All About canana
Although the wait seems endless, Grand Theft Auto V is slowly getting closer to release. Rockstar has finally revealed that the game will come to consoles in the second quarter of 2013, an announcement fans are undoubtedly excited about. After all, what's new that the company prepared to compensate the agony of those who can not wait to return to Los Santos? Unfortunately, we still have to wait a while longer to find out, as the publisher continues its silent policy regarding details on the fifth game in the franchise, releasing new information in small doses -- to our despair. On the other hand, this does not stop us from speculating. While no novel feature has been confirmed, our expectations lie in improvements around what already exists. For as grand and exciting as the games are, they are not perfect. There is always that edge that needs to be trimmed so that the result is even better. But instead of talking about what I want out of GTA V, I decided to just list the points that I dont want to see in GTA V. You know that one feature that made you twist your face in one of the previous games? Chances are theyre exactly what I want out of what is already touted as one of next years most anticipated games.
Girlfriends and inconvenient friends
We're obviously not talking about your social life outside of video games, but within them. One of GTAs notable features is focusing on a protagonists non-criminal life, showing that they are also people who come out to have fun and meet new people. The problem is when this game disrupts their "work". Who honestly didnt got angry on hearing the phone ring and discover that your friend wants to go bowling or your girlfriend wants to go to a new restaurant at the exact moment you're doing an important mission or engaged in a police chase? Exploring this social side was at times and brought many possibilities, but it was poorly executed. The phone calls that arose in the worst situations, forced the player into change his route to satisfy the character with whom he made a point. We want GTA, not Sims. This does not mean, however, that Im not up for any side-quests. They give life to the world and makes everything more interesting. In this case, Id rather do them any time I want, not when somebody calls me in a middle of a mission. Flirting and hanging out with friends are cool, as long as it does not break the rhythm of the game's central activity.
One of Rockstars secrets on GTAs success is betting on a formula that combines extreme realism with fantastical elements that would never be possible in the streets of real cities. After all, who ever imagined taking a car would be easy regardless of any traffic law? In Los Santos, the police are unforgiving. That's exactly what we do not want to lose in the new game. Some of the rumors surrounding GTA V state that the police will be more attentive. Even "minor" crimes such as speeding or passing a red light will earn you a star on the meter pursuit. Actually, this is an issue that can potentially divide opinion. On one hand, it may be an interesting addition. That would put more realism, so long as the arrest is ordered only if you are caught red-handed. Under these conditions, I wont complain. However, if it happens automatically I still get caught regardless, it can turn frustrating fairly quickly. Much of the fun sandbox-type games is stepping on the gas and destroying everything that appears in front of you, despite what the DMV Los Santos has to say. Half of that charm dies if you are forced to stop in traffic or have to escape the car all the time.
GTA is not primarily a shooter, even with its extensive list of available weapons. The essence of the series has always been something looser where the fun is you approach a particular situation. That's why customization and equipment evolution is risky. Improving your weapons can be quite useful in other games, but it does not always fit. Think about how often you actually cared about every single weapon used in previous games. Virtually none, right? That's because what makes the franchise so much fun is exactly the uncompromising freedom we have at our disposal. In the end, we do not care if that rifle because 12 or 15 damage, but if he is able to kill one opponent before the police arrive. Risking this approach can make GTA V to approach many third-person shooter games of out there - something that we do not want in any way.
One of the worst trends of this generation is that everything has to have multiplayer. Games that were heavily focused on the single player campaign received an extra mode so you can challenge or collaborate with others. Although some titles like Assassins Creed III have managed to bring something unique and deviate from shooting other people in the face others have not. Rockstar has put multiplayer modes in previous GTA games, but the results were never satisfactory. As much as the idea of putting everyone in town in a huge Deathmatch looks interesting, it is shallow and does not have a lasting impact. That's why, in GTA V, we want a multiplayer thats actually worth investing hours in. The idea of exploring Los Santos in online mode can even be reused, provided that we have different ways to explore the vastness of the map optimally. If Rockstar is able to create something different and implement creative ways to explore multiplayer, Im on board. Otherwise, Rockstar should stick with the single player, a fact that they do best.
By all that is holy in this world, thats enough! Zombies are cool, but that's no excuse to put them in everything. see it as more of a joke, especially when games introduce "new" modes that arent exactly new. I kindly ask Rockstar to not do the same with GTA V. This basically started with Red Dead Redemption, but because the game entered in a context entirely consistent with the proposed theme.Moreover, killing hordes of zombies can get old fast. The whole infestation has lasted three years is no longer amusing to me., In fact, it is absurd youre to do something slightly different, let the dead out in their tombs and bet on another niche, like dinosaurs, aliens or anything else - but no more zombies!
I could go on about things I dont want in Grand Theft Auto V, but thats where Ill stop. Though I think Rockstar is an exceptional developer, it does not mean theyre exempt in making mistakes. Now that Ive gotten that out of the way, I want to know what features or elements you dont want to see in GTA V. Surely there must be some characteristic you think does not fit the games universe. Feel free to say it in the comments. But what if the studio decides to ignore us and put it all in the final product? As frustrating as it is to say, I'm sure that fact will matter little and we'll buy the game anyway.
Comprising studios and executives may have been too good for journalists, but when it counts - with the players - the results seem one-sided. Preliminary sales data point to a sales winner in the struggle between Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3: Activision, clearly triumphant with what is described as the biggest entertainment launch in history. the history of the whole entertainment area. Perhaps EA analyzed their first week sales and thought that the performance of Battlefield 3 should have been better, given the huge marketing done to the product. From a UK perspective, BF3 sold less than half of the copies of FIFA 12 for that same period of time, and is well behind the total collected by Call of Duty: Black Ops in itsthe first week of sales. The extent lifetime of sales of Modern Warfare 3 is yet to be knownhave yet to be released, but everything points to an even greater level of success than that of last year?s game.
Electronic Arts has managed to use the brand's marketing to sell within a different style - which may have always been planned. According to sources, BF3 managed to double sales in the first week compared to Medal of Honor and has sold more than all previous Battlefield games combined. This is very good, not to mention an excellent platform for future titles in the series. After all, it is worth remembering that COD did not become an imediate phenomenon - took four years, four games and a new generation of consoles before the series gain traction. Electronic Arts and DICE knows this and almost certainly planned it. Our argument is that the war between these two heavyweights in the FPS genre is not over yet - in fact the fight has only just begun - and gaming technology defines the conflict.
The gameplay offered by Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is closely linked to the phenomenal technology at its core. The visual top gameplay combined with a game at 60 frames per second produced not only great aspect but also felt like no other: it was in its arcade aspect of command and response. The combination of this exceptional interface between player and game, along with the mechanical XP, created a great sensation. Infinity Ward and Treyarch spent four years to build and improve the underlying formula. However, the single force of Call of Duty is also a way of its greatest weakness. The changes made in MW3 are impressive - clearly incremental in nature. The performance level of the 360 and PS3 versions have been leveled to some extent, the audio greatly improved by a sound effects system that occur in context with concept similar to (but not as effective) "HDR" audio presented by DICE in its initial work in Frostbite. Lighting and particle effects have also been improved, although the room for improvement here has a set distance due to the tight budget for the rendering.
DICE's approach on consoles is strikingly different. Despite lowering Battlefield 3 to 30 frames on console, obviously affect the input lag, doubling the time available for rendering opens up a whole new world of possibilities. The scheme based deferred rendering lighting allows weaving at a level that is completely different from the IW engine, so hundreds of light sources can be generated at the same time - flashlights, sights, and all particles are genuine sources of dynamic light. Also, although COD still allow different materials to offer varying resistance levels to the bullets impact of, brands and generate over detail of the environments to mark damage, the destruction of the DICE system even allows a protection disappears with the shots, and that complete collapse structures, offering a more realistic and visceral experience - not to mention the opening of new gameplay strategies. At a more detailed level, the engine of DICE allows more players and bigger scenarios, thus opening the possibility for the use of vehicles.
In a way, MW3 plays as the best version of a game within a formula successfully found for the first time in Quake 3 Arena, while Battlefield 3 offers a complete experience. Visually the console versions may be inferior, but all the elements of the main range are there. Each game has its own strengths and weaknesses, essentially summing up to a higher frame rate and response commands against larger maps, more players, and a higher level of fidelity in graphics and sound. But of course, there are many similar points between the two single player campaigns and this is where the games can be compared. DICE chose to highlight the potential of new technology Frostbite 2 with a range of beautifully lit levels, cut-scenes with destruction and a small variety of expanding levels ? that is, maps which gradually grow, essentially, as the game goes on - that are common in the multiplayer portion of the game.
However, much of the campaign is based on the same type of linear gameplay, and pre-set to which COD pioneered and from which its studios are masters, and BF3 simply not compete. DICE also copied the exact concepts presented in COD to switch between different locations and different characters - although in this case the characters did not captivate and not even care about their stories, making their eventual outcomes rather insignificant. The end result is that until the last levels, the design of BF3 feels much like a COD game, but with the ultra-fast response exchanged by characters, and lighting effects in more detail - much less action.
Perhaps the biggest difference between BF3 and MW3 in their single-player campaigns is simply that Activision is much more exciting - the pace and plot is a completely different level. It is a game full of over-the-top action, a constant spectacle that consistently tries to outdo itself by endlessly upping the ante, not at all lending asingle moment of rest or downtime to recover the insanity of it all. So if the first clash between the Battlefield series and Call of Duty resulted in a sweeping sales victory from Activision, what proof exists to suggest that the battle is far from over? What prevents that the same can be repeated in the future? If the conflict of BF3 and MW3 tells us something its that we are dealing with studios and publishers with two very different agendas: the COD studios clearly has its focus at present, while DICE looks to the future. The Frostbite 2 works fine on current consoles, but is built to challenge the next generation. How can the talented Activision studios fight back? This is the battle that we're really anxious to see.
Assassin's Creed 3 marks the first major change in the series since we were introduced to Ezio Auditore back in 2009. After three titles controlling the same protagonist, a new assassin is introduced whose history is set in the United States during the Independence War. You assume the role of Connor (or Ratohnhaké: ton), mixed between the British and American natives who fights the Templars that are disguised among the members of the English Army. A new trailer shows that Ubisoft is ready to change the rules of Assassin's Creed and respond to the criticisms of those who once said that the series was simply repeating itself.
My Recent Reviews
Jean Michel Jarre: Calypso
Me playing the mission: Trainning Camp 1
Video Review of the 2005 game Resident Evil 4.
canana does not have any recent activity. What a slacker! Maybe you should send canana a private message and ask, "Where are you hiding?"