Never heard of Oxenfree. The gameplay style doesn't really capture my interest. I'm sorry, but I just don't like the look of the game.

Hydro Thunder Hurricane. Whoa. That's quite a mouthful. It looks like a typical racing game with boats. I know I said that I'll try Forza Motorsport 5, but at least it has loud engines and wheels. Additionally, I'd imagine the player count is low for the multiplayer aspect and I don't feel like racing AI.

I remember being in love with Battlefield 3 when it first came out. I played the game on console and haven't thought much about it. When it became backwards compatible, I got a chance to replay it. Little did I know that this game aged TERRIBLY. Oh my god, it looks awful on console. How were my eyes able to stand looking at this game on a console!? Please, if you've never played Battlefield 3 on console then don't start now.

That's everything from Xbox. Sorry that I haven't been posting much. I'm doing my best to write as much as possible.
Till Next Time!!

Monday, August 21, 2017

A Response to Tom Marks's Article, "Opinion: Why You Should Stop Focusing On Player Counts So Much"

Hey Guys, I stumbled upon this article a couple of days ago, but I never got a chance to get around to it. I guess now is a good time to talk about it because I think it's a great topic to talk about and it's an article that is pretty controversial. Let's get right into this!

A little backstory, the editor here, Tom Marks is focusing on the release of LawBreakers and how its upsetting him over the amount of players considering it a dead game. Here are some of his points that stick out to me and I'll give you my thoughts on each point.


  • The problem is that most of these people have likely never played the game, but thanks to sites like SteamCharts and the less reliable SteamSpy commenters everywhere can feel empowered to make wide generalizations about the health of any game based on “hard facts.”

*I can see where the author is coming from. Yeah, most people have never played the game because there wasn't a whole lot of promotion done for the game, so unsurprisingly most people haven't even heard of the game. However, SteamCharts is a good indicator as to which games are popular in the Steam community. The last time I checked I didn't even see LawBreakers in the Top Sellers list of Steam 

  • If there are enough people playing LawBreakers that you can quickly find a game every time you play (which, in my experience, there are) why does it matter to the people playing it what the size of the player base is?
*I really hate doing this, but I have no other choice. I love to illustrate my points. 
If you don't believe me, you can check out the stats on SteamCharts











The game can hold 10 players per lobby. Additionally, it's not taking into account the amount of players in certain servers, so it's going to take a while to find a match that has players. Must I also add the amount of players in a certain gamemode? What about the game trying to place other players in similar skill levels? I'm not sure if it does that, but either way it's going to take a while to find players.

"Why does it matter to the people playing it what the size of the player base is?" Well, if the player count is too low then how long until these remaining players get bored of the game and move on? 
  • "It’s frustrating to see as someone who genuinely enjoys the game, and I imagine downright demoralizing for the developers."
*Okay, this is a valid point. However, I take more sympathy for the developers because you can tell they poured their heart and soul into the game. Let alone the amount of time it took to program this game as well as coming up with the design of the game.

If you had people shit all over your piece of art-yes I consider video games a work of art-then you would be pissed off or even saddened. 

The players on the other hand can simply ignore other people on the internet and continue playing the game. Do you really think fans of Call of Duty care about the haters of the game? Obviously not because the series still sells like hot cakes. The developers can do it as well, but there are people who do give them constructive criticism over the game, so they have to look at the amount of players talking about their games.
  • "So my question to the doomsayers is this: Why do you care? Why does declaring a game dead before you even know what it’s like to play add anything of value to the conversation? You’re not the first to say it, you won’t be the last, and you are usually dead wrong."
*I'll tell you why I care. If I see that player counts are low on a game I may buy, then why would I buy a video game with barely anyone playing it? I don't even care if the game is good or not!

Remember Titanfall? Both games were great, but the first game suffered due to its lack of appeal. I remember the player count was high the first week, but it dipped off shortly after. Now, it's practically a ghost town as most people moved on to different games or Titanfall 2.

I would pull out some more of his statements, but I would keep repeating myself. I have nothing against the author. His heart was in the right place, but I just didn't agree with him. Furthermore, his final statement is counter intuitive to the existence of this article. Low player counts will always hurt a game because people will naturally move on to something more popular.

LawBreakers looks like a fun game, but if it stuck to being free-to-play and was released on more platforms then the population of the game would be much higher!

LawBreakers is dying. It's not a dead game...yet.
Till Next Time!!

Friday, August 18, 2017

Overwatch Toxicity 2

Hey Guys, I previously made a post about Overwatch toxicity. However, I focused more on players who criticized each other in the most disrespectful ways possible rather than providing constructive criticism. I didn't even think to mention something as equally important: Throwers.

I tend to play the game in solo queue because I don't have a flexible enough schedule to be grouping up with people. If you group up with people in a six stack, you are less likely to encounter throwers. Assuming that you are grouping up with people you can trust. Anyways, you are a lot more likely to encounter throwers when you solo queue compared to grouping up with five other people.

The amount of throwers I encounter on a daily basis is absolutely ridiculous. I normally play about two matches a day sometimes more if I'm feeling lucky. However, there is at least one thrower on my team or the other team. Usually some smurf account or regular person playing Hanzo, Widowmaker, attack Torb, attack Bastion, and attack Symmetra.

They are not bad characters, but the amount of people who pick them to throw makes it seem like they are bad! I have seen good attack Basions, Torbs, and Hanzos, but they are incredibly difficult to come by especially in Diamond.

You know that feeling someone is going to throw if they switch from a support or tank to Hanzo. It's practically a meme at this point, but there is no sign of slowing down.

Regardless, people should not be picking characters they are not good at or think they're good at. Otherwise, these players aren't going to do much for the team. It's especially aggravating if they refuse to either switch to a hero they are good at or to a healer. However, it keeps happening.

None of this compares to someone switching to a "throw" character if your team looks like they are about to lose. Seriously, do people not understand there is a thing called snowballing? If you don't know what I mean, snowballing refers to saving up your ultimates and timing them to get as many kills as possible. Additionally, there is always a chance of making a comeback, so what's the point of throwing?

You guys get my point. Throwing is one of the worst things you can do in a competitive match.

Yes, these players can be reported, but I play Overwatch on console. PC players can report toxic teammates, but console players can't do it just yet.

Additionally, what's going to stop them from creating a smurf account and throw games on purpose or to "practice" heroes they won't play on their main account, so they don't ruin their stats? Not saying there is anything wrong with smurf accounts, but there are players who go on a losing streak with them and decide to throw every game they get into afterwards.

We can agree that throwing is a problem. I honestly wish that there was a solution to solve this. However, it seems that no matter how harsh the punishments get throwing is always going to be a problem.
Till Next Time!!

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Is there room for Gearbox's new game?

Hey Guys, just this morning I received an e-mail from Gearbox Software about testing a brand new game they are currently developing. I'm sure everyone who registered with Gearbox Software from playing Borderlands probably got the same e-mail. Anyways, I read the e-mail to see what it's about and asked myself one question: How will this gain a following?

Image Provided by Project 1v1

















This might be irrelevant, but I laughed my ass off when Gearbox called this "top-secret". I literally found articles about it this morning. Yeah, it's not top-secret anymore now is it? Not that it would matter because I'm sure most people wouldn't care too much about it.

Gearbox describes the game as a, "competitive first-person shooter that combines the action of fast-paced 1v1 first-person combat with the metagame strategy of a collectible card game"(Gearbox).

While it may sound like a cool idea, this isn't very appealing. Card games are already becoming too crowded. Magic: The Gathering, Gwent, Heartstone, and even Valve is coming out with a card game. You get the idea. The only difference is that Gearbox is incorporating first person shooter elements with possibly a Titanfall-like card element.

Remember Battleborn? Yeah, that's going free-to-play soon or it's probably free-to-play already and I just don't know about it yet. The point is the game was not successful because Overwatch just blew it out of the water. The game was dead on arrival. With the over saturation of card games I can already see the same fate for Project 1v1. I don't want the game to fail, but I'm just being realistic because I know for one that I won't be touching this game.

I'm going to be brutally honest, we all want Borderlands 3 from Gearbox. They did confirm it's in development, but that's all we want! I hate to say something like this, but it has to be said because we've been waiting for 5 years to get Borderlands 3. Gearbox should be focused on Borderlands 3's development to make sure it delivers rather than trying to release these games in between that aren't going to perform.

At the end of the day, Gearbox is a company that provides software to its customers to make a profit. Who am I to judge them for their choices? However, it's still not going to stop me from just saying it how it is.
Till Next Time!!