Is it Time to Upgrade Your Console Yet?

As someone who doesn't mind Christmas, but works during it, I'm personally lamenting the prospect of massive queues, shopping-centre shoving and seasonal tunes on repeat. You've all got an idea of how busy Boxing Day will be, so some sympathy would be appreciated.

So understandably, I'll need a way to unwind which refrains from any law-breaking. This method of relaxation used to be gaming, until university and work made any spare time vanish. Although, thanks to a combination of procrastination and a spurt of interesting releases, the medium of gaming has slowly inched its way back into my life somehow; I'm assuming that I'll be forgetting something important over the next few weeks, but I suppose it'll be fine. 

The thing is, over the past two holiday seasons, since the release of the current-gen consoles, I've had one and immediately took it back. For the past 24 months or so, I've been adamant that the highly-touted PS4 and Xbox One simply haven't been worth it. Upon their release, I kept telling myself that an equally priced computer could do just the same, and arguably more. Subsequently, I invested in a laptop and laughed at console users as I played the superior versions of Payday 2 and Battlefield 3 at a higher resolution and frame-rate. But that was two years ago...

Now, much like myself, my laptop has succumb to age, or is in the process of doing so. It's fine with tightly-optimized titles such as XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Metro: Last Light, and it's great for quirky indie titles like Papers, Please and the more recent Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, but the big triple-A titles are beginning to become a bit of a struggle. 

For me, the matter of which console has never been a question: It'd always have to be a PS4, even if we're going solely on exclusive titles alone. But in the face of cracking works like Kojima's masterpiece, The Phantom Pain, or even the inevitably good Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, I'm starting to yearn for something new, something which requires a controller rather than a keyboard and mouse.

To ensure that this doesn't devolve into a fanboy conflict, I'm going to focus on Sony's machine, so take these following words with a pinch of salt. Because I'm going to be talking about PS4s so much, you'll start seeing blue.

Have you seen the release line-up for the holidays?

Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you a quick run-down of this year's top games. I realise how I sound like a marketing rep from GAME with that statement, but I'll carry on regardless...

Firstly, you've got Just Cause 3: A game which has thankfully realised its potential to be a simulator of Hollywood-style explosions and general buffoonery. Grapple onto a train, plant some plastic explosives on it, fly off in a jet and watch as you make a cracking thumbnail for a YouTube video in the process. 

You've got a cracking experience with the aforementioned Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, which is quite possibly the most coherent and enjoyable Metal Gear game yet. Be the boss of your own army, and run around with a dog, killing people.

If you're after something old, yet new, look no further than the incredibly recent Fallout 4, a title which has already claimed many hours of time and has challenged many relationships with its involving new mechanics and accessible renovations.


You've also got the upcoming edition of Uncharted, an experience which consistently manages to remain cinematic, yet involving. And it looks like it has a brilliant car chase too, (as to be expected). And if the stars align, No Man's Sky will be on the PS4 in our lifetime, too. Admittedly, some of these games will eventually make their way onto PC, but it's almost gospel that they won't be as optimised, and in the case of Arkham Knight, they may not work at all. 

The value of PlayStation Plus

Initially, I was a tad annoyed that a PS Plus subscription would be required to play online with the PS4, but then I remembered; Microsoft has been doing this for years with their last-gen system, with little consequence. 

When Sony's service was launched in June 2010, it seemed like a very tempting deal indeed. This was before a Xbox Live Gold membership came with free games too, so for the £40 a year, (and with many ways to get a free trial for a couple of months), you got the likes of Bulletstorm, Just Cause 2, Vanquish and Borderlands 2, all of which are cracking titles. 

If you're one to have a gander at the pre-owned section of your local game retailer, PS Plus was an excellent, convenient alternative, and still is. The array of free games available for the PS4 is still relatively short, although is somewhat forgivable, given that games for the console are still few and far between. Regardless, players have already been treated to a few quirky indie titles which were once seldom seen on consoles. Rocket League, Guacamelee! and Transistor have all made their way onto PS4 consoles for free, as part of the service.

PC users are having to upgrade

Unfortunately for myself, and many other semi-casual PC gamers, modern titles are getting more and more demanding. I shouldn't complain, really. How else are games going to improve if they don't take advantage of constantly developing hardware?

So while little indie gems and the less-demanding shooter are still fine on my laptop, the likes of GTA V and Mad Max would most certainly struggle. Most developers nowadays seem to require a quad-core processor to run things smoothly, something which would require a costly upgrade, especially with a laptop. 

So unless you want to fork out for a brand new (or at the very least upgraded) system, it seems that your best bet is one of the current-gen consoles, bundled in with one of these new, somewhat demanding titles, like Fallout 4, for example. 

A waning focus on visuals

I seem to be going on about Bethesda's most recent, and arguably best game, Fallout 4 in this post, albeit with good reason. I mean, have you seen it?

One of the major worries surrounding the title when people first caught a glimpse of it, was the graphics. While a conclusive improvement on those offered in Fallout 3, some thought that the visual fidelity of the sequel wouldn't live up to expectations; it looked good, but not 'next-gen' good. 

Personally, I blame the unrealistic standards flaunted by GTA V, The Last of Us, Driveclub and even the very forgettable The Order: 1886. It seems that the latter two titles favoured cracking aesthetics in order to promote the ridiculous importance of console exclusivity, leading to a very good looking, but overall somewhat disappointing experience.

But thankfully, more recent titles such as Fallout 4, and hopefully with Just Cause 3, graphical prowess is merely an afterthought to good mechanics and solid gameplay. Although, with both games set to strive in both visual fidelity and mechanical fluidity, maybe some developers are just excelling when it comes to planning their games, and nailing the execution too. 

Support for last-gen is being slowly discontinued

I've never been too involved when it comes to franchises like the WWE 2K series, or more notably the latest Call of Duty title. Every now and again, I'll get a few hours of entertainment from one of these copy/paste installments, but for the most part, they seem to escape me.

But while critics, and myself, often tend to poke fun at these games for a lack of progression or development over time, the two latest editions in these series' have seen some notable differences when it comes to versions on the last-gen and current-gen consoles. A deterioration of graphics is to be expected when you go back to the PS3 and Xbox 360, but that was often it; the rest of the game mostly remained the same.

Understandably, Activision wouldn't just throw away the potential custom of millions by leaving out the older consoles, but this does have some woeful results. The campaign of Black Ops 3, for example, has been touted as one of the best single-player experiences in ages, when it comes to the franchise; so it does perplex me as to why the mode would be left out of the editions for the PS3 and Xbox 360. If you're after an online-only experience, you've got plenty of other options, and for some fans, the absence of the single-player may be the reason for missing out this iteration. But the same can also be said for WWE 2K16, too. 

The latest evolution in the wrestling franchise is, without a doubt, a massive improvement on its predecessor, that is if you're playing on a PS4 or Xbox One. The older consoles are missing out a fully formed career mode, due to constraints with disc-space, and the graphics do seem worlds apart if you have a side-by-side comparison of the two, a difference which 2K marketing have described as an almost "night and day" level of variance. 

Then take a look at all these games which are exclusive to current-gen consoles, and see if there's anything you feel like you're missing out on. 

The price isn't too shabby

Upon their launch, the current-gen consoles really weren't worth their price. Granted, the original £350 cost was a nice change from the PS3 launch price, which if I remember correctly, hovered around the range of £425. 

Two years ago, all we had was the latest iterations of the Assassin's Creed, Need for Speed, Battlefield, FIFA and Call of Duty franchises, with a slim selection of actual exclusives, including Killzone: Shadow Fall (which was alright), to Knack (which was not). The same could also be said for the Xbox One; both consoles had fairly terrible lineups, and nothing which compared to the previous generations offerings, like Motorstorm or Resistance: Fall of Man. 

But now, with a fully varied range of remasters and original titles, these consoles now make a lot more sense. If you managed to persist with titles which pushed the limits of the nearly decade-old hardware, (see The Last of Us and GTA V), you can now enjoy them in their full glory, with stable frame-rates and higher resolutions.

Once you've had a nostalgic trip, you can then proceed to all the new and exciting aforementioned titles which are coming soon. For £300, you won't have to persist with Assassin's Creed IV for the foreseeable future; granted, there's hardly as big a collection as there is on PC, but these new consoles do need time to create a sizable library of games, something which they are well on the way of creating. 

But rather than conjuring up a series of slightly coherent points, I'll propose the initial question: Is it time to upgrade yet? 

Unless you're a die-hard fan of the PC master race, and want to involve yourself in that particular sphere, then I would certainly recommend upgrading. The PS3 and Xbox 360 have long since been squeezed of all their potential, and their hardware shortcomings are now becoming woefully apparent as newer and newer games are released. 

A PS4 is cheaper to buy than a PS3 when it was released back in 2006. I can appreciate if you haven't got the money to throw around, especially coming up to Christmas, but the excuses for sticking with the last-gen consoles are becoming increasingly scarce. Admittedly, my PS3 is remaining in it's current place, purely for the collection of games I amassed for it, and Sony's answer for backwards compatibility (PlayStation Now), is still full of flaws in its infancy.

That being said, you shouldn't have to resort to old games for much longer. There's no question about it; you will get your value from a current-gen console. Even the fact that we refer to the PS4 and Xbox One as 'current-gen' does say something about how behind the older consoles are. So do the developers a favour, get with the times, and invest in a new piece of gaming technology. 

The Payday Problem

Game developers can, occasionally, be dicks. This isn't news to us, many people have learned to regretfully accept it when a season pass is announced, or some free-to-play title has unbalanced purchases. But we normally see these kind of acts from big developers, those who annually whack out another triple-A title; you know, EA, Ubisoft and friends...

We don't normally expect this kind of behavior from a developer who has previously been avidly against it, stating that their game will never utilise such villainous methods to sustain itself. So what's happening with Overkill, and Payday 2?

Payday 2 is a good game, or at the very least, the core concept was. You, and three friends, must successfully execute a bank heist, or robbery, or infrequently, make meth. It has a varied palette of enemies, balanced and customisable weaponry, and some solid gameplay mechanics. Accordingly, over the past two years, Payday 2 has accumulated a fairly large and dedicated fan-base, but for lack of a better term, it now seems that Overkill are taking the piss.

This slippery slope seems to have begun with the plethora of paid weapon content back in 2013 with the Armored Transport DLC, and as of September this year, 26 paid DLC packs have been released for the game. This content consequently divides the Payday community, and the situation has only become worse with the inclusion of some free-to-play elements. You can now gain 'safes' (which serve the same functionality as crates in Team Fortress 2), but they can only be opened with a drill, which cost around £1.90, or around $3.

Oh, okay then... (accurate as of 19/10/15)

Is this acceptable? Well, it's debatable, but it's probably not. Admittedly, with a PvE game, you're not going to have a direct impact on other players, as you're not competing with them. But when it comes to statistics and bragging rights, your slightly better rifle will give you an advantage, an advantage which you gained via putting down actual money.

In order to keep this to a small rant, you're better off having a gander at Jim Sterling's video, which summaries and explains the situation in a much better manner than I have.

Come on, Overkill, sort it out...

Rocket League and the Fantastic Concept of Sports Games

Ages ago, when it seemed slightly relevant, I scribbled down some thoughts on E-Sports, and their growing popularity. I say 'growing' when 'exploding' was probably a more apt term. The resulting piece was essentially a quick look at StarCraft in South Korea, and how it was utterly ingrained in the culture of the country. Apart from your average, relatively popular E-Sports such as LoL, DoTA 2 and the aforementioned StarCraft, there seemed to be few games which could actually maintain a solid competitive community. Even if a game had a thriving E-Sports scene, they had an incredibly high barrier to entry, (understandably, of course).

Even games which were focused on a future of competitive play, like ShootMania Storm have somewhat vanished into thin air, and games focused on groundbreaking accessibility such as Smite are still part of the traditional MOBA genre, and are subsequently avoided by casual players. I've thought for quite a while, that an ideal E-Sports title, one which is easily understandable, fun to both play and watch, would have to be based around something really simple; something like a sports game. Enter Rocket League.

By basing itself on a familiar sport, Rocket League has instantly made itself recognisable and understandable. It's far from an actual sports game, like FIFA or NBA 2K, but it doesn't need to be. Unlike some MOBAs, in which the rules or objectives aren't crystal clear, it takes very little patience or understanding to know that a giant ball should be placed in an opposing goal. Granted, it isn't shaping a unique identity for E-Sports by borrowing from physical variants, but it makes the rules evident, the gameplay familiar, and the matches fun. Gloss over the lack of credibility offered to games by real-world sports, and you can make an experience which everyone and their elderly relatives can enjoy. 

Skilled players are certainly present in Rocket League, just as they are in Heroes of the Storm or Smite. However, the diversity within the player-base of Rocket League is much, much greater. For example, see exhibit A below:

And then note the improvement after a few hours of gameplay:

This self-sufficient cycle of interest is something which traditional MOBAs seem to be lacking: new players get the game due to its simple rules and enjoyable gameplay, play with other new players, and eventually move up the ranks after witnessing some different play-styles and tactics in the game itself. Elements of this are a part of MOBAs, but in a game like Rocket League, it's wonderfully simple to understand, and woefully hard to master. You go from boosting around the pitch, merely attempting to hit the ball, to scoring with beautifully timed mid-air touches.

This kind of familiar gameplay has created an almost immediate interest from the E-Sports community. Take a look at this game between Cosmic Aftershock and Kings of Urban, in the grand final of a MLG tournament, and bare witness to the possibilities of such a relatively simple game. Take football, (not soccer), give it cars, some boost and the ability to defy gravity and drive up walls, and you've got a cracking game, and a cracking E-Sport.

Given that the game, and the competition surrounding it, was still in its infancy, you can surely forgive the presentation, but a look at the core mechanics and the utterly fantastic finish will surely convince you somewhat, that Rocket League may just bring E-Sports to the masses in all of its spontaneous and explosive glory.

With many games focusing on E-Sports as a pre-release strategy, I'm still surprised that they still remain missing from TV. Of course, they have a home, and an immense following online, but will the concept gain true legitimacy until it has made its way onto the screens of family living rooms?

Honestly, no; many, many E-Sports have already gained followings and viewing figures equivalent, or better than, many American TV networks. In a future which seems to be happily hosting the rise of gaming, E-Sports are simply the next logical step, hence why Rocket League has my praise for creating a simple and enjoyable stepping stone to more traditional forms of virtual competition. 

Just as you need a bat and ball to partake in cricket, all you need now to enter the E-Sports scene is a PC or console, and an internet connection. And in 2015, who hasn't?

Call of Duty 4 is One of the Most Significant Shooters of Our Time

Nostalgia is a powerful thing. It can make people remember things through a set of rose-tinted glasses. It can warp our perception of what we had, and what we want. Nostalgia changes our current ideas, and associates a previous time with by-gone occasions. What I'm getting at, is that looking back in time can be a dangerous and unreliable thing. If you think that older games such as Haze and Red Faction: Armageddon were good, you're most likely just being all nostalgic about something else, because I can assure you, those games were nothing special.

But one of the games which seems to defy this convention is a granddaddy of the modern FPS game. Sure, Doom, Quake and Wolfenstein all withhold their rightful place as forerunners of the shooter genre, but what about the evolution of the genre? What about shooters which have come far away from their roots, and which have subsequently transformed into something almost completely different?

For me, this change can most notably be marked around 2007. At that time, shooters went from the grey and shelled fields of WW2 battlegrounds, to the bright and refreshing landscapes of the Middle-East. Of course, games have changed their settings before, not every FPS before this time was based in the Pacific or Western fronts, but there is a certain one which has cemented the change, and hence altered the standard for the first-person shooter.

That game would have to be Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, hence the terribly click-bait title, although I feel it is a apt statement.

It is a game which has been copied and reattempted by many, to no such avail, even by games later in the franchise. So what makes this particular installment so special? I'm not too sure, but here's what I remember from my time with the game, around eight long years ago.

One of the most striking things of Modern Warfare to begin with, was the very initial introduction. Very few games have managed to drop you into their setting in such an immersive and apt manner. It's at this point I realise that if you haven't played this title, (for some unbeknownst reason), you should probably stop reading, what with the threat if spoilers and all that.

You know by now how important first impressions are, and despite the importance of leaving a mark on the player, it still puzzles me how so many games fall flat when it comes to making an entrance. Take Skyrim, for example, which utilises an introduction that insists on throwing confusing lexis in your face while tied to a cart and unable to move. It does very little to aid your understanding of the location, or the events which have previously occurred there. For all the player knows, Skyrim is merely another middle-earth adventure with an extensive back-catalogue of lore. Modern Warfare, on the other hand, does this very differently, and rightly so.

You start off as a the president of an unnamed country in the Middle-East, although you have very little choice, apart from turning your head. The similarities between the chained characters here are few and far between, as Modern Warfare gives you a vibrant stream of scripted events to look at, giving you some context on the story while refraining from using a great, big information dump. You can see the chaos happening in this fictional country as you are driven through it, as people are executed by the roadside, and as ultra-nationalist soldiers fire their Kalashnikovs into the air in celebration at your impending demise.

The ending to this section isn't an unlikely escape due to a dragon happening to attack at the perfect time, the ending involves you being handled into a main square, flung against a post, and being executed with a Desert Eagle. The beginning of Modern Warfare is edgy, (for the time), gripping and unexpected. The player is put into the same shoes as the murdered president, a perspective which has been seldom seen in such games. This merciless killing sets the scene perfectly for the upcoming levels of the game, introducing a near-perfect tone and manages to make death feeling significant, in a game all about killing, a feat which has been only rarely replicated.

Do you remember what was happening in the world in 2007? I don't, I was about eleven or twelve. I remember the announcement of the iPhone, and that's about it. But one thing that Modern Warfare encompassed was the tension in the Middle-East and in Western Asia, making the conflict it created seem authentic, despite the fictional setting.

This atmosphere of realism essentially sparked the explosion of a new sub-genre. Before Modern Warfare, a FPS game with a modern setting was a rarity, but after 2007, this was seldom the case. Of course, you had a variety of shooting games, but after Modern Warfare's release, we witnessed our fair share of such similar games; you had some forgettable titles, Soldier of Fortune and Combat Arms, and the following year gave us Counter Strike Online, Army of Two, and one of my personal preferences, the beginning of a new Battlefield series in Bad Company. 

Thankfully, this aftershock of shooters has died down now, or at least the wave of modern military shooters has. The two main franchises in this area, Call of Duty and Battlefield have now moved on to hopefully greener pastures, delving into the future, with the likes of Black Ops 2, and Battlefield have attempted something rather different with Hardline, which was released earlier this year. It does now seem that shooters are now looking ahead, rather than to the present or past.


Admittedly, for all of Modern Warfare's significance, it did do some damage too. The excess of modern military shooters has only recently been quenched, and the following games in the franchise threw away quality gameplay and innovation for a formula which they knew would sell. Although these consequential action should not detract from how important the game was, and still is.

It paved the way for the FPS multiplayer experience, and while a dash of dedicated servers would've been nice, the addictive nature of the matches was something which we hadn't really seen before. Ignore the screaming kids, and you'd have yourself a blast with a fairly simple concept, which had yet to be done properly; run around and kill everyone. This was furthered preached by the growing focus on multiplayer, the almost necessary season passes, and even failed practices such as Call of Duty Elite, but then who remembers that? But despite how captivating the experience was, and how much time, effort and money was sunk into it, competitive online gameplay didn't quite trump the campaign mode, at least for me it didn't.

Picture this: A smooth, 60-frames shooter with competent graphical fidelity. Then take the fluid mechanics, put them into an authentic-feeling world, and utilise a story straight out of Hollywood. You've already then got a new, fresh product which people are almost immediately attracted to. Then get a very good story, with a handful of well-placed, unexpected plot changes, and you've got a campaign which sets the bar unfairly high for future games. I must remind you of my earlier spoiler warning as I quickly indulge into what made the campaign absolutely superb.

The main mission for me, would be 'Shock and Awe', which involves you, along with a large contingent of US forces going for the main palace of the ultra-nationalists. The tone gets serious from the off, as you're told that this is a chance to end the war, today. The sky is engulfed by a tint of red in a bit of foreshadowing which initially goes straight over your head, and as you fire a grenade launcher from a chopper, you do truly feel like part of the most powerful army in the world; what could possibly go wrong?

The mission itself can easily be done in about 10 minutes, and is often done quicker, as the tension and pace of the mission perfectly ramps up. Talk of a nuclear device get you on edge, talk of getting to the minimum safe distance gets you gripping the controller like you're right there, in the game. After reassuring yourself that you can, and you will make it, a supporting chopper is shot down. Being the good soldier that you are, you go and grab the pilot, despite the ominous threat of nuclear annihilation. You run, you grab the pilot within thirty seconds. You've done it. You take off, you've managed to complete the mission.

Then your commander comes over the radio. A confirmed nuclear threat at the palace. But you're already on your retreat, you'll be safe. A shock of sound and a piercing glow fill the sky, and the radio cuts out. The nuke has gone off, and worryingly close. The mushroom cloud rises, and along with it, you see the shock-wave advancing, engulfing everything. Choppers behind you are tossed aside, as all you can do now is accept the inevitable. 

The chopper spins helplessly, another passenger flies out of the false safety of the tail-door. You descend, trying to desperately make sense of where you will crash. You meet the ground to a chorus of frantic beeps and building music, and cut to black. 

As you make sense of what has just happened, your worst fears are confirmed. Radio chatter, smoke and fallout fly around the carcass of the chopper as you gasp frantically. You crawl to the outside of the wreckage and witness the destruction around you, as a mushroom cloud still stands prominently in the distance. A building crumbles a few blocks away, as you fall to the floor and perish from the effects of a nuclear warhead detonating. You die. The might of the army seems insignificant now, and it burdens you with new purpose as you continue the story as members of the SAS. But still, the harrowing scene is something which hasn't been replicated to the same effect, nothing else has left such an impression on so many gamers in quite a while. It's a commentary on the US forces, it's a reminder of the atrocities of war, but most significantly, it reminds you, a super-soldier with once regenerating health, that you are woefully mortal. 

Despite the sadness of this scene, Modern Warfare managed to captivate players. It spawned an almost cinematic experience which people were instantly addicted to. Take one of the best FPS stories in recent memory, along with groundbreaking multiplayer, and you rightfully get a plethora of awards. Aggregate scoring systems gave the game at least a 92/100 on the Xbox 360, PS3 and PC, and the title achieved an array of nine and ten scores, five star ratings and recognition from the Spike VGAs, the Golden Joystick awards and the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. Rightfully so. 

I'm not one to look at games like this from such a rose-tinted perspective, especially none of the following Call of Duty titles. But I, and many others, do believe that this particular iteration was truly something special, which will be nigh on impossible to recreate, no matter how big the budget, nor the team behind it. 

Let's just keep Modern Warfare as it is, and appreciate it accordingly. 

9 Underrated Games to Procrastinate With

So for me, the second year of uni is coming up fast. And it is being met with equal amounts of anticipation and anxiety, the anticipation of easy socialising, and the anxiety of work, and a step closer to proper adulthood. Oh dear.

With games being one of the best forms of escapism for everyone, if you're after a game which you haven't encountered yet, and will be dirt cheap, then look no further than this conveniently placed list. I mean, granted, you probably wouldn't have paid full price for some of these titles, but as inexpensive and involving time-killers, you can't really go wrong. I could be working, I'd much rather be gaming.

If you don't have a week to sink into Fallout or the effort to uncover all of GTA V's intricacies, or the money to fork out for The Phantom Pain, one of these will do as a saving grace to your boredom. And while I realise that 'underrated' is a completely subjective term, you'll just have to trust me on this one.

And apologies PC users, you may be better off looking at pre-owned console games in this list.

Rage

I have utterly no idea why this game didn't get as much recognition as it deserved. For some reason, I was all over this game from the very beginning; I loved the idea, and the execution. But not many people seem to agree with me in that regard, passing the game off as a mash-up of genres which succeeds in creating a mess, rather than emphasizing it's enticing world and levels. 

It's nothing special, but you can boomerang people to death.
Courtesy of the RAGE Wikia

Granted, the game had a few flaws upon launch, especially for the PC player-base. Graphical inconsistencies were frequent, but once they were patched, you had a good single player game with lovely gun-play which you could spend hours immersing yourself in.

Little touches, like the animation of enemies when shot, or how they traversed the landscape, made this otherwise average title stand out. The cars, and car combat, harked back to Mad Max, and a plethora of mini-games made the otherwise linear, hub-based shooter feel larger and more alive than it actually was, catching an atmosphere somewhere between Fallout and Borderlands.

Brink

Saying that you in any way endorse this game, is essentially equivalent to saying you're a fan of the EDL. With the exception of a very select few, this is one of those titles which has been both critically and commercially shocking.

I beg to differ. Upon release, it did atrociously, so I can't really argue with that. What I will argue with, is that the game is awful; it certainly isn't, we just got off on the wrong foot.

One of few flaws about the game was its original price, it retailed at a full £39.99 on consoles. For that price, the lone mode it had wasn't good enough. A single player mode placed you into matched with bots, progressing through the same multiplayer maps, which didn't warrant the price tag.

But of course, the game doesn't cost that much anymore; it costs about £2 now, so if you can convince them, getting a few friends on board would make for a cracking game or two.

If I was to give my impressions of Brink now, rather than four years ago, I'd have far less complaints. I'd take note of the lack of multiplayer presence, but apart from that, Splash Damage gave us quite a grand multiplayer shooter. It's classes are very well organised, it's remarkably balanced, and it's got some lovely customisation. That being said, I'd probably push you towards Dirty Bomb, purely because people are actually playing it.

Take into account all the other little features, the great level design, or the free-running system, which was done quite a bit before the likes of Titanfall or Dying Light, and surely you can see why I'm not as harsh on this title as many, many others. Right?

Vanquish

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I originally thought that Vanquish was going to be dreadful. As in, bottom of the bargain bin dreadful, in there with all the PS2 launch titles.

My reasoning was justified, you see. It was a single-player only shooter from a company I hadn't yet heard of. Obviously I was still unaware of Platinum's past games, and it turns out my first impressions were woefully incorrect. Admittedly, the fast-paced action, and the controls did take some getting used to, but once I did, I discovered a great game full of excessive, somewhat stereotypical action. I mean, you fight robots on a space station, and one of your superiors has a giant robot arm which frequently wields a mini-gun.

It's smooth, snappy gameplay is peppered with boss fights; this was one game which made me resort to looking up tutorials when I encountered one particularly tricky boss. If you're not a fan of highly stylised, cartoony mecha-action, don't be put off, because that's why I was initially hesitant towards Vanquish.

Platinum's frantic third-person shooter is critically acclaimed, and rightly so. If you can withstand an occasionally drab colour palette, (which shouldn't be a complaint, as it makes enemies very easy to see), or the need to bring your reflexes back up to scratch, you'll enjoy it, and kill a lot of time in the process. Also, bid your social life farewell, if you're one who likes to head up scoreboards.

Grid

Is this the best racing game of all time? I don't know, but what I can tell you is that Racedriver: GRID is the best in the series, easily. Yeah, it had some kind of yellow filter over the top of everything, but the graphics, (as of 2008) were great, and the handling was fantastic, thanks to their EGO engine which was brought in from the previous year's Colin McRae: Dirt.

I'd been waiting for a spiritual successor to all those ToCA games from my childhood, and with Grid, I found it, and thankfully, it was everything I expected it to be.

Never before had I felt so emotional over sacking a team-mate who hadn't even appeared as a face, just a silhouette in another touring car. Say whatever you fancy, but managing a race team was tough for a 12 year old me. 

Lime green means business.
Image from the Grid Wikia

To try and give you a sense of how invested I was in this game upon its release, I spent a good few hours just deciding how my cars should look. I was ruthlessly dedicated to ensuring that every sponsor was positioned correctly, and that every colour scheme was noticeable and striking, yet subtle and tasteful; there was no lime green and black combinations in my garage. 

Was this due to my earlier obsession with racing games? Probably, but many fans and awards will also state that Grid is a stellar racing game, and one which was very highly anticipated by myself and innumerable others.

Split/Second

Apologies, I may have oversold Grid, a tad. But the unnecessarily stylised Split/Second was also a good game, honestly.

This made it onto my list for similar nostalgic reasons. It was good, but it also captured an essence for destruction which few other racing games had previously. One of few examples would be the excellent Burnout: Paradise, a game which seldom draws comparisons nowadays. 

Split/Second manages to evade my childhood anxieites of "Oh God, how many people have died in this race?", by passing the experience off as a game show, which given the very shiny production, is entirely possible. It may be excessively shiny in its graphics, and I suppose you could view it as a tad too generic, what with the lack of character the game seems to have, but then again, it's like £3 so stop complaining.

To quickly evaluate, sure, you could have a Subway, but alternative you could have the best racing game inspired by Michael Bay to this day; a prospect which must surely tempt you. 

Sleeping Dogs

With the more recent, and arguably better release of GTA V, I can forgive you for forgetting about this valiant effort from Square Enix and United Front. Although I must also suggest ModNation Racers if you're in dire need of a endlessly customisable MarioKart by United Front. Countless hours have been sunk into that kart-racer, and it's equally as cheap too.

But Sleeping Dogs does have a few key features and quirks that the monolithic GTA does not. In harking back to the likes of the long forgotten True Crime series, and utilising a much different setting than GTA, Sleeping Dogs ends up being a rather different product indeed. 

For example, environmental finishers for the Arkham-esque combat were fantastic. Sure, the level of violence made this version of Hong Kong seem utterly false at times, but the ability to throw people into the boot of their own car, or more gruesomely, to throw them face-first into an air conditioning unit, made this game stand out among the rest of the open-world possibilities which were present in GTA.

If you're after something else to sink your teeth into, there's even karaoke. Or if you need something a bit less tasteful to get you going, you can beat a man with a fish. No pictures required here...

Starhawk

It is entirely possible that all the games on this list simply strike a chord with me, and while I know that's not the case with titles like Vanquish and Grid, both of which received copious amounts of critical acclaim, I do have to wonder whatever is the matter with Starhawk.

The single-player was a tad bland, there were few interesting characters present in the story, but the core gameplay mechanics were pretty grand. Many reviewers proclaimed it to have the best multiplayer of 2012 on the PS3, a entirely reputable title which it certainly deserved.

To give you a quick run-down of what Starhawk actually is, it can best be nailed down to the spiritual successor to 2007's Warhawk. If you didn't play Warhawk, I'll try again. 

Starhawk is essentially a third-person shooter which relies heavily on base-building and vehicular combat. Think of Battlefield, unfortunately, you're nowhere near. Imagine Battlefield, but then in space. And you can just spawn in a tank, or a giant shield, or a massive cannon. Then you're getting somewhere.

Starhawk offers soemthing which I haven't experienced before; incredibly seamless gameplay which manages to intertwine multiple genres in a coherent manner. Like the well-polished driving and shooting of the GTA series, Starhawk did pretty much all of it's components rather well. And critics tend to agree with that sentiment too.

My only issue with this game, should you be inspired to take part in it's organised chaos, you'll have a hard time getting online. To my knowledge, the servers for the game are still alive and well, but as with many games from three years ago, the multiplayer community has dwindled severely.

If you still want to dive on in, I wish you the best of luck trying to find other players on this refreshingly different multiplayer title.

Red Faction: Guerrilla

Here's a rather apt solution to Starhawk's multiplayer woes. With a campaign which lets you tear down buildings and bridges, Red Faction: Guerrilla may seem a bit dated in comparison to Santa Monica Studio's excellent online variant, but it's a lovely little game all in all. 

Never drink and drive, kids.
Image from Tom Francis on Flickr

Unlike Starhawk, which emphasises construction, Guerrilla is quite the opposite, embracing the primordial fun of smashing stuff up. Essentially all buildings are built to perish, and their demise can be achieved through a satisfying variety of good ol' man power or slightly more civilized plastic explosives.

Granted, occasionally the physics can be aggravating; buildings can be propped up with a single support, until you decide to slowly waltz underneath the structure of impending doom. But, this looming death is seldom a worry, thanks to the fun of breaking things, or driving cars into things, or smashing people with Mjolnir. Well, it's not Mjolnir, but it's a hammer which instantaneously snaps spines in twain.

Bulletstorm

Bulletstorm is a first-person shooter from the folks at Epic Games. It is completely unremarkable, thanks to its average visual fidelity, the lacking multiplayer mode, and the forgettable story. So why is it even mentioned here?

Within the linear levels of Bulletstorm, you will find few things of interest. The one redeeming factor of the game are the rather fun mechanics, which aren't even wholly original. The main distinction here is the 'skillshot' system, awarding you points for particular unique or otherwise interesting kills.

The rest of Bulletstorm has been done before, but the return of such a crude and simple game has been long awaited. What's not to understand when it comes to shooting a bandit in the face with a Quake-esque quad-barrelled shotgun? 

Some of the environmental kills in Bulletstorm are particularly satisfying; take 'Fan-tastic', for example, which entails you drilling an enemy into the ceiling, causing them to spin like a typical ceiling fan. Or, for the more childish of you, ejecting an enemy from an airlock in one of the final missions will reward you with the 'Ejeculated' skillshot. I mean, technically you didn't fire a shot, you merely pulled a lever, but it works.

There's nothing too mentally taxing about Bulletstorm, and there doesn't need to be. Just like many of the games on this list, it offers a much-needed dose of stress relief. Sometimes you don't want to manage virtual empires, or learn the intricacies of an in-game system of currency. Sometimes you just need to shoot someone in the arse, and be rewarded for doing so.

The Major Stuff of E3: Best of Show

Remember E3? Probably not, given how woefully late I am bringing my poorly-rounded opinions to the table for this year's conference. 

Despite the efforts of many, many vloggers, bloggers and folks who just ramble about games (alright), there is a huge portion of E3 which goes horribly unnoticed, engulfed in the shadows of the latest triple-A giants. This is my effort to try and fix that. I mean, pissing in the wind has to be worth something, right? 

In what can be considered a pretty average expo with some few good and great moments, some of the better, smaller titles on show were accidentally glossed over. For me, these show the best direction for gaming today. Some work with old ideas to create a characterful and charming experience. Others do something completely unexpected, and create a genre-defining title in the process. 

So here, you may not be seeing highly anticipated games like Fallout 4 or The Last Guardian, although the former looks rather cracking, but you will see a couple of obstructed gems which have been hidden away from the main conferences. 

But then again, Fallout 4 does look really, really top. 

Without further ado, I'll show you my personal picks of this year's E3 through a series of easily digestible, not necessarily accurate awards, which are completely false and mean absolutely nothing. Unless you want them to. 

Oh God, it's four in the morning again: XCOM 2

XCOM: Enemy Unknown was a surprise for me. A lovely unexpected occurrence in 2012, a year which was, for me, full of pretty good games. You know, the ones which are now in Humble Bundles for really good prices, and are very unlikely to be played for more than about an hour. 

Amidst the action of SSX, Blacklight: Retribution and Dishonoured, this remake of the classic strategy game was a slow, but incredibly intense experience, something which I wasn't expecting, but strangely enjoyed. Many a night was haunted by the cries of fallen soldiers as a woke up cursing the permadeath mechanic. 

Because the former title kept me up to ungodly hours, carved out over a hundred hours of my social life, and made me care for ridiculously named characters with bright purple hair, it's only natural that the sequel would make this list, and in a positive manner indeed. 

Taking place twenty years after the first installment, this sequel puts you, (commander) as the sole force against an overwhelming alien opposition, because clearly things weren't intense enough before. 

A hopefully solid interpretation of a beloved IP: Mad Max

I really, really hope that Avalanche Studios don't mess this up. At the very least, please make a solid action/adventure game. At best, do what was done with Batman, and the recently concluded Arkham trilogy; take a relatively mundane IP and revamp it. I mean, the time couldn't be better, coming off the back of the brilliant Fury Road.

Critics and those in the know are hailing it as a mash-up of Borderlands, Shadow of Mordor and Burnout. And given the distinct lack of the latter two titles this year, we can't go wrong. Can we?

As much as I want this game to be solid, some other chaps aren't as optimistic, which is perfectly understandable given the history of films which have become games. Remember Catwoman from the long-lost era of 2004? No, no you certainly don't. 

Best vanishing act: Criterion's untitled racing game

Remember how everyone loved Burnout Paradise? Remember how it didn't do one trailer, get everyone excited and then disappear into thin air? Well apparently, Criterion don't learn well from such successes, and have gone and left every Burnout fan hanging for a year now. 

Forget everything that you just saw in that video, because chances are it isn't happening anytime within the foreseeable future. Remember the likes of Motorstorm and DIRT?  As a kid, I thought that the best game ever would consist of cars and planes and racing and crashing, and it seems that Criterion were on course to make my inner 10 year-old weep with joy...

Ah well, apologies about the mid-showcase venting session. Within the wake of this year's expo, and a lack of Kinect, brown shooters and framerate arguments, this game, and all the potential it could've had still sticks out to me like the sorest of thumbs. 

Taking other ideas and doing them properly: For Honor

Mate, have you seen this entire MOBA business? That's where it's at. Dirty Bomb did it in an FPS, and it seems that everyone's forgotten about Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. So, it appears that now is a great time to make a solid melee combat game with everyone's favourite childhood soldiers. Let's make people a Knight. Or a Samurai. Or a Viking, yeah that shit sounds rad. 

They seem to be dodging the bullet of massive melee combat by using a hell of a lot of AI creeps, just like Titanfall and DoTA, which are easy for you to defeat. Plus, it makes it seem like there's a bigger conflict going on around you, that the battle isn't just a traditional 4v4 deal. 

When it comes to improving on the likes of Chivalry, and it's lacklustre parry and blocking system, For Honor showcased its 'Art of Battle' control scheme. All gimmicky names aside, it looks solid, a natural improvement which melee games have been needing for some time, tying your attack and defense all the right stick, (good luck to PC players planning on sticking with a keyboard and mouse). 

Granted, this all seems rather solid and promising, but keep in mind that it isn't even in an alpha stage yet. For Honor is far from being released, but it seems that Ubi have ditched their tower fetish, so good on them. 

Indie game which will have ridiculously large exposure: Cuphead

If you're after a beautiful game, look no further. With all the fuss about graphics over recent years, and more recently about the quality of Fallout 4's assets, it seems that people have been a bit too busy counting pixels to take a step back, and just appreciate how the overall package has come together.

And mate, it seems that a good art-style and excellent animation has been terribly overlooked. The first thing people shout when they see Cuphead is something to do with 1930's cartoons, and they aren't wrong. It's a style which has been seldom pulled-off beforehand, and one which needs to be done fully, or not at all.

Thankfully, Studio MDHR have fully embraced this idea, with a game which oozes character and charm, making a typical platform-shooter idea a much more appealing concept. In theory, Cuphead shouldn't be anything special. And without doing anything groundbreaking or innovative, the game has received so much more attention than it traditionally would, all thanks to some well-done art assets. Good work pays off, take note big developers. 

This is one of the few times that E3 seems to be helping out smaller games, hopefully sending the Moldenhauer brothers to unseen heights. 

Pissing off die-hard fans, making me excited: Fallout 4

Yeah sorry, you'll be seeing Fallout 4 here after all.

There were two things that caused an initial worry around Fallout 4 in the footage shown at the Bethesda conference this year: One was the objective quality of the graphics, how it looked a few years old to some, and how textures weren't as sharp as people had wanted. The second was the atmosphere it created. I know that's rather vague, so let me try and explain. 

I'm not necessarily a Fallout fan. I can appreciate why people love it, but I'm just not all that fussed about it. I say this because I had the odd dabble in Fallout 3 and New Vegas, and the one thing I took away from those games was the atmosphere. Not the mechanics, the weapons, or the lore of the games, but the mood that engulfed it. I was intrigued that it created a mood similar to that of Metro, despite its much larger and arguably less detailed world. 

I remember the colour palette seemingly being a pre-cursor to the phase of modern military shooters. Everything was brown, mate. And man, it has a lot of rather dedicated fans who loved it as it was. 

Then I watched the Bethesda conference and got very excited about Fallout 4. The customisation, the details, the colours, the new look, the fact that you can fight a Deathclaw in a suit of power-armour. I loved it, presumably because I have no previous attachment to the series, so I can only imagine some die-hard fans being rather annoyed at the concepts which I love. 

People will complain that the voiced protagonist breaks your immersion, and that the new look is too clean, Boston looks ruined, but not like it's been nuked. Some will be annoyed that it's weapon modifications won't fit in the universe, or that the made a gimmicky Pip-Boy, or that the dialogue system could've been ripped from any Bioware game. 

But personally, I don't care. It looks great, (to me). Regardless of one's interpretation, it certainly is Fallout. 

I don't know what it is, but it looks lovely: 

For this one, I was incredibly tempted to go with Lumino City. It was on the floor this year as part of the IndieCade Showcase, and it looks delightful. It's art style alone makes you all warm inside, and abruptly hinders your ability to say anything apart from 'it's lovely'. 

Just have a quick gander, it's made out of paper and cardboard, and is the result of a collaboration between artists, architects and model-makers. Everything about it shouts enchanting. But unfortunately, it was released last year. 

So, in order to appear legitimate, I'm gonna go with something which seems to be overlooked, even by the Indie specialists: The Flame in the Flood.

It seems to combine two things which are seldom paired; a marvelous and colourful aesthetic and some elements of survival. I'm thinking of an optimistic-looking Don't Starve and I still feel like I'm miles away. From the trailer, which is backed by a atmosphere-oozing Chuck Ragan, you get an idea of what you need to do, but not of the systems or mechanics it employs. The group's blog didn't help me much...

Seriously, all I know for certain is that there's a raft, and a dog companion. And subsequently, it has my curiosity, and my attention.

This still exists?: The Division

It's great that we finally got a release date for this title, March 2016, to be relatively vague. But I don't understand why we're still being drip-fed information and new footage, to be brutally honest, does the game look good enough to warrant such a slow development? 

The one thing I got from this year's coverage of The Division is that you now have the potential to betray your friends. It's around two years behind schedule, and we haven't seen much of a change since it's announcement in E3 of 2013. 

What puzzles me even more is the ideas that Ubi seem to be utilising when it comes to The Division, and when it comes their shooters in general. Surely it would be better to focus on a single open-world shooter, instead of announcing another Tom Clancy game in the form of Ghost Recon: Wildlands. 

I can appreciate that the two games are different types of shooters, in varied settings encompassing a different tone. But they're still two shooters nonetheless, inspired by the same man. 

At least wait until one has been released, (and not inevitably downgraded), or make one a Splinter Cell title. Releasing two similar titles within a proportionally small time-frame just seems a bit daft, really. 

It just won't stay dead: Guitar Hero Live and Rock Band 4

Remember the last console generation? Yeah, most of us do, although one thing I won't miss is the peripherals that came with it. While there was the likes of the Kinect, the Playstation Move, a bunch of small game add-ons like unique controllers for the quiz game Buzz!, the additions which seemed to clog up our storage space the most were the controllers for Guitar Hero and Rock Band. 

I regret asking for few things when I was younger, but one of them was the Guitar Hero full band set, consisting of two guitars and a drum kit. There was DJ Hero too, but no-one remembers that. 

Good God, these musical monstrosities were used once, then quickly ditched in favour of actual instruments. Have  a look around your local pawn shop a few years ago, (for me, CEX), and see the array of peripherals which were testament to their quality. 

I personally don't support these kinds of games. I get that people want to play music without playing music, if that makes sense, but for the £80 it cost me for a game and plastic guitar, you could get the real thing. 

I've no idea why these glorified rhythm games have made a sudden resurgence, but surely demand for them can't be that high? I know that Guitar Hero and Rock Band go hand-in-hand like the worst gaming pair since Kane and Lynch, but just why? Haven't you done enough, Activision and Harmonix?

But anyway, the latest Guitar Hero promises crowds which react to how well you do, so presumably they won't just politely nod along if you're shite. It also promises a playable music network, which is updated constantly. Essentially a rubbish Apple Music, I'm thinking. 

Quite honestly, I don't know enough about Harmonix's installment to even warrant a quick chat, so I'll gloss over it. If you're someone who's actually anticipating these games, then I hope you don't like money, as I can guarantee there'll be some kind of special edition guitar nonsense. Errrrrrr...

Can't go wrong, really: Mirror's Edge: Catalyst

2008 was a great year. I think. I can't really remember, but there was a great bit of innovation in at least one instance. 

First person and platforming are two terms which shouldn't theoretically work. I mean, try jumping onto something and looking where your feet are, it's a bit tricky. 

But in a time in which the gaming industry needed a breath of fresh air, no-one really expected something like this, and no-one at all expected it to come from the likes of EA. But it did, and Mirror's Edge was brought into existence. And it was surprisingly good.

So after becoming a fan favourite, you can imagine how excited everyone was when the sequel was announced. At the very least, Catalyst  seems to promise more of the same, and while I'd normally pan this notion, the rare case of Mirror's Edge seems to be an exception, despite the inspiration the original provided for other titles. 

A free-roaming world with no loading screens seems to be an ideal progression for a game which has only previously seen rather linear levels. While I would fear for the plot of this upcoming title, (which seems to consist of 'big companies, no privacy, one big boss battle at the end, people's revolution', you know, that story), it'll be nice to get a more prolonged look into the once superficial world behind Mirror's Edge. 

I mean, can Faith ask why everything's white? Is this Mr Kruger just really obsessive over the colour scheme. Even a worse case scenario promises us Faith's origin story, so it'll be difficult to mess this up; You know EA, and you've seen Battlefield Battlefront...

Exactly what was needed: Just Cause 3

A lot of what I just stated about Mirror's Edge: Catalyst applies here too. A lot of games have attempted to create a fuck-about sandbox, disguised as a serious game, and with the possible exception of Grand Theft Auto V, none seems to have mastered the remarkably simple formula better than Just Cause.

Seriously, it does compel me that no other games has topped this title; what's so hard about a big open world, vehicles, explosions and a grapple gun? Well, apart from tying it all together in a somewhat cohesive manner, I suppose. 

Although everyone seems to be going with an open world recently, few can top the 400 square kilometers of Mediterranean dictatorship which Just Cause 3 boasts. I would say that No Man's Sky tops it, but that's an open universe mate, a different league entirely. 

Infinite C4, some cracking new locations to destroy, and even the ability to draw a phallus in a field with a sports car, inadvertently prove that the third iteration of this game is shaping up to be the best yet. Without being too optimistic, how is it possible to mess this up? Then again, I've said that quite a few times previously. 

Granted, we've yet to hear anything about multiplayer, but as someone who persevered through the mod for Just Cause 2, I must say that it's fairly low on my list of priorities for this game. And the support that Avalanche are giving PC modders seems to suggest that a similar mod will be made for Just Cause 3, eventually.

Compared to the previous few expos, which focused on "look how shiny our new consoles are", us gamers came off rather well this year. There was nothing too significant to complain about, (although we'll always find something), what with some nostalgic announcements, and an actual focus on games, but how good was the best?

I suppose there was nothing that utterly captivated me, but then again, E3 has never really been the place to do that. What was shown was solid, and as long as didn't make use of some exclusive beta nonsense, everything had its own merits. 

Long story short; you couldn't go wrong this year.