Talkin' About Games Reviews: Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor

Shadow of Mordor is a third person action title developed by Monolith. It takes place between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Some people have been put off by the game considering it uses a character and explores some concepts that weren't included by Tolkien and his son. But regardless of your personal feelings on whether or not Shadow of Mordor has a place in Tolkien lore what's presented to the player is a solid action title that can definitely stand on its own.

Review Criteria

I completed the main story of the game within 20 hours while taking plenty of detours for side missions. Discovered every collectible, elevated all of Talion's weapons to Legendary and dominated every warchief in both regions of the game. The game was played on PC with an Xbox 360 controller on Ultra graphics settings.

Story: 7/10

Shadow of Mordor's story won't be winning any awards. It is a tried and true tale of revenge and is pretty unapologetic about that fact. Talion's family gets murdered, as does he. Due to some dark ritual that took place during his death he has found himself bonded to the soul of an elf-wraith which, in addition to preventing him from dying, is giving him some pretty cool powers. Now he and the elf are moving around Mordor, murdering orcs and trying to get revenge on The Black Hand of Sauron who murdered Talion's family. There are some neat sequences within the story such as the tutorial giving players a glimpse of Talion's life before all of these terrible things happened to him. But other than that the story, while decent enough, is pretty predictable. The ending of the game did make me very excited for the potential sequel though, which works heavily in the title's favor.

Gameplay: 9/10

Shadow of Mordor has been criticized for essentially being a clone of Arkham Asylum mixed with Assassin's Creed. This is not a bad thing. The gameplay is all stuff some gamers may have seen before but it's solid and fun. The game does suffer from some issues of abilities that are completely useless (Brace of Daggers) and some that effectively turn you into a god (Shadow Strike Combos) but even with these few issues combat is still incredibly fun and polished and that is what counts. Jumping into the middle of a huge group of orcs and executing every single one of them is fun. Wandering around a stronghold, turning a large number of orcs to your side and turning them all on the Warchief making camp there is fun. Riding a caragor through the plains of Mordor while firing your bow and leaping from it to tackle an orc is fun. Everything about the game's combat and movement is just a treat. On top of that battles require the player's full attention in order for them to succeed. The player will often find themselves outnumbered and Talion can't take many hits before he goes down. This helps make every large-scale encounter really feel like life or death and helps add to the tension, especially when a Captain or Warchief enters the fray. The Nemesis System is incredibly interesting as well. As you kill important orcs others will rise and fill the power vacuum you have left, even ones that have killed you. Some orcs might cheat death and return to seek revenge on you. You will even have your own hand-picked pet orcs climb the ranks to become Warchiefs themselves. The system adds an interesting twist to what would otherwise be a mundane task of hunting orcs, really making the player feel invested in this weird power struggle within Mordor.

Graphics: 8/10

Shadow of Mordor is an absolutely beautiful looking game marred by some minor technical issues. I did encounter some issues of corpses sinking into the ground. Talion's face can look kind of odd at times and some of the textures on the orcs can be questionable. But these are all pretty minor concerns. Mordor manages to look lush and rich in some areas, which is a welcome change from the stark brown that we only saw in the films. The world feels alive with flocks of birds moving through the sky, caragors roaming the wastes, well made foliage and bats flying out of caves as you leave them. Minor touches the team has added ranging from Talion occasionally wiping his sword on his cloak and the expressions on the faces of Orcs as they are defeated and beheaded add a bit of charm to the world as well. What I feel deserves special recognition is the elf-wraith. His model in particular looks amazing and seeing him in the wraith world is just as beautiful as it is spooky.

Sound: 7/10

The game has a pretty decent soundtrack, though it won't be winning any awards. The music is fitting with the areas you are in and the score during combat does feel exciting but I couldn't for the life of me remember the tunes that played. There are some satisfying sound effects like Talion's sword whirling through the air. The voice acting is great as well with Talion's voice actor giving a believable performance but the elf-wraith's performance ultimately outshines every other. The biggest issue players will probably notice is that a lot of the orc dialogue will start to repeat itself when they've gotten well into the game. This can be annoying to some and there were quite a few times where I wanted a Captain to get over his spiel so I could fight him. But it's just an issue that pops up after killing tons of orcs I guess.

The Bottom Line: 8/10

Shadow of Mordor, while short, is an incredibly fun and well-made game. Combat is entertaining throughout the entire game and while the story isn't very impressive the gameplay alone is more than enough to keep players coming back for more. Definitely at least worth a rental if you're strapped for cash and can't commit to purchasing it. But if you have the cash it's definitely a title worth owning and replaying.

Which MOBA is Right for You? DOTA 2!

Welcome back! After looking at League of Legends I felt it was only fair to look at its number one competitor, DOTA 2.

DOTA 2 is touted as the "true sequel" to the Warcraft 3 mod Defense of the Ancients that League of Legends is also based on. And to keep that identity it has kept a key mechanic that League of Legends decided to do away with. In DOTA 2 you have the option of executing your own minions to keep opposing players from obtaining gold. This concept of "denying" is but one of the many features that helps DOTA 2 carve out its own identity when compared to the ever popular LoL. That's not to say that DOTA 2 isn't popular though. The International Championship was just shown on ESPN recently and it had one of the largest prize pools in the history of competitive gaming.

Just like League of Legends DOTA 2 can have games that can average roughly 40 minutes. But unlike League of Legends you cannot surrender and must play every game through until the end, unless another player leaves the game due to connection issues or frustration. At that point you may leave the game without penalty. Some take issue with this while others argue that no game of DOTA 2 is every truly over until a player sees 'Victory' on their screen. What side of the fence you fall on can only be determined after playing a few (hundred) games.

So you might be asking: Why should (or shouldn't you) play DOTA 2?

You Should Play DOTA 2 If:

You are a MOBA veteran!

I'll spell it out plain and simple here: DOTA 2 can be a really hard game to pick up. This may be why many people choose to avoid it. Every character is available from the start, there's tons of items that only truly become valuable when you activate them in the midst of combat and you will lose the Gold that you use to acquire these items if a player kills you. Death has a real weight in DOTA 2 and some players even feel punished for dying. Because of these factors I would not recommend DOTA 2 to a new MOBA player. However, there's a lot for veteran players to love. The heavy reliance on activated items really sets apart the truly skilled players from the others. Those that know how their items work and when to use them will win fights more often than not. The deny system also rewards players for paying attention to their minions and towers and for knowing when a particular thing is beyond hope. There's also no way to teleport back to base without buying an item like in other titles. Instead you need to have a Courier (that can be killed) bring you items. So veterans that know how to sustain themselves well throughout the game will be rewarded while those that rush in foolishly will most likely be punished,

You want a large cast of varied and unique characters!

One complaint I hear a lot about League of Legends is that characters aren't varied enough. While I can't attest to whether or not that's true I can tell you that is definitely not the case with DOTA 2. The whole cast is rich and varied, not only in design but in abilities as well. Would you like to play as Juggernaut and slash your way through large groups of enemies while being invincible? Would you like to be Necrophos and have your very presence hurt your enemies before you execute them? There's tons of possibilities! And there's tons of ways to play them too. Every character has guides written by other players and you can filter them in-game to know the best items to buy and the best order to get your skills in. It's great!

You want a friendlier* community!

*Now the community in DOTA 2 isn't great by any means. But out of every MOBA I'll be listing it is the one that had the most enjoyable community. There will be plenty of occasions where you're insulted and where you'll meet players that will intentionally die. No worries there. But DOTA 2's addition of in-game voice chat has opened up a ton of opportunities. The second I speak into a mic other players will speak up and a sort of camaraderie is formed. We coordinate better, we laugh, we even give advice that is constructive and not hateful. I can easily say that the games where I have spoken up have all been far more enjoyable than those where I haven't. So if you hop into a game of DOTA 2 then speak up. Chances are you'll find a new friend.

You Shouldn't Play DOTA 2 If:

You know when it's over and actually want to do something about it.

The lack of a surrender button is a cause for concern. There have been plenty of games I've played where we were losing terribly either because our team was playing poorly or someone on our team was intentionally trying to make us lose. Sometimes the enemy team simply won't want to end the game. And there's nothing you can do about it. You just have to wait. Some people are fine with this but there is a concern when fun stops being a factor and you just want the game to end so you can hopefully have fun next game.

You want players to actually finish the game.

DOTA 2 is also the game where that I saw had the highest volume of players to leave games. Players would usually leave if our team was doing poorly. Now you can safely leave the game without penalty if someone else has left. But that takes 5 minutes of them being out of the game or them actually hitting the button that disconnects them from the match entirely. Now most leavers will just leave and after five minutes you can leave as well with no penalty. But if they have a bad connection and keep dropping in and out then you can't leave until a full 5 minutes of them actually being disconnected elapses. This can be rough and has annoyed me on more than a few occasions. I wish I could think of a better system for them to implement but I honestly can't.

You don't like some overly complicated characters.

DOTA 2 has some characters that seem needlessly complicated for a MOBA. The most common one that is complained about is Invoker, a character that requires you to combine elements via specific button combinations in-game in order to cast his spells. DOTA 2 also has a lot of characters that only seem suitable for facing certain teams. Anti-Mage and Silencer are great if your enemy team has mages but they don't really perform as well if the enemy team doesn't meet that requirement. DOTA 2 definitely has more characters that are designed to fill certain niches. That isn't to say all of its characters are like this. But if a player accidentally picks one of these heroes when the conditions for them to perform well aren't met then it's likely that that player will not do well or enjoy themselves.

And That's a Wrap!

Well guys that's my look at DOTA 2. I apologize that I haven't gotten every article out within a week but this has taken far longer than I expected. I hope you'll keep coming back to find out which MOBA is right for you!

Which MOBA is Right for You? League of Legends!

We couldn't really start this series without starting with the most popular MOBA out there. Odds are that if you have friends that play video games then at least one of them play League of Legends.

League of Legends is one of the MOBAs that follows the standard format set by the Warcraft 3 mod Defense of the Ancients. There are three lanes constantly spawning enemies (or creeps) and a jungle full of enemies. Both teams of five players try to push up the lanes and destroy the enemy turrets and, ultimately, their base. Whichever team destroys the enemy base first wins.

Each player picks one character and boy are there a lot to choose from! League of Legends is sitting around 120 characters now with plenty more on the way. This would normally seem daunting to new players but when you just start out your character selection is restricted somewhat. There is a small portion of the roster available for "Free" each week. The rest of the roster is locked unless you buy them with in-game money, which you get by playing matches, or by paying actual money for a different in-game currency. If you like a character you played during their free week but don't have the in-game money to buy them by the end you'll either have to pay real money to keep playing as them or wait until you can get enough in-game currency. Some people see it as a way to force people to spend money. Others see it as Riot limiting selections so that people don't get overwhelmed by the sheer number of champions. It's really your call on what you see it as.


Games can be pretty lengthy, averaging 40 minutes. So it's definitely not the kind of game where you can expect to get a quick one in before you go to work. But honestly the game length doesn't impact the fun factor that can be had from this game. But now let's get into the meat of the discussion: Why should you (or shouldn't you) play League of Legends?

You Should Play League of Legends If:

You are new to MOBAs! 

League of Legends is by far the easiest MOBA to pick up out of all the ones I'll be covering. A pretty well done tutorial is presented to the player at the start of the game. Players also have the option to play matches against the computer to perfect their skills, but every other MOBA I will be looking at offers that as well. Probably one of the biggest boons for LoL is that it has the largest number of characters that are easy to pick up and play. Most characters don't deviate from the standard four abilities and one passive layout. On top of that it's very easy to transition between characters. A good Ashe player should be able to pick up one of her other damage dealing counterparts, Caitlyn. This holds true for a lot of League's characters so the player should be able to build a good stock of champions to play very quickly. This isn't to say that there aren't some complicated characters, but a new player is more likely to play a less complicated character if they simply pick based on looks or at random.

You want to find matches quickly!

League is afforded many advantages by being the most popular MOBA out there. ANd one of those advantages is a very short queue time. Waiting more than a minute to find matches is a very rare occurrence. So if you're looking to get into games quickly and don't want to wait then LoL is going to give you the quickest transitions from menu to play that you could hope for.

You Should Not Play League of Legends If:

You want to make new friends!

Out of all of the MOBAs I've played on this list LoL easily takes the cake as the one with the most hostile community. It unfortunately doesn't help even if you are a low level player considering a lot of veteran players will make second accounts to artificially increase their win percentage. But even moreso it seems as though your average LoL random is hostile right out of the gate. Players will berate you for not doing well, berate you for doing well if they consider the kills you got "theirs" and sometimes simply berate you to make themselves feel better. It's a tough community to get along with and there have been many newer players I've tried to get in the game that have left simply because of the community. But if you have a thick skin when it comes to people on the internet and/or a lot of friends that already play you can potentially just ignore the toxic players and keep on going. other times they'll go out of their way to ruin your game for you. It varies.

You don't want to "pay" for stat boosts!

This is actually the one area I take issue with the most in LoL and that's the Rune system. There are two ways to customize your characters. You can use masteries, which are trees of different ability buffs. Points are rewarded to you as you level up and once your account hits level 30 you can invest all of the points you wish to customize your hero. 

The other way is runes. Runes can only be acquired by spending IP, the currency that is given to you after simply playing games. You can spend IP to purchase runes and further add boosts to your character. For some people this is great. But to me it seems pretty flawed. See, you can also buy Boosts which will give you more IP after finishing matches. These you can only get with real money. Say you really want to buy a character. Great. But you won't be able to maximize that character's full potential unless you buy runes with that same IP. So you either need to invest more time into the game to get runes or simply pay money to spend less time getting runes. This presents the problem that players who have runes, regardless of the way they got them, have an inherent advantage over other players. Add to that the fact that some runes are rather expensive (some costing as much as a single character) and that there are lots of "junk runes," runes that are useless, and you find a bit of a problem. New players won't know which runes are junk and which aren't, so they can end up spending IP on something that is pretty bad. Throw on top of that the fact that players only get a limited number of rune pages and the only way you can buy them is with a ton of IP (more than any single character) or money and there's a recipe for a system that masquerades as something free but encourages the player to invest money into it to maximize their gains faster. I feel it imbalances the game on not only a monetary level but on a mechanical level as well and the fact that a lot of other MOBAs forgo any systems similar to this entirely is a big tell for me.

And that's a wrap!

Well guys that's my look at League of Legends! Stay tuned to take a peek at some other great MOBAs in the coming days. Hopefully I can help you all find which MOBA is right for you.

Which MOBA is Right for You?

Sorry about the lack of activity recently. But a lot of it has to do with this post!

It's no secret that the MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena if you were curious) is one of the hottest genres of gaming out there right now. This has obviously led to a huge amount of MOBAs being produced in recent years. There are so many that it's hard to know where to begin!

While it is very important to play games that your friends also play we won't be taking that into account with this next series of posts. Over the course of the next week I'll be taking a look at four of the most popular MOBAs out there. Strengths, weaknesses, communities, styles of gameplay, etc. I'll be touching on everything I can about them. Hopefully, by the end of this series you readers will be able to use this little guide to find a MOBA you truly enjoy. Maybe it's the game you already play. Maybe it'll be a new MOBA I've touched on that you'll try and fall in love with. Or maybe it won't be any of them at all. Regardless I hope this series helps you all to find the MOBAs that are, or aren't, for you!

No Need to Import Save States! Praising the Keep.

It's no secret to anyone following the gaming press that Dragon Age: Inquisition is one of the most anticipated games of the year. After the lackluster performance of Dragon Age II (which I really did like) people seem poised to either see Bioware bring those fans back to the fold or to see them fail on a truly massive scale. Inquisition has a lot riding on it and a lot has been promised. But the question is: will Bioware live up to those promises? I think they have the potential to and that they're heading in a good direction with the title right now. I'm a very huge fan of one of the features they had announced early on in development.

Dragon Age Keep is going to be a new feature that integrates with every copy of Inquisition on every platform. It will ensure the player can construct save states that they are comfortable with to ensure that their Inquisition experience shows events that pertain to exactly what they chose in all of the other Dragon Age games. The Keep will make it so that no matter what platform every player has played on that they will be able to have the Dragon Age experience that they want. This seems like a great feature but some people are a little up in arms about it after a post from the official DA Facebook page yesterday.

Here's a screenshot of that post. If this is taken as fact then there will be no simple importing of saves into Inquisition. All of the world building will need to be done through the Keep. Some people are up in arms about this, claiming that they'd rather just import their saves and that this could lead to things like no support for bringing your saves into Inquisition far later down the line once the Keep goes down. But here's the thing. People have been constructing and sharing saves for these titles for years. There are entire sites dedicated to preserving and sharing save files to give players different experiences. There are those that constantly make claims that one of the reasons Dragon Age: Origins is so great is because of the fact that it's great for modding. If this is the case then isn't it safe to assume that modders will find some way to preserve and share save states? Even when the Keep goes down very far into the future I have no doubt that people will be able to craft their ideal Dragon Age experience even ten years from now.

What do you guys think? Is the Keep an excellent idea? Do you feel cheated by not being able to import your saves or are you content with the options Bioware has given you? Are you excited for Inquisition or do you feel like Bioware will drop the ball? Hit me up in the comments and I'll catch you all next week.

The Three States of the Video Game Protagonist

Welcome back everyone! Sorry about the lack of a post last week. I had this particular one all finished and then the file got corrupted. It's a damn shame but no worries, I've brought the post back for you!

So I've started playing the absolutely lovely Dragon Age: Origins again. I lost all of my previous save files and now need to ensure that I can adequately construct the world I want in Dragon Age: Inquisition. But as I've been playing through this and looking back on The Witcher, Dark Souls, Tales of Xillia, etc. I've started to think more and more about the general outline of the video game protagonist. And I've put this little article together about what I believe the three most commonly presented forms of the protagonist are. It's not just how the character is presented but also how the player is expected to interact with the world and deal with the obstacles in their way that influenced these categories. So, let's jump right in.

The Player as the Protagonist

Found in: Dragon Age: Origins, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, Dark Souls, Knights of the Old Republic

This seems to be one of the most common trends from the last console generation. The player is given a protagonist to mold and construct as they see fit. They create their character's appearance, fighting style, voice package, etc. and are sent off on a grand adventure. Over the course of the adventure there are events that are out of the player's control yet they are given plenty of reign to act as they see fit. Maybe the player can kill NPCs and lock out certain parts of the game as a result. Maybe certain options are only available if the player has met certain requirements with how they built their character. Usually this protagonist is not actually referred to by name or referred to by a nickname. And the character is generally silent. This way generally allows the player to have greater influence on the story. But in many of these games the story has a high chance of suffering as a result. Making all of those branching pathways is time consuming and in order to allow that freedom there are times where the story can't be very tightly written. If someone is looking for freedom with little to no restrictions this will likely be their favorite option for a protagonist.

The Player Influences the Protagonist

Found in: The Witcher, Dragon Age 2,Mass Effect, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Walking Dead

A trend that has been emerging in games is the offering of limited choice to the player. The player is given a set protagonist with their own goals, dreams and motivations and the player gets to decide exactly how they will achieve those goals. Much of the story will likely be set in stone with a few areas here or there where the player can influence the outcome. The player will have some input regarding the players actions and interactions with the world but if the protagonist wouldn't do something, say slaughter a bunch of helpless villagers for example, then the player will be unable to carry out that action. Certain areas and options in the game may also be locked based on the player's actions, just like in the previous choice. This option tends to allow for a tighter story but less freedom. Players that are looking for a good balance of the two will likely favor this option.

The Protagonist Leads the Player

Found in: Tales of Vesperia, The Final Fantasy Series, Tomb Raider, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Metal Gear Solid

Called the "Linear Option" by some in this type of game there is no way for the player to influence the story or the attitude of their character. The protagonist is a fixed person with their own motivations and goals and the player has no input on what those are. The challenges that stand in the player's way will be solely gameplay related: combat, puzzle solving, etc. The story in this type of setup is fixed and its outcomes cannot be changed. There is little to no freedom in this kind of game but it tends to offer players the tightest and most well-written story telling experience. Players that don't care about having an impact on the story and simply want to sit down to a solid narrative and good gameplay will likely favor this option.

When it comes down to it I really don't have a preference. Each option has its pros and cons and can influence the gameplay and narrative in plenty of unique and interesting ways. But what do you guys think? Is there a certain style of protagonist that you find that you favor? How important is choice to you in a video game? Let me know in the comments and I'll see you next time.

Technical Difficulties

There is no post this week due to technical difficulties that caused me to lose the entire post. Such a shame! I'll be back next week and hopefully my luck will be better.

Hearthstone: Finally, a TCG to Call Home

I've been playing Hearthstone for a few months now and I've really been enjoying it. It seems like I finally have the collectible card game I have always wanted. I play a few collectible games in my spare time, most notably Magic: The Gathering and Heroclix. Hearthstone has given me the hope that high-level play would actually be able to be something I could do. I haven't had this feeling with Magic or any other collectible card game in the past. I'm here today to tell you all why I have this feeling and why Hearthstone has given me the enthusiasm that Magic, Yu-gi-oh! and other TCGs simply cannot.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy my time with Magic. I enjoy it so much that I looked into doing competitive play for it. Unfortunately my dreams of any competitive play were dashed. It wasn't a matter of player skill at that point. I didn't even have an opportunity to try to suck at competitive Magic play. Simply put, I couldn't pay the entry fee to try and be good.

See Magic has something that Hearthstone does not. That something is the opportunity to buy single cards. Rather than sifting through countless packs hoping that the thing you want is in there to make your deck that much better you can simply buy whatever card you need to beef up your deck. Now, this wouldn't be a problem is card prices didn't range from well that's a little steep all the way to that is absolutely outrageous. This paywall causes a huge problem for a lot of people. Many times it doesn't matter if someone is better than their opponent because that opponent paid more money to have stronger things than the player with higher skill. In the end it becomes pay to win in its purest form. Can't pay the hundreds of dollars to get in with the big dogs? Well no competitive play for you. Enjoy getting trounced again and again because you don't have as much money to devote to this hobby as the other guy.

Hearthstone doesn't really have this problem. You can't buy single cards. You can craft cards by giving up cards you don't need in hopes of something better. You can also pay money for packs like anyone else. But all buying packs does is give you more opportunities to get good cards than somebody else. It doesn't guarantee that a player that hasn't sunk as much money into the game as you will lose. You also have the option to not pay money at all. The game gives you so many opportunities to get cards for free. You can get packs just for winning games. You can get packs for playing a certain type of deck. Decks even get cards awarded to them just by the player choosing to use them. Hearthstone gives players a wonderful feeling as they play. It gives players the sense that the game is simply rewarding them for playing it. You get access to more content by simply playing the game. And that is something I feel every game should strive for.

So what do you guys think? Does the fact that Hearthstone won't let you buy single cards contribute to the game or hinder it? What are some of your experiences with collectible card games? Hit me up in the comments and I'll catch you next time.

No Post This Week

Hey guys there won't be a post this week because I'll be out of town. Have a happy 4th everyone!

Gameplay Takes a Backseat. Also Known as "How I Uninstalled Transistor"

I wanted to love you. I really did.

Since the game was released I have been struggling to play Transistor. I even got a controller all set up on my computer (finally) just for the occasion after realizing that this was not a game designed to be played with a keyboard, just like Supergiant's previous game the wonderful Bastion. As I played through Transistor there were quite a few things I loved about the game. The story, while initially pretty confusing, seemed like it was set up to take some truly interesting twists and turns. The soundtrack was absolutely incredible. I found myself constantly listening to Ashley Barret and Darren Korb's haunting song "In Circles."

Despite all of this I ultimately couldn't finish and uninstalled Transistor. I wasn't having any sort of fun. But why? The story was great, the music was fantastic, and the visuals were gorgeous. The reason is simple. It was the one element that fundamentally makes the game a game. The gameplay was incredibly bland.

In Transistor combat  plays out between an action phase and a planning phase. You can pause combat to issue whatever combat commands you have set in your slots to the main character, Red. Red will execute these moves in the order that you issue them. if you move Red during the planning phase it also uses up some of your meter at the top. When the meter is exhausted you can't perform anymore actions. Your meter will take time to recharge during which you are stuck in action phase and at the complete mercy of your enemies and you must avoid them by hiding behind the walls placed throughout the battlefield.

It seemed like an interesting concept when I first started the game but one of the biggest issues is the combo imbalance. Once the player finds a strong combo that works for them (say Help with Void and Spark slotted to it to get two incredibly strong allied dogs) there is little reason to really do anything else. The only real reward for using abilities differently is to unlock biographies about some characters, the majority of which you never actually meet through the course of the entire game. Enemies don't necessitate a different strategy, even on the hardest difficulty and there are very few encounters that you can't just mow through with Red's sheer brute force. Overall the game ends up devolving into some mildly interesting story followed by a few minutes of hectic running around and the same combo over and over again until you defeat the enemies and press forward to do the exact same thing all over again. This leads to the problem of New Game Plus being you running through the game again, using the same combo to do the same things.

There are other games out there that will receive criticism for bland gameplay such as Telltale adventure games and any given hack n' slash game. But these games have anything ranging from flashy visuals, to senses of urgency in events to even the simple fact that the gameplay actually fits the story that they are trying to tell. Transistor had none of this. The combat seemed tacked on because it necessitated gameplay due to being a video game. I feel a graphic novel, point and click adventure game or even a short film would've suited Transistor far better than the format it was presented in. Instead of being engaged the gameplay left me bored and a game should never leave their player bored.

Did you guys like Transistor or did you feel that its gameplay was lacking like I was. Would you have liked to see them do something different with it? I know that other than the battles I would've loved for there to be more characters to interact with rather than just my sword. Let me know in the comments and I'll see you all next week.

The Steam Summer Sale: A Handy Guide

Obligatory Gabe Picture

It's that time of year again everyone. The Steam Summer Sale is upon us. It's like Christmas in June with tons of awesome games at ridiculously low prices. PC gamers wait the whole year round for this and the big Christmas Sale. So to help all of you out I've prepared an easy guide. Here are five tips to make sure you get the most out of your Steam Summer Sale!

1. Don't jump the gun!

Now I know all of those Daily Deals are probably looking mighty fine up there. But don't be so ready to open your wallets just yet. Some Daily Deals will actually be good (more on that in a minute) but what you really want to be on the lookout for are the Flash Sales every eight hours. Games are at their lowest prices at this time. If you see a game you want on Flash Sale snag it ASAP! Chances are that it won't go on sale again. If the sale gets into its last week and you still haven't gotten a Flash Sale that you've wanted make sure you pick up the game you want if it hits a Daily Deal. Not everything is going to be featured up there and sometimes it's best to just accept that you won't be getting an AMAZING deal and instead just settle for a GREAT deal. Finally, never buy a game if it's not AT LEAST a Daily Deal. It'll make it up there eventually. Just be patient.

2. Don't expect super cheap new titles.

Unless you're looking to snag a new indie game (and those are already cheap enough man, c'mon) you probably aren't going to get any new titles fairly cheap. To be honest new games that are on pre-order and brand new released titles will probably never drop below 25% off (33% seems to be the lowest with Flash Sales.) So if you're looking to get a cheap pre-order or brand new title then snagging it immediately on the Daily Deal is going to be your best bet. It's never really guaranteed that new games will hit the Flash Sale and an extra 13% probably won't break your bank.

3. Bundles are good to go anytime.

Bundles are always going to be a good deal during the Steam Sales and they're something that you honestly can't expect to go on sale for any lower than they might be now. If you happen to see a bundle you'd like as a Daily Deal or, even more unlikely, as a Flash Sale, pick it up immediately. Waiting does you no good on these titles.

4. Community Deals are too.

Community deals are voted on by Steam users. You can usually expect the biggest discount to win. If none of the discounts are particularly good then whatever is considered the "best game" by critics is probably gonna claim victory. If something you want happens to be the Community Deal go ahead and buy it.

5. Fill up your wishlist!

Your wishlist will let you know the second a game you want becomes a Daily Deal, Flash Sale or Community Choice. Use this to ensure that you know when things you want are ripe for the picking. Not only will this notify you of any deals but if your friends are feeling generous then they'll know exactly what to snag you and when the best deal for it will be! And guys, being generous during the summer sale is really a cool thing to do. I've bought quite a few things for my friends over the years!

Well guys I hope this guide helped. Be sure to come back next week and see what else we have in store for you. SHare what you read today with your friends if you think they'd like it and I'll catch you all next time!

An E3 of Surprises! The Good and the Bad

Well guys E3 was this week and what an event it was. I'm sure a lot of you out there sat glued to either your monitors or your television screens just waiting to see all of the great stuff that's coming our way. I'm here this week to talk about what my highlights for E3 were this year. I'll simply divide this list into two sections: the good and the bad.

The Good!

Nintendo's Conference!

Nintendo absolutely stole the show for me this year. Where I once thought the Wii U was simply going to be the mistake of the Wii repeated I now see a console definitely worth purchasing with just the library shown at E3. An open world Zelda? That's a definite buy. Xenoblade Chronicles? Perfect. This'll give me an excuse to pick up the first game and finally give it a go as well as give me annother awesome title to play. Mario Party 8 stealth reveal? Awesome. Bayonetta 2 with the first game included? Yes. Splatoon? Looks like not only a ton of fun but an interesting twist on a genre we see entirely too often! Project Guard? I really hope that hits the eShop. And of course we can't forget Smash Bros. with the new character reveals easily being not only some of the best ones mechanically but some of the most surprising ones as well. Nintendo's not letting their system go down without a fight and if this E3 is any indication it's clear that old Ninty is gonna definitely be going places.

Final Fantasy Type-0 HD Edition

This game came out only in Japan to rave reviews. Japanese gamers and importers alike were heralding it as the best Final Fantasy title since FF7. So it's understandable that when Square Enix announced that there were no plans to bring it over to America on the then dying PSP system fans were obviously a little disappointed. But this year Square surprised everyone by announcing that the game would not only be coming to America but that it would be on the PS4 and Xbox One in full HD. Square Enix has really started listening to its fans in the past few years and that's amazing compared to their past attitude. Now the West gets another great RPG to play.

(Most of) Sony's Press Conference

Some solid stuff came out of Sony's press conference. There were quite a few multiplats shown but the exclusives came out in force. The Order is looking phenomenal. It really seems like lighting is going to play a huge role in the game. That'll set up for not only some good ambient scares but some interesting encounters. And the shooting looks solid as well. Some neat DLC for inFamous got teased. We got LittleBigPlanet 3 which cannot come soon enough. Abzu looked really cool and we got the predictable announcement from Uncharted. There were hiccups (which I'll get to in The Bad) but overall Sony had a really solid showing. What looks especially good is a certain other PS4 exclusive......

Bloodborne

The new game from Dark Souls mastermind Hidetaka Miyazaki looks mighty fine. We only got a CGI trailer at the Sony press conference but there's been tons of hubbub about the playable demo on the show floor. What we know so far is that the solid mechanics of Dark Souls are indeed returning. It's unknown as to how "hardcore" Bloodborne will be but what we've seen of the gameplay is pretty polished. The world seems dark and eerie with most of the unease coming from the way the world is designed itself rather than silly things like jump scares. We've also been told that lightning plays a very important role. The undead infested streets are very dimply lit but it's also been revealed that most explorable houses in the game are entirely devoid of light. Players will have to light their own path which not only helps them but also makes them a target for the mindless undead. It seems like players will have to be prepared for any sort of encounter. As for the rumors that this might actually be a Solomon Kane video game....well we'll just have to wait and see.

Sunset Overdrive

The show stealer at Microsoft's press conference was obvious. Sunset overdrive looks quirky, fun and like a truly unique take on the third person shooter. The punk rock influences in the game are obvious and everything from the rockin' soundtrack to the unique art style to the gameplay that has players wall running, grinding on rails and bouncing off trampolines to destroy monsters created by an infected energy drink it's clear that Sunset Overdrive is gonna be a wild ride.

Assassin's Creed Unity Really Looks Good.....and Really Looks Next-Gen

Black Flag was an awesome game and a great way to kick off the next-gen of Assassin's Creed but it was still held back by the fact that it was also on last-gen consoles. Unity doesn't have that constraint and man does it show. Large crowds, fully rendered indoor environments, tight animations for the wall running.... This title looks absolutely visually stunning.  The four player gameplay and the fact that it's set in the time period I've wanted AC to be in since the beginning helps but I'll definitely be picking up Unity after Ubisoft's reveal.

The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt

Microsoft's demo of this game was absolutely awesome. Not only did it reaffirm fans that this is the Witcher that they know and love but they also showed newcomers to the series that the title has been streamlined and is all around more user friendly. Geralt's chase of the gryphon really showed the vast world that CD Projekt Red has intended rather well not only mechanically but visually as well. It's clear that fans will not be disappointed when it finally drops next year.

The Bad

EA Sure Showed A Lot of Sports

There are many EA games that people are excited about. They got some screen time early in the show but a huge chunk of it was a bore. Why was that? Sports. Now I understand that sports games have a market but it's always been the weakest part of the EA conference and in past years they have kept it there rather well. But this segment was noticeably longer than any other year. I wondered why that could be and a cursory TV Guide search revealed it: EA's presentation was aired on Spike TV (Television for Manly Men.) Now I get what you're trying to do here EA but I can guarantee that the audience of Spike TV is probably going to think that things like Mass Effect and Dragon Age are at least a little cool. You could've shown us more than you did. Which brings me to another thing.

We Saw Dragon Age Inquisition.....But Only Sort Of

DA: I did have presence at the EA conference but it was nothing to call home about. It was mainly a bunch of trailers with no actual demo. Now we have seen footage of the game and it looked pretty good for an alpha. But the EA press event was very sparse for a game that should be dropping in only a few months. If you want people to be hyped for a game you not only should show them pretty cutscenes but show them gameplay as well. Here's hoping DA: I is still as good as I want it to be.

The Part of Sony's Conference That Wasn't About Games

I expected a lot of games at Sony's conference. I got quite a few I was interested in but then there was that weird part of the conference. You know, that part where they started talking about YouTube and movies and TV. Now some of the TV stuff like the announcement about Powers was cool but c'mon Sony. This is a gaming convention. You made fun of Microsoft for pulling this stunt with the Xbox One reveal a while back and yet you fell into the same trap. How silly. Quite a few people fell asleep at this point, which only hurt them in the long run.

Nothing About The Last Guardian

I'M SO MAD

So guys what did you think of E3? What were some of your favorite moments? Do those of you that have a next gen system feel confident about your purchase. And for those of you that don't have you been swayed one way or the other? Let me know in the comments and I'll see you next time.

Difficult Games Have Returned! But Why Did People Want Them Gone?

He's gonna get wrecked.

Siliconera recently posted this article asking about why tough games are rising in popularity recently. Samu Wosada, creator of the absolutely excellent 1001 Spikes weighs in on this. The short of it is that he believes that over the last generation of consoles a large number of developers looked to graphics, music and writing as ways to make their game feel like it's truly "the next generation of gaming." Because of this he says a large number of modern games have gameplay elements that make surmounting failure more tedious rather than gratifying. Wosada says that now some devs are focusing on gameplay over story, graphics, music and writing and this has led to games like Dark Souls actually having failure be an element that the game builds itself around. I pretty much agree with Wosada on this. I also believe that overly focusing on graphics, writing, etc. has led to a large number of games that have failure present just for the sake of having it and when the player fails there's really never any weight behind their failure. A good example would be Bioshock, which is a fantastic game, but the presence of the game's Vita Chambers ruins some of it. The game is supposed to be scary and a thrill ride throughout many sections but when you know that if you die you only lose a little bit of progress and the enemies you're fighting will still have all of the damage they incurred fighting you previously it kind of makes all of that tension dissolve.

Here's an image of Wosada's 1001 Spikes. I don't know if there are actually 1001 spikes on screen but man, that's a lot of spikes.

But I'm not really going to talk about the return of these games to the mainstream. I'm wondering what made these games leave the mainstream. Back in the NES and SNES era there were games that were very difficult. This was mainly a carryover from the arcade days. Players died a lot so they would keep pumping in quarters. Consequently, console game design went the same way. Players did die a lot but this ended up adding longevity to the game. And when players did surmount a challenge it seems as though the overall feeling was this overwhelming sense of accomplishment after finally defeating something that took them hours or days. But now if a game has that feature people will tend to scoff at it. What has changed?

Well game design for one.We don't need to extend the time that people spend on games anymore with elements from games like Mega Man X or Castlevania because games these days are longer. They're a lot longer actually. And that's not from difficult content. That's story, music, well designed encounters, side quests, dialogue and a ton of other things that can add to a game's length and make the player feel fulfilled and enjoy themselves. But there's still those instances where a player feels like a challenge is taking too long. There's instances where a player abandons a game because they feel like it's too much work for them to put in. It's weird, considering the fact that if a person had spent money on something to entertain them you would think that they would want to see it through to the end. What's the X Factor that might be contributing to this feeling?

It's not Steam itself. Steam is great!

This is a screenshot of my Steam Library. That number is a little skewed due to the way Steam categorizes things but I have 100 games. That's a lot of games. And looking on Steam I can see that my library is paltry compared to a lot of users out there. The fact of the matter is that there's a lot of games out there. And a lot of gamers have A LOT of games. But most importantly a lot of gamers have a lot of games that are UNPLAYED. I'd like you to take a peek at your Steam, Origin, shelf, etc. How many games do you have unplayed? Now think about this. One of those unplayed games is giving you a lot of trouble. More trouble than you would normally experience in a game. And that's when those words pop up in your mind, or some variation of them.

"Screw this. I'm going to play something else."

Back when I was a kid I had The Lion King for Sega Genesis. This was the only game I had for over a year or so. I always got hopelessly stuck on many sections of the game. Yet I still played this game every day and loved every second of it. I didn't have hundreds of games in my backlog. I just played this and I loved it. And when I finally beat a difficult part I was ecstatic. It always felt good knowing that all of my hard work had paid off. These days it's too easy to give up and just go play something else, especially when your backlog is so huge that you probably will never get through it all. Are you buying a game to play that particular game? Or are you buying it just to give yourself more options? Are you buying it just to pad time until something you REALLY want is released. All I'm asking is this: Next time you don't know what to play, go back to that one game. That game that gave you so much trouble, that game you quit, that game you dropped when another one came out, whatever it is go back to it. Give it another go. Surmount that challenge and don't give in to the temptation of your backlog of unplayed, unopened games. Essentially all I'm asking is finish what you start before moving on to something new.

And remember, not every game has a Vita Chamber.

So what do you guys think? Is the backlog and growing options for games a big reason as to why difficult games fell by the wayside? Or is it something else? What games did you choose to struggle through? Let me know in the comments and I'll see you next week.

The Stanley Parable and the Illusion of Choice in Video Games

I don't even know where to begin.

As of a few minutes before writing this post I had finished playing The Stanley parable. Normally I would write about something I had planned to talk about but in this instance I felt I should just get all of my thoughts down now.

Honestly I really enjoyed my time with it and plan to revisit it. It's very short but it's definitely a title that I can see myself sinking my teeth into and showing off in the future. I felt it was a good idea to go over the general feeling I got from The Stanley Parable or what I feel the overall point is. It's actually something I've had many conversations about and that is the illusion of choice in video games.

Pick a Shepard. Any Shepard.

I see a large amount of conversations pop up over how video games in general need to allow the player complete freedom. People will then give examples: Mass Effect, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls and essentially every other choice based video game that you could shake a stick at. But what people don't understand is that these titles don't actually offer "choice" as one would consider real life. A game can never offer you total and complete choice due to the restrictions set by the programming. Rather, you are given the illusion of choice. And that is honestly a beautiful thing. You as a player will never be able to deliver yourself from the constraints the game offers whether that be in the gameplay or the writing or the character creation. But a developer constructing an experience that makes you feel like you can do that is incredibly impressive. It's not easy to craft an experience that allows a person to feel that way.

Never has a choice so simple resonated so strongly with me.

I'm not going to spoil the experience for all of you but instead will talk about the first big choice of the game and nothing else. I got the point of the game right at this segment and had an enjoyable ride the second, third and fourth times I ran through it. In the first segment you are presented with two open doors. The narrator simple says, "When Stanley came to a set of two open doors, he entered the door on his left." The presentation here is absolutely brilliant. You can either choose to do what the game tells you to do or you can disobey and stray from the beaten path. But even in straying from the beaten path you can end up exactly where the game had intended you to go anyways. And that's it. That's the point. Some individuals say games are bad that games "don't have enough choice" but the simple fact is that there is no choice. Regardless of what you as a person choose to do you are still limited by what the designers have put into the game. But does this realization lessen the impact that the Stanley Parable has on you from this point? No. The experience is still great beyond this point. And the same can be said about any other title out there as well. Maybe it's time that we stopped asking developers to give us more choices and just simply ask for a solid experience. The Stanley Parable, the Witcher, Mass Effect, all of these titles, they all had "choice." Did a lack of actual choice lessen this experience? I think not.

So what do you guys think? Are you ok with "choice being in games rather than choice? What else do those of you that have played The Stanley Parable think it was trying to say? Will you play it after reading this post? Let me know in the comments and I'll see you all next time.

Competition is Healthy! Competition is Unhealthy? Well Which is It!?

JUGGERNAUUUUUUUUUUT!

Over the last few weeks I've been playing DOTA 2 and have really enjoyed it. To me it has effectively rid itself of almost all of the issues I've had with League of Legends. I've asked plenty of people to join me (so I can get more multi-kills) but some people haven't been so keen on it. And for some of these people the reason is very clear: They're just not that into player vs. player video games. Something about them just doesn't click. So I thought I'd take today to look at some of the pros and cons of competitive games based on my own personal experiences. I may reaffirm some beliefs or I may change some minds. But let's dive right in.

Pros

Competition Promotes Friendship

"Don't worry man, that scrub won't get away with this."

I know this isn't going to sound right at all after I have spoken of the toxic community of League of Legends but even there I have had friendships foster purely through our mutual desire to defeat our opponents. "Hey man, nice job there." "Don't worry, we'll end that guys kill streak on you." "You guys get out of here. I can afford this death." There have just been so many instances of friends and even strangers on teams banding together to beat the odds in front of them that I can't help but think that this is truly what competition is about. It's about a group of people working together to surmount the odds before them.

Competing Teaches You How to Talk to People

This has almost nothing to do with the obscenities you may scream during a session of Street Fighter.

I'm aware this doesn't seem like the case, especially after all I've said about the toxic community of League of Legends but I'm sure we all actually learned this over the course of the competitive games we've played. Whether or not you choose to or not to practice this with the people you meet online is a different matter entirely. Let's think about it, what option would most likely lead your team to victory?

A) "Wow kid you're so bad. Everyone knows you're supposed to do X with character Y. You should probably quit this game and then stick your head in the oven for an extended period of time."

or

B) "Hey man I see you're not doing so hot. It might help if you do X with character Y. I've seen a lot of people do it and it generally works out in their favor. Give it a shot."

Option B seems pretty nice in comparison right? Now, whether or not that person will listen to you is another matter entirely but it's clear that generally the teams that work well together and win in games don't talk angrily or spout obscenities at each other. The highest success rate comes from being kind and courteous. And this doesn't just apply to cooperative competitive games. Even when it's just use versus one other human being learning how to lose gracefully is a valuable life skill that quite a few people lack. Don't be that guy that rages or gets angry at losing and storm off. Be the man that helps your team. And if you lose be the man that doesn't throw a hissy fit and has their day ruined by it.

Competition Teaches You to Set Goals and Reach Them

If your goal was to master Frank West and you succeeded then my hat is off to you.

We've all been there in at least one game. An object seems insurmountable. A boss can't be beaten. It seems like it's unfair. But with the rise of the online scene in gaming players have been met with a new dilemma. No longer do players sometimes just get trounced by their friends (though that is still a concern.) Sometimes you just keep running into people online and they keep just pushing you down. Some would just quit but for those that choose to continue onward they find they have something to work for. They find they have a goal. Maybe it's researching that perfect item build. Maybe it's finally nailing that combo. Maybe it's finally figuring out what trick your buddy's been using to take you down. But no matter what it is if you've accomplished any of those things then congratulations. You set a goal and you met it. And that's a beautiful thing. There's so many people that would just give up when the going gets tough but competition stirs something in a person. Being able to surmount a computer is cool. But being able to surmount another person is just fulfilling in an entirely different manner. And in setting that goal and achieving it you have learned a valuable life skill. Quitting when the going gets tough is easy. But realizing where you fail, taking steps to correct it AND succeeding at it? That's an awesome thing.

Cons

The Drive to Win Can Bring Out the Worst in People

Goddamn invaders.

Now competition can have those positive effects on people. That is true. but in some individuals it can bring out a darker side. Sometimes the drive to win is so much that this leads to people developing tactics that some would tend to see as....well as unfair. Beating an opponent when on a fairly equal playing field is one thing. But competition in games has brought up some tactics such as spawn camping. Now it's technically not against the rules in any capacity, but to a lot of players, myself included, it can seem a bit underhanded to just lock a player into a situation where they can't do anything and defeating another player just for the satisfaction of it. Sometimes players will needlessly prolong the game just so they can make these other players feel worse. Sometimes players will target the same individual over and over again, hoping to get them as angry as possible. Regardless there is in fact plenty of scenarios where a competitor could be achieving victory not for the satisfaction of victory, but for the satisfaction of making another person feel bad by doing it.

A Focus on Competition Can Lead to Winning Being the Only Satisfaction

"If my KDR goes below 8.0 I'm breaking this disc in half."

Winning is definitely the primary objective when you compete in any capacity. But competition can foster the unhealthy feeling that winning is everything. I've experienced this issue myself in a number of online shooters. I've asked to play with players who will outright refuse to play with me if my Losses outweigh my Wins. There's no guarantee that all of those losses are my fault but those players will not risk another person staining their perfect record. But the thing that got me ruled out of the most games was KDR. KDR stands for Kill-Death Ratio. It determines you average kills versus deaths. If my KDR is 2.0 then that means that I usually average two kills before I die in a game. To some players KDR means everything and this is a problem. This can lead to instances mentioned above where players intentionally target others with a low KDR seeing them as easier targets. But I have also experienced players refusing to party with me because of a low KDR, seeing this as a liability. This even mattered to them in games where the objective was not to get kills but to capture an objective of some sort. In the end KDR was the magic number that determined a person's fate. If you had a low KDR then other players saw that you weren't likely to win and would avoid you, either choosing not to help you or targeting you, reducing this magic number that was supposed to determine your skill level.

Do you fight to win or simply fight to prove you're better?

 If winning is all that matters then how will new players to be expected to learn? If a player can't take another under their wing to teach them the ropes because they're so worried about a potential loss then I have to ask: What's the point of community in these games anyways other than just a group of targets to pick from? If winning is the only satisfaction then regardless of the experience would a person really say they had a good time losing? This is not a healthy mindset, be it in gaming or in the real world. Losing gracefully is important but sometimes competition can just foster the exact opposite.

Well there you have it. I have tried to be as fair as possible and consider many angles but in the end I think competition is a good thing. Being able to have fun with or against your peers when trying to reach a goal is healthy. it's not something a person is going to escape in the real world, whether it be competing with co-workers to give the best presentation, trying to become the employee of the month or just a simple bike race with friends. So why fight it? Embrace the competitive spirit within you in a healthy fashion and I promise you will not disappoint yourself.

WHat do you guys think? is competition good or bad in games? Is there anything I missed? Let me know in the comments and I'll see you all next week.