Hello everyone. Gran Turismo 5 came out recently, and I must say that I was very excited to play this game. So let's get this review started.
Unfortunately, I was only able to start this game on a standard TV, so my view of the graphics may be arguable at times.
The first thing that I saw with GT5 was the into sequence. I'm sure it was really cool to watch, but I just did not care enough to watch the whole thing, so I skipped it. I really like this new interface overall, with the smooth menu scrolling, going between each of the modes. In GT mode, you start off customizing your home or "My Home." This is a cool feature that will interest racing fans who like to customize random stuff. I don't really care for this, but it's a good start to the game. Next I had to buy a car. Things are not as simple as going to the used car dealer and just buying whatever you can afford. There's a leveling system in addition to earning credits, and I think this is a huge change from previous GTs. At times, I feel that winning credits from special events can become too easy and in too much of one quantity, because when I play the real A-Spec events on beginner, I race around in a crappy car only to win 4000 credits for winning a gold medal. If any other reviewer who has not really taken enough time (IGN.com cough cough) to review this game thoroughly would say without a doubt that not much has changed. Well I'm pretty sure that a leveling system is a pretty big change, and having an online mode is also a big change. Also those annoying driving missions which were a huge fail in GT4 have been replaced with "Special Events" which as I mentioned earlier help you win more credits and level you up faster than regular A-Spec races. Speaking of A-Spec mode, why is B-Spec mode still hanging around? No one wants to use it unless it's for that 24-hour race thing that I haven't seen in GT5 yet. These special event races can be really fun, but at the same time really challenging. For example the special event race at the Test Track is more frustrating than fun, because even on beginner mode, I feel it would be very hard to win first place without being disqualified while racing against a bunch of really slow VWs. Spinning out is Lotus Elises is not very much fun either, while the car oversteers easily sometimes before the first turn. Maybe I'm just nit picking. The main career menu has the usual stuff, such as the custom shop, where I turned my 445hp Audi R8 into a 789hp monster.
If there's one thing I suggest to potential players it's this: INSTALL THE FREAKIN' DISC!
Without the install, loading times could take up to at least 45 seconds. This doesn't seem like much, but when you switch between license tests for specific licenses, it becomes annoying to wait 45 seconds between each test. I have played this game with and without the install, and I must say that the difference between the two is 45 and 15 seconds. This is kind of a huge difference.
Now let's look at the online mode. Recently (about a couple days after the game came out), there was a patch released to prevent the online server from overloading, so PD had to disable some of the more useless online features to prevent most of the common problems with the online. I didn't really seem to notice a difference. Anyway, the online mode is great, because there isn't noticable lag. My only problem with the online is that when there's a "nascar only" server, people don't know how to race properly. I ended up playign with about 4 or 5 other people in a nascar race; Two of them boxed me in when I tried to make a clean pass, and the third player spun me out. That gets annoying because I try to race clean while others do not. Also, there isn't much limitations on hp most of the time, so I could be racing with people who have faster and slower cars than myself. Then again, there isn't a drop in framerate at all, and the graphics online seem consistent with the regular single player.
Then there's arcade mode. They brought back the nice feature of split screen, now limiting only two camera views. It's a bit surprising, but I can't really complain considering that they worked hard on keeping the graphics good. This mode is most useful for practicing, and it is designed to allow you to dive right into racing Not much was changed between GT5 and GT4 in this mode. That being said, nothing was really needed to be changed, so overall it's pretty good.
Graphics. This is an amazing looking game. Even the standard cars look fantastic. For those people who say that the standard cars were imported for GT4, are WRONG. This game was made from scratch, and sometimes I have a hard time telling the difference between the standard and premium cars, other than (the lack of) the highly detailed cockpit view. Again, I'm looking at this game on a standard TV, so you don't have to agree with me, but this is just my take on how the game looks. Yeah, there's that occasional jaggedness with certain standard cars, and backgrounds, but overall, this game is a huge improvement from GT4 (I don't count GT5P sorry).
Overall, this game is most certainly worth the wait, and definately a full $60. It offers the same content that GT fans have loved the past 4 games and offers some newer features that help keep the game up to par with the other competators, such as Grid and Forza. The damage is limited in GT5, but you shouldn't be bumping into cars anyway. As for the license tests and special events, bumping into someone generally disqualifies you, so don't bump in the first place!
Overall 9.2/10
Thanks for reading this!
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Death Penalty: Clifford Bogess video response
The Execution was a video that regarded the issue of the death penalty. It followed a man named Clifford Boggess, a man who grew up in St. Joe, Texas, and committed two murders. He told his stories is they were, and he didn't seem to make up any details that would make him seem more inocent. This was something that I would consider to be a mitigating factor. I say this, because he was able to admit what he had done. Some could argue that based on the video he was almost proud of what he had done, but he had admitted that he regrets murdering both of those old men.
One thing that we should consider in a case like this was why he committed the murders. A lot of stories that I hear on the news involve shootings where a kid get shot to death on accident, or a man would murder his ex-girlfriend for revenge of some sort. Boggess murdered for different reason; It was to get money, and out of anger.
This seems like a silly reason to want to murder someone, and even Boggess started to realize the rediculousness of his story. The two murders were committed withinn two weeks of each other, but he stabbed each old man to death, rather than just shooting a bullet or two. He also felt no emotion, or tried not to during and after the two murders, and threatened his girlfriend if she had told someone about any of the two murders. These factors can easily be held against him, and would cause the relatives of the deceased men angry and upset enough to want Boggess dead.
With that in mind, Boggess seemed to make durastic changes in his life in death row. He started to become an artist, and decided to believe in his faith for forgiveness by God. This brings up an interesting point of whether a person can change or not. Maybe Boggess did change, but he may say that he would never murder again, but it could be all lies if he loses his faith and commitment to his religion. Whether people can change or not, they can become more or less religious at any time in their lives.
Clifford Boggess also made pen pals from all over the country and part of Europe to help him sell his art paintings and sketches. His art reflected feelings that he had about what he had done, and his hope to live as long as he could on death row. However, his ability to paint seemed to give him something to do while he was waiting for his execution date, which he knew would come eventually. He would have been happier to stay in prison for life, but he did his best dealing with his anticipated execuation date.
He seemed to value his faith more than anything, even though he loved to paint. When the families were interviewed that were not satisfied with what had happened to their mudered relatives, but it seemed that even his death didn't bring them peace either, because the locations of the committed murders where there to haunt them. The places where each old man died are still in existance, and that is what keeps each of the families and relatives from being satisfied by anything or anyone. Boggess thought that writing apology letters to each of the families would help them feel better, but both families disliked the idea that a murderer would be preaching to them. He did not expect forgiveness until he would be dead.
In addition his apology, his aspect on life, although changed through his religion allowed him to reflect on the muders that he committed, and his delayed execution gave him enough time to ask God for forgivness, or so he thought. This is where the question of whether he should have been executed comes into play. It didn't really bring anyone to justice, and no one forgave him after his execution, so why was he killed? Would it really have been a deterrent for other people not to murder?
To answer both of these questions, the only deterrent that was formed from Clifford Boggess's execution was for himself. He would not be able to murder anyone ever again, whether he actually changed or not, because he can't murder anyone if he's dead. It would have been better for him, and other's like him to be executed as soon as possible, so that he wouldn't have time to religiously be forgiven, and forgive himself. While we are all human, and make mistakes, commiting two or more murders marks the point of murdering not being any mistake at all, and while Boggess may have been a good guy before the murders, and during his time on death row, his second murder was no mistake, and action was taken upon him to bring no one to justice. He was too dagerous to let out of prison, but prison for life may have been better for a man who would be willing to admit what he had done.
One thing that we should consider in a case like this was why he committed the murders. A lot of stories that I hear on the news involve shootings where a kid get shot to death on accident, or a man would murder his ex-girlfriend for revenge of some sort. Boggess murdered for different reason; It was to get money, and out of anger.
This seems like a silly reason to want to murder someone, and even Boggess started to realize the rediculousness of his story. The two murders were committed withinn two weeks of each other, but he stabbed each old man to death, rather than just shooting a bullet or two. He also felt no emotion, or tried not to during and after the two murders, and threatened his girlfriend if she had told someone about any of the two murders. These factors can easily be held against him, and would cause the relatives of the deceased men angry and upset enough to want Boggess dead.
With that in mind, Boggess seemed to make durastic changes in his life in death row. He started to become an artist, and decided to believe in his faith for forgiveness by God. This brings up an interesting point of whether a person can change or not. Maybe Boggess did change, but he may say that he would never murder again, but it could be all lies if he loses his faith and commitment to his religion. Whether people can change or not, they can become more or less religious at any time in their lives.
Clifford Boggess also made pen pals from all over the country and part of Europe to help him sell his art paintings and sketches. His art reflected feelings that he had about what he had done, and his hope to live as long as he could on death row. However, his ability to paint seemed to give him something to do while he was waiting for his execution date, which he knew would come eventually. He would have been happier to stay in prison for life, but he did his best dealing with his anticipated execuation date.
He seemed to value his faith more than anything, even though he loved to paint. When the families were interviewed that were not satisfied with what had happened to their mudered relatives, but it seemed that even his death didn't bring them peace either, because the locations of the committed murders where there to haunt them. The places where each old man died are still in existance, and that is what keeps each of the families and relatives from being satisfied by anything or anyone. Boggess thought that writing apology letters to each of the families would help them feel better, but both families disliked the idea that a murderer would be preaching to them. He did not expect forgiveness until he would be dead.
In addition his apology, his aspect on life, although changed through his religion allowed him to reflect on the muders that he committed, and his delayed execution gave him enough time to ask God for forgivness, or so he thought. This is where the question of whether he should have been executed comes into play. It didn't really bring anyone to justice, and no one forgave him after his execution, so why was he killed? Would it really have been a deterrent for other people not to murder?
To answer both of these questions, the only deterrent that was formed from Clifford Boggess's execution was for himself. He would not be able to murder anyone ever again, whether he actually changed or not, because he can't murder anyone if he's dead. It would have been better for him, and other's like him to be executed as soon as possible, so that he wouldn't have time to religiously be forgiven, and forgive himself. While we are all human, and make mistakes, commiting two or more murders marks the point of murdering not being any mistake at all, and while Boggess may have been a good guy before the murders, and during his time on death row, his second murder was no mistake, and action was taken upon him to bring no one to justice. He was too dagerous to let out of prison, but prison for life may have been better for a man who would be willing to admit what he had done.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Playing Nightfire again
This past weekend I took a brief, two hour vacation from the next gen console games, an decided to play one of my favorite multiplatform shooters: 007 Nightfire. It has been such a long time since I played the Gamecube version, but I feel that this game in the multiplayer does things that most games have stopped doing all together.
1. AI bots. You don't always need online gameplay for a game to have good multiplayer. It was one of the last few games made by EA and what was probably Gearbox that still had AI bots in splitscreen mode. But the thing that I liked, especially on the Gamecube version, was the fact that you could customize 6 AI bots! That's actually a lot for 2002 console game. Sure, Unreal Tournament from the 90s had similar customization with up to 15 bots, but it was also featuring online multiplayer, as well as the fact that it was a PC shooter.
My favorite part about the game, however, was how it ran on the same engine as the original Half Life, which was probably one of the greatest shooters made in the 90s and possibly of all time. The hit scan for 2002 was seemingly realistic, and killing bots and other enemies was a lot harder when I turned off crosshairs, something that I would dare not do in an online multiplayer game.
The graphics were also still pretty good as well, and the Gamecube did the 2nd best job of showing that. Everything was clean. It was no PS3 game, but it definately looks believable for it's time. That was when games were simple, and didn't try to depend on multiplayer to get some big bucks.
1. AI bots. You don't always need online gameplay for a game to have good multiplayer. It was one of the last few games made by EA and what was probably Gearbox that still had AI bots in splitscreen mode. But the thing that I liked, especially on the Gamecube version, was the fact that you could customize 6 AI bots! That's actually a lot for 2002 console game. Sure, Unreal Tournament from the 90s had similar customization with up to 15 bots, but it was also featuring online multiplayer, as well as the fact that it was a PC shooter.
My favorite part about the game, however, was how it ran on the same engine as the original Half Life, which was probably one of the greatest shooters made in the 90s and possibly of all time. The hit scan for 2002 was seemingly realistic, and killing bots and other enemies was a lot harder when I turned off crosshairs, something that I would dare not do in an online multiplayer game.
The graphics were also still pretty good as well, and the Gamecube did the 2nd best job of showing that. Everything was clean. It was no PS3 game, but it definately looks believable for it's time. That was when games were simple, and didn't try to depend on multiplayer to get some big bucks.
Monday, November 1, 2010
(Belated) MOH Review
So about a couple of weeks ago or so, the new game "Medal of Honor" came out. From what I hear, it didn't sell nearly as many copies as it could have, and EA is still planning on releasing DLC, dispite the lack of copies bought. I played both the campaign (and beat it), as well as the multiplayer. The campaign doesn't really have much of a storyline, nor does it have any sort of plot. This wouldn't be a bad thing, except all you do is kill the Taliban guys, who stick out like sore thumbs, and move up to the next checkpoint. The pacing is well done, but it becomes useless when everything else is not so good. Part of the reason why MOH's campaign is bad is because DICE (same developers and the Battlefield series) only worked on the multiplayer, but we'll get to that in a sec. The extremely linear level design, and invincible teammate AI didn't really help the game either. One of the better options (but not so original) is how you can turn off aim assist. This is more helpful in the single player, because otherwise, quickly aiming down the sights no matter what distance automattically locks onto the near enemy towards the chest (sound familiar? hint: MW2).
This brings me to multiplayer. One of my criticisms towards the multiplayer, is how the aim assist between players is not consistant. One guy on the OpFor could have aim assist while an ememy from the Ranger's may not. It would have been better to have separate servers for people who want aim assist off, and people who want it on. Aside from that minor problem, the multiplayer mode has some pretty good variety. Every mode is team based, but my favorite is the team assult, where one team defends multiple parts of a base, while the other attacks. While you can only play certain modes at certain maps, the maps take a very long time to get adjusted to and learn, because they are not oversized like BC2, nor are they too small such as a Halo map. The prone mode was also taken out, which keeps people from taking complete cover, and the weapon class system only has 3 classes, and you progress through each class separately, just like BC2. There's an assult class, a class where you have a smaller machine or submachine gun (or shotgun), and then there is a sniping class. The physics of the sniping are very solid, but not much has needed to be done since BC2.
Many people prefer to compare this game to MW2, but quite frankly you can only do that for so long. It's a lot more comparable to the other game using the same engine, which is BC2. Both games look about the same, but the killstreaks taken from MW and MW2 add a nice touch, because the "killchains" are much more difficult to get, considering that standing out in the open will increase your chances of getting your ass shot by a sniper rifle from across the map.
Overall I give this game a solid 8.5/10.
This brings me to multiplayer. One of my criticisms towards the multiplayer, is how the aim assist between players is not consistant. One guy on the OpFor could have aim assist while an ememy from the Ranger's may not. It would have been better to have separate servers for people who want aim assist off, and people who want it on. Aside from that minor problem, the multiplayer mode has some pretty good variety. Every mode is team based, but my favorite is the team assult, where one team defends multiple parts of a base, while the other attacks. While you can only play certain modes at certain maps, the maps take a very long time to get adjusted to and learn, because they are not oversized like BC2, nor are they too small such as a Halo map. The prone mode was also taken out, which keeps people from taking complete cover, and the weapon class system only has 3 classes, and you progress through each class separately, just like BC2. There's an assult class, a class where you have a smaller machine or submachine gun (or shotgun), and then there is a sniping class. The physics of the sniping are very solid, but not much has needed to be done since BC2.
Many people prefer to compare this game to MW2, but quite frankly you can only do that for so long. It's a lot more comparable to the other game using the same engine, which is BC2. Both games look about the same, but the killstreaks taken from MW and MW2 add a nice touch, because the "killchains" are much more difficult to get, considering that standing out in the open will increase your chances of getting your ass shot by a sniper rifle from across the map.
Overall I give this game a solid 8.5/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)