• God of War: Ascension Reviews Round-up


    God of War: Ascension

    God of War: Ascension

    With few days lift for the God of War: Ascension to hit store shelves, reviews are up now all over the Internet. The game has received mostly positive reviews. A round-up of prominent reviews are right below:

    Polygon: 7/10

    “God of War: Ascension is a pair of halves that don’t add up to a cohesive whole. The multiplayer succeeds at making God of War work as a cooperative and competitive experience, but doesn’t have the depth to exist on its own. The campaign feels derivative and lacking the forceful confidence that made the series a showpiece for cinematic character-driven action games. When Ascension works, it still does what no other game save God of War manages to achieve. But it lacks the vision and force to stand up to the rest of the series.”

    Official PlayStation Magazine UK: 8/10

    “God Of War: Ascension is a fantastic game, just one that quite can’t compete with the true greats of the genre, like Castlevania: Lords Of Shadow. Whether multiplayer was a distraction that led to standards ever so slightly slipping in single-player is debatable. With such a strong combat system and beautiful looks, Kratos’ prequel could have eclipsed them all with a handful of key tweaks. Not quite the murdery meteoric rise we were hoping for then, but certainly not a fall from grace either.”

    Edge: 7/10

    “While this series’ singleplayer template is showing its age, there’s plenty in Ascension’s multiplayer that deserves to survive the transition to PS4.”

    GamesRadar: 3.5/5

    “God of War: Ascension is confident, executing the franchise tropes flawlessly with an amount of self-awareness not often seen in gaming. It knows it’s good–it knows it doesn’t have to try hard to be good–but it struggles to be anything more than that. While it’s worth experiencing for the massive battles, remarkable cinematic moments, and strong combat, it doesn’t feel like a necessary chapter in the God of War franchise.”

    Destructoid: 9/10

    “God of War has never looked or played better than this. Kratos has never been as deep or interesting as this. They’ve set the bar so high that I have no idea how they’ll be able to follow this one up. Sony Santa Monica should be proud. Series fans should be proud.”

    Gamespot: 8/10

    “The single-player is where you should spend your time. No, it doesn’t quite reach the audacious and rage-filled moments of God of War: Ascension’s predecessors, nor does it move the series forward in any way, but it’s skilfully put together, and wonderfully satisfying to play.”

    Videogamer: 7/10

    “The campaign is simultaneously more of the same and less of the same, being marginally shorter than God of War III’s story, yet lacking that game’s ferocity and pacing. It arguably has the lowest ‘wow’ factor of the four mainline games to date, and in a series that trades on spectacle, that’s not the best sign. Yet the multiplayer component is as fresh as the single-player is familiar.”

    PlayStation LifeStyle: 8.5/10

    In the end, single-player is still very much worth the price of admission even without multiplayer, if only for the combat and puzzles.”

    TheSixAxis: 8/10

    “It’s a fun ride – there are some lovely set pieces – but it’s largely a ride to a conclusion we already know and without enough focus to make it an unforgettable experience. Kratos’ backstory is fleshed out, his motivations explained and the rest of the series built on solid foundations, but is this really an essential slice of the story?”

    The Telegraph: 4/5

    “Ascension is a highly-accomplished if not completely fulfilling rampage. There’s a base level of quality that hasn’t slipped from the excellent God Of War III – this looks even better, puts things onscreen that are, somehow, even bigger. But this technical muscle isn’t given the best stage on which to oil and flex, thanks to a story that simply idles the roaring engine of death that is Kratos, and keeps the series ticking over until the next, more substantial step forward.”

    Machinima: 8.5/10

  • The Last of Us: New Details and Gameplay Video Released


    The Last of Us: New Details

    The Last of Us: New Details

    Early previews for Naughty Dog‘s survival horror game, The Last of Us, are up now. A select of media and press were given the opportunity to go hands-on with the game for the first time. Below are some of what they had to say:

    IGN:

    I don’t know if I’ve had a demo where sound was as crucial to the experience as this go with The Last of Us. Like I said at the start, this is a game about survival. You creep into rooms and listen for trouble — it’s how you survive and progress. The little music found here is for mood. Naughty Dog clearly thinks it’s more important to use sound effects — or the lack of them — to set players on edge, to keep them engrossed.

    Eurogamer:

    It feels like a big departure for Naughty Dog, far removed from the linear shootouts of Uncharted. “We’re very ambitious sometimes, to the point where we drive ourselves mad,” says Druckmann. “And we thought at an early point that we’re going to go very systemic here, and probably beyond our experience. We do that with every game, we want to leave our comfort zone. But again, it felt like this game required it – if I’m going up against infected and humans, they have to all have this very robust behavior.”

    Polygon:

    Seeing that title screen was a relief. The Last of Us is a cruel sequence of high tension horror moments, a puzzle of ruined architecture where no structure feels safe, where every howl and footstep could mean death. It’s a beautiful, disgusting, horrifying thing to behold.

    Destructoid:

    I expected a lot of things from The Last of Us, but what I didn’t expect, and what I was pleasantly surprised by, was that it scared me more than any recent survival horror game. I don’t know that Naughty Dog would classify it as a straight up survival horror, but between the time I spent scrounging to survive, and the rest of the time I spent scared sh?tless, it definitely fits under the classification.

    VG247:

    Combat in The Last of Us is stealth oriented, but Naughty Dog have created combat systems that are unique. There are three stages of the fungal infection, and in the demo we faced two of them, the Runners (stage one) and the Clickers (stage three). The important thing to remember about these enemies is that Runners can’t see too well, and so their vision is based on movement, like a tyrannosaur, and the Clickers can’t see at all and must use echolocation in order to get around.

    A new gameplay footage can be watched below:

    Some details collected from the previews:

    • Early in the game the player will travel to a place called ‘The Outskirts’ in Boston.
    • The Outskirts is a quarantined zone home to a human settlement living under martial law.
    • In quarantined zones rations, weapons and medicines are heavily regulated.
    • As black market smugglers, main character Joel and his partner Tess pick up a job to escort Ellie out of the quarantined zones and to the Fireflies, a militia group.
    • Unlike the previous action-heavy demos, the new areas involved facing off against the infected, which has a distinctly survival horror feel to it.
    • As previously detailed, savaging is a core gameplay element, players will be grabbing rags, scissors, tape and anything else useful to combine and use later.
    • Tess name checks an enemy type as a ‘Clicker’, fortunately it happens to already be dead. Its skull has been cracked open and mushrooms are growing out of the wound and its eyes. Clickers can’t see but use echolocation by making clicking noises.
    • Clickers have reached Stage three of the mysterious virus’ infection. In combat, being grabbed by these monstrosities is a one-hit-kill. A stage one infected called ‘Runners’ are much more like the traditional zombie, quick on its feet and very dangerous in packs.
    • Players will have to plan their assaults using Joel’s handy ‘Listen’ mode. This highlights any enemies making noise in the field of vision, essentially letting players see enemies through walls and plan the best course of action.
    • Throwable weapons include lead pipes, shivs and guns, but these have limitations. Ammo is sparse and weapons break. Throwing them takes some time and precision, so it’s always a good idea to have a plan B.
    • The best way to dispatch the infected is one-on-one, using stealth to get a jump on them. A shiv is the quick and silent option, but players can also throw a brick at enemies to force a stagger and then close the gap and bludgeon them to death or – provided they have the resources to make one – use a scissor spiked two by four.
    • Scavenging and crafting is essential. The world is peppered with blades, batteries, alcohol, bindings, rags and many other resources. By combining these Joel can be armed with weapons or support items like medpacks. Resources can also be used to modify weapons.
    • Recipes can be discovered to create new items. For example, a bottle of alcohol and a rag results in a molotov.
  • iPad mini and iPad 4th-gen Early Reviews Round-up


    iPad mini and iPad 4th-gen Early Reviews Round-up

    iPad mini and iPad 4th-gen Early Reviews Round-up

    iPad Mini and fourth-generation iPad reviews start hitting the web. The reviews are generally positive, check some of them right below:

    TIME:

    Even though this screen isn’t state of the art, it’s O.K. If you’ve ever laid your eyeballs on the ultra-smooth text rendered by the Retina iPad, its text will look fuzzy by comparison, especially at teensier type sizes. But the tradeoff it presents compared to the 7-inchers — fewer pixels, but more space — is reasonable enough.

    AllThingsD:

    In shrinking the iconic iPad, Apple has pulled off an impressive feat. It has managed to create a tablet that’s notably thinner and lighter than the leading small competitors with 7-inch screens, while squeezing in a significantly roomier 7.9-inch display. And it has shunned the plastic construction used in its smaller rivals to retain the iPad’s sturdier aluminum and glass body.

    Guardian:

    What will surprise you is the weight. The specs already show that the iPad mini is lighter than the Kindle Fire, 308g v 395g (and 340g for the Nexus 7); even if you add on a Smart Cover, it’s still lighter than the uncovered Kindle Fire. It’s thinner too. This is a device that will be ideal for holding in one hand for reading on train rides or other commuting; or you might even forget it’s in that coat pocket.

    Engadget:

    In fact we found the brightness and color reproduction to be improved over the iPad 2, comparable to the latest Retina displays. Colors are very pleasing to the eye and viewing angles, as ever with an Apple display, do not disappoint. You can line up as many friends as you like and sit them shoulder-to-shoulder, they’ll all have a bright, clear picture. Yes, mini owners may have to make do with some resolution envy, but they at least won’t be lacking in any other regard.

    The Verge:

    And it does raise the floor here. There’s no tablet in this size range that’s as beautifully constructed, works as flawlessly, or has such an incredible software selection. Would I prefer a higher-res display? Certainly. Would I trade it for the app selection or hardware design? For the consistency and smoothness of its software, or reliability of its battery? Absolutely not. And as someone who’s been living with (and loving) Google’s Nexus 7 tablet for a few months, I don’t say that lightly.

    TechCrunch:

    While we’re on the subject of the screen, let’s not beat around the bush — if there is a weakness of this device, it’s the screen. But that statement comes with a very big asterisk. As someone who is used to a “retina” display on my phone, tablet, and even now computer, the downgrade to a non-retina display is quite noticeable. This goes away over time as you use the iPad mini non-stop, but if you switch back a retina screen, it’s jarring.

    Telegraph:

    On the other hand, what will make some think twice about buying an iPad mini is the price. Starting at £269 for a WiFi only model, this is £100 dearer than the Kindle Fire HD or the Nexus 7, which is now available in a 16GB version for £159.

    Whether it’s worth it depends on how much of a premium you put on great design and a vast ecosystem of apps. Apple will sell a lot of these little beauties, that’s for sure.

    CNET:

    The iPad Mini is a design shift from the iPad, and perhaps the biggest one in the iPad’s entire history. Despite how popular the iPad’s been, it’s not really a device that’s very comfortable to use when not sitting down or at a desk. It’s a use-when-you-get-there device, or use-when-comfortably-seated. An iPhone or iPod Touch is truly mobile, and the iPad is only halfway there.

    SlashGear:

    Apple quotes up to 10hrs of wireless browsing over Wi-Fi for the iPad mini, or up to 9hrs if you’re using the tablet’s cellular connection. In practice, with a mixture of browsing, some video playback, games, music – both locally-stored and streaming – and messaging, we comfortably exceeded Apple’s estimate. In fact, we exceeded 11hrs of use before encountering a battery warning.

    Fox News:

    Those tablets don’t have the complete experience that the iPad does. Come on: The iPad is still the gold standard for tablet computing after all. With stellar hardware and hundreds of thousands of apps, the iPad is the Kleenex of facial tissue. The Tivo of DVRs. It has all the perks of using an iOS device: AppStore, iMessages, FaceTime, etc.

    And the iPad 4th-generation:

    Telegraph:

    In my testing, battery life seems to have remained the same despite the processor, and so have the cameras. In fact, the camera is one of the places where the impact of the A6X processor can be seen: taking pictures is an astonishingly fast and picture quality is improved thanks to the A6X’s image signal processor.

    The Verge:

    The fourth-generation iPad is the very definition of an iterative change: Apple made important things better, but neither overhauled nor revolutionized anything. If the iPad’s history is any indication, the fourth-generation iPad’s advantages over the third-gen model will be most apparent two years from now, when apps are designed for the better processor and the Lightning connector has spawned a much larger universe of accessories. Then you’ll want the extra power and the adapter-free lifestyle.

    For now, if you’re within your return window you should probably swap for the newest iPad, but if not? Rest assured you’re not really missing that much. Not yet, at least.

    TechCrunch:

    If you were going to get an iPad before, obviously, you’ll want to get this one now. In fact, you don’t even have a choice — Apple has discontinued the third-generation model. The prices remain the same across the board as do all of the other features (WiFi/LTE, Retina display, etc).

    Yes, it is kind of lame for those of us who bought third-generation models that Apple updated the line so quickly, but well, that’s Apple. To me, the fourth-generation leap doesn’t seem to be nearly as big as the leap from the first to second generation or from the second to third generation, so perhaps take some solace in that.

    SlashGear:

    The third-generation iPad arguably didn’t need refreshing; in fact, if Apple hadn’t opted to change to Lightning, it could realistically have held off changing its largest tablet until early 2013, as per its typical yearly refresh cycle. That makes for a reasonably straightforward upgrade decision if you’re a 3rd-gen iPad owner. Unless you’re desperate for Lightning – perhaps you’ve also got an iPhone 5, and want to use all the same accessories rather than buy the adapter dongle – then we’re yet to see apps that really demand the potent A6X chipset.

  • The Amazing Spider-man Movie Review


     

    The Amazing Spider-man Movie Review

    The Amazing Spider-man Movie Review

    Finally, I managed to watch “The Amazing Spider-man” and it is not amazing as expected. This movie has serious issues that I hope the team would be able to avoid in the upcoming sequels.

    First off, the cast are surprisingly great, but having two major characters killed off is nonsense and surely leaving a huge void in the sequels.

    The Amazing Spider-man Movie Review

    The Amazing Spider-man Movie Review

    .. But what went wrong? [Spoilers ahead]

    Peter Parker doesn’t have a specific goal in this movie. At first it was to figure out what happened to his parents, which isn’t explained as well. We know nothing other than that “They were scientists.” So what? That’s not even 10% of what I needed to find out. I know the staff are keeping this for the next movies but they kept teasing us with the tagline “The Untold Story” and what we got is less satisfying.

    Peter’s second goal is to control his new powers. The scene in the subway train when a random loser puts the beer bottle on his head for no or a strange reason, Peter jumps off and sticks to the ceiling begins climbing walls and beating up some innocent guys, and guess what? Almost a dozen witnessed him doing such spectacular abilities and no one seems to care about that or reporting what they saw to the authorities.

    Now Peter’s goal is to bring uncle Ben’s murderer to justice, after several trials he just stops doing this, with no reason! The only thing he would do is crying one time and kissing the girl in another.

    Later, Peter’s new goal is to confront the new villain, The Lizard, which is more like a CGI version. This thing is horribly written and executed, it has confusing motives, in the human form he looks good while in his alter ego he becomes violent, angry and in one scene knocking cars off of a bridge for no obvious reasons! Maybe it was just to tell someone that the vaccine isn’t ready yet? This is ridiculous and not satisfying.

    There were a confusion and inconsistencies in this movie that totally spoiled this experience. Peter seems to be very comfortable being in the sewers to the point enjoying himself there. Police trying to stun Spider-man with Laser rifle while shooting the lizard using live rounds?! Really! In one scene, where Spider-man rescues a boy from a burning car, he wastes almost 5 minutes trying to convince the boy to be brave, climb up and hold his hand. This is boring and unneeded details at all.

    Apart from some amazing POV scenes that unfortunately were spoiled in the trailers, most action scenes were non-thrilling at all, taking place at night or visually uninteresting. Guys, CGI and the sky at night do not make good fellows.

    The climax does not work because we have seen that in a dozen movies before. The chemical missile that needs charging, again, for no reason (actually for the hero to come and rescue) and guess what, there is an antidote for that! You know the thing Gwen has been working on for the past 5 minutes. Really? Since when kids study advanced genetics in school?

    Finally, Spider-man keeps removing his mask almost to every major character in this movie, This really isn’t the spider-man I wanted to see.

    Rated: 6/10

    Watch the trailer below: