Tuesday, 29 April 2014

+++WE INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAM+++

Okay, obviously this isn't Shrek 2. That'll come at some point in the near future I'm sure, but right now... well, it took me some time to come to this conclusion, but I think it's time for a short hiatus from the blog. Between work, hobbies and other responsibilities lately, I'm finding it hard to make time to put out anything more than a brief blog post. So, rather than put out a half-assed Retrospective like I was planning on doing (and did, in my opinion, last week), I'm going to take a much-needed break. I've been updating this blog weekly for the past year and a half without fail, but my readership has dropped from ~300 per day to about 10% of that on a good day. As a result, I doubt anyone's going to be screaming in outrage at this announcement.

Now I want to be sure to emphasize that this is not the end of the blog - I'll be continuing the Shrek Retrospective in the next couple weeks I imagine (if only because I want to bitch about Shrek the Third). For now though, I just don't want to go in half-heartedly.

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Retrospective: Shrek (2001)

Welcome back good readers as we begin a new retrospectives series! The franchise that we're going to be focusing on for the next few weeks is the Shrek series (for the record though, I'm not including the holiday specials and countless short films on the DVDs in this analysis, otherwise I'd be at this for months). The franchise has been incredibly successful, raking in over $3.5 billion in just a decade and being popular among kids and adults alike. In this entry, we're going to cover the film which started it all - 2001's Shrek.

A bit of an odd poster design, but I like it (maybe I'm just nostalgic for it though).

In 1990, William Steig published a children's book called Shrek!, about an ogre who travels away from home and finds another ogre just as ugly as he is (and falls in love with her of course). It's a gross and irreverent story, with very little in the way of plot. However, Steven Spielberg saw merit in the premise and bought the rights for the story prior to founding DreamWorks. He was initially planning to turn it into a traditionally animated film which hewed closely to the book, starring Bill Murray as Shrek and Steve Martin as Donkey. After the success of Toy Story, the film was reconstituted as a motion captured animation. However, the results were considered unsatisfactory, so it was once again restarted as a CGI animation. First time director Andrew Adamson was hired to co-direct alongside Kelly Asbury - however, Asbury dropped out after a year and story artist Vicky Jenson took over instead. Adamson actually wanted the film to appeal more to adults than the final film did, putting in more sexual jokes and Guns N' Roses music (both ideas which caused a clash with the studio executives).


Initially, Chris Farley was cast to play Shrek, and recorded most of his dialogue. However, he died in 1997 before the film was completed. As a result, Mike Myers was cast to replace him. Myers actually recorded all of his dialogue twice, replacing it all of his original lines with the iconic Scottish accent that we hear in the final film. The process cost the film an additional $4 million, but was considered such an improvement that Spielberg himself thanked Myers for the change. The character also was better understood after the change and more comedy bits were added as the creators gained a better handle on the film. Janeane Garofalo was initially cast as Princess Fiona, but was unceremoniously fired and replaced by Cameron Diaz. Eddie Murphy was cast as Donkey, who was actually modelled after a real donkey named Pericles.

...am I the only one who doesn't see the resemblance?

The plot of Shrek is quite different than the book it is based on. For one thing, in Shrek!, the ogre is so ugly that he actually smites donkey with his ugliness. In the film, Shrek is a grumpy ogre whose swamp becomes a dumping ground for fairy tale creatures by Lord Farquaad, who is trying to build the "perfect kingdom". Farquaad declares he'll give Shrek his swamp back if he rescues the perfect princess, Fiona, from her dragon guarded tower. Together Shrek and his annoying talking sidekick, Donkey, have to rescue the princess, but discover that there's more to her (and themselves) than meets the eye...

I probably don't need to tell you the plot to Shrek because let's be honest - everyone has seen it. Even the last man on earth can quote it word for word (and you were doing it too alongside him). The plot is a relatively straight-forward fairy tale/hero's journey, but the expectations are inverted and played with. Instead of the noble king vanquishing the terrifying monster to get the princess, the monster is the hero and the king is the villain. Furthermore, the princess is a monster as well. This simplistic plot makes the film appealing enough for children, but the inversions keep it fresh and interesting enough for adults as well. The inversions also help to make the film very funny. The humour in the film is a perfect mix of satire, references, gross-out humour and clever jokes, often springing from the excellent chemistry between the lead characters. There are also lots of pointless little moments in the film, such as the Robin Hood attack, which could have come across as little more than filler. However, these almost all end up being hilarious and highlights of the film (although the "muffin man" bit is the annoying exception). Some of the jokes are more adult-oriented as well, although there is plenty of content to entertain both children and adults. In general, the film is just plain funny and nearly every joke hits its mark.


As for the characters, all of them are a lot of fun. The performances are exceptional and it's difficult to imagine anyone else in the roles. Mike Myers is great as Shrek, making us genuinely care about such a grumpy individual. Donkey could easily have been annoying as shit, but Eddie Murphy does a good job of keeping him funny throughout. Cameron Diaz also adds a lot to Princess Fiona, a role which could have easily been dangerously close to the "generic damsel in distress" if the wrong actress was cast. John Lithgow's Lord Farquaad is also an interesting role - on the one hand, he's an effective villain, but on the other hand he's hilariously diminutive and unthreatening. Farquaad strikes a very delicate balance as a comedic villain, and in my opinion that balance is achieved perfectly. The minor supporting cast also add a few laughs, such as Pinocchio, the three blind mice and the Gingerbread Man.

I'm also pleased to see that the animation still holds up very well almost 13 years after the film's release. Shrek isn't quite as detailed or flashy as many of the CGI animated films which have succeeded it, but the characters' movements are still top-notch and all of the scenes are rendered very impressively. I was watching the film with a critical eye towards the animation in particular to see if I could find any problems, but I ended up being more impressed by the little details, such as bent grass, Donkey's fur, Shrek's subtle facial details, etc. Shrek could be released today and still easily achieve nearly as much acclaim as it did in 2001.


If there's a weak point in the film, I'd say that the biggest problem is probably Donkey and Dragon's relationship. It makes for some funny moments initially, but it really seems to be done for little more than plot convenience. Donkey's going to die? Make the dragon fall in love with him! Need to get to the wedding fast? Take the dragon! Lord Farquaad's about to kill Shrek and Fiona? Make the dragon eat him! Dragon just deflates some of the more interesting ways the plot could have gone for the sake of convenience, and makes for some more awkward problems later on down the line... All things said and done though, Shrek is an awesome movie. Everyone loves it, from all ages. I remember going to my friends' birthday 11th party and seeing the film with absolutely no prior knowledge of the film, and loving it. Seriously, if you haven't seen Shrek yet then you must have been living in a Fallout vault or something.

8/10

Be sure to come back soon for the second part of this retrospective series, Shrek 2!

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Quick Fix: Paintball Videos!

As I implied in last week's blog post, I definitely was quite busy so that next retrospective series is going to begin on the 22nd. However, in the meantime, you can enjoy some PRZ Fight for Asylum 3 footage and a recap!

Yes, this actually happened.

Myself and 3 other Stormrunners attended the event in Picton, Ontario. It was absolutely perfect paintballing weather - very little wind, sunny weather, not humid, not too wet and not too hot either. We played on Josh Samure's team, which featured some pretty major teams such as Citrus Connection and the Devil Dogs (humourously, the Stormrunners got a shout out as a fellow TechPB team, even though we aren't... but hey, I'm not going to complain about the complement). There were about 650 people playing which made for a very exciting event.

...although this guy was easily the coolest of them all.

My only complaint on the day was that the other team got absolutely smoked. They had a poor initial spawn point and were too disorganized at the beginning - they didn't even leave their spawn point for about a minute after the break and none of their forces were sent to their alternative spawn points (a major issue because it would have delayed our reinforcements as we mopped up their troops, allowing their forces to take up better positions). The organizers did their best to even it up a bit, including a reinsertion and a ton of "air strikes" to clear our forces out, but it was definitely a one-sided day.


On the plus side, the Stormrunners did fantastic. The Stormrunners had a confirmed 116 kills and only 17 deaths, which is just a mind-bogglingly high number. Most of those kills were between two of our members, but I myself got 12 kills and only 1 death - not too shabby if I do say so myself. Images and videos are still trickling in, so if you're interested then keep an eye on The Stormrunners' Facebook page and our Youtube playlist. If you want to play with us at some point, we are going to be attending Commando Paintball's D-Day Big Game on June 14th - if you are, leave a comment and feel free to say hi. Maybe you'll get to be in our next video!

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

Quick Fix: Paintball News and Retrospectives

Hey good readers, I've got an exciting week ahead of me! On the 12th, I'm going to be kicking off the paintball season by attending PRZ's Fight for the Asylum once again. It's a world-class paintball field and I'm extremely excited to get out and capture plenty of footage of the action. I expect that by my next blog post, there will be lots of new footage of the event on my Youtube channel, so be sure to check it out by then. I've been stoked for this event for the last few weeks, upgrading and testing out my marker loadout in preparation - seriously, every time I pre-register for a paintball event, it's like a mini Christmas to me (with the carols being pump-up rock and metal).

Commando Paintball's D-Day event has also been recently announced as being on June 14th. The Stormrunners have attended D-Day since 2011, so this will make it our 4th attendance at the event. Most of the guys are still in school and so will be missing out on Fight for the Asylum, but by June 14th they should be all good to attend - D-Day tends to be one of our best events in regards to turnouts, so I'm excited to hang out with the team and kick some ass. It also tends to be my most popular event in terms of video views, with one of last year's videos just shy of 10,000 views on Youtube (and still growing). You can be sure I'll be attending D-Day this year and getting even more quality footage for everyone to enjoy.


Also, I'm considering upgrading my helmet cam from the Contour HD to a Contour+2. I've got a few reasons for this, so I just want to put them out there. First of all, my Contour HD is in rough shape - a lot of the vital bits which keep the camera's battery in the unit are broken. It's still in working order, but there's only a couple pieces actually keeping it all together, so I'm expecting this to be my last season with the camera anyway (for the record, I bought it used for a half decent price and have been very happy with the camera in all my time with it). Also, my Youtube channel is overwhelmingly paintball-related, so I think I should focus my efforts on improving that part of the channel and making it the best it can be. At present, I can only shoot in 720p (well, I technically can shoot in 1080p, but the field of view is too restricted for my liking). This was fine on my laptop, but now that I have a new computer, I can edit 1080p and 60fps footage with ease. Luckily, the Contour+2 has a much wider FOV for 1080p footage, and I think the video quality is simply better anyway, making it a very attractive option for me. The bells and whistles are also just plain cool: smart phone integration, GPS tracking, plug-in microphones, etc. Anyway, there's no way in hell I'll have one by Fight for the Asylum, but I hope to have saved up enough to make the purchase by D-Day - fingers crossed!

In other news, I'm going to start the next Retrospective series within the next couple weeks. I might be too busy this week to get it done, but if so then it will be posted by the 22nd at the latest. In trying to keep things fresh, it's a very different sort of franchise compared to all the (generally horrible) action/horror/thriller series I've covered thus far. I'm sure you'll like it (and have probably seen at least two of the films in the franchise as well)!

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

Video Game Review: Metal Gear Solid V - Ground Zeroes

As you probably know if you read the blog, I'm a big Metal Gear Solid fan. Snake Eater and Guns of the Patriots are amongst my favourite games of all time, and I've played through each probably at least a half dozen times. Naturally, I bought the game almost immediately, despite some trepidations about its short length. Is it really just an over-glorified demo as some are stating, or is it a solid prologue for The Phantom Pain? Read on to find out...


First of all, I have to get this out of the way: Kiefer Sutherland is fine as Snake. Fans were talking about boycotting the game if David Hayter didn't get the role, but if you seriously skipped out on this game only because you thought only Hayter could be Snake, then you're an idiot, pure and simple. I think I would have preferred Hayter, but I was surprised to find that Sutherland brought a more serious edge to the role. Rather than Hayter's awesomely over-the-top voice, we get a more subdued performance which sounds like Snake could actually be a grizzled veteran. In any case though, Sutherland does a fine job, and is not distracting in the least.

Now for the real talking point about the game - the length. It's true, the main mission in Ground Zeroes is pretty short - probably on par with the Tanker chapter or Virtuous Mission prologues from MGS2 and 3. I spent somewhere between an hour and a half to two hours on the mission and wasn't even doing all that much exploring - mostly just trying to get from point A to point B while minimizing kills and alerts (well, until I stole a LAV anyway, at which point I couldn't help myself...). However, that said, there is a lot more freedom to approach the mission, which makes it much more replayable and can vary the playtime significantly. Like any Metal Gear game, I can see myself playing through the main campaign a few times to try out different strategies and search for secrets.


The game isn't just restricted to the main mission though either; it also ships with 5 side ops. Unlike most open world side missions, the side ops are surprisingly compelling. Kojima has clearly gone to a lot of effort to make them interesting and varied. There's one mission where you have to visually identify two targets and stealthily assassinate them both. This would be fun in itself, but as we play the mission, we're given backstory into the war crimes these targets committed. Learning about how awful the targets were makes the mission completion all the more satisfying and compelling, rather than a chore. That's only one of the side ops too, the others are equally as enjoyable, and well worth playing through. People are getting way too caught up on the short length of the main mission itself, because I imagine on a reasonable playthrough you could get another 3+ hours out of the side missions themselves, and that's not including the inevitability of replaying missions to increase your score. If you really want to squeeze every second of value out of the game, there's also a bunch of collectable cassette tapes and XOF patches to find, and some weird tiki heads you can shoot too for a reward, all of which should keep dedicated players occupied for well over 15+ hours. So really, the game certainly has plenty of content for $30, but you have to be willing to work for it. In any case, if you're a Metal Gear fan like me, you already knew you'd be willing to spend $30+ up front. At worst, wait a few months for it to drop down to about $20, or wait until the inevitable Ground Zeroes + The Phantom Pain bundle that will drop in a year or two.

Anyway, now that the big controversies are out of the way, it's time to move onto my impressions in proper. First of all, the game is very much Metal Gear, but with a lot of needed refinement. The cutscenes are far less overbearing, which is welcome. As much as I enjoy the cutscenes in Metal Gear games, it becomes annoying having to wait upwards of an hour and a half to play the game again, only to have another cutscene interrupt me 30 seconds later. In Ground Zeroes, the cut scenes are still key, but they are spaced out far more infrequently, and don't meander nearly as much. The open world trappings also work very well and provide a lot of freedom and replayability for the player. Some people wondered if an open world was appropriate for Metal Gear, but I always thought such thinking was very short-sighted - these games have always aspired for an open world setting (yes, even since the original Metal Gear on MSX), but always lacked the technology to make that a reality. Instead, they've been restricted to maneuvering through linked corridors and open jungle and urban settings, but I can't have been the only player to think "damn, how awesome would it be if all these areas were seamlessly linked without loading screens?" Now that is a reality, and I couldn't be happier.


As far as the gameplay goes, it feels a lot like 2010's Peace Walker. Gunplay is certainly better than it was in the early games in the series, although it doesn't feel quite as smooth to me as something like, say, Uncharted does. Luckily, the game is about avoiding combat as much as possible, and so that's not a major issue by any means. Appropriately, Ground Zeroes also seems to have taken some cues from Splinter Cell: Blacklist, most notably the "last known position" mechanic, marking enemies on the HUD and Reflex mode. Reflex mode was a bit of a controversial addition, but I welcome it - sometimes it can be incredibly frustrating to sneak through an area, only to have an unseen enemy suddenly spot you and set off an alert phase. Reflex mode gives you a last chance to take that enemy out, although if you panic fire there's a good chance you won't pull off the shot. Perhaps best of all though is the fact that the developers made Reflex mode completely optional for those who want a challenge. I really appreciate when a developer gives players this sort of option, and it's just further incentive to become more skilled at the game so that you won't need to activate Reflex mode at all.

I would also like to point out that the game looks gorgeous on PS4. I've seen some comparison videos online and it looks quite good on last-gen too, so you really can't go wrong in terms of graphics (although current-gen is clearly superior). On the negative side though, there are still some issues I noticed with the engine which need to be ironed out before The Phantom Pain is released. Most noticeably, there's some considerable pop-in. I've tranquilized enemies, looked away from them and then looked back, only to have their bodies disappear for a couple seconds before the game reloaded them into the scene. It's not a major issue, but it is distracting and a surprising issue to see in a released title. I also notice that objects completely disappear at long distances, but can reappear when you zoom in on them. In the helicopter extraction side op, I noticed that exploding barrels were completely missing until I zoomed in on them - a pretty egregious issue because I could need to shoot those to kill enemies (or, theoretically, could accidentally shoot one and kill my target). These are relatively minor technical issues, but noticeable and annoying none-the-less.

I should also probably mention that the enemy AI can be pretty stupid at times. They're fine in general until an alert gets triggered, at which point they crouch through the open to try to attack Snake head on. When a full-on shootout occurs, it's not uncommon to gun down a half dozen idiots as they try to get closer to Snake (although I'll admit their animations when they get shot are very nice). That said, I was playing on Normal, so maybe they're improved in Hard mode... but somehow I doubt it. In my opinion, MGS2 continues to reign with the best AI in the series.


Moving on from gameplay, how is the story in Ground Zeroes? After all, for all its convoluted threads, story is just as important as gameplay to a Metal Gear game. In that respect, I'm pleased to announce that Ground Zeroes lives up to the previous games in the series, despite its short runtime. Of course, it's merely a prologue, but it lays the groundwork for The Phantom Pain very well, and am absolutely certain that that game is going to be gripping. It's also a far more mature story, touching on themes of torture and suffering in war (and explicitly drawing real-world parallels to Guantanamo Bay). Of course, there are still hammy bits, and lots of signature Kojima humour, but in general the story feels much more dark than normal. The ending is also not very satisfying, but it definitely leaves you pumped for the next chapter.

However, there are some rather shocking, and dare I say gratuitous, moments due to this mature emphasis. Paz ends up being subjected to some truly awful stuff - she has to have a bomb removed from her stomach sans anesthetic (which is shown in gory detail), and we find out that she was raped by the villain as well. That's pretty dark stuff, although it definitely tows the line of the "rape as plot device" trope. It certainly fits into the themes of the game overall, but Paz herself is reduced to nothing more than a torture plot point... a distressing reality which doesn't bode so well for Quiet's characterization later on. To be fair though, these sorts of dark moments have been a part of Metal Gear for quite some time now (probably most memorably with the origins of the Beauty and the Beast unit in MGS4, whose stories could probably rival anything on display here), but such moments tended to be off-screen and de-emphasized compared to what we have here.

All-in-all, it really is hard to score this game. It's fun, but it's clearly divisive. There's also some technical issues that need work, and its narrative leaves you hanging, but the core game play is very liberating. I think the best I can say is that you probably already know if you want to buy Ground Zeroes, and what price point you'd consider it to be worthwhile. If you aren't yet ready to take the plunge, hold off until it gets cheaper, or wait for the inevitable The Phantom Pain pack-in. If we take price out of the equation though, Ground Zeroes is undoubtedly a ton of fun.

7.5/10

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Some Thoughts on Feminism

I've noticed lately that I've written quite a lot about feminism in the past few months, kind of like how in my first few months I talked about gun control a lot. It's a bit odd too, because I wouldn't have necessarily considered myself a feminist. I mean, I support women's rights and equality, but just what that means to a more vocal feminist often leaves me confuzzled. However, I've been mulling over a few feminist subjects recently and figured I'd work them into one giant feminist theory extravaganza. I'm not promising that all of these thoughts will be positive, but I believe they are fair at the very least.

Let's smash it, together!

Okay, first of all, this whole line of thought stemmed from this article about rape culture. Women's rights campaigners have really been pushing the notion of rape culture recently, but I'm not so sure that they're doing a great job of conveying to the general public exactly what they mean by it (I have a similar critique about the public expression of many women's rights issues, it's like they expect us to agree with them without explaining their positions). But anyway, I agree with the article overall, but when I was thinking about it afterwards, I came to the realization that feminists have appropriated rape. What I mean by that is that rape is a major issue and overwhelmingly occurs to women, but in order to push rape culture, feminists have turned rape into a women's problem. Yeah, that shouldn't be all that revelatory - really, it's rather obvious, but the realization of it is almost ironic. Feminists want to eliminate rape (and, well, let's be honest, every decent human being wants to eliminate it), but in order to do so they have to take it on first.

That said, trivializing rape against men is a byproduct of such a move. Yes, men are raped far less than women, so it's fair enough, but it occurs just the same. I also wonder if other forms of sexual violence are also taken into account here, because when someone says "molestation", I think "little choir boys" rather than women. Perhaps that's why the focus is just on rape though - it is overwhelmingly a women's issue.

Oh, and I just want to comment on this passage from the article quickly:

"Most women and girls who travel abroad, who take public transportation, or walk to a dimly lit parking lot at night experience that "what if" panicky moment. Women reading this know what I'm talking about. Men, in general, do not. And knowing that most men don't rape, and that most women will never be victims of rape, is not enough to erase that fear. Because it's real, and it's the legacy of a culture where rape (and rape denial) exist in too high numbers."

I'm not going to trivialize that, because I really don't understand that sort of daily existence (well, unless I was in prison anyway), but I do have a bit of an analogue. If I walk through city streets late at night, I'm not afraid of getting raped... I'm afraid of getting jumped and robbed and/or stabbed. Sure, I'm not getting jumped, robbed, stabbed and then raped, so it's not exactly as "bad", but even men don't exactly walk the streets 100% securely. I attribute that to the media creating a state of fear, especially since crime rates have been dropping for decades, so such fears should really be unfounded.

...sigh. *Facepalm*

Anyway, next topic. This one has really been confounding me, so if you want to offer some perspective then please leave a comment below. The topic boils down to this question: is objectification inherently wrong, or is it only wrong when it happens to women? I really wonder about this one because a good deal of my posts on feminism have been dealing with my irritation at the objectification of women, whether because they are reduced to plot points or because they're considered nothing more than a walking pair of T&A. However, I've been noticing a rising trend in films in the last few years of men becoming objectified, with nary an outcry. It's a bit confusing, and it's what has made me mull over this question. Is objectification the bad thing, or is it that the target of the objectification is women? Is there an acceptable level of objectification? Is objectification of men acceptable because it is counter-cultural? If we're truly looking for equality for genders, shouldn't the goal be no objectification for either (or are we settling on equal amounts of objectification then)?


The most obvious example of this in action is the wolf pack from the Twilight movies. They basically only exist to be oogled at and give audience members lady-boners. Hell, the guy on the left is barely even wearing those pants. Even Jakob isn't much of a character, being about as well-defined as a brick wall. In fact, being prone to fits of rage and violence makes him sort of sexist against men for that matter. Of course, Jakob's the most egregious example I can think of, but what about Thor in The Dark World or Finnick in Catching Fire? Both appear in their respective films in really pointless topless scenes which clearly only exist to provide female audiences with some fan service. Their characters complicate things a little bit though, because while they're briefly objectified, they are actually given pretty good characterization in spite of that. Is that the key right there - is objectification not as big a deal if it doesn't define and overwhelm the character? It should also be noted that these characters may have gotten characterization simply because they were men, whereas objectified women simply aren't allowed out of the background (such as in any Michael Bay movie ever). It's a bit of a puzzle and I'm still not sure where I stand on it.

"Hey look! Someone doesn't understand how feminism works!"

Finally, I've been wondering lately whether feminists can be insensitive to cultural differences. For example, I reacted pretty much the same way as the rest of the internet when Quiet from MGS5 was revealed. However, having taken a step back since the reveal, I'm beginning to wonder just how different North American and Japanese culture is. Quiet is obviously designed from a Japanese perspective, and from my understanding, sexualization isn't equated so much to objectification there as it is here. Perhaps there is something more to her outfit than mere titillation? Kojima seems to suggest that this is the case, although we'll see when The Phantom Pain is released. Similarly, the Dead or Alive series of game have a reputation as nothing more than softcore porn, but their creators insist that they don't intend it to be that way. Looking at some of the character models, I have a hard time believing that, but could it be that they see things much more differently than us? I mean sure, it's possible that they're lying through their teeth, or are just ignorant of how sexist they really are, but I think there's at least a certain level of cultural difference clashing here.

Anyway, hopefully you found this article at least a little enlightening. If you want to say anything, please leave a comment below!

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

My Thoughts on the State of Battlefield 4...

If you follow video game news, you might have heard that Battlefield 4 is a broken piece of shit which has essentially tarnished the reputation of one of the biggest franchises in gaming. In spite of that, I've logged about 150 hours into the game and have been playing from launch to now (and will continue playing into the future for that matter). I've been meaning to write a BF4 guide for quite a while now, but the issues with the game made me postpone that for a long time because I couldn't be sure how much it was going to change things. However, I think the time has finally come where I can start talking about the game properly, and address some of the claims about it.


First of all, I played the BF4 beta on PS3, and despite being a tad buggy, it controlled fairly well and was a lot of fun (although the draw distance bug on the rooftop of the C flag was pretty egregiously broken). All-in-all, the game seemed to be a clear improvement on the foundation of BF3. At the initial launch, I played BF4 on PS3 for about 2 weeks waiting for the PS4 version to release... and it was buggy as shit at launch. The game would freeze up pretty frequently and I ended up in one server where you couldn't even kill anyone. Oh, and Defuse mode, the game's take on a Search & Destroy mode, was absolutely broken. Seriously, there were so many bugs just in that mode that it was insane - players would spawn but couldn't control their characters, the killcam would randomly appear when you were still alive, the bomb carrier would randomly appear on the enemy team's radar (LOL), etc. Things were worse on PC, where the game would crash frequently and wouldn't even play on many systems. In spite of that, I figured this had something to do with a combination of the PS3 hardware and the launch period - the game clearly wasn't built for last-gen hardware, so they weren't going to give it as much attention as they were the next gen versions. On top of that, I remember BF3's launch being very rough as well, freezing very frequently until about 3 months in, when a large patch took care of most of the issues (although Seine Crossing in Rush was still notoriously freeze-prone and never got fixed).


Anyway, come the PS4 launch, the game was in even worse state. For the first day or two, PSN servers crashed and so you couldn't even play the game online, forcing me to play through the godawful single player campaign... twice. Yes, I got the notorious single-player-game-deletion glitch about 4 hours in. And for some reason, my copy of the game seemed to think someone who had English (UK) as their language meant that they wanted to play the game in Spanish (oddly enough, it was fixed when I changed my language to English [US]). Things actually got worse when PSN got back up because Conquest mode, the main attraction in the series, was broken to the point where DICE had to remove it from the game for weeks. This was especially egregious because my favourite mode in Battlefield games, Rush, was poorly supported by the maps in BF4 - very few of them are fun to play Rush on, whereas every map in BF3 was a viable Rush level. On top of all this, the game still crashed quite frequently. Simply put, it was a bit of a mess, but when it worked, it was a lot of fun.

As time went on, the game kept getting patched and issues started to go away. I can't really speak for the PC version, which sounds like it had the biggest performance issues, but the PS4 version hasn't crashed for me since perhaps mid-December, and the game got way more enjoyable when Conquest was reinstated. I also managed to complete the single player campaign without losing my save game again*, so that was nice too. However, for each patch, it would seem that something else would end up getting broken - there have been a few separate patches which have rendered the game damn-near unplayable for me due to horrendous lag and rubber-banding issues, although these have usually been patched yet again within a week. The China Rising DLC added more issues as well at launch, but I didn't really like it all that much anyway so I can't really remember everything that was wrong with it. There was also a notorious glitch which was only patched a couple weeks ago, wherein every loading screen a game of Russian roulette - basically, after the load screen for a map completed, a final loading indicator flashes for a second and then you enter the match. However, with the bug, the loading indicator would flash indefinitely, forcing you to return to the home screen and reload the game. That particular glitch was so bad that I'd estimate you had a 1/3, or maybe even 1/2, chance of encountering it the first time you tried to load a map.


That said, significant progress has been made. The game is pretty much playable now, with nearly every major issue now patched (including some stuff which we didn't expect, such as significantly lowering the time it takes to spawn in and making DMRs better... however, the kill cam is totally broken for some reason). The DLC has also improved since China Rising, with Second Assault being fantastic fun (and bringing back 4 awesome Rush maps in the process). Naval Strike also looks to shake things up and make me happier to have bought a Premium pass at launch. The only real issue right now is that the netcode is probably worse than it was at launch - players seem to lag behind the action by about half a second (I actually spotted a guy before he even showed up on my screen the other day), which is pretty fatal in a fast-paced FPS. DICE is promising to patch this soon, so I hope that they can at least get it to the level that BF3 was at (although even then, BF3's netcode wasn't exactly great - if you didn't die around a corner a half dozen times per match, then you could consider yourself lucky).

All-in-all, BF4 is still a bit of a mess at times, but it is fun in spite of all of its issues. I wish that the game had worked out of the gate, but I don't regret buying the game (or Premium for that matter). I am pretty annoyed at EA though for forcing the game out of the gate when it was in such a poor state. I wish that game producers would learn to put quality ahead of release dates - Ubisoft seems to understand this, hence why they pushed Watch Dogs back instead of releasing an unpolished game that would just disappoint everyone. Worse still, I fear that EA might try to annualize the Battlefield brand, putting out a new game every year in order to compete with Call of Duty. Please, please do not do this EA - Battlefield: Bad Company 2 won you fans, such as myself, because it was so much more refined than Call of Duty had been for years. Give us another year to enjoy BF4 now that it's working half decently, and we might even forget this whole launch fiasco ever happened...

Oh, and make the P90 available for the Assault class again. Who the hell wants to run a PDW on the Engineer class anyway?!

*The single player campaign is absolutely horrendous. It's only about 5 hours long, maybe, and features absolutely no logic. Stuff just happens as you listen to infuriatingly annoying characters banter and then mow down useless mooks one by one. I would never even touch it if I didn't need to beat it to unlock the P90 and M249...