NBA 2013 Finals - Game 3 Results and Thoughts

     First off, yes, this isn't related in any way to video games at all, but shut up and let me get my opinion out there. Second off, I am in a love-hate relationship right now with the NBA Finals. I hate Miami for different reasons than others do. They are a great team, don't get me wrong, and they probably have the most talent out of any other team in the NBA. The problem I have with James or Wade or any of the Heat players is the fact that they flop like there is no tomorrow. They flop more than a fat man does when he moves. They cry and whine and act like they can get away with everything. So, when I hear that "Miami is the best team in the NBA!" or when I hear commentators and people acting like Miami is the messiah of the NBA, I, as you can imagine, am not happy. I think it is wrong to say that, but I also think it is wrong to say that the Spurs deserve the title because Miami was playing terrible in game 3 (score was 133 Spurs-77 Miami). Miami wasn't playing terribly. It was just a case of the Spurs hitting every shot in the last half, and having a great defense with the amazing offense. There wasn't a lot that Miami could have done. Now, what is my opinion on who will win this year's Finals? I don't know, and I don't want to bet. These teams are here for a reason, and both have a chance at winning. So, enjoy this moment Spur fans. Miami fans, enjoy the moment of Game 2 and having the MVP of 2013 on your team. The real idea of who will win the Finals will happen either at game 5 and/or game 7. Those will be the defining moments this year. So, keep your hopes up, fans, and enjoy the amazing talent being shown off in these games.

My thoughts on...Half Life 2

     I am a gamer by heart. One thing I love doing is playing some of the older games that are classics. There are a few that I want to play, like Doom, Bioshock, System Shock, and others of the sort. However, I have had Half-Life and Half-Life 2 on my steam library for some time and forgot about those games. I decided, recently, that I should play both of them to see why they were so amazing. Well, I still don't see it. Half-Life 2, in particular, it very tedious, and I find it very hard to keep playing the game. Don't get me wrong, it is fun, and nothing tickles me more than using the gravity gun to fire blades through zombies and cutting them in half. I absolutely love doing that, but I hate doing it 10,000 times. That is the main problem with Half-Life 2. Yes, you will have a great moment in the game, but for every great moment you have 10 boring, repetitive moments that kill my excitement to playing the game. When you have a game that is so boring that you are just wishing that some mutant comes up, rips out your face, and killing you, you got a problem. I just don't like playing it, not because it is too hard or the game play is bad, but because the game doesn't captivate me in, and that sucks because I am easily enraptured in games. No seriously, I love Call of Duty. That, in itself, speaks volumes. So, in my opinion, the game is good but boring. I just don't like it. Not my cup of tea, and it is also not your cup of tea, because everyone is just like me. In all seriousness though, try it out. Just don't be surprised if your forcing yourself to play the game.

Jump Scares and Atmosphere: The Needs of these Conventions in Horror Games

     Many horror games have gained a lot of notoriety in the past few years, and for good reason. They are mostly good and, as horror games should be, scary. A non-scary horror game is as useless as sand is in a desert. What makes a proper horror game good are a few game conventions, the two I will focus on now are jump scares and atmosphere. Jump scares are scares based off of sudden reaction. Slender is a great example of this. The scares of that game are completely jump scares. Now, there are some other elements in that game, but that will be explained later. Jump scares are normally good, as they quickly jolt the player into a game, but a developer cannot solely rely on these to make a great horror game. That is one of Slender's main problems. It can bring the audience in, but it can't hold the audience at all. This is where atmosphere comes in. Great atmosphere is made by music, color tone, and the player never feeling like they have any control of the situation. One of the best games that describes amazing atmosphere is Amnesia: The Dark Descent. This game can get anyone on edge because of how the player never feels safe. That is one reason why the game did so well with ratings. It is just that good with the atmosphere. If you want to make some great atmosphere, it doesn't have to be big. If the player runs through a corridor that is lit up with light, one great way to make atmosphere is to make him go back through that corridor, but to have all the lights off. Simple things like this separate good horror games from great horror games. Now, the best horror game combines both of these traits together. The best example of this that I know of is the game Cry of Fear. This game absolutely demonstrates how to do this. It doesn't have good graphics, but right from the beginning the game jump scares you into the atmosphere, and this doesn't let up until the end. If you wanted a great horror game, get this one. It is worth it, all because of those two mechanics being used in the right way.

My thoughts on...World of Tanks

     Have you ever heard of World of Tanks? Now, if you have seen the ads, you might be thinking that the game is just a money grab or it has terrible quality. Well, both of those theories are wrong. When I first played World of Tanks, i was expecting 4 things: Teamwork having absolutely no effect on the outcome of the battle, unbalance in the tanks, there would be a lot of hackers, and/or the premium tanks would be overpowered. The fourth thesis is just out of personal experience, because, as many know, the guns you buy in free-to-play games are ridiculously overpowered. All of that was wrong, and I was thoroughly surprised when I found that out. World of Tanks is one of the best, if not the best, free-to-play games I have ever seen in my life. It is just so good, and, to be honest, I am somewhat surprised that it is free-to-play. The game play quality is so much better than all other free-to-play games, with maybe the exception of team fortress 2 and planetside 2. There is great balance in the game which is always tweaked to make the game experience even better, there are absolutely no hackers because the game is server-side and not client-side (for those that don't know what that means, read a book), and the premium tanks are not game-breaking at all. Yes, you can buy a high-level tier tank, but those tanks have the same weaknesses as other tanks. However, they are very useful at earning credits, the in-game currency. This is THE game to play if you like free-to-play games but want actual balance. However, this game isn't Call of Duty. You need to work as a team and play tactically, or you will die. Also worth noting is that it isn't for everyone. If you just want to shoot people up with big tanks rounds, play Modern Warfare 2 Multi-player, because that is how the explosives work in that game. For those that were wondering how the game is, I highly recommend it. Now, a free-to-play game has to be pretty darn good for me to recommend it, considering that most don't ever deserve the title "game". But this game is worth every dollar that you put in to get it, which is at a cheep $0. I rate it 4 stars out of 5. It still has flaws, and it is not for everyone, but the game is well-polished and well-done. Get it if you want a fun team game.

XBOX One: The Beginning of the End for the XBOX

     Ok, by now, everyone knows about the Xbox One reveal. Personally, it sucks and marks the end of the Xbox. Why? Because Microsoft forgot about everything that the Xbox was good at. The Xbox 360, when it first came out, focused on GAMES. The new Xbox doesn't do that. But, get this, it gets worse! Microsoft made two deadly sins for gamers: they didn't make the new Xbox backwards compatible, and, if you want to play a used Xbox one game, YOU HAVE TO PAY A FEE FOR AN ALREADY OWNED GAME! A FEE!!!!! That is absolute bullcrap from Microsoft. THAT HAS NEVER, EVER HAPPENED FOR A GAMING SYSTEM BEFORE! This pisses me off, and I don't even own an Xbox! I am a PC gamer. I loathe xbox gamers because of the amount of money they can pay for a good xbox in comparison to a good PC (for an example, my PC is over $800. A Xbox 360 is approximately $250). But when I saw this piece of crap known as the Xbox One, I felt sorry for the Xbox community. This was their system. If PC's became a pile of junk tomorrow and I couldn't buy another, that would suck. Imagine how Xbox users feel now. However, after all of that, there is one more problem, one final nail in the coffin.

     This is a Roku. I own one, and, basically, you can do everything that the new Xbox One can do without the ability to play games. What do I mean? The new Xbox can watch videos online, can Netflix, and can also watch movies. But get this...this system can do all of that AND MORE, and it is between $49-$99, depending on the type of Roku you get. So, if you own a Xbox 360 and buy one of these Roku's, you can potentially save over $150. If you can do that, then what is the point of the Xbox One? Here's a hint: THERE IS NONE! The Xbox One is, so far, a money grab. I am sorry to all of you that have a Xbox One. If you want a new system, though, get a PC. However, if you are still getting a Xbox One...die. Just...die.
     If you want to hear more about this topic, check out this video from a youtuber (not me): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ekOtn7L1N0

FEAR: The Shooter I Love for One Odd Reason

     Now, I have played many shooters in my lifetime (which isn't a long one), and one of my favorites is, ironically, F.E.A.R. (First Encounter Assault Recon). Now, I will not get into the story, mostly because it is something everyone should experience, and, if I do, I will give away the plot twist. If you want the story, go play the game. No, seriously, get off your butt and buy the game on steam. One thing that, in my opinion, makes this game a great example of a good first person shooter is the AI. I love the AI, mostly because they react to what I do. If I walk into a room and 3 enemies spot me, one will throw a filing cabinet on the floor as cover for him and his allies, one will start firing at you, and the third will flank you. This is how AI should be. The enemies are tough. They have the exact same gun and health statistics that you have (the only exception is the tank soldier in the game), but, if you are not on your A-game, they WILL punish you by taking out half of your health or armor. They also throw grenades to drive you out of cover, which is done well to take you out of your comfort zone. Everything about the AI is good, and this is just on easy. Playing the game on hard can be frustrating because you can't be Rambo. You can't rush into a building and expect to survive. It doesn't work this way. You need to be smart to take out your enemies. Now, WHY CAN'T ANY OTHER SHOOTER DO THIS! Have you seen the Half Life AI? They suck! COD AI can be horrible. Heck, RAGE  AI can be a pain every once in a while. But FEAR, a not-so-well-known horror shooter, has some of the best AI I have ever seen in a FPS. Problem? Why doesn't Battlefield or Call of Duty have good AI? They are the FPS giants of today's world. Notice a problem here? If you have never played FEAR, I highly recommend buying the game for 2 reasons: the AI, and I recommend it (because I am just that awesome). Go check out how the game play. You might find it a breath of fresh air if you hate games with terrible and easy adversaries.

Battlefield and Call of Duty: What people never see

     In the gaming community, I often hear the well known argument of "Call of Duty is better than Battlefield!" or vice-versa. Personally, this argument is just a waste of time. Call of Duty and Battlefield are 2 different giants. Each gaming franchise are different in their own ways, and they were made great for different reasons. Call of Duty has always been and (as far as I can see) always will be an arcade shooter. Battlefield has always been and, same as COD, always will be large scale realistic shooter. Why compare them? Yes, they are both shooters, they both involve killing people, and they both are modern shooters, but that mostly ends the similarity. And here is a better question: Why do people act like Call of Duty is bugged to no end but Battlefield is "THE PERFECT ONLINE SHOOTER EXPERIENCE!!!!!". This is bullcrap and foolhardy. Yes, COD does mess up on a lot of things, but it is a solid instant shooter that works well if you just want the instant gratification of shooting an enemy in the head with an explosive-tipped crossbow bolt. Battlefield has a good amount of problems with mobility and hit detection (when I say this, I talk about having a perfect internet connection, and you fire at your enemy, but your bullets don't connect until a second after you fire), but it works well when you have a few people acting like a squad or when you are in a tank and shoot a helicopter down with the main 120mm gun. Both games are made for different audiences, so don't compare them as one. That simple. Don't say that one game is better because of one point. Both games have holes, but, if they didn't have problems, there wouldn't be sequels. Now, my opinion on this argument is this: "Who gives a crap!?!" I like both games. Shocker, isn't it! It isn't that hard to like both games if you go into both games with a different mindset. So, basically, to all of you that judge one of these games, saying one is better than the other, do your research and get a brain. Then throw that brain away, because you don't deserve it.