Search This Blog

11 Apr 2016

Rumour: Zelda U has some suprises in store for fans of the series

Next game in the series to be available on Wii U and NX; will allow players to choose between male and female versions of Link

Nintendo have been keeping the latest Zelda game firmly under wraps, offering gamers only the briefest of glimpses of the title since it was announced. We know from comments offered by series' producer Eiji Aonuma that this will be one of the most ambitious entries in the series to date, complete with an expansive, open world for players to scamper around in. This won't be the first time a Zelda game has featured an open-world, but from what we can glean, Zelda U will be the first 3D entry in the franchise to offer up the kind of open, interconnected sandbox one would expect from a modern open-world game.

According to Twitter user Emily Rogers, this won't be the only one of the game's innovations. In a first for the long-running franchise, Emily says players will be able to select Link's gender. Aside from their sex, players will also have a choice of which system to play the game on, as the rumour suggests Zelda U will span generations, appearing on the Wii U as well as its successor, NX.

One tradition that won't be broken is Link's stoic and silent demeanour. While Link will remain tight-lipped, however, Emily claims that the rest of the game's cast will be fully voiced.

To lend further weight to these rumours, Nintendo World Report's Neil Ronaghan took to Twitter to confirm that he was hearing similiar chatter from other sources close to Nintendo.

This isn't the first time the prospect of  a lady Link has grabbed the headlines. There were murmurs of her existence when footage from the game first debuted, with many people claiming that the Link seen in the clip was female. These rumours were quickly quashed by Nintendo, but -if what Emily's saying turns out to be true- the Big N may have taken note of people's interest in seeing a female Link and adjusted the game accordingly.

We'll have to wait and see if there's any truth to what's being said, but given Nintendo's recent push for inclusivity in their games, we would not be at all surprised if these rumours turned out to be true. Historically, Link has always been sort of a cipher, the player's link (geddit) to the game, so letting players decide whether they want to play as a male or female seems like a natural step.

6 Apr 2016

Gears of War 4 to launch worldwide on October 11th

A sight for saw eyes

The most testosterone-fueled third-person shooter in gaming will return on October 11, it has been revealed.



In a post at gaming site Xbox Wire, Coalition's Community Director, Adam Fletcher, unveiled Gears of War 4's release date, almost a year on from its initial reveal at E3.

Taking place after the original quadrilogy, Gears of War 4 puts players in control of JD Fenix, son of the original game's Marcus, who -judging by the attached image- has inherited his pop's penchant for glowy-blue lights and gun-mounted chainsaws.

Reportedly, the fourth proper entry in the Gears saga will move away from the widescreen bombast of the last few games, opting for a more intense and atmospheric campaign, a la the original.

We'll have to wait a little longer to see how that campaign is shaping up, but, in the meantime, players can sample the game's multiplayer for themselves when the beta gets underway later this April.

If you want to get in the action early, you'll need to have played Gears of War: Ultimate Edition on either Xbox One or PC. Everyone else can take part on April 25th, provided they are an Xbox Live Gold subscriber.

Quantum Break has a hearty surprise for PC players

Not the patch you are looking for...

Quantum Break has a jolly surprise in store for players it thinks may be pirating the game.



A member of popular online forum Reddit, discovered that you don't even have to be playing a cracked copy to get your hands on this pirate get-up - simply boot up your copy after logging out of the Windows Store and you'll trigger a costume swap.  Upon loading your game, you'll see Jack Joyce is now wearing a rather fetching eye-patch complete with a Jolly Roger symbol.

As far as we're aware, no one has actually managed to actually pirate the game, which makes use of the improved Denuvo digital security, a new form of DRM that, so far, has resisted all attempts to crack it.

This, of course, isn't the first time Remedy have singled out sticky-fingered gamers for pirating their wares - their previous game, Alan Wake, also had the same feature.



It's a nice inclusion, but probably not the kind of patch PC gamers are clamoring for. Since it released a couple of days ago, angry PC gamers have been inundating Remedy and Microsoft with complaints over the state of Quantum Break's PC port. Reports suggest the game is buggy, riddled with performance issues and lacking in basic features; you can't even quit the game from the menu.

All in all, it sounds like a far cry from the PC port of Alan Wake, which was quite a substantial improvement over its Xbox 360 cousin.






4 Apr 2016

Dark Souls III review round-up

Soul survivor



Dark Souls III, the final game in From Software's brutally engaging and engagingly brutal Souls series, is finally upon us. Before we gird our collective loins and head once more unto the breach on April 12th, let's take a look at what the gaming press are saying about the end to one of gaming's most popular trilogies. Is it a triumphant swansong, or has repetition finally dulled the series' keen edge?

Given that this is the third time (fifth, if you count Demon's Souls and Bloodborne) From Software has whipped up a Souls game, one would expect them to have the formula down pat. So far, it's looking like they have delivered, with the game sitting on a whopping score of 90 (PS4 version) on Metacritic. It's early days, but for the moment that makes it the highest rated game released so far this year.

At the top of the pile we have a quartet of perfect scores. Gaming site Meristation claims that Dark Souls III "reaches pure perfection", the Telegraph praised the third chapter in the saga for its staunch refusal to bow to popular demand, while Twinfinite called it a "fantastic, no-holds-barred" experience.

IGN awarded the game 9.5 out of 10, calling it a worthy send-off, and Eurogamer labelled it an essential purchase. Of the bigger sites, the outlier seems to be Polygon, who gave DSIII 7 out of 10, currently its lowest score. While the reviewer acknowledges that Dark Souls III remains as gripping an experience as ever, they deducted points for the game's reliance on familiar ideas and mechanics, and some troubling performance problems.

I'm not sure Souls fans needed much convincing, but its good to see that From Software's latest getting such rave reviews. So far, 2016 is shaping it to be a hell of year for gamers and it'll be interesting to see where Dark Souls III ranks once all the dust has settled. As for me, I can't wait to get my hands on this one and see what surprises Lothric has in store.

1 Apr 2016

Batman v Superman movie review

Overlong Dark Knight of the soul 

 

 


Billed as the greatest gladiator bout in history, Batman v Superman is a film that carries no small amount of expectation. Though these comic book titans have been sharing panels since the ‘50s, the two have never appeared alongside one another on film, so the prospect of the Caped Crusader and the Man of Steel sharing top-billing in a multi-million dollar mega-movie is the kind of thing fanboys and girls’ dreams are made of. Sadly, what should have been a energetic, knockabout romp is a leaden, portentous slog, that (outside of a handful of promising scenes) is far from super and recasts two of pop-culture's greatest icons as a pair of unlikeable and apathetic sociopaths.

Zack Synder’s second attempt to bring the DC universe to the world of film starts out promisingly enough, opening with a sequence that bridges the gap between Batman v Superman and Man of Steel. It’s here that we are introduced to Bruce Wayne, billionaire playboy by day and brutal vigilante by night, as he scrabbles around attempting to save his employees from the disaster caused by Superman and General Zod’s superpowered smackdown in the skies above Metropolis. It’s not the first time Bruce has been unable to do nothing but look on, powerless, as those he cares about are brutally taken away from him. This time, however, Bruce can direct his rage at the one responsible: Superman. Thus begins a quest to conquer this extraterrestrial threat and stop him from potentially destroying the human race.

It’s an effective sequence, not only because it brilliantly evokes the same tragedy that led to Bruce becoming Batman, but because it so effortlessly sets up this conflict between these two legendary heroes. It’s a shame then that the film loses focus so quickly, shifting into a series of strained subplots that go nowhere and eat up over half the film’s running time. To begin with, we are introduced to Lex Luthor, a febrile fop who is more impish than intimidating, as he attempts to lay his hands on Kryptonite with the help of Holly Hunter’s US senator; Lois Lane is running around trying to unravel a plot to demonise Superman, while Supes himself is questioning whether or not we ungrateful humans deserve his help.

All the while Batman is chasing leads, and taking prophetic naps that seem to serve little purpose other than to plug DC’s upcoming movies and further strain the viewer’s patience. This is how the film unfolds for the first hour and a half, hopping clunkily from one uninteresting scene to the next. Whenever it it seems like the film is about to switch gears and finally get to the action, it suddenly stalls, taking an almost perverse pleasure in drawing out Batman and Superman’s eventual battle.

When the two come face-to-face for the first time (in costume, that is) - following a curiously weightless and unexciting chase sequence - the film stumbles, feeling less like a precursor to a battle for the ages and more like two sneering bullies trading insults on the playground. It’s odd to see these characters, especially Superman, acting so antagonistically; there’s no attempt, by either party, to discover each other's motives or reach an understanding, they just glare at one another, go their separate ways and leave the viewer staring down the barrel of yet another dream sequence (seriously, this film has a lot dreams sequences) or perfunctory subplot.

In fact, the film spends so much of its running time skirting around Batman and Superman’s title bout that by the time they finally do cross capes it’s difficult to remember why they were fighting to begin with. It doesn’t help that the filmmakers can never come up with a compelling reason for them to finally lock horns and duke it out to the death. For all its lofty ideas about men and gods and power and responsibility, these numerous threads are left hanging and it falls to Lex Luthor to get things started, which he does -rather unimaginatively- by kidnapping one of our hero’s loved ones. If getting Superman and Batman to tear each other's throats out was this simple, one has to wonder what all the portentous plotting and agonised introspection that comprise the film’s first half was really for.

In a way, I almost admire Snyder and Terrio’s ambition to craft a more somber and thoughtful superhero film. They touch upon some interesting ideas, attempting to address how a being like Superman would be received in a world a fearful and paranoid as ours. Sadly, like most things in this film, these ideas are never given room to breathe, they are simply there to add a patina of pretension to a film which is otherwise aggressively dumb. By the time the third act rolls around, they’re not even pretending any more, the film devolving into a numbing procession of apocalyptic set-pieces and CGI overkill.

To make matters worse, the film does a huge disservice to both Batman and Superman, getting their characters wrong on a completely fundamental level. Historically, Batman has relied more on his wits than his strength; his superpower being his uncanny ability to find a solution to any problem. Snyder’s Batman is almost the opposite, a jackbooted hooligan who acts without thinking. This is a Batman who kills without remorse, blows up bad guys with machine guns, and almost turns Superman into a Kryptonite shishkabob.

The idea of a gun-toting, murder-happy Batman may be antithetical to most people’s perception of the character, but, honestly, I’m not completely against it. There’s drama to be had in a Batman who realises that to save the world he must go against everything he believes in and break his one inviolable rule. The problem is the filmmakers never really address this, they never offer a compelling reason for why Batman has abandoned his code and given into the dark side. Sure, there’s an inference that this Batman has been pushed over the edge, his sense of honour decaying along with the world around him, but it never manifests in any tangible way; he just murders and mutilates without a flicker of remorse.

The real shame is that on a visceral level - the look, the physicality, the sheer menace - this is the closest a filmmaker has come to capturing the Batman of the comics onscreen. The sequence in which he savagely, and systematically, chews through a room full of armed mercs is a real highpoint. It’s just a shame the sequence ends with Batman blowing one of the baddies away with a light machine gun before dropping a one-liner. There is a sliver of hope at the end of the film when Batman - in probably the closest thing this film has to an actual character arc - realises he has lost sight of his mission, vowing to follow Supes’ example and become a better (bat)man.

Still, at least Batman makes an impression, something which can’t be said for Superman. For much of the movie the last son of Krypton flaps around with a moue of disappointment on his chiselled face, agonising over whether or not to carry on swooping around the globe saving people. At least, I think he’s agonising; this version of the character is so diffident and phlegmatic it’s difficult to be completely certain. The crux of the problem is that the movie can never quite decide what Supes’ role is: are we supposed to feel sorry for him, is he supposed to be the villain of the piece, or is he a reluctant saviour? It’s never made clear, and as a result the character feels more like a plot device than an actual person.

For all my complaining, the movie does contain fleeting moments of brilliance - the title fight (though not as inventive as it could have been) is a bone-jarring slugout that ends with a clever if contrived, twist; Ben Affleck’s steely, understated performance is great, and Snyder’s eye for imagery gives the film a sense of visual sophistication far beyond most superhero movies. Ultimately, however, the experience is too dour, too depressing and too prosaic to recommend. It may not be the worst superhero movie ever made, but you’d have to go a long way to find one more disappointing.

My only hope is that WB and Snyder use the reactions to this film to rethink how they plan to approach the DC cinematic universe as they move toward Justice League. Hopefully, going forward, this will mean we get stories tailored to the strengths and weaknesses of these characters, not reactionary, tonally jarring movies that misrepresent them completely. Part of the problem is this specious argument that the DC universe is grim and gritty, the complete inverse of Marvel and their snappy superhero epics. Anyone who’s followed the company for a few years can tell you that couldn’t be further from the truth - just like Marvel, it’s a rich and diverse place, with heart and humour amongst all that grit and grime. So, though being different may be all well and good, if it comes at the expense of what everyone loved about these characters in the first place you’ve got a problem. In the end, we can only hope that BvS is a blip, that awkward first step on the path to something greater.