The price for the roof over my head is not up for sale: the fact that the realtors push sales in this fashion is nonsense. Sure I get it, land is worth something – it has lead nations seeking self-sufficiency to pursue war, it has led neighbors to fight one another, it has even led animals in the wild to kill one another over grazing space and so forth (certain creatures are very territorial). Yet despite all of that a home is a home; if I abandon it this is because it is in a dangerous place, if I sell the home it is because I plan to move elsewhere. What I find strange and frustrating to watch is people selling their homes and then resorting to renting long-term; sure you have a sum of cash in hand, but that amount dries up real fast with rentals and other expenses. Adding to this stress is the fact that today jobs are not secure; even policemen face the chopping block as public and private sectors look to cut costs left, right, and center.
People selling the roof over their heads is nonsense; maybe I am not seeing some sort of benefit here, and maybe I am shortsighted. Yet I feel that a home where you live, where you find peace and sanctuary from the world beyond is not something to be so hastily discarded for the sake of a few thousand dollars. When you are homeless, sure the pile of money can be helpful, but eventually it dries up or it gets stolen (if you are roaming the streets with a cart full of bills, or the bank goes belly up and you have nothing to withdraw) and you are left with nothing. Sure folks who do not earn much may not be able to vacation or see the world, but if they own the home at least they do not have to worry about rent – utilities is another matter entirely but let us stick with the home for this post today.
Irritating that people would throw away a home for cash; next thing you know they will try to sell parts of themselves for cash like what happened in China with a kid selling a kidney to buy an Ipad (I cannot recall the story as it was about five to six years ago, and it was written in simplified Chinese so linking it would mean that you or I would have to translate it – not interested in doing that work). Yes yes I hear you: “come on writer, they’re just making money,” money is important, but we should not have to compromise for it – we should not have to give up home and limb just to earn a quick few dollars. Sure working is no fun, but in case you haven’t noticed even movie stars and singers have to work; they work long hours at times with little to no pay as for every one famous singer/actor, there is at least fifty out there working on small projects and doing temporary jobs to sustain themselves. Work is work no matter what it is, and sometimes we just need to realize that fact and that it is not the only thing in life that brings us happiness – the total sum of things we have in life brings us happiness, and whether or not we value them.
Come on folks, it isn’t hard to wear the gas mask in Battlefield 1 – maybe on PC with all the buttons on the keyboard, but not on consoles and so forth! Even PC players can simplify it via mouse buttons and so on; stop whining about the gas grenades in-game.
Earlier in the week I went on the forums to voice my opposition to those who wish to nerf the gas grenade – either by reducing its power or reducing the amount one soldier can carry. Even Youtubers like Westie are whining about it, and when I watch their gameplay footage I just think of the type of person they are (or assume they are): squealing, spray and prayers who pretend to be skilled and so on but in fact are more used to Call of Duty (and thus force their opinions on the game) than actual Battlefield.
Permit me to just rant here about this; they should learn to play the game. Gas masks are standard issue in Battlefield 1 and are not locked away or require cool down times – you put it on when you see gas, not hard. What I cannot understand is people complaining about well-balanced mechanics like the gas grenades which force the enemy soldiers off the flags and so on and onto engagement plains where they must fight either by melee or hip-firing in order to survive long enough to remove the mask and resume aim-down-sights.
These people are annoying – plain and simple. They complain that the gas grenade is unbalanced, and yet they LOVE to sit back and snipe people with their precision, high power rifles which – by the way – the game had to sacrifice realism just to satisfy. Have you seen the crap scopes they have on those old world war 1 rifles? They are experimental tech that was not even standard issue! They got their way for far too long, and it is time to push back.
Folks if you play Battlefield 1, go on the forums with your EA info (it works, no need to sign up for a special account) and voice your opposition to this crybaby mentality. The game works, and I want to address specifically the gas grenade – the one item that has a hard counter in the form of a gas mask. Make people aware that the gas mask exists for a reason, and that war is chaotic – don’t like it you can always go back to CoD with its ridiculous time to kill numbers. Battlefield 1 might require balancing in some areas, but NOT the gas grenade – it does its job well and you punish them for that?! You people are the reason why games turn into the same pile of trash after months of patching and so on – you are the cause of failed titles with your endless list of complaints and so on. Technical complaints such as the game not loading properly or the screen appearing like a giant static haze are things that need addressing, but the in-game gas grenade works because you have a freaking gas mask available immediately when you start playing. The gas mask is designed specifically to stop the gas; no other grenade can be stopped by the mask so stop whining like 4-year olds who pretend to be: “all-knowing,” and when you don’t get your way you throw a tantrum on the forums.
Here’s a novel idea, PUT ON YOUR GAS MASK WHEN YOU SEE THE GAS!
Right well first off tell me of a popular film produced within the last five years that does not have any sort of CGI in it. Sure films like Fury and Mad Max went heavily on practical effects, but even Mad Max had to do CGI for that massive desert sandstorm that took place part way into the film.
This article was sparked by a few friends complaining about how Tarkin in Rogue One A Star Wars Story was: “too CGI” (as if that is even a thing). First off the actor who played Tarkin died in 1994; the film was released in December of 2016 (last year), see the dilemma here? Tarkin as a character was still alive in the timeline, and likewise Leia wasn’t old when Rogue One’s events occurred – sure we are used to seeing an old Carrie Fisher, but Leia was young back during the events of Rogue One up towards episodes 4, 5 and 6.
Now if you are complaining that the characters felt odd, sure Tarkin was a bit too smooth for a human character (thus giving away the bit that he is all CGI), but the work done was enough to fit into the film and portray a living commander rather than some weird ghost hovering about. Right so you people complain about CGI, remember that 300 was all done in a warehouse and on green screen; remember that Kingsglaive Final Fantasy XV (15) was ALL CGI – all the famous actors and actresses were voice-acting the film, and any sort of movement was probably done by motion capture technology rather than costumed actors and actresses running around.
Folks, enjoy the film for what it is; without CGI we would not have the wonderful story that was Rogue One. All of this pointless complaining when problems like ridiculous book taxes (Newfoundland province in Canada recently introduced a 10% tax on physical books) and government corruption exist is beyond me. The CGI was used because it was a tool available to producers to make a story happen – it was done well, and was not shoveled into the movie with no thought process: that right there should be enough for us viewers. Okay, some of you might want to be extra picky; don’t watch the film then. Go on avoid the film; better yet avoid ALL Star Wars movies henceforth if you hate CGI so much – saves us seats in the cinema and the popcorn will not be wasted as it sits uneaten in the hands of an angry viewer.
Well this game came out last year around May but I somehow managed to miss the story altogether – must have been something that was important, but whatever the case here we are with another story arc review. Now I must admit I am somewhat of a newcomer to the Uncharted series, so I did myself a favour and just dived right into the game movie and watched it till the end and picked up on some key areas along the way.
Now by the 4th game Elena and Nathan are married, but Nathan isn’t all too happy with how life panned out. Being an adventurer of sorts he fondly recalls his explorations into long lost secrets, until one day his long-dead brother shows up alive and well. After giving Nathan a short story about how he owes some drug lord money the two go off on an adventure to find some long lost pirate’s treasure. The game takes us to Scotland before going to Madagascar and some small islands just off the shore of Madagascar where we find ourselves exploring a long lost secret pirate colony and it is there that the rest of the game finishes off. Along the way we are greeted by Sully – an old yet competent man who we have seen with Nathan on his adventures – and Elena who by this time has found out that Nathan had lied to her about a salvage mission and she isn’t too happy with that but decides to stick with her husband for better or for worse (she cites wedding vows as a reason for her looking for Nathan).
The story is the usual twists and turns in the Uncharted series; being somewhat loosely interested, I had dipped into the story arcs from time to time but never really dived into the world like I did other narrative games. Still, I felt a connection to Elena and Nathan as the two worked out their differences in a short span of time familiar to those fans of action films and yet the way the two characters interacted with one another seemed to show off signs of genuine love for one another. Sure they are married and so on, but the work done by the acting staff is well put together, and I can see that the Uncharted series’ fan base is well deserved.
Indeed I enjoyed the trill ride that took us to exotic locations, and moments where the game seemed to want to drop us into a river or a canyon and yet somehow Nathan manages to fish himself out of the mess and continue on unscathed were interesting; though after a while it got a bit stale as the same: “maybe we will drop, maybe we will not” became somewhat predictable. The tale ends with Nathan discovering a lost partner who is now his rival, and his brother’s story being a fake to lure Nathan into helping him find the pirate’s treasure. When the story came to an end we see the lovely couple head off on their own direction while Sam (Nathan’s brother) heads off with Sully to find new adventures of their own. After the main story it is revealed that Nathan and Elena had a daughter, and eventually are forced to tell their daughter about the adventures mom and dad had before she was born (and oh it was awkward indeed).
Now this being the last game in the Nathan Drake arc, was it a proper send off for the Uncharted series? Honestly with the announcement of the next Uncharted game featuring Chloe as the main protagonist it isn’t entirely disappointing that Uncharted ended the way it did. Being an outsider looking in, I think the game’s story was great, and the platforming mechanics and so on seem well put together when compared to other titles that did a lazy job of said mechanics, or borrowed heavily from other titles in order to compensate for their deficiencies. Uncharted 4 A Thief’s End, a fitting end to the Nathan Drake story arc – here’s hoping Uncharted The Lost Legacy proves to be every bit the adventure that many fans have come to expect from an Uncharted game.
A Thief’s End being the last game for Nathan Drake (article):
Uncharted 4 A Thief’s End game movie:
A little short on topics to discuss today so I decided to do a small list of things I am interested in for the first half of 2017 – first half because it will be soon, and also because I’m uncertain of what other things might pop up later on that I develop an interest towards keeping track. First off we have For Honor; this medieval combat title by Ubisoft has us play as either knights, samurai, or vikings in a three-way fight that is rumored to be close to the real deal with facing down enemy players (the enemy AI will be similar to the grunts in Titanfall – easy as cake unless your controller’s batteries die, then it’s GG). Usually games that talk about sword play tend to exaggerate, and trailer footage is trailer footage so I am being cautious when going forward. Still for someone such as myself who has an interest in close combat in video games as evidence by my interest in the Gears of War franchise and Battlefield 1 (the game in particular because the other titles tend to be purely shoot-em-ups with no features like bayonet charges and so forth) it will be nice to have my interest indulged some more and this early in the new year.
While I am aware that Gears of War can turn into shoot-em-ups, I tend to play Gears 3 with private matches filled with bots; this way I can bayonet charge enemy units without worrying too much (still need to watch the corners) about an enemy rolling around the corner with a shotgun to roadblock my attempt. Apart from bayonet charges, you have the regular chainsaw bayonet, and the various execution animations for downed enemies with various weapons – not exactly sword play but it is still close combat because you are finishing them with some sort of a melee attack that is a bit flashier than – say – a slash from a knife like in most shooters.
Next we have Mass Effect Andromeda: sure I am a fan of the Mass Effect series, and it is often that I find myself playing the third installment over and over again as I run through the different options available to us in-game but I am skeptical about Andromeda. The game itself is advertised as this massive open-world adventure, and I like open world games; I would like them even more if they were like the Witcher 3 and had a ton of interesting side quests rather than endless landscapes with nothing in between settlements and so forth. Now having an open world to explore is important, but if it is just an open world and has nothing of interest within it then the game – to me anyways – feels like an “open field” walking simulator (I say “open field” because any title can be a walking simulator; just spin up Skyrim and walk – no fighting, no anything, just walking). Now I am aware that the game might not provide us with a hunting mechanic, but it would be nice to have side quests that are interesting and full of depth (ie: it links to another side quest down the line, not extending past three at most to form a mini story) rather than the usual quests experienced in MMOs where you go find ten rats and kill them and return for a gold piece and some silver coins.
Still despite my concern I am optimistic for Mass Effect Andromeda; at the very least I will be watching the cutscenes to get a better idea of what the story entails. Afterwards I will make a decision as to whether or not it is my cup of tea. Finally we have the French DLC for Battlefield 1; the usual four maps plus the French forces are being released along with the pack; being paid DLC I will wait for it to go on sale before getting it, and during that time I will observe to see if the DLC is even worth the money. Right now as it stands I would like to see more campaign story arcs added to the game; sure it might be a throw away campaign, but my bayonet charge fantasies need somewhere to go when multiplayer becomes annoying as sin and I have minor connection issues.
Alright folks that is about it for what I am looking forward to for the first few months of 2017; small list compared most, but then again theses lists are generally arbitrary – hope you enjoyed it and we’ll see you next time.
Don’t forget my Patreon page if you wish to support the war effort!
No I will not just: “let it slide,” what a piece of garbage news done by the local Global TV station.
First off will ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia) “let it slide” if our vehicles get damaged on icy roads? No they will not; they might even punish the victims for things like lack of winter tires (in a part of the province where it is not required), or driving at hour X that night when it was dangerous – in short you may use your car if they like you to use it, otherwise if it gets turned into a pile of scrap you get the stick (sorry folks, ICBC does not give out carrots).
Next, ice on roads equals fun? Sure kids like it, but kids do not have to deal with insurance companies or doctor visits if things go south fast; kids live care-free lives because they can, and because they are children.
Dictionary definition of children: “plural for child.” Definition of Child: “a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority; a son or a daughter; an immature or irresponsible person.”
Nowhere in the definition of child is it written that they have duties to their families and or to society as a whole – they live life carefree. Ice on the roads is dangerous and when it comes to dealing with ICBC here in British Columbia it can be a headache at best, a legal nightmare at worst. Leave the snow and ice to the parks where the only injuries that can occur will be broken egos.