Jun 2, 14 12:16am
Aug 19, 13 7:06pm
Blog available now at alphakitgaming.blogspot.co.uk - Check it out.
Minds blogged
Jul 1, 13 12:38pm

Watched the trailer for the newest WWE game the other day, it's truly bad!

Most things they showed were direct copies from the previous games just with a different coloured shirt or something very bland which you can customise in the previous games anyway. I'm not overly fussed about the recycling because you can't expect a new game to be released every year and be completely different every time but what annoyed me most about the trailer is that they used CAWs [Create A Wrestler] - I've always had a problem with the way CAWs looked and I especially have a problem with them in the trailer, they may have been selling a new move but they just shouldn't have been there.

In terms of looks so far everyone still looks like they've been Tango'd, very orange looking wrestlers with lots of light reflecting off them and graphics looked like PS2. Now I'm fed up with WWE games being lazy, especially now they're being made by 2K instead of THQ, I don't expect the world but this game very well be on the next gen consoles that can do so much more, why are they not giving anything extra?

I'm going to make a list of everything I'd like to see added and fixed in WWE games.
  • No more 6 person limit

    • In previous games all the way back to WWE Smackdown: Shut Your Mouth there has been a limit to 6 people in the ring at once, 7 including the referee. They did 8 on Just Bring It which was pretty cool though that game sucked ass. Even if there is a character limit for matches don't make limits in cutscenes, for WWE 13 one of the selling promotions was Mike Tyson for Stone Cold, they showed the real footage and the game footage. The real footage had about 20 security guards, loads of referees and WWE officials along with Vince McMahon struggling to keep it all in order. In WWE 13 it was just Tyson and Austin in the ring squaring off with 2 referees and McMahon... It didn't have the same effect and made me be slightly disappointed with it.

  • NPCs

    • The creative team for WWE games bangs on year after year about capturing the realism of WWE TV but never takes into account the backing stuff, sure it's all good having the same moves and wrestlers that look how they're supposed to but think of all the stuff you see on TV like camera men and roadies running around making sure the production side is all working. In the games we have camera cuts at random to positions where no one is so I think it would be good to have camera crew around the ring, not that you can interact with but just there. The idea of this comes from games like Madden where they have all the substitutes and officials on the sides, constantly doing things but without the player being able to interact with them.

      In some ways I wish WWE games would have proper lumberjack matches where the AI on the outside is just typical NPCs that add a few punches then throw back into the ring automatically, this way not being a cluster *bleep* of AIs all doing the same thing and bouncing into eachother but more a collective AI that has a single job to do. If other sporting games can do it why can't WWE?

  • Better gameplay in matches

    • I don't want to be seeing a bunch of wrestlers staring at eachother emotionless, moonwalking as a means to wander around. I'd like to see from them a system where a match involves more strategy. For example, say you was fighting against The Undertaker; you would need to ware him down in a variety of ways before getting a pin, in the middle he would do a comeback of sorts sometimes and then strategy would need to be played on how to avoid getting annihilated and knock him back on his ass.

      The emotionlessness of the games annoy me too, vaguely staring into the abyss of another wrestler with no looking around the environment for escapes or stuff to use as an advantage. Running away is awful to, there needs to be an escape system where running doesn't spazz out the wrestler so he is just running blandly into nothing but more a "oh shit, this guy is kicking my ass, escape now" in which the wrestler would be hurt and escaping to get health back. This happens on TV all the time, it's the reason ring escape was added to the games in the first place but wasn't done right.

      Also lots of fumbling around when hurt would be good, knocking into the steps because you're close to dead and needing something to make recovering easier. The way I look at WWE games doing this looking around stuff comes from Silent Hill games where whoever you play as is always looking at important things in the room you're in, meaning there could be something there to use but you won't be prompted into doing it.

  • No more legends

    • I'm fed up of legends in games just because they're always out of place! An almost up to date roster sticking with current times-oh no wait, here's a load of dead people we keep throwing in. STOP IT! At least in 13 we got Attitude Era mode so more than half the roster was legends and were all dated to one time, though that would've been better if the whole game was just attitude with no new stuff. In the trailer we saw HBK and Randy Savage. WHY!? Can't we just have a game that's upto date and no legends in it, hell this would probably make room for the people they keep missing off the rosters every year that people bitch about.

    I have a lot more ideas but I get angry talking about this stuff.
    Thanks for reading.

    musingsthoughts tv and shows gaming related
    Minds blogged
    Jun 30, 13 4:42pm

    Was looking around the internet for updates on some games, see what's new, any previews etc. Found some information on Battlefield 4 and how in single player there will be choices in it, by which I don't mean the choices you make in Infamous or Fallout, just meaning that you can approach how you do missions in a varied way such as steal or using vehicles to *bleep* up someone's day.

    Now the article is good and peaked my interest a little but the main reason I'm writing this is because of stupid people who post in the comments saying shit like "well the single player doesn't matter anyone, people only play Battlefield for the multiplayer" and more of the typical bullshit "Call of Duty's better."
    I'm fed up of seeing these sort of things, I admit that the campaign in Battlefield 3 wasn't the greatest thing ever being 5 hours long, very linear and not overfilled with explosions and the world tearing apart but it didn't suck so much arse.

    But the whole principal in saying that no-one plays it for the single player is first of all wrong because I know many people who have played the campaign and have actually enjoyed it and it is insulting to the developers of the game. Now I criticize games like everyone else whether they be bugger, too short, glitchy or just down right awful to play, however there is nothing wrong with Battlefield - if there was EA wouldn't use 17 minutes of gameplay footage as the first trailer with no pre-rendered cutscenes and no faffing about.
    The Frostbite engine is the pinnacle of gaming today so of course it's not going to be buggy and a pain in the arse to use, people just say this kind of crap because they don't play the campaign but they never try it in the first place to bitch about it. "It just wastes space on the disc" I've seen being argued before, if you don't want to play it you don't have to, no one is forcing you to play it but don't knock it off like it's a disease on gaming if you don't play it.

    I also have friends who only play multiplayer in things though too but they aren't like these people, they are rational and don't start abusing someone for liking something they don't. One guy I talked to a weeks ago plays only Black Ops II and Fifa 13 on his PS3 and I asked him if thought about playing other things and getting involved in the story of games but he said he doesn't have time to get invested in a 15 hour story game and only plays these games when he has time off from work and just fancies letting off some steam in a deathmatch or by kicking a ball around. Fair is fair, he has justified why he doesn't play stories and hasn't gone on to insult me for wanting to play a story and this is how the world is supposed to work.

    As I mentioned near the start "Call of Duty's better" was used in an argument and now I tell you why that is not as true as they think without resorting to fanboyism.
    I play both Call of Duty and Battlefield, both I own on console and both I play for different things. Call of Duty is a good game though it has became stale over the last few years, I'm looking forward to Ghosts on the next gen as it maybe worth overlooking the lackluster lazy games of the last few years. The gameplay is good, the stories are always compelling and engaging to the consumer, there's something there for everyone, in the Treyarch games there's Zombie modes which I adore, however I don't like the multiplayer and I'll go into it now.

    I do play the multiplayer in Black Ops II but only with friends talking to me on Skype, I find it boring otherwise mainly because you spawn, run 10 steps - then this is the bit that pisses me off the most! Your stamina runs out after 10 steps and he doesn't even run that fast! Then [pap!] DEAD, rinse and repeat. I can play Black Ops so it's not a lack of skill, I can get killstreaks and I have earned Platinum trophies on a few COD games so it's clearly not that, it's the game bullshitting me with crap sprinting, camping spots and ridiculous killstreak perks that make the game very unbalanced.

    Battlefield is the opposite to COD, graphics are far superior, controls are awesome but in a different way, when you sprint in a multiplayer game he doesn't stop after 10 *bleep*ing steps! >_< - Seriously, that drives me mad. And Battlefield is normally very balanced. Sure there are a few cheap games where base camping is done but I try to avoid doing this.
    People say COD is better but Battlefield has so much to offer, bigger maps, classes that mean something, if I'm a medic I can pick everyone up and they continue playing, if I'm an engineer I get a rocket launcher etc and they all have use, you get tanks and jetplanes in BF3, they don't make the game unbalanced, it just means you have to try a new method of playing like being sneaky around the map, using rocket launchers, spotting these enemies so your team can take them out. How can anyone think that constant TDM on Nuketown is better than this?

    Both are good and there's room for improvement on both. There's also no reason why in November for there to be threads all over the internet on "which one are you buying?" when it's not a choice that you can only pick one. Pick both, compare and contrast fairly, see what they both have to offer, that's what I'm going to do and because of it, I will have a fair view on what I'm arguing against a 13 year old who buys COD every year (which he can't btw because it's an 18+ game so illegal shit is happening there) just because it has Call of Duty on the box.

    TLDR: BF3 is better than COD for MP but COD is better for story, stop bitching about them.

    Thanks for reading

    musingsthoughts gaming related
    Minds blogged
    Jun 28, 13 11:58pm

    Lots of stuff going around lately because new consoles are coming out and there has been a lot of controversy around used games, DRM and the likes and I want to put my two pennies into the mix and explain; especially in the used games area, most people are getting it wrong.

    Xbox One announced straight up that used games are a thing of the passed and that discs are only going to be purchased in the future just so the content of it can be uploaded to the hardrive cutting out the middle man being the stores. I really have no problem with them going for this angle originally except that discs would be completely redundant once installed and they can't be traded in or sold on except for a few stipulations which I won't go into.

    Now let me stop there and go over all the areas that has people annoyed and why...
    People typically don't buy used games, more often than not a game is purchased new because of certain restrictions like online passes, exclusive DLC and getting maybe something else fancy on top. What annoyed people is that they didn't "own" their discs with this method and I know lots of gamers are like me and buy games when they first come out, get the most out of them within a month by earning all the achievements, maxing out their online rank or whatever the case may be then trading in the game knowing they'll never go on it again.

    Normally people do this so they can get funds for buying the next big thing, rinse and repeat and by Xbox One to not allow trade ins seemed ridiculous to the people who do this way of gaming. I can understand a future of all digital downloads but right now the retailers are kicking digital's ass and most people think that won't change: In the UK where I am the price of a typical AAA title brand new is £40 which honestly is a decent price for some of the games that have came out in recent years but on the UK Playstation store a brand new retail game costs £50 if not £60 and this is a digital version with no solid copy of the disc, box, boxart, instruction manual or anything and I'd feel pretty *bleep*ing ripped off buying a game digitally when I get close to nothing compared to buying it £20 cheaper in the store.

    Same goes for the Xbox 360 which never seems to drop the price of games on the marketplace, games that have had sequels come out since are still listed as extortionate brand new prices like £40. If the PS Store and 360 Marketplace competed with the prices at retail when we wouldn't kick up such a fuss. It always comes back to PC gaming with this argument with Steam; I love Steam because of the prices for a start, when Bioshock Infinite came out on Steam it was £30 day one, £40 in stores but was £50 on the Playstation store. Of course more people are going to be happy with the PC version or the retail one but not so much, though you actually get the disc for it to do what you please. Also Steam do amazing sales of games that make games all the more worth while, only a few weeks ago when I was doing a stream on my Twitch channel I was informed about a Steam sale for Alan Wake as he came up in discussion, one guy in the chat told me that it was on a Steam of 90% off! How could I not take this opportunity up when I didn't own the game and had an interest in playing it.

    I wouldn't expect PSN or XBL to go to the levels of getting a sale so low, though PSN give away games on PS+ every month which is awesome and now XBL is giving away games though they are stupidly old like Halo 3 and Assassin's Creed II. As much as I like them games I don't care to get them as Halo 4 is out and more relevant along with another three AC sequels, it's not the same.

    Now most of the digital stuff is to prevent games from being sold and played preowned which as I say is bullshit, online gaming especially and I will tell you why that is. Say there's a game which has a big multiplayer part to it, say the game sells 6,420,359 - random number I know but I just started typing shit and that's what happened. NOT THE POINT! If I'm one of these 6,000,000 plus people who own a copy of the game and for instance finish the game or have no reason to go on playing it and I sell the game to a friend of mine there are still exactly 6,420,359 playing the game. I have given up my right to play it on that disc anymore, I don't have a digital backup of the same serial code on my hardrive, my friend now has the game and it's upto them what they do with it. This is why I don't agree so much with online passes... I know publishers and developers don't get money for games being resold and that's mostly the fault of the stores who are reselling the games and I agree it does suck for the creators but for them to punish the guy who's gone out to buy it, even if it's a case of the new copy wasn't available because it's not in the current charts and only preowned was there, the customer is still being forced to pay a fee so the exact same amount of people can play the game as before, if not less because of the amount of trade-ins that occur.

    Going with the preowned thing but rewinding half a step, say I have a copy of the newest shooter action adventure shit exploding everywhere badass game and I get excited enough to go to my friend "dude, you have to play this game, it's the best thing ever, there's old people on fire farting donuts and everything" and he goes "yeah, I'll give it a try," once I put the disc in his console it shouldn't lock us out from playing, it is proven that the "tell two friends" method by making them play it for an hour is more effective than making them get another copy going in blind.

    There's so many great games I would've missed out on growing up if it wasn't for a friend of mine saying "play this awesome game now!" - I wouldn't have played Devil May Cry, Dead Space, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil and so many more and by doing this I have gone out and bought almost every sequel to these games, hence giving the creators more moneys! :D And I know every one of my friends is the same way with this I've just described.

    Price is also a big thing to mention too about games that get released these days. The rebirth of Tomb Raider came out a few months ago, the game is stunning, great to play, a truly amazing adventure and it turns out they're not making a sequel because not enough copies were sold. This new Tomb Raider outsells all other Tomb Raider games, a few of them combined in fact and Square Enix who publish the game said it didn't sell well enough and they didn't make a profit. Now this is complete bullshit! Square Enix must've just employed people to faff around constantly flushing money down the toilet or something to have not made a profit on this game.

    I know graphics are expensive and there are now teams of thousands of people all working on something at the same time but most of these people aren't needed and are earning far too much money if the game is at a loss. Lots of indie games that are around in recent years look amazing visually, have compelling stories, are cheap as a quick mid-afternoon lunch and yet they make a profit in most areas. WHAT THE *bleep* ARE SQUARE ENIX DOING!? XD

    I feel like I've rambled a lot and gone far too off topic but these things have been bugging my for a while and the rest of the Alpha Kit team have been busy doing *bleep* all to help me do this ranting so, hope you guys enjoyed the read and will come back soon.

    Watch my stream every Sunday on Twitch.tv/Alpha_Kit
    and follow the twitters AlphaKitGaming
    lots of videos on our YouTube channel too.

    -Nick [Minds]

    pc playstation 4 playstation 3 xbox 360 xbox one other musingsthoughts gaming related
    May 6, 13 3:29pm
    Stream was awesome this week! Join us next week for more awesome gaming at www.Twitch.tv/Alpha_Kit
    May 4, 13 12:15pm
    Every Sunday after 3pm [BST] join us in gaming at www.Twitch.tv/Alpha_Kit
    Mar 5, 13 7:25pm
    Jan 31, 13 1:58pm
    Sep 29, 12 1:30am
    I like bread. :)


    • Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England England UK
    • Joined Dec 13, 2005
    • Male
    • 27 years young
    • private
    • Musician


    • Profile views 17,781
    • Number of logins 11,827
    • Forum Posts 2,644
    • Neopoints 104
    • User Reviews 17

    Game Identities