Wednesday, 12 November 2014

How Daniel O'Reilly Killed The Brilliant Dapper Laughs With His Own Stupidty

Note: I understand Dapper made some outrageous twitter comments that I haven't mentioned in this article and also caused a lot of bullying towards females who opposed him online but I wanted to deal in hard, real life facts and not delve into the world of saying something irresponsible on twitter. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt so that's the approach I took. There's been a lot of hate aimed at the man and character so in a way I just wanted to take the foot off the pedal and provide a constructive view without so much anger towards him. He is still human after all.

When Dapper Laughs first came about on vine I thought he was pretty hilarious. In truth I thought he was parodying lad culture and mocking anyone that actually thinks as this supposed character 'Dapper' did.

However upon seeing him perform live and viewing his vulgar TV show in which he almost seemed like a schoolboy bully to some of his contestants (example: in the first episode and on twitter he mocked the guy he was supposed to be helping to learn to 'pull' by saying his face looked like an old woman's vagina, among other things. There was no punchline or comedy. It just seemed like the hot guys laughing at the less popular kid in a school playground) I started to doubt very much whether this was a persona and whether he knew the extreme lad culture he was promoting.

Having appeared on BBC 2's Newsnight and confirming the 'character' is dead and stating his career and life is under severe strain, I feel almost sorry for him. In fact I do. But only because of his own idiocy. 

I'm a big fan of offensive comedy. Frankie Boyle makes me laugh and Jimmy Carr at his worst always cracks me up. These people are comedians and they tell jokes as jokes. They don't endorse what they say.

The problem with Daniel O'Reilly's character Dapper is that he doesn't, or didn't rather, seem to realise that with an extremely popular parody persona character comes great responsibility. Spiderman knows.
Not even Spiderman can save Dapper. Just one episode
of 'On The Pull' has him hospitalized

If what Daniel said on Newsnight is all well and true and his intention was always to mock lads who actually think like Dapper and make fun of men with that mindset, then why in God's name didn't he distance himself from the character's views?

When you make a persona you MUST let it be known that IT IS A PERSONA. You must take every opportunity to remind people 'hey hey, it's Daniel O'Reilly over here, just reminding you my character isn't for real. OK? OK. OK. Goooood' because otherwise it comes across like you are genuinely endorsing what you're doing as this character and suddenly the lines between what is perceived as fiction and what is perceived as fact are completely blurred and almost synonymous. 

He claims he didn't handle how popular Dapper got very well. And he's damn fucking right. A TV show that borders on being a sexist? With no disclaimer or even a hint of genuine, purposeful, satire? How the fuck - HOW THE FUCK - are people supposed to know if they're watching a genius parody character or a genuinely bigoted sexist male who has simply garnered popularity through media sources like vine? HOW

The result of these blurred lines (looks like they really are blurred here Robin) is people thinking Dapper is for real. And no, you don't have to be unhinged to think that. Why? Because Daniel's demographic, his target audience, is teens. Teenagers who, mimic, copy and obsess in order to try and find some form of expressive outlet. It's what teenagers do and it's why older people in their twenties watch him for a guilty pleasure and shake their heads while laughing at his outrageous satire and why teenagers take him seriously and try to become little Dapper Laughs. I do not think comedians are under obligation to try not to hurt people's feelings in any way. But when you are targeting a demographic that is SO OBVIOUSLY going to try and copy your laddish behavior, then you need to make sure you step 10000 miles away from that character and state very clearly it's all a joke. Fuck it, that's a basic rule when creating any character with negative connotations. It's not fucking rocket science here, Daniel. 
I've seen people copying him in real life too. So don't argue that shit. It fucking happens.

Lad culture is very closely tied with sexism. And unfortunately vulgar lad culture is still alive and well today in the UK. So it's risky to create a character who seemingly endorses it and takes it to extremes. That's why Dapper Laughs failed. Because Daniel did not take care to make sure it was all perceived correctly and did not distance himself from the character. He did not take care and was not responsible when creating a character endorsing such issues.

I saw a tweet from a fan of Dapper's saying something along the lines of: 'anyone who takes Dapper Laughs comedy seriously must be mad'. I thought to myself: 'well how does one know if it IS comedy and not an actual bigot throwing their sexist views around for attention?'. And truth is, Daniel O'Reilly did not give us any reason not to assume he simply was Dapper Laughs and everything Dapper Laughs promotes. 

Who is Daniel O'Reilly? Oh he's that Dapper Laughs guy.
Mr. Thicke DEFINITELY knows

Wrong. He is not. But how were we supposed to know? In the end both Daniel's real name and his character's became synonymous. And in the end his comedy, as genius as it was, was misinterpreted. Dapper Laughs as a character mocking lads, mocking lad culture and satirizing sexism in the UK is brilliant. Because Dapper is repulsive, vulgar, nasty and a sexist bigot. He represents the culture wonderfully.

However Dapper Laughs being Daniel O'Reilly for real without a disclaimer is simply repulsive, vulgar, nasty and a sexist bigot. 

Misinterpretation can easily end your career. And making sure misinterpretation doesn't occur is the biggest benefit to your career.

I saw the footage of Daniel O'Reilly's Dapper saying a female member of the audience was 'gagging for a rape'.

Before he said this he was also giving an example of how he and his TV show are not a rapist almanac as suggested by some journalists. I totally understood the point of this section and why he said that to an audience member. If you see the full clip you can clearly see he's sarcastically mocking journalists calling him out for endorsing rape. So the 'gagging for a rape' joke was simply poking fun, sarcastically, at journos. And it works. But it also doesn't.

See here, again, is where Daniel O'Reilly fucked up.

By defending himself on stage and getting Dapper to respond to critics in the manner he did it was, again, blurring the lines that were already borderline non existent to the public, about whether Daniel endorses Dapper Laughs.

The moment you get your vulgar, horrible, sexist, lad, bigot of a character to justify themselves, you know your character has failed.

It seemed, when Daniel did this on stage, that he was no longer approaching this comedy as character Dapper but bringing his own views - the views of Daniel - into it. 

Le'ts make this clear: there must be a fine line between what you, the comedian thinks and what your character thinks. Daniel thinks this. Dapper thinks this. As an example: Daniel disagrees with sexist views. Dapper endorses them. Daniel disagrees with harassing women on the street. Dapper thinks the opposite. 

So when Dapper responded on stage to critics he seemed to be airing Daniel's views, not his own.

Ask yourself this: 

If a character is fictional, why must they, and why would they feel the need, to answer critics and respond to the naysayers? They're fictional. Don't exist. They're parody. They're satire. They DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY ARE THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMEDY AND ANYONE CRITICAL OF THEIR VIEWS MOST LIKELY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THEY ARE NOT REAL.

*Wait, repeat that last bit.
'If people are critical of your parody character for what they are saying, they are most likely not aware it is fiction.'

Uh... Yeah. That's the problem we had with Dapper. We didn't know for sure he was fiction.*

So when Dapper justified himself and mocked critics what was really happening is Daniel O'Rielly took over and was venting his frustration at his comedy not being appreciated for what it was to the audience. 

We were never given a look at Daniel. He never seemed to come out of
character and let us see the guy behind the gags. Maybe that was where
part of the misinterpretation problem started. To everyone Daniel just
seemed to be Dapper. And maybe he let the success go to his head and
actually did become Dapper.
Answering critics is fine. But doing so on stage as a character and answering with the views you hold yourself is blurring the lines between what is character and what is a real person too much. That was the final straw and people had enough of his bigotry. So they axed him and Daniel called it a day for Dapper.

This was all unnecessary. If Daniel had simply taken the steps to make sure people knew it was all a gag and a satire, mocking look at lad culture from the beginning he wouldn't be axed right now. And if he remained professional and didn't confuse his own rants about critics with Dapper Laughs on stage, well, we wouldn't be here. Truth of the matter is Daniel clearly didn't know what the fuck he was doing. And his ignorance and lack of professionalism has lead to a career downfall. 

I want to see Daniel make a comeback. Maybe do comedy AS HIMSELF this time (assuming he isn't actually Dapper Laughs in real life in which case he can fuck off) and then maybe, once he's learned how to deal with success and being influential, he can bring Dapper back and do it properly this time. Because I'll tell you what, Dapper Laughs may have caused a storm but he's a prime PERFECT example of what is wrong with lads in today's society. He perfectly portrayed how vulgar the culture is. What a waste that his lack of care caused it to be misinterpreted as endorsement for Dapper's behavior.

So I do feel sorry for Daniel. He's the victim of his own stupidity. I won't forget him getting up on stage (Dapper Laughs that is) at V Festival 2014 and slating condoms and contraception and pretty much promoting not wearing protection. Now if Daniel had made clear that Dapper was a satire parody character mocking lads, hell, it would've been funny. But he didn't make that clear. And instead you had a tent full of teens and lads looking up at a guy who was seemingly endorsing not wearing condoms and thinking 'this guys got it right'. How very sad indeed.

We were never given a look at Daniel. He never seemed to come out of character and let us see the guy behind the gags. Maybe that was where part of the misinterpretation problem started. To everyone Daniel just seemed to be Dapper. And maybe he let the success go to his head and 
actually did become Dapper. Either way there was potential here that is now wasted. And this man's life has gone from 100-0 so fast I can barely believe it. Maybe we should all take a second to forget Dapper. Forget Daniel. And forget influence. And remind ourselves exactly what values we should be aspiring to. Do you really want to be known by your friends as the guy that shouts at women in public and openly endorses outrageously disrespectful and sexist behavior? Or do you want to hold yourself and others to higher values that show respect and a caring nature towards women and your fellow men? Dapper is fine for showing what is wrong with society. But he absolutely should not be taken as setting an example.

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

Sad Celebrity Deaths, The Need To Offend & I'm An Asshole (No Surprises There)

There are 3 things.

3 things that link together to create this post.

Sad celebrity deaths.

The need to offend.

And, yes, I'm an asshole.

How, exactly, do these things merge into one?
Poor John. Rocking those Harry Potter glasses
before it became a 'thing' (someone should
have told him it looked a bit lame though).

Well here's how.

I don't really get sad at many things. But for some reason, when someone like a celebrity dies, it bothers the shit out of me.

Let's use a few of examples.

John Lennon.
Didn't like the guy much. Not a huge Beatles fans either. But it makes me so sad to think he died because some nut job decided to get his name in the papers. 

Heath Ledger.
This one always bothers me. God it's so sad, isn't it? The guy was an astonishing actor who deserved more than the one Oscar he earned for his role as the Joker in The Dark Knight. He was great. A seemingly nice guy too. Yet he died. For what reason? Well, it was pill related. Apparently he was on a ton of pills and bam, he took a fatal dose and died. 

It's sad not only because he was cut short of reaching his full potential at such a young age but also because no one knows if it was suicide or not and why he may have killed himself.

The Heath we saw as the Joker and the Heath
we saw normally were two very different people.
I just wish Nolan would release the behind the scenes
footage that included Ledger. This is one of the
few pictures of him on set.
Apparently Heath hadn't been himself before his death after the filming of The Dark Knight. He was unsettled and suffering from Insomnia. No one really knew what was up with him. Was it his broken relationship with his ex girlfriend? Was it his brutal dedication to the role of the Joker? Who knows. But either way, he ended up dead in his hotel room.

Michael Jackson.
Poor Michael. Jesus I feel sorry for this guy. If you want an example of someone being victimised by the public and media, look no further than this guy. 

He lived his life as a fragile plastic surgery addict who was so scarred from his childhood bullying experiences and poor relationship with his father that he decided to try and make himself visually perfect, yet came out looking like a Loony Tunes character gone wrong.

His lack of proper childhood lead to him obsessively trying to live an adult version of it in the form of a theme park thing in his back garden and consistently hanging around kids. He eventually got labelled as a paedo and the court cases ensued. 
It's a shame Jackson felt the need to ruin his
good looks by morphing into a white man mannequin.
He seemed to smile a lot more when he was
black too. Although maybe that's because all
the surgery restricted his muscle movement.

Poor poor Michael Jackson. People still think he's a paedo, which is understandable, but don't people realise the cases that did go to court were settled and one kid even admitted to lying about Jackson molesting him years later? How fucking sad.

I don't know why it gets me down so much to think of these people (and others) dying. Maybe it's death in general. Someone got hit by a train at the train station where I live and after I heard the news my day was pretty much ruined.

This, however, is odd.

Why? Because my sensitivity towards people dying somehow doesn't numb my perverse joke making towards it.

In fact, I think I have something wrong with me. Resist the chance to make an offensive joke? You must be mad. I just can't do it.

Frankie Boyle, the renowned offensive comedian, once said that he has this sort of 'reflex' where he says horrible things even when he doesn't mean or want to. I understand his issue.

Despite being sensitive about people dying and celebrity deaths, while exchanging sick jokes with my friend I made a horrible joke towards Jewish people AND the fairly recently deceased Paul Walker.


Because when the opportunity arises to shock and offend with an absurdly offensive joke arises I just can't resist. It's impossible. It's like in one side of my brain I'm thinking: 'This is Gold. Can't wait to see their faces after I say this. Hilarious' and the other side is thinking: 'But it is offensive. I don't really have this opinion. It's not really very... Me to make this joke. But then it is only a joke after all. What's the harm?'.

So I made this joke. I'll tell you what it is. But it comes with a disclaimer. The disclaimer being that it will make you think I'm an asshole, which I guess I am.

The joke goes like this.

What do the Jewish people of the Holocaust and Paul Walker have in common?
They all burned to death.

Now upon reading that you either thought 'What's the big deal?' or 'You sick fuck!' and then probably clicked off this page or left a mean comment.

The thing is it is a sick, offensive and incredibly disrespectful joke. I'll be the first to admit that.
But I'll also be the first to admit Paul Walker's death was tragic and makes me genuinely really sad. I'll also be the first to admit the Holocaust sends shivers down my spine and I have the utmost respect for every person involved in it (I mean victims. I don't have respect for the Nazi's responsible for it. Obviously.).

So why make the joke I did? Well... It's a joke. I feel like when I do offensive things I'm playing a character. It's not really ME, I sort of go into 'offensive mode' where I am an exaggerated asshole version of myself. It's almost like I have this inbuilt dickhead personality that comes through constantly. And THAT'S the issue; it shows all the time.

It's not like I only turn into this offensive character on here. The asshole side of my personality comes through all the time in normal conversation. It's like when the chance to make a horrible joke or comment comes up I literally can't resist and my dickhead personality trait comes through and BAM! I've just lost half my friends.

I have a need to offend. And I can honestly say, it doesn't bother me. It's just hard to find those people who accept that jokes are jokes and nothing more. Lots of people seem to have this idea that what you say, whether a joke or not, should be taken literally as your actual opinion and a real example of what you think.
These people are also called retards.

See, was the 'retard' insult really necessary? No, but I just can't help but be an asshole. So I guess that's what I am. I'm the part of a person where crap comes from. Ah well. No one's perfect.

Wednesday, 12 February 2014

Unfriending On Facebook = THE WORST OFFENCE EVER.

Wow. Isn't the world a curious place. There's several incredibly unbelievable things about this story I want to talk about in this article. Number one being that somehow this 'story' actually managed to make it into the news (although I did first read this on the Daily Mail website so I don't know if that is classed as news. That said, it has been published on other actual news sites too).

What is this story I'm referring to? Well a cancer victim posted some pictures and - wait for it - one hundred people found them offensive and - wait for it again- UNFRIENDED HER!

Aaaaah. The horror. Save us now. From this shitty excuse for news.

Pretty much, this woman called Beth Whaanga posted nude pictures of herself after having a mastectomy due to cancer and some people got offended by it.

And this is apparently... A problem?

OK, so I'm far from the type of person who feels that the 'offended' should get their own way and have things they disapprove of not shown and blocked from the world just because they don't like it, and I don't think this woman's pictures should be removed in any way just because some people were offended, but people HAVE THE RIGHT to be offended just as much as anyone has the right to offend them. So really, who the fuck cares if, oh no, some people unfriended her or not? Who actually fucking cares?

Is this supposed to be an issue? Are we supposed to read this shit and gasp "Oh my God! That poor woman! All she wanted to do was show everyone on Facebook her naked body after having surgery to get rid of her cancer and one hundred - ONE FUCKING HUNDRED PEOPLE UNFRIENDED HER?" And then grab our pitchforks and hunt the pricks down?



No no no no no no no no no no!

What the fuck?

Some people don't want to see nude pictures of you after surgery on their news feed. And not only do I myself respect that but I also understand it.

No offence to this lady Beth... Errr... What was her last name? Wanga? Wanka? Waaanga? Whatever. Something like that. Anyway, no offence to this Beth Wonga person but who wants to see that shit on their bloody Facebook? I get you're trying to spread around that this is the type of shit you can expect after having a mastectomy but fucking hell, on Facebook? REALLY? Who wants to see that?

Some poor bastards were just scrolling through their news feeds, perving on hot girls and spying on people's conversations when BAM!

"FUCK. ME. What did I just see?"

No. No. No. NO ONE WANTS THAT. No. One.

Obviously a lot of her friends were alright with it. Just sorta got on with their Facebooking and didn't think much of it, or maybe dropped a like and a supportive comment. But apparently one hundred people thought:
"Nah, not for me thanks mate." And that's fine. No issue. You know why? Because it's Facebook and they have the right to say 'I don't want this on my feed' and unfriend the shit out of you.

What's more, no one expects or probably wants those pictures on Facebook. Like I just said, people aren't expecting graphic post-operation photos on their feed. Facebook isn't labelled as the 'place to be if you want surgery pics', it's a bloody social networking site.

I personally think people are better off making blogs or websites dedicated to these sort of unqiue things and letting appreciative and supportive people FIND THEM. Not forcing it onto every person you know's (or may have met once at a party) news feed. Quite frankly, I'm not surprised she lost friends and honestly, there's no need for her to get arsey about it. It's only Facebook.

Tuesday, 31 December 2013

Call of Duty: Ghosts Needs The Old Game Modes Back

Dem feels :'(

Before I start I'm not even going to bother explaining where I've been for the past, what, 2 and a half months? I know I said I was back but yada yada yada I decided to work on some more pressing issues in my life and move the podcast forward too. The podcast is ready to begin recording by the way and the first show should be released early January 2014. I'm aiming for the next week. Recording should happen the 2nd of Jan although that could be moved. Also, while I'm not going to dare make any more promises I might not keep, writing is feeling so much more natural at the moment so I think I'm going to invest some more time in it. No guarantee I will write consistently, but let's just say I'm actually ENJOYING writing at this current time and it doesn't feel forced. I like doing things I enjoy so continuing the blog is something I plan on doing.

Anyway, moving on.

I didn't review Ghosts when it was released because, well, I wasn't writing anything at that time, and I didn't even get my hands on a copy until today (thanks, by the way, Amazon Prime for being late AGAIN so I missed the double XP weekend. Great service you are).

This isn't a review either, by the way. I just wanted to do what I love doing most: bitch and complain. 

Ah yes, how I've missed bitching on my beloved blog about everything under the sun, be it Yodel, FIFA, Activision, EA, other websites, even KSI. Call it 'easy views' or 'attention whoring' but bitching is about the only thing anyone ever actually does in their articles. That's right. Take a look at online posts and you'll see most are people moaning about some shit or other.

Wow. Wasn't that a digression. ANYWAY.

Move. Ing. ON.

CoD: Ghosts.

Fantastic game by the way. First CoD I've actually had fun (yes, actual fun) playing since, well, Modern Warfare 2. Blops was annoying. MW3 was a pathetic carbon copy of MW2 that somehow managed to suck Tony Blair's tiny cock (don't know why I just fancied bashing Blair then. Probably been listening to the . song 'Fanfare For The Conscious Man' too much). And Blops 2 was, well, I didn't really play it. Got it on release day but got so irritated by the lag and poor connections I sold it about 10 hours after buying it. Yep. That's me. Mr. Impatient over here everybody. I actually did give it a decent playing recently though and I admit the multiplayer was decent.  

But back to Ghosts.

I'm not going to moan about the online gameplay or anything because, for the most part, I like, if not love it.
What I'm here to rant angrily about is the absolutely outrageously awful game mode selection. 

In case you didn't know, Infinity Ward decided to take the non existent initiative they have and apply it to making the decision to remove a ton of original game modes from the Ghosts. This includes the fan favourite Demolition; my personal favourite game mode Sabotage; the also fairly well favoured HQ, and also Capture The Flag. Oh and Ground-War too.

The replacements for these great game modes?

Heavy Duty
Search & Rescue

This wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen in the game, if these new game modes were ACTUALLY GOOD.

Oh, they put in some new things that SUCK COCK BALLS?
How totally *un*surprising. I mean, come on, all they ever do in every new CoD is add in at least one new thing that sucks. For example:

CoD Points.
Retarded perks like Commando and One Man Army.
Or they just make an inferior carbon copy of MW2 in the form of MW3...

The only problem with this new poor design decision is it's at the expense of more than HALF THE GOOD GAME MODES.

First off let's review the new modes.

Heavy Duty: Heavy Duty is a game mode where.... Where... Where basically... BASICALLY, every player is pretty much equipped with the Juggernaut perk from CoD 4 and WaW. All players have extra health. That's it. That. Is. It. It's a game mode, where players get added health. As if that's something you couldn't do yourself with your friends in a custom match.

They wasted one of the few, precious, game mode slots, on this garbage pile of wank.
It's pointless. Who wants to play with added health anyway? Oh yeah, that's right, 2,643 people out of the 288,297 that are currently online at the time of writing on the Xbox 360 version of the game.

Infinity Ward, you made a game mode so shit, so bad, so rubbish, that less than 2,700 people out of nearly 290,000 want to play it.

Cranked: Oh god. Oh Jesus. Oh fuck me. You know when something so shocking is put in a game you wonder how it ever made it past the game directors, publication company and BETA testers? And, what's more, you wonder what nonce came up with it in the first place? I mean, Cranked isn't a TERRIBLE idea, it just happens to be kind of the AIDS of the game mode selection that was thought up and constructed by a mini brained toilet seat.

It's a mode where you get bonuses for getting kills, but also must get a kill every 30 seconds after your first kill is made, otherwise you blow up.

OK. Not too bad. But it goes wrong in so many places. First of all it's team based. Yeah, not good. If this was ever going to be fun to play, it would have to have been a free-for-all mode. No doubt.

Because it's team based getting kills is harder and so you'll find yourself blowing up a lot. Plus the whole blowing up thing seems pointless when you're put into teams. Like, why's it there? If this was free-for-all it would make a ton more sense.

Secondly, the maps are too big. Ghosts has some of the best CoD maps I've played, but also the biggest. And that's no bad thing. But when you've got to get a kill every 30 seconds and there's only 6 (max) people on the other team, well, it's not good. It just doesn't flow and it isn't fun.

The mode should have been a large scale FFA, with instead of 8 players there are 12. This way the action would be constantly fast and furious so you'd have a lot of opportunities to get kills and the big maps would be packed out with more players. Bam. Sorted. Done. Bow taken.

It's a decent idea. But whoever finalised the design for it is an idiot.

Oh and also, the opinion it sucks is also one many people hold. After all it only has just over 8,000 people playing it at the time of writing with over 288,000 online. 

Blitz: When I saw that the retarded fish muppets at IW had almost removed all my beloved game modes, I began looking through the new modes to see if there were any decent objective based ones. Aside from Search & Rescue (which I'll cover in a second), Blitz was the only one that really grabbed my attention and looked like it might not totally such Tom Cruise's testicles. So I gave it a go.

The objective sounded interesting. Each team has an objective zone in their spawn area and each team must infiltrate the other team's objective zone to score. Seems like a good idea. Both teams are on the offensive while also having to defend. I like it. Well, I DID like it, before I played it.

It's rubbish. Instead of having to go into the enemy's objective zone and stay there, trying to survive, in order to score points, all you have to do is simply walk, or run, into the zone and BANG, you've successfully scored. That... That is not hard. Oh, and when you DO score in the other team's zone, you get teleported to another part of the map, so the risk of dying is minimal.

Equip Marathon and Lightweight and an SMG and wow, this is easier to win than sex with Kim Kardashian. There's no challenge. Even if you are defending your zone, all the enemy has to do is touch it and they've scored. It ends super quickly and is far from enjoyable. What a load of crap. 

Out of the 288,000 humanoids online, only just over 6,500 are bothering to play it. Personally, I would pick it over the video game equivalent of Herpes that is Cranked but that's just me.

Search and Rescue: The only decent new mode that's been added. But that's only because it's based on a game type that already exists: Search And Destroy. You can still play S&D by the way, however Search And Rescue is a variation of it where the only difference is that when someone dies they drop a dog tag, similar to Kill Confirmed. The dog tag, when collected by the enemy, prevents the player who died from respawning till the next round. However when collected by a team-mate, the player who died is respawned. So it's S&D with the possibility of getting revived. That rarely happens however, so it's still a 'one life per round' game at its heart. 

Despite the iconic-ness that is S&D, I admit that I do prefer S&R. The added objective of collecting the tags makes it even more interesting. You may be winning the fight; defending with two team-mates with you, but if you left any of the enemy dog tags around you could find yourself quickly out numbered by the other team who have managed to respawn. Similarly, if you're the last alive, it's important to collect any friendly dog tags you find so you can increase your odds of winning. 

No complaints about this mode. But one decent game type out of the 5 that were added is nowhere near good enough.

Hunted: Where to begin? Well, this is going to be short. It's just lame. And boring. And really, really lame. Did I mention it's lame? And boring. It's really boring actually. Like, you know when it's 2AM and you're still gaming but you know you should sleep but you can't sleep because you've been gaming so much? Well Hunted is the game mode that sends you to sleep so you can dream of Jennifer Lawrence. It's just lame. And boring. 

If I were to briefly describe it to you, I'd say it's where you start the match with limited equipment (don't ask why) and have to secure different zones to get more equipment while killing eachothzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

Sorry I dozed off. Writing about this boring, lame as hell piece of tissue paper makes me as sleepy as playing it. Well, that's a bit extreme. It makes me a third as sleepy.

It's possibly the worst performing of all the new modes, with a pathetic 2,800 people playing it out of the 288,000.

Phew. That's the new game types covered. Now, to rant a bit more.

Basically, in case you couldn't tell already, they all suck. The game mode selection in Ghosts is shambolic. There are no decent respawn enabled objective game types. They're all crap.

What's more, out of the 12 Core game types, 6 are just variants of the other modes. Kill Confirmed, as popular as it is, is just another TDM variant, as is Heavy Duty and Cranked, and S&R is just a variant of S&D. There is zero innovation or uniqueness here. Half the game modes just blend together to create slightly different versions of each other. It's a joke. But a game breaking joke. 

Infinity Ward have already answered the question of why they removed the old, good, game types. They claim it's because in games such as Demolition, it's easy to spawn camp. This is fairly true. In Demolition, Sabotage, CTF and even HQ it could be easy to spawn camp. But did this happen all the time, and in such severity that it broke the game modes? Nope. In fact, I think that this is either a bullshit reason by IW or a retarded one they firmly believe in, because the only decent, original objective mode in Ghosts that is left is Domination, and it's piss easy to get spawn camped in it.

It's not IW's job to decide what we can and should want to play. Sure spawn camping sucks, but if people want to put up with it, or risk have it happening to them, then that is their decision. People go into Demo and CTF knowing things could get messy and unfair and they don't mind. What's more there's always the quit option in case the other team really is that dickish. 

Thanks to IW's completely unnecessary 'policing' and 'filtering' of Ghosts' playlists, we now have only one good, respawn enabled, objective mode, that being Domination.

It's easy to tell people want the old modes back (or at least some good, new, objective based ones) by simply looking at the amount of people in each playlist. Domination is the second most played playlist on Ghosts. None of the other game types come close to overtaking it. The only one that is played more is, of course, TDM. But TDM will forever be the most popular game type.

Ghosts has the gameplay and maps nailed. All it needs now are some decent game modes to play aside from S&R/S&D and Domination. The new modes we've been handed are a pathetic joke that are, judging by the amount of people who play them, clearly unpopular. If IW don't bring back some of the old game types or at least introduce some decent new ones in an update soon, then I can't see me, and maybe other people too, being entertained for very long by the poor selection we've been handed

Opinion on the issue? Comment your brain thoughts below. Be nice though. No one likes a dickhead..

Sunday, 27 October 2013

FIFA 14 Pisses Me The Fuck Off PART 3

I thought it might be over.

I though, or rather prayed (ah who am I kidding? I don't pray), that those bastards at EA had changed the game for the better. That they'd fixed all the issues that FIFA 13 had and righted all the wrongs.

But hey, guess what? They haven't. The game still pisses me the fuck off and here the fuck is why. Oh and if you hadn't noticed already, you over sensitive dick-eater, this muthafucking rant is gonna contain a lot of muthafucking swear words so either read the fuck on and relate or fuck off and cry. Let's do this shit.

Reason Number Muthafucking One: The Goalkeepers Are Wank

FIFA 13 made some worthy adjustments to the quality of the goalkeepers from its predecessor FIFA 12, but FIFA 14 takes a leap all the way back to the 2011 installment by making the GK's ABSOLUTELY WANK. Like, terrible. Like, utterly moronic. The game is a goal-fest, but for all the wrong reasons, one of them being that the man in-between the sticks can't save a fucking shot to save his pathetic life. 

Don't get me wrong, sometimes goalkeepers have amazing games, but this is usually when the game is blatantly scripted against you (example: you get a dozen shots, all saved, and the opponent gets 2 shots and scores both). However a good 85% of the time you can be sure the goalkeepers are too busy picking their noses to bother actually making a fucking save. They're shambolic and rubbish. 

Reason Number Muthafucking Two: There Are Sperm With More Brains Than The AI

The improved AI in FIFA 13 was noticeably better. However in FIFA 14 it seems that EA forgot to add in the part of the game that gives the players brains. 

First of all attackers are the laziest fucks in the world. Make. A. Fucking. Run. PLEASE. I''M FUCKING BEGGING YOU. MAKE A RUN YOU LAZY PRICK. WHY DO YOU STAND THERE LIKE AN IDIOT? 
You basically have to read your striker's non existent mind and play a through ball at exactly the right time and pray he has enough strength to push the defender behind him out the way and get through on goal. Because if you don't you'll be hanging around for the full 90 minutes with the ball in midfield wondering why the fucking hell Lewandowski is ambling around like a dopey prick.

Then you have the defending AI. Are defenders incapable of marking? Yet again? Just like in FIFA 12? Why is it so hard to make AI mark the opponent's Goddamn players?

If there's a winger running down the side about to cross the ball in you better hope to fucking God that you block that shit because if you let that mofoing ball into your penalty area you can be sure none of your sorry ass defenders will be marking the other guy's strikers that are standing RIGHT IN MIDDLE OF THE FUCKING BOX. COMPLETELY. UNMARKED. WHY? WHY? WHY? JUST WHY? WHY ARE NONE OF MY DEFENDERS MARKING THEM? WHY? WHY? I've actually ejaculated sperm out of my penis that has more intelligence than these crappy players.

Aside from that, the defenders can't hustle people of the ball well either. Apparently both Hummels and Subotic couldn't knock Doumbia off the ball and he somehow managed to push both defenders out the way and get through on goal. Yeah, don't fucking ask. That's what you've got to do with this game if you want to 'enjoy' it; don't ask questions. Otherwise you'll realise what a massive pile of crap it is.

Reason Number Muthafucking Three: FUT Is Still As Scripted As Gok Wan's Arse Is Fucked

Blah blah blah blah blah, FUT is still scripted as expected. 

Either that or you're telling me that getting all 15 shots on target saved by a usually shit keeper, yet conceding all 3 shots that the other guy has is normal gameplay. And I find that impossible to believe. So, yeah, FUT is still a pile of wank.  

Reason Number Muthafucking Four: The Refs And Linesman Are Literally AIDS

Oh look Falcao is through on goal. Oh look he's offside. Oh look he wasn't really offside he was in line but it was still given as offside anyway. *Yawn* How normal.

Oh look Farfan was just shoved violently off the ball then tripped up by another player. Oh look the ref doesn't give a shit. *Double yawn* How utterly, mind numbingly, boringly normal.

Yep, the refs and linesman are so shit they gave me (not literally) AIDS. Anything surprising here? No? OK moving on.

Reason Number Muthafucking Five: Crosses Are Overpowered And There's No Reason To Play Any Other Way

There is actually no reason to bother trying to score normal goals in FIFA 14. And when I say 'normal goals' I mean one that you work on through the midfield before capitalising on with a great shot. 

Why? Because crosses and headers are so OP you can literally spend an entire match crossing in dozens of balls and you can be guaranteed at least a couple of them will go in. Corners are just as overpowered too. It's so dry it's boring. There's no reason to play any other way and if you don't at least cross a moderate amount then you'll get slaughtered by the spam crossers. 

There's nothing wrong with crossing but it's stupid how scoring a normal goal is hard yet scoring a cross is easy. It makes playing any other way pointless.

Reason Number Muthafucking Six: The Game Freezes For NO REASON WHATSOEVER

Oh look I just scored! Woop woop! Time to celebrate with this awesome celebration I just unlocked annnnnnnnnd yep. The game's frozen. 

You get no awards for predicting FIFA 14 would have some fucking annoying bugs of some kind because EA is incapable of making a football game that is bug free. Hey, you know what though? Maybe they'll actually patch this one and, ya know, actually fix it. 

Ahahahahahaha yeah sorry, I'll stop dreaming now.

Reason Number Muthafucking SEVEN: It's Just Not That Fun Anymore

FIFA 14 is actually really quite realistic compared to FIFA 13. Unless you just go crossing your way to victory, scoring goals is more of a thoughtful, rewarding and very stressful experience. But that's not really a great thing. FIFA 14 sure does have issues but it's not these things that really kill it for me. The problem with the game is it's just not that fun any more  It's slow in the extreme, bland after a few matches, repetitive and boring. It lacks the unpredictability and the 'every match is unique and brilliant' way real football has, so the fact it plays more realistic is almost completely pointless. It would be fun if the entire thing was more like the real game, where every match really is unique and different. But they're not. The game is standard. The only realistic thing about it is you can't really score at will any more. It's slower and 'harder'. But in the end it still feels like a game and it is a game, so slow and bland isn't good. It's just boring. 

FIFA 14 isn't that fun. And that's its biggest problem. It lacks anything that really stands out. Every match is a slow and repetitive. There's really not much joy to be had here.

It's tragic really, there really aren't any good football games any more. Wow. What the fuck happened?

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Video Games DO Influence People. And That's OK.

First of all, before I get into this article, I'd like to say: I'M BACK BIATCHES!!! Yes, after a hearty break that has lasted nearly a month (over a month if you count from my last proper article), I. Am. Back. I got a lot of the shit in my life sorted and I finally feel ready to, once again, write and stuff. I feel fresh and clean and I'm ready to go! I think for the sake of my content that break was totally necessary. The previous update I posted has been taken down as I felt that it went a bit too far. I thought I was done with writing but honestly I just needed that nice break. So I'm back, and I won't stop writing. I get that my views have dipped (although not as badly as I anticipated) but I honestly don't care if there's only a couple of you guys still reading my shit. Let's. A do. A this.

So moving onto the actual article topic, and I wanted to share my honest opinion about video games and how they 'influence' people. After all that GTA V controversy I thought I'd have my (rather late) say.

I'm probably going to upset a lot of hardcore gamers out there when I say this, but video games DO influence people.

But wait, wait, WAIT. That's 100% OK. In fact, if they didn't influence us, we wouldn't really be the complex humans we are.

First of all by 'influence' I don't necessarily mean 'make go out and murder a mall full of people'. I'm talking about 'influence' in a more slight sense. Playing GTA V won't make someone go out and kill 10 people, but it might influence them to it if they've already got mental problems and violent issues.

My point is that people with particular tendencies can have those tendencies exploited by various sources. And it's a 'duh, no shit' situation.
Is it even remotely surprising that unstable or vulnerable people are easily influenced by outside sources? Of course not. Far from it.

People take advantage of other people all. The. Time. And they can do this through influence. Influence reaches different levels from simple insinuation that leads to particular action being taken by the other individual, to direct telling or ordering and even brainwashing.

The people that do the influencing are usually cunning people who know how to exploit people's weaknesses and get what they want, while the influenced person is usually either weak, unstable, worried, concerned, scared, fearful of upsetting the other person and generally isn't a very dominant character. You know the kind of person I'm referring to though, right?! We've all met at least a few people like this. People who you say something to and their opinion immediately changes to accommodate yours. Or if they seem uncertain of something you suggested they'll still go along with it easily because they're just not very dominant or 'certain' as it were.

 So obviously it's clear that influencing people and being influenced is natural, and something we can easily achieve ourselves.

All the people that were 'addicted' to video games who have gone out and killed didn't do that because of the game, but because their mental state was already in that position. They were already prepared to kill. The video games just fed their violent urges.

But that. Is. Fine.

Why? Because first of all, as I pointed out, influence is natural and you can't have a go at a video game for influencing a nutter to blow himself up when humans influence each other all the time to do negative things. Hell, just look at cults and mass suicides. Were video games responsible for those? Nope. But influence was. And that's why games aren't the issue. It's simply influence itself. It will always be there and everything and anything can do it.

Games, movies, people, music, TV - even the very thing that reports on the issue: the media. Yes, the media is the most hypocritical thing in the world. Newspapers and news sources preach peace and unity and 'banning video games' with one hand while furiously and violently masturbating to all the people they manage to influence with the other. It's why the media fucking exists. That is the purpose of it. It's legal propaganda. If a newspaper has a particular stance on something, then you can be sure their aim is to make every single fucking reader of it agree with them.

It's called the power of the press. And it can help people who have had terrible ordeals or outrageous things happen to them get into the spotlight to get justice, but it can also destroy lives. The key with the press is you are never in control. Whether the media is your enemy or ally is determined entirely by whether they want to spin your story as one that positively or negatively affects you. Will they make you out to be the arsehole or the hero? Guess what; you don't decide.

The media is irresponsible to the max. Influence is their purpose. Their aim. Their point. Yet they oppose things such as video games for influencing people too. The media does WORSE influencing, however, than any video game or movie to ever exist. Journalists have absolutely no issue with printing a trillion stories about someone and ma
king every human being alive hate the shit out of them for no apparent reason, but a game like GTA can't feature guns and murdering because it might inadvertently tip some already unstable maniac over the edge? Yeah. Sure. Carry on.

What's more, even if games didn't influence people. Even if, somehow, despite the fact that everything that exists influences humans somehow, video games didn't actually have any psychological effect on us, people would still be influenced by movies. And TV. And music. And every other thing in our lives. So why pick on games anyway?

Let's face it, our lives are just one massive barrage of influential content trying to make us think this way and do things that way. Ads are everywhere trying to get you to buy the latest this and the latest fucking that, while the media is trying to make you support this political party and that political party and hate this celeb and that celeb, while the political parties themselves are trying to influence you to vote for them over the others and the celebs are trying to convince you to pay attention to them so they can get their latest pay check and blah blah blah blah blah.

Life is just one massive clusterfuck of information and 90% of it is pointless bullshit. So go home, stick in GTA V, blow up a fictional version of L.A. and have a fucking blast.

If you want to follow me on twitter, which you probably don't, and ready my depressive, cynical, ironic and dumb tweets about shit you probably don't give a flying squirrels arse about, then follow me @mookyst.

If you have anything to add or want to share your opinion then please comment. I love hearing your thoughts because if you post something interesting we can have a conversation about it and if you post something incredibly dumb and hateful (like"this is gay") then I can take a screen cap of it and humiliate you on twitter. Peace out people.

Wednesday, 28 August 2013

Why The Nintendo 2DS Is Brilliant

Nintendo recently revealed their new entry into the 3DS family and ultimately left many people slightly confused.

The Nintendo 2DS will be available to buy in October, which seems appropriate as many people will probably need about two months to get their heads around exactly what it is and why it even exists. Personally, however, despite the many raised eyebrows I think the device is a brilliant idea and I genuinely want one. In fact, I want to trade my current 3DS in and get a 2DS instead.

First of all, what is it? Well it probably seems slightly, uh, odd that a console titled the '2DS' is part of a series of consoles known for their 3D functionality. But the 2DS actually plays 3DS games. That's its point. For £109/$129 you can get a 2DS and play all 3DS games and original DS games to your heart's content.

Put simply: the 2DS is a 3DS but without 3D. It plays the same games but the 3D option is disabled (obviously games that do actually require the 3D feature in order to be played properly will be useless on the 2DS).

Now it might make more sense to just buy a 3DS, but Nintendo are aiming the new console at, mainly, kids. There's no 3D feature for parents to worry about and the design of the console is clearly not very fancy, so it's built for knocks and scratches. 

But to be honest, I don't see kids as being the biggest audience here. Personally I can see every person who wants to play Luigi's Mansion and Animal Crossing: New Leaf but doesn't give a rat's arse about 3D wanting the new 2DS.

In fact, I own a 3DS and I want a 2DS.

What I also love about the new console is the design. While a lot of people seem to hate it, I like it. A lot. It's simple, doesn't look that fragile, it's compact and I love the placement of the screens and buttons. Some people seem skeptical about how comfortable the 'slab' or 'brick' or 'square' design will be on the hands, but just look at tablets. They're the same sort of dimensions and shape and they're fine to play games on.
It looks alright to me.

Honestly, I really like the new 2DS. It seems a great option for anyone who isn't interested in the one exclusive feature of the 3DS (the 3D, obviously) and I think the price-point is great. I don't play any games on my 3DS in 3D anymore, so I often question the entire point of the feature. I do wonder as well if the 2DS will have a better battery life as the 3D feature is completely gone and the battery on the 3DS is Goddamn awful.

Anyway, I might actually replace my 3DS with a 2DS when it's released and I think it will be a great way for people to play all the latest 3DS games they want without the hassle of 3D or that extra bit of cash. What do you think about it? I want to hear what your thoughts are on the new console, so say what you think in the comments!

Tuesday, 27 August 2013


"When everything seems to be going against you, just remember that the aeroplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
- Henry Ford

The human lies in deep sodden grass and mud, unmoving. A storm is raging as the wind hails and the rain pours down. The world is bleak and unknowing; full of abandonment. A tempest of fate pulling the human down. The weight of the elements too much for the weak person.

There is no hope in trying when there is no hope in yourself.

The human is pain. They are emptiness and suffering. They lie alone with only their own thoughts as company. But their thoughts are insanity. Driving them to the point of this desolation and remote abandonment.

If only there was hope.

If only there was something to pull the human back up.

But mistakes and regret have led the human here. The pure lack of courage in the required situations have caused this agony. The thoughts left alone inside the humans head. They never stop thinking. Their brain ticking over. What if? Why? How? Why was it like this? Could I have changed one thing? Just one?! Yes. But I didn't. I've failed. This is the end.

The mud blocks out the human's view of the sky and world. They lie in this pool of misery, drowning in their sorrow and regret. They cannot see and all they can hear is the howling wind which seems to be screaming at the human in anger. But it is the human's anger that screams at them. Anger fuelled by their mistakes and regret over what they did not do.

This is the end.

Maybe if a bird were to sing or the sun were to shine through. Maybe if the rain were to wash off the mud and then subside. Maybe if things were better the human would feel less suffering and agony. If things were to be right. If things were to improve. If things were better, the human would survive.

*There is a chance in everyone. And there are chances and opportunities we encounter. As people we decide the fate of these chances and opportunities and as humans we have the ability to shape our future into the mould we want. As people it is our right and our duty to ensure we live how we wish, how we want. Material things fuel only our shallow beliefs about what life is, but no matter what scenario any person can dream themselves in, they will always be in control of the key choices they make. Right choices affect them positively  while negative and poor ones have a bad effect. Regret is one outcome that returns over and over to haunt you. It never leaves, and there is always that 'what if?' thought. Especially when it is regarding something close to you. But instead of asking why things didn't work out, ask why you are letting yourself regret. Ask why you are letting yourself regret like this. Ask why you feel like this to begin with. If regret is that bad, don't let yourself get into situations and make decisions that lead to regret. Make the right ones. Even if they backfire, there is no regret in knowing you made a decision to benefit yourself longterm. And what's more, you don't have to regret as there is always something you can do. Go out and scream at the top of your voice. Go out and get what you want. Make it happen and force yourself into the world.*

The human feels a pang of light. The epiphany has brought upon them a sudden realisation. They must always focus on never letting themselves make a decision they know will lead them to regret. They must stand up and make the decision that, no matter how scary or intimidating, will leave them with fulfilment.

The human realises they must act fast. They must move quickly to remedy their mistakes. It means so much to them. They are in the mud and grass and storm due to it. And they must remedy it. They must fix it. They must stand up against their fears and rejections. They must do what they naturally feel inclined to otherwise this regret will be with them forever. For the rest of their life. They must act.

The human finds the strength to raise a hand and wipe off the mud that coats their face. The mud is thick and heavy and they struggle to wipe it all away. They open their eyes and witness the dark sky above and the pouring rain.

The human tries to sit up but the mud and water weighs them down. It would be so much easier to lie back down and rest. But why rest in mud and hell when they can rest in sunlight and their own happiness?

The human struggles but forces themselves up. They are naked, coated head to toe in mud and filth. The rain that beats down does nothing to help clean them and instead only muddies them more.

But the human fights on. They must escape the field. It's a dangerous fight that must be won. It must. Be. Won.

The human stumbles forward through the tall grass that reaches up as far as their chest. Moving is hard. The human trips over a hole in the ground. The turf is lumpy and full of cracks and gaps that will try to slow the human's movement down even more.

But they fight on. Moving through the sodden field they see a small gate in the distance. They must reach it to escape. The journey will not end there, but things get better. Improvements will be made.

They move forth, pressing on, asserting as much energy as they can to the task, ignoring the potholes and uneven ground that tries to bring them down. As they get closer to the gate the rain begins to subside. It begins to fade out. Is the storm finally ending?

The rain comes to a halt and the terrain begins to even out. They are getting nearer and nearer to the gate. This is their chance. They can see this through.

On the other side of the gate the field continues. There is no fence and the gate appears to serve no material purpose. In fact, its existence does not benefit the field in the least. But the human approaches the gate. Exhausted they try to open it but it is stuck. They need to fight harder. They must succeed.

The human yanks and pulls the gate with all their might. It won't open. Suddenly the human realises there is a sign reading 'Push' that is stuck on the gate. They sigh, push the gate and it opens smoothly.

The human ambles through and immediately the grey sky begins to drift away only to be replaced by a clear blue one. The grass on this side of the gate is shorter too and the ground is flat and even. There are birds singing and a slight wind is blowing. The mud that coated the human begins to slide away, as if slipping cleanly from them and leaving no trace it was ever there. The mud completely disappeared and suddenly the human's free.

They stand in the field, admiring the sky and birds and the flowers that have popped up through the trimmed grass. This is what they were fighting for. This is what they needed. The regret and hell was only brought upon themselves by themselves and there was always a way out. They needed this. They needed to succeed. No one else could help. It was them. Always them. And the courage they sought was always going to be found within themselves.

"Have great hopes and dare to go all out for them. Have great dreams and dare to live them. Have tremendous expectations and believe in them."
- Norman Vincent Peale

"The best way to get rid of the pain is to feel the pain. And when you feel the pain and go beyond it, you'll see there's a very intense love that is wanting to awaken itself."
- Deepak Chopra

"To have darkness behind me, in front of my a bright sky, flickering lights on the water and to feel it on the stony face of the southern sun."
- Julia Hartwig

This has been a confession.

Sunday, 25 August 2013

The Rise & Fall Of The Elder Scrolls Online

I'm not really into MMO games that much. I'm not really a multiplayer person anyway to be honest. I'll always pick a single-player experience over a shared one any day.

But I have to admit, I was looking forward to the Elder Scrolls Online. Imagine an ES game with your friends. With strangers. Imagine an ES game with more of a living and breathing world than any Elder Scrolls game had ever had.

I love the series anyway and while the thought of an ES MMO didn't get me immediately psyched, I grew to really like the idea after a while.

That was until recently, when Bethesda announced that the much anticipated game would launch at a standard RRP retail price of $60/£50 yet also charge users per month too. Yep, you're gonna have to shell out $60/£50 and then another $15 on top of that EVERY month just to keep playing.

Let's work this out.


But we can't forget the cost of PSN and XBL if you play on a console.

Xbox Live will cost $60 a year while PSN Premium will cost $50. Either way the cost to use the game for the first year will be practically $300 on both platforms. And from then on in, after the first year, you'll still be looking at between $230-$240.

That's one hell of a fucking cost to use one, yes ONE, game. In fact that pricing regime boggles my mind. It also boggles everyone else's mind too. No one seems to understand why the decision to include a cost per month was made.

Do Bethesda not realise that they just shot themselves in the head? They've betrayed their fan base and customers.

What really - REALLY - pisses me off though is when any developer/publisher thinks they can charge a fee to buy the game and then charge customers AGAIN to actually USE the game they JUST BOUGHT.

When you buy something, you're handing over your hard earned money so you can obtain the use of the thing or service you're purchasing. But when you hand over your $60 to buy the ES Online, that $60 has only given you the right to take the game back to your house to pay another fee, this time of $15, to actually use the game.

It's like the $60 is the first stage - or level.

Level 1: Pay $60.
Level 2: Take the game home.
Level 3: Pay $15 to actually be able to use the game.
Level 4: Enjoy until the next month when you must pay another $15.

It's pointless and it sucks. It's a terrible way to market any game. I know MMOs cost more to run as they require constant attention over a long period of time, but either charge $60 and add in in-game purchases and things or simply charge $15 a month. Doing both is a ridiculous amount of money to expect customers to pay. And, quite frankly, it's shameful.

But in the end, what does it matter? It's not out yet and you can always cancel any pre-orders you have. We're not obligated to buy this game. If paying that much is ridiculous, which it is, then we shouldn't do it. At the end of the day only Bethesda lose out. And they will do. Because paying $60 for a game only to have to pay an extra $15 per month afterwards is ludicrous.

What do you think about the extra monthly fee? Will you be buying the Elder Scrolls Online? Leave your comments below!

Monday, 19 August 2013

A Cynical Call Of Duty: Ghosts Multiplayer Reveal Review (Kinda)

Warning: If you are a Call of Duty fanboi this article will make you very angry. Well, more angry than you are normally. Probably about as angry as losing a TDM match with lag. Maybe a bit far but you know, CoD fans be crazy.

In case you didn't know, the multiplayer reveal for this game that's part this little series you probably haven't heard of called 'Call of Duty: Ghosts' happened about 5 days ago. Oh, you have heard of it? Oh yeah, silly me, it's the most successful franchise in the history of gaming of course - dun dun DUUUUN. God knows why though.

So yeah, seriously now, the multiplayer reveal for CoD:Ghosts happened and I forced myself to watch the entire hour long show on YouTube that a couple of years ago I would have enjoyed but now made me want to rip my eyes out and bleed slowly to death while wondering what I had and hadn't achieved in my measly life.

Yeh, I'm not usually this cynical but this fucking game and its boring ass reveal that I sat through has turned me like this.

So let's get down to reviewing the reveal event and then I'll give you my take on the game at the moment and what I think about it.

So it starts and the first 2 minutes are them bigging up the series with some stats about sales and hours played as well as seeing how many clips they could edit together of people saying "Call of Duty" or rather "Call of Dooty", as half of them pronounced it. They even got several clips from Family Guy. I know right, the most rehashed game series was ass kissing the most rehashed TV series. Isn't it cute?

Then the event started. Eric Hirshberg, CEO at Activision, came out and gave a speech about the event and franchise. Now this was all fine until he started to crack jokes. Jokes like "Our fanbase is the best in the world". Needless to say, after he said that I was literally 'rofling', until I realised he was being serious.

I mean, who writes that crap? That's like the head of Riot Games coming out and praising the fanbase of League Of Legends as being incredibly team focused and the best of any MMORPG.

If you're skeptical about my scepticism of Hirshberg commending the CoD fanbase, then think of it this way.

If you go onto CoD online and start winning, you'll be threatened and called every name under the sun, mostly by 12 year old no lives. If you go on there and start losing, you'll also receive taunts and abuse for being crap. Mostly, again, by 12 year old no lives. And remember that Call of Duty is an 18 or 'M' rated game.

Aside from the issue of online abuse by, yet again, mostly 12 year old no lives, you also have the problem that NO ONE ON CALL OF DUTY CAN WORK AS A FUCKING TEAM. They're like the League Of Legends players of the FPS world.

That's not all though. Hirshberg didn't seem to have an issue praising a fanbase that sent Treyarch dev David Vonderhaar death threats because of patches and changes he made to the game. Start a slow clap everyone; this is the 'best fanbase in the world' as Hirshberg called them. Or as we normal people and gamers refer to them as: animals and cretins.

Hirshberg decided to throw in another serious 'joke' a couple of minutes later too, when he started asking what made Call of Duty such a successful series for so long.

"Is it the graphics?" He suggested.

Sorry mate but

Have you looked at a CoD game recently? The graphics haven't changed since CoD 4. In fact, I actually find the proposition that graphics in general could make any series as popular as CoD to be totally stupid. Nobody will play a mediocre game as much as they do Call of Duty just because it looks nice. Graphics play no part in a game's popularity.

Then he added to his list of *failing* jokes by asking if it was the stories that made the series so popular.

I'm sorry but what stories are these? What games have you been playing, Eric? Last CoD I played had me bored out my skull. No one plays CoD for the stories or the single player. Not anymore. Maybe 4 or so years ago, but these days CoD is seen as pretty much a multiplayer only game.

Then he had the cheek to turn around and say "Sure, it's all those things." So you're saying that everything you just listed is why so many people play Call of Duty? So you're suggesting that it's not just the online progression system, but the nonexistent stories and the shitty PS2 graphics from 2007? No, no, no mate. NO. OK. No. Just no. Here is why CoD is popular:


Mike's Lesson On Why Call Of Duty Is Popular

It's easy.

It's easy to get into.

It's easy to play.

It's easy to win.

It doesn't require much assertion from the player except the energy they use from farting, eating, using the controller and yelling furiously down their mic at their shitty team mates.

It's got one of the best progression systems of any online FPS game (I can't lie, the progression system is A*).

It's been popular since the introduction of the Xbox 360 and PS3 and no other franchise has been able to get ahead because of this. You see, who gets in first, wins. And that's what CoD did. It isn't really popular because it's 'OMG AMAZING' or anything, it just made its mark before any other shooter and thus continues to be bought globally by millions each and every year.



There. It's not rocket science Mr. Hirshberg.

Hirshberg: "But at the end of the day, none of that matters. If they don't all combine to add up to that one essential ingredient that's at the heart of every Call Of Duty *Dooty* game and that's fun."

Wrong. Call Of Duty hasn't be fun since Modern Warfare 2.

"You can't count on much in this world, but you can count, every year, on Call of Duty *Dooty* to make your knuckles white, your heart race, to unleash your competitive fire and trigger your 'Holy shit' reflex more consistently than any form of entertainment in the world."

You're right, CoD does make me go "Holy shit!" which is usually followed by "How the fuck did that guy kill me first? Fucking lag...".

After Eric's little speech we're shown a trailer for the multiplayer. Not much to say about this except if it was supposed to get me excited, it failed. The trailer looked like it could be for Black Ops II or MW3. The same guns, same gun sound effects, same graphics and same features too. Yeah, they actually decided to make big writing come up during the trailer saying shit like "Customise your soldier". Oh, wow. Thanks so much for that feature that has been in the series since CoD 4.

Some way into this trailer they decide to show us some new game modes, but they only give you about 2 seconds to read all the information about them and so you end up losing track of what the fuck is actually going on. At least it's only a trailer and not proper gameplay huh?

Then they present us with some new modes and perks and shit but again, not enough time to analyse them so who the fuck knows what they're about or do?

Then a gas station collapses in pretty mediocre fashion because if you've played Battlefield or seen the Battlefield 4 trailer you'll have seen a fucking sky scraper come down so a gas station barely gets the skin tingling. In fact it doesn't. It just looked like they were trying to get some BF fanboys to come over and join the CoD party. But there's more chance of Kim Kardashian being a virgin than that happening.

The Call of Duty logo then flashes up and that's the end of the trailer.

The camera goes back to the stage and good ol' Eric walks out again. You know I do like Eric Hirshberg, even if I am 'hating' on him for lack of better term. It's just the game he's promoting and company that employs him aren't exactly my cup of tea. And the shit he comes out with is embarrassing half the time.

Hirshberg then continues his speech thing, quickly giving Eminem a nice little bit of promotion by explaining that the Eminem song heard during the trailer is the first time the song has EVER (yes, evar) been played to the public. I guess even Eminem does some ass kissing these days. Recession ya know?

But the whole Eminem business didn't end there. Oh no. The man himself had prepared a video explaining how much he loves CoD and how involved he is in the franchise. Ya know, cos' a couple of his songs have been used in their trailers and shit like that.....

I'm sorry but does anyone give a shit? I don't really give a crap about Eminem at the multiplayer reveal of a video game. I care about the game itself, even if it is only Call of Duty. Why the fuck is Eminem getting in on the action? I don't want to see a video of a white guy talking like he is black and sounding like he's high on coke. I'd rather see some, ya know, gameplay.

Oh and you can be sure that Hirshberg made a totally generic and cliche joke when he came back on stage about the way Eminem closed his video with a peace sign.

Hirshberg *doing a peace sign*: "That's how I'm gonna walk off later if that's OK?"

Groan and mumble and typical 'Hahaha why do I have to laugh at this?' from the audience.
If Hirshberg wanted to make a funny comment about the hipster slash gangster way Eminem acts and left the video then he could've just come out and said: "What a twat" and everyone would have actually genuinely laughed and agreed.

So blah blah blah, let's skip ahead a bit.

The first proper new feature revealed was the customisation options. You can now choose exactly how your soldier appears to everyone else. And you can also now play as a woman! Yay, finally games are embracing female players. Took long enough.

I don't actually really have anything bad to say about the customisation features. They look.....Solid. I guess. They're won't exactly make the gameplay experience anymore fun or bad but it's a good start. People have wanted this level of personalisation in CoD for some time and it's good they finally listened.

There's also 30 new weapons and more perks too and you have tons of different options when it comes to choosing what loadouts you use as well as equipment too.

However it got a bit stupid when killstreaks were mentioned.

Some new killstreaks include 'Juggernaut Maniac' which just sounds dumb and a guard dog called Riley who kills enemies that are close and growls to let you know when opponents are near. Sounds a bit lame if you ask me.

However admittedly they did redeem themselves by stating that there are, officially, no more deathstreaks. Finally! Hallelujah! Praise da Lord!

I'm gonna be honest, there were a load of new features revealed and, quite frankly, I can't be fucked to talk about them all. Mainly because this happens with CoD EVERY year. Like, EVERY year. They announce the new features, you get excited, then when you play it you realise the gameplay still sucks and it gets boring after two weeks. I don't want to talk about the new features and waste my time on them because I just know it's gonna end up with the same result as last year and the year before and the year before.

The bottom line is that I'm barely even excited for Ghosts. It looks OK, I guess, but even with these new features, it's still the core experience we've had for the past God knows how frigging long. And I know I'm sick of it and a lot of other people are too. Call of Duty is getting old and no matter what 'innovations' they try to make it will still play out the same every single year. The only time this is going to change is when the next gen starts and new multiplayer rival games are released.

Hopefully Ghosts will surprise me, in a good way, but I have to admit, I'm not even remotely expecting that to happen.

What are your thoughts on Call of Duty: Ghosts? Are you looking forward to it? Or are you not bothered? Leave your thoughts below!

Monday, 12 August 2013

Unanswered Questions

Before I get on with this article, you may want to know why I have not posted in over a week. This is not because I have been on holiday but in fact due to, and you would know this if you follow me on twitter, writer's block.

I haven't been able to successfully write a single sentence that made logical sense for over a week and it drove me a bit insane. I've also been mega busy and have been wondering where I want to take this blog.

You see, last week I got a comment on one of my articles saying "I remember when this used to be a gaming blog", and while the comment itself and what it said didn't bother me, it did make me think that I should make my intentions clear.

This is not a dedicated gaming blog. The reason I started out covering only gaming was simply due to the fact it was easily available to me, I know a lot about gaming and am a big gamer myself and I love writing about it.

However as time went on and I became more confident with my writing, I decided to move onto other things that interest me too. I want to start up a YouTube channel(s) soon and while I will mainly be doing gaming videos, I will want to branch out into vlogging, movie making and other forms of entertainment too. It's important to understand that gaming is simply ONE thing that interests me. I will never stop covering games, but I will never stop covering or doing OTHER things too.

I am going to start posting stories and scripts on here too. So prepare for them. This is something I have wanted to do for a while and I will be starting shortly.

With that out the way, let's move on!

I wanted to talk about something that occurred to me the other day.

I was sitting on the toilet (yes, I was. I'm not even joking) and I started wondering.

"If heaven is supposed to be perfect, then surely that makes it not perfect?"

What does that ^ mean?

Well here's my issue with the heaven concept, and don't take this as an attack on religion please. I am agnostic and a skeptic so bare with me here.

There are two common theories on what 'heaven' is like. If it exists of course.

The first is that it is the same for everyone. It is perfect. No crime. No hate. Nothing 'bad', as it were. Nothing negative. It's a wondrous place for everyone and that's sort of it really.

The second is that heaven changes to accommodate different people. So if you like sunsets and beaches, you're house will be situated somewhere there. Where you 'are' in heaven, is dependant on what you like and what your 'idea' of perfection is. Now that, that sounds perfect. Doesn't it just sound perfect?

But let's focus on the prior suggestion. That heaven is the same for everyone as the idea of 'perfection' and 'goodness' can, arguably, be universal. Not personal.

So here is my issue.

If heaven is 'perfect' in one sense and way, for everyone, then surely it lacks what actually makes life fun? And that is actually adrenaline.

"What, Mike? Adrenaline? ADRENALINE? Are you nutso? Gtfo. Your argument is dead."

Wait wait wait. WAIT.


For just a second.

Let's take common human nature.

We like danger. We, as people, luuuuurrrv danger. We LOVE it.

We have games and activities dedicated to it. Skydiving, for instance. Bungie jumping. And how about, of course, violence. We love violence. It gives us the best rush. We play games like paintball, where you shoot one another with guns for fun, the rush and excitement of it.

Can they see me behind this barrel? Can they hear me? Oh God, there is a group of them. Let me sneak up behind them and shoot them in the arse....

We. Love. Adrenaline.
We. Love. Violence.
It gives us the best rush we could ever want.

We love doing dangerous, risky things. It's what makes life thrilling and actually interesting. And, ultimately, worth living. And surely if you're going to live in an afterlife for ALL ETERNITY it's gonna get a bit boring without some adrenaline thrown in there?

"But Mike, who says you can't skydive and do fun, dangerous things in heaven?"

OK so you can skydive. Sure, I can accept that. You can skydive in heaven. Great. But what about violence? In a perfect world, violence wouldn't exist right? And heaven is 'perfect', so no violent rushes. No violent video games. No violent paint-balling or fighting or WWE. The things that give us the best rush in real life, and often the most fun, are actually things that a perfect world would prohibit. And if heaven is perfect we can assume they're prohibited there too. So is heaven really a perfect concept?

But there are other questions that bug me. I find the biggest flaws with religious theory actually come from the most basic questions. It's odd because these questions are the type of ones that people scoff at. It's like if you ask them, you're an idiot. Why? Because they're 'school' boy questions. Things 'kids' ask. But kids actually are right about most things. They see the world how it is. In basic form.

But these questions are SO valid it's unbelievable. It doesn't matter if you don't ask a question, the question will ALWAYS be there. Just because you don't point out a plot hole in a film doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you haven't pointed it out. And just because you don't ask a question doesn't mean the question isn't valid. It's just that you haven't asked it yet.

One of these questions is, quite simply, 'who created God?'. And it's a question that bugs the fuck out of me.

There are several common religious comebacks to this, but I'm going to use my two favourites.

1) If you're going to try to disprove God by asking 'who made God?', then why don't we ask 'who made the universe?

This is a very regular response to the question. Often religious people tend to respond by saying 'well if you believe in the science and the universe, what created the universe? What was before the universe?'. Ultimately they try to make the question 'who made God?' invalid by reminding you that you can't answer who made the universe either. They don't need to answer the question 'who made God?' because it's not like YOU or I can answer who made the universe.

But this is bullshit. Why? Because we have proof the universe exists, and that proof is right here in front of you. Just because we can't prove what MADE the universe, doesn't mean the answer ISN'T out there. If you believe in a supernatural creator that is, ultimately, a being of some kind, that 'being' surely had to be made by SOMETHING?!

The universe, on the other hand, is natural. It is a part of the natural world. So why do you need to prove that it was created by something or anything? The universe could always have existed in some form or another. It could be how life exists in the first place. Or it could have come AFTER something else that existed over a billion years ago. Who knows. And, more importantly, who cares? You don't need to prove natural things exist and why they do in order to validate the question 'who made God?'. And this leads to the next common response...

2) God ALWAYS Existed.

This is more bullshit than the previous response. Why? Because, and this is something religious people can do A LOT, you're ultimately answering a supernatural question with a supernatural answer. And that doesn't fucking answer it.

You can't answer the question 'who made God?' with a supernatural answer.

"He always existed."

That doesn't help. It doesn't offer any proof and isn't a good argument.

God is almost always believed to be a BEING. This means he (or she. Who knows?) is alive. He has a mind. And this makes sense. After all, isn't he all powerful and all KNOWING? Thus he has a mind. He has awareness and he has conscience.

So who made him like that?

The question 'who made flowers?' isn't a good or even really valid one because nature doesn't need a creator. Things evolve. Things change and adapt. Flowers are just a natural product of the environment and evolution. Nature doesn't have a mind, it just goes with the flow and how it turns out is how it turns out. End. Of.

But BEINGS don't just form. A 'God', as we imagine a God, couldn't just evolve from nature and then become all powerful, because surely 'God' would have to have made nature in the first place?

God always existed. Before time. Before ever. He was the beginning. However how can something that ALWAYS existed have a beginning? It can't. Yet a 'beginning' is a natural requirement. Technically EVERYTHING MUST HAVE A BEGINNING so surely the answer 'God always existed' is clearly invalid. If something always existed it never began, yet everything MUST begin. It's a circle of contradiction.

Something that bugs me about atheism, though, is the way atheists seem to be 'looking' for proof of God's existence.

"We have worked out a supernatural force wasn't required for us to exist and evolve. God isn't necessary."

But here's my argument, and yes, it is in favour of God for once.

How the fuck are you going to find proof of God from working out how we exist and why? And just because he isn't 'necessary', doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

If God created everything, he created nature, the world - everything. He made it all work. He ensured life could evolve in one way or another. Just because us humans have worked out evolution and the big bang theory doesn't mean that God wasn't BEHIND these things. What did we hope to find? What, did we expect to look into evolution and see that something was missing and that ONLY a supernatural force could have played a part in it? Of course not. If God DOES exist and DID create us and everything we exist with, then he made us work. He made us work as a system. He didn't just put us together in a factory and plop us down on planet earth. Just because we can prove that we evolved naturally, doesn't mean God didn't make it so we did in fact evolve naturally in the first place.

One last example of my above statement is this:

If you put together a test tube full of bacteria, and that bacteria changes and grows fungus, and that fungus grows a brain and works out it was created through evolving from bacteria, that doesn't change the fact you made it happen in the first place. You didn't directly create the fungus, but you put in motion the steps FOR it to be created. And maybe, MAYBE, that's what God did.

Anyway, these were just some questions bugging me. They can't be answered by fact, though, so there will never be closure on them. Not until I die anyway, and discover whether there is an afterlife of some sort or not. Maybe there is, but maybe there isn't even a God. Maybe there's a giant rabbit who sits in a cage and you have to answer a trivial question about your life to get into 'heaven', but the question doesn't have an answer and is simply opinion based so there is no a right or wrong answer, yet your answer determines the outcome of your eternal live in the afterlife. And the rabbit will forever be stuck in the cage because that's what life is. A massive cage you can't escape from. And it'll be like that till you die. And even if there IS a heaven, as many imagine it, you will still be in that cage, because the boundaries of existence will always limit you and be there to hold you back.

Good luck.