LightEffect / Member

Forum Posts Following Followers
54 145 103

LightEffect Blog

Games in progress + Games to Review

by on

So I've been playing through Crysis 2 and I'm almost through the game and now it keeps crashing and I can't figure it out =( It's not pushing my cards to full load or anything, it runs fine and then randomly just freezes and crashes. I wasn't really enjoying Crysis 2 anyway, the AI is just aweful and the story is meh. Also, it may just be me but I find all the voice acting super annoying. Kevin gave it a pretty good review but it has dissapointed me compared to the original Cryis.

Other than that I have been playing a lot of League of Legends with friends and some Halo 4 on the Xbox but not much else. I do have plenty to play and plenty to review, so if anyone wants to look through my games and ask for a review then add me on Steam! LightEffect

I was going to review Crysis 1 and 2 but technical probrems got in the way, so I need to pick something else!

Also for fun, here is a video I made 4 years ago with Halo 3. It's pretty bad but funny how bad it is, so enjoy! =D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI-SIVd2edI&list=UU2Dbutub6g3gT4cxYoh-ANA&index=30

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review (24fps)

by on

The time is finally upon us. It is time for a new adventure, one that many have already gone on, yet still new too many. Though it may not stand as high as the LOTR, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has arrived, and after sitting through the action packed 2hrs and 46min, is worth seeing.

the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey_2012-en

The Hobbit is about a young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the adventures he had. After a flashback of the Dwarves and how they lost their mountain home to a dragon, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) arrives at the Shire and invites Bilbo on an adventure. After meeting the thirteen dwarves, one of them being Thorin (Richard Armitage) the leader of the group, Bilbo then decides to join them on their quest to take back the mountain from the dragon, Smaug. This adventure takes them too many locations, some old and some new, along with meeting familiar faces, as they make their way to their ultimate destination.

I saw the movie in 24 frames a second, so I wont be making any comments on that, but I plan on seeing it again in HFR (48fps), and will write another review about it.

Story and pacing in the movie felt good, even though it took a while for the adventure to actually begin, after the flash backs to the dwarves and the long dinner sequence in Bilbos home. The direction by Peter Jackson makes this movie feel very much like the other LOTR movies. This one doesnt have as serious of a tone as the LOTR did, and you dont connect as well to the characters at the end of this movie as you did the first of the other trilogy, but all are likable. I have not read the books so I do not know how well it is following it, but I felt like there was a good amount of detail and background story to keep me unformed of what is going on and what is to come.

The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-e135153

Visuals in this movie are just as good as the trilogy. The Shire is as cozy as ever, Rivendell looks gorgeous, the woods are woody, dark caves feel tight and wet, and one scene in the mountains is very intense. The sets for this movie are so detailed you could live in them. Bilbos home is cluttered and full of many things that make it feel like the cozy little home that it is. Large locations are equally as detailed, like one in the caves full of wooden bridges and platforms, Orc items scattered all over. Its hard to not give away too much. The one thing I would have to say about details is the amount of CGI used. Now, I dont dislike CGI, but I did enjoy all the very real battles in The Lord of the Rings. Nothing is more real than having those lifelike costumes on real actors. Most every enemy was CGI and sometimes it lost its believability, as most characters looked real but were obviously not. Battles looked great but you could tell they were not real and one part where everyone is falling just looked out of place to me.

That said, one of the best characters in the movie was Gollum, the completely CGI creature hiding in the depths of the caves. His performance was amazing; his characters emotions were so well shown through his voice and even better his face that you wish he was in the movie longer. He was probably the only CGI that really worked well in the movie. All of the actors in this movie did such a good performance, making every character believable and easy to connect with. Freeman was the lost Hobbit who just wants to be home, McKellen remains the great wizard he always was and continues to be so in this movie, and all of the dwarves had their personalities, though you never really connect with any of them other than Thorin. I hope they expand more on the dwarves but I do look forward to seeing them all change throughout the next two movies.

The-Hobbit-Gollum.jpg

Let us not forget about the music, as it plays a huge role in all of these movies. Some similar music is used, but to great effect, as it bring back memories of the other movies. This feeling helps you dive into the movie and feel like youre back at home in the shire. All the music is spot on and helps your emotion response to the different scenes. As I wrote this review I played some Lord of the Rings music in the background, specifically the music heard when we see the Shire.

This is one of those movies that you dont want to end. Even after the almost three hours you have been sitting there. Everything was done so well, just like the previous trilogy, the whole world and all of the lore felt so real that I was instantly drawn into the movie until the very end. You arent left with much of a cliffhanger, other than knowing there is still more to the journey. Although it may not be as great as LOTR trilogy, it still feels right at home in the series. I highly recommend seeing this movie whether you have seen the Lord of the Rings or not, as it is a treat that everyone should experience.

Red Orchestra 2 First Impression

by on

So a friend told me to grab a copy of this game to play with him. Turns out it really is pretty awesome!

The game is a WWII shooter where you play as either German or Russian forces with a main focus of online play. I first went through the tutorial and instantly could tell that this game aimed to be more realistic than other FPS games out there. Movement felt like you were actually running rather than floating across the ground. The default keybindings were confusing so I will have to spend a little bit changing those around. The shooting felt solid as well, each gun was realistic from the bullet drop to the point of your machine gun exploding from over heating. You have the ability to angle your gun depending on how far away an object it, so you can still aim directly at the target while compensating for distance and bullet drop. There is a cover system that works well so far. You push a button and you hide behind most walls or ledges. You can peak over the edge, aim down the site which also puts your head over the edge, or you can blind fire which only puts your gun and arms over the edge of cover. I have yet to have any bad problems with the systems which is good.

Graphics in game look lovely, making the atmosphere in game add to the realism. You feel like you are in a war movie and that helps you play that way. You don't play this game like CoD or Halo or any of those, you hide in buildings and cover each other when moving around. You feel like you are fighting in the war and it really looks that way.

Online matches are like most others, deathmatch, capture bases, stuff like that. The only one I have played so far is a attack/defend game where one side is trying to defend a building while the enemy team is rushing in, much like a real battle in the war. There is a squad system, where you can pick to be a squad leader, machine gunner, marksman, support, and a few others I can't think of right now. There is also the commander, who can call in mortars and other abilities like instantly reviving everyone on your team. Each class has different default weapons that you can later change once you upgrade and unlock more weapons. Only certain number of each class is allowed in each squad, so teamwork is needed. Maps are of medium size, or at least the ones I have played, and are all half destroyed towns or warehouses. They have been structured well for the attack/defend games.

So far this game has impressed me but with only a few hours played I have yet to try everything it has in store, like the single player campaign, which seems to be mostly for you to practice for playing online.

How to Shoot Harder

by on

There are plenty of discussions out there about FPS games, specifically Halo and CoD. These games come out regularly, every year or close to it. Each one has it's changes to multiplayer gameplay and new campaign thats supposed to blow you away, but everyone keeps telling them they haven't innovated enough and that they just copied last years game and made it look prettier. But really, how many ways can you shoot someone in the head?

I have played Call of Duty since the first one came out on the computer. I never realized how big it was until late into CoD4, but I feel like that is when all of this criticism began. The first game was amazing, getting the war experience down better than any other game at the time. The game was fast paced, had an engaging single player, and a great multiplayer.

What do you do when you have something good and people want more of it? You give them more of course. They continued to perfect the gameplay and made more games, but of course everyone looks for innovation. Innovation is a good thing in games, new ideas keep things fresh and interesting but how can you keep making something better forever? Can it really be done? Eventually graphics will be life-like and you won't be able to tell the difference between game world and real life. Shooting that guy in the head and watching his brains blow out behind him will be as gory as it possibly can be. What do you do next?

This goes along with what Call of Duty is, a game where you are in a war and you shoot people. How are you supposed to innovate that every year. Shoot people with bigger bullets? Better looking guns? There are only so many ways to point a gun at someone and shoot, so why do we keep asking for innovation in a game like this? CoD is doing what it does best and they have no reason not too.

Halo has also been said to be just like the other versions and does nothing new, but I feel that it is similar to how CoD is. Halo is a different shooter game than CoD, being that you are a giant super soldier in a sci-fi universe with aliens. This means the game has guns that may never exist, aliens, futuristic vehicles and so on. The game may not be very different from previous versions, but what do you expect it to do? These games have things that work, so to be completely new they would have to be completely different games, and then people would be mad at it for not being a Halo game. Same goes for CoD, if they really innovate it won't be like any other game in the series.

So why do we keep criticizing these games for their lack of innovation? If you want a new gameplay experience, then play a new game that isn't Halo of CoD. These games are trying to perfect what they already have, and they know there are people out there who want the updated version of their favorite games. So if you really have an idea to make these games new and different, while still being the game everyone expects them to be, speak up, because otherwise there are many other games out there that we can all play and enjoy for being different, because they really are.

Love and Hate...and some more Hate

by on
Everyone is entitled to having opinions, you can't force anyone into thinking exactly like you do. But even with the power of opinion is it really ok to trash games? New games come out all the time and reviews are posted and everyone shares their views. When a game gets a high rating people usually praise it, but there always those people that question it's popularity. Some can't seem to grasp the idea of why so many people rave about the game. "The gameplay sucks", or "The story isn't really that good", while people who love it talk about the complete opposite and praise every bit of it. And then there are those people who completely trash every part of the game, calling it garbage and everyone who loves it is a fan boy. Now, for most games there is a team of people who spend months of their lives putting together these games, especially Indie Game makers. Calling a game "A pile of ***" may be your honest opinion, but people have feelings so why be so harsh? Maybe a game doesn't capture your interest like others, or maybe it isn't quite as polished as other games but that in no way means it is that bad. I see comments everywhere like this and I feel bad for the creators, most who really care about their creation, having to read all those awful, mean things. It may be the internet, but I think we should all try our best to make it a nice place for everyone. Keep your comments thoughtful of people reading them, even if they are negative, make them something people want to read to see why you have a negative opinion. If you want a place to practice, jump over to my YouTube page and check out my old game videos I made. They are the essence of "Piles of crap", and I would be glad to see your nicely written negative comments! -Nick Johnson (LightEffect) http://www.youtube.com/user/lilboywonder724

Resident Evil 6 Demo Review

by on
For everyone who is super excited about this game, this may be disappointing. I started up the demo and you get the choice to play three campaigns. You can play as Leon, Chris, or the new guy Jake. Leon's campaign felt like the normal Resident Evil game, or at least like 4 and 5. The characters were voiced very well and the character models looked good in the cutscenes but once the action and plain moving started, so did the problems. Controls are not tight, they are very loose and hard to control, making it hard to do fast maneuvers and dodging enemies. It was tolerable in Leon's campaign but was much worse in the other two. There was a gps system in the game to show you where to go, like in Dead Space, but not as nice. It worked but you could also always see the marker for the next door you need to get through. In Chris and Leon's campaigns there was far more action and enemies going on. Resident Evil controls are NOT made for this. The cover system was far to hard to use and most of the time I would end up jumping over the cover into gunfire or a zombie. The boss in Chris's campaign was managable but I kept falling off the platform with the controls. Graphics are hard to judge since this is a demo but they did not feel up to par with RE5. Framerate seemed low, so gameplay did not feel as smooth, and most objects did not seem very sharp. Cutscenes looked nice but the rest was nothing special. Overall this was a bit of a let down for me. I started up the demo with high expectation after liking RE5 and thinking this game would have the same tight controls and then going back to the better story of RE4. Hopefully the final version is better but I don't see myself picking this up without some very good reviews.
  • 16 results
  • 1
  • 2