What Exactly Happened in Five Nights at Freddy's 4?

What Exactly Happened in Five Nights at Freddy’s 4?

Many a FNAF fan rejoiced when the fourth instalment of this devious franchise was released early. Many of these same fans then finished rejoicing after they’d experienced the game and sat with a confused look on their face, myself very much included in that. Being the last instalment meant many were expecting some answers to the many questions. What we got however was more questions, however Scott Cawthon has said himself he’s happy with the game and the Halloween dlc won’t be adding to the story so somewhere in there are the answers. Time to try and find them.

 

Any time when discussing FNAF 4 there’s always something looming overhead which I’ll get out of the way. Fredbear and his chomp on the child’s head, is this the famous bite of 87. Short answer no … I think. Even when I first saw the night 5 cut scene my eyebrows were raised, I thought something wasn’t quite right and there’s a lot of evidence saying that this cannot be the bite. Firstly and most obviously the child dies after night 6. We hear the heart monitor flat line which surely means the child’s death. Phone Guy tells us on night 1 in FNAF 1 (The only mention of the bite throughout the series interestingly) that the victim survives. FNAF 1’s year is vague but it is later than 1987. The child could have been in a coma (Although phone guy never mentioned this) for all that time and eventually passed after FNAF 1 but this seems unlikely.

 

There’s more too, the bite has to have taken place before FNAF 2 due to the presence of Fredbear and Spring Bonnie. However this isn’t possible due to one more damming piece of evidence. The bite of 87 is the reason animatronics cannot walk around during the day as said by phone guy on night 1 of FNAF 1. Fredbear bites the child while on stage performing (Not moving around) and in FNAF 2 phone guy tells us the animatronics can walk around during the day meaning this ‘bite’ cannot take place before FNAF 2.

 

I’ve seen many theories where people try to prove loopholes to make this event the bite of 87. There are many theories like this out there, saying that maybe the child died after FNAF 1 or that Phone Guy in FNAF 1 said that people can live without a frontal lobe and didn’t actually specifically refer to the victim and they can walk around in FNAF 2 because they’re toy animatronics. They’re well put together and interesting theories and they had me believing something like this to when I started putting this together put unfortunately I just don’t think it’s possible. Maybe it was the intention for this to be the bite of 87 but it’s just not possible when following the events of the previous games.

 

So what did we actually see? A spring lock failure is what springs to my mind. Terrible puns aside we already knew there was an incident with “multiple and simultaneous spring lock failures”. The bite in FNAF 4 fits the description and also explains how the purple man wore the spring Bonnie suit safely for all that time, the problem was with Fredbear. However if this is the case and this was the reason the spring suits we stopped being used by the pizzerias then what happened to this child. From the night 6 cut scene in FNAF 4 it seems highly probable he became a recurring figure in the series. There are multiple theories. Firstly and perhaps the obvious idea is Golden Freddy due to the Fredbear plush and obvious link to Fredbear in general. The problem with this is Golden Freddy was bought to life by the Puppet as seen in the FNAF 2 mini game Give Gifts, Give Life. The Puppet is strangely not in FNAF 4 (Although I think he’s in the locked chest) and it’s the Fredbear plush that is scene saying he’ll put the child back together. Even this however is not cut and dry as it could be the older brother saying this to the child who is at this point slipping away for good.

 

So maybe this child is the Puppet? The problem with this is the Take Cake mini game in FNAF 2 where we see a crying child being murdered followed by a jump scare by the Puppet. I think we all agree this is the first event we know of in the timeline (When else could it be) and if the Puppet ins’t being created here why the jump scare. Some think this is Fredbear being created and not the puppet but I do not believe this to be true and the proof lies in Golden Freddy.

 

Are Golden Freddy and Fredbear the same entity? Sort of but not really. Fredbear is a physical animatronic as we know but notice how we never see the physical animatronic after the event we see in FNAF 4. Instead we get Golden Freddy who can go through closed doors and seemingly teleport. He’s been speculated to be a hallucination in the past but I think he’s a ghostly entity. The Puppet in the Give Gift mini games is seen putting the bodies in the suit but we don’t see this with Golden Freddy and the fifth child. What happened I think is the dead child’s soul was bought to life in the form of a ghostly version of Fredbear that we all know as Golden Freddy. Watch the Give Gifts mini game this is clearly what happens.

 

Another issue I’ve had with placing this child as an animatronic is that the animatronics all want revenge on the man that murdered them right? Isn’t this why they attack night guards in the first place. Remember what phone guy said in FNAF 2, they react to the kids’ just fine but when they encounter an adult they just stare. The FNAF 4 child has no reason to attack adults and night guards after being killed by Fredbear but due to the final cut scene we know he’s likely around somewhere as an animatronic. The answer I think lies in Nightmare, the brand new animatronic. It’s a dark version of Fredbear which sounds awfully familiar. FNAF 2 has a dark version of Golden Freddy, the infamous Shadow Freddy. Shadow Freddy doesn’t kill the Night Guard, he sits around in the parts and services room and leads Animatronics to purple guy which leads to the children’s souls being released.

 

In my previous theory (Which is linked below, a lot of it still holds strong) I suggested Shadow Freddy and Bonnie were early renditions of phantoms. Where my new idea leaves shadow Bonnie is unknown to me but I think most logical evidence points towards the child in FNAF 4 becoming Shadow Freddy.

 

So who actually was this child before his unfortunate demise? Many have suggested he’s purple guy’s son and there is evidence to support this. We know purple guy works at the pizzeria (we see him helping someone into Spring Bonnie in what looks like a safe room. This would explain how the child keeps ending up at the pizzeria, how he has all the toys and how he has access to the mangle in the other room. The house layout is also very similar to the office and corridors in FNAF 1 and the pizzeria we see in the game I think was before the one in FNAF 2 opened which happens to be the same building used in FNAF 1.

 

The problem with this I have is how the Purple Man murdered the children for the revenge of the death of his younger son. Firstly, his older son was one of his children, if he cares so much about his child to murder in revenge why would he actually kill another child of his own. Secondly, the murder in the Take Cake mini game has a child completely unrelated to that incident so why murder that child (This murder took place before the events of FNAF 4) and finally more murders appear to take place in FNAF 2 which would mean the purple man continued murdering children after taking revenge.

 

There’s one more point I wanted to discuss, the Fredbear Plush. At first I thought it was an imaginary friend type thing as it spoke to the child but as the game went on it seemed very apparent it was possessed. The question is possessed how or by who. The only answer I can come up with is it’s the Puppet talking to the child through this plush. However I admit that is a bit of a stretch as is quite a lot of this theory, honestly I’m still not sure if I missed something that proves Fredbear’s bite was actually the bite of 87. For the record I’m not claiming this is a bite of 83 rather that it was a spring lock failure took place at some point.

 

So that’s what I’ve got, I’m working on a complete timeline so if you enjoyed this look out for that and if you think I’m wrong tell me why, I doubt anyone could figure out this lore without help. Finally check out the previous theories linked below for the identity of the purple guy, on that FNAF 4 changes nothing.

 

http://thecoolstuffblog12.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-exactly-happened-in-five-nights-at.html

(Part 1)

 

http://thecoolstuffblog12.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-exactly-happened-in-five-nights-at_11.html

(Part 2) 
 
 
 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462

Which is the Best Mass Effect Game?

Which is the Best Mass Effect Game?

The Mass Effect trilogy is one of the most well know, well-loved and arguably best trilogy’s in gaming. There are many high points throughout all three games but I’m asking the question which is best? I’ll put it down to categories to find the best Mass Effect game in my own humble opinion.

 

Plot.

It’s important to understand what plot actually is as it is pretty confusing. The plot is the events that make up the story and these events will relate in a sequence to create the story. This isn’t the same as premise which is the idea of what is going to happen. So with that in mind we can quickly eliminate ME2 from this category as thinking about it, it barely even has a plot.  The premise is to stop the Collectors but the events don’t really lead up to this ultimate goal. The side stories with the characters and loyalty missions are interesting but don’t build up to the Collector threat in any way.

 

So we have ME1 and ME3 and personally I think ME1 has a better plot. ME1 certainly has the most coherent narrative of the trilogy and while ME3 has the more epic and emotional moments ME1 has the events build on top of each other to build the plot and impact the characters. I also think the twists work better in ME1 and I’d be remised to not mention that infamous ME3 ending. So the winner here is ME1.

 

Protagonist.

Which game did Shepard the best? I understand he/she is a blank slate to project ourselves onto but I’d argue the character still needs to grow as a result of the experiences throughout the trilogy. ME2 Shepard doesn’t really grow at all and as I said earlier is not really relevant to the plot. So once again I’m left with ME1 and ME3.

 

ME3 is interesting as we do get to experience Shepard’s loss of sanity at parts of the games through his stresses and pressures of what he’s doing. The dream sequences in particular appear to focus on this but the interactions with characters on the Normandy (the one where Shepard snaps at Joker stands out to me) show how he’s being affected by what’s going on. ME1 also does well with Shepard as this game really makes us feel the progression of the character from soldier to Spectre and then throughout the plot. This was a tougher one to call but again I think I’ll need to go with ME1 as I think Shepard has more relevance on the Plot in ME1 than in ME3.

 

Side Characters.

It probably sounds like I’m just going to say ME1 is better in every way, maybe say that the second 2 games are just pandering to the filthy casuals who have the nerve to play the games the hard-core and far superior gamers like. Yes that was a joke and ME2 wins this category without question. All three games are excellent in this category but I feel that ME2 was the one where they got the most focus and development, especially through loyalty missions for the squad mates.

 

I liked the characters in ME1 but I didn’t find myself getting really attached until ME2. You deal with things that are far more personal in ME 2 and as a result these characters begin to feel far more real. ME3 meanwhile has those characters return but you were already so invested because of ME2.

 

There are anomalies of course, a lot of these characters weren’t even in ME1 and the first game had squad mates that weren’t accessible in ME2. The difference is I found the plot more interesting than side characters in ME1 while in ME2 the side characters and their stories could easily make their own game.

 

Visuals.

I don’t mean graphics when I say visuals, I mean which game had the most interesting environments and style. ME1 had an interesting style with its grainy look to make it look like an old Sci-Fi television show. ME 2 and 3 meanwhile discarded the grainy look and overall went for brighter colours.

 

ME1 has the advantage of having all those worlds to explore in the Mako, the issue however is they pretty much all looked the same. ME2 had the most interesting locations to explore with the Citadel, Omega and Illium. ME3 only had the Citadel while ME1 meanwhile also had multiple explore able worlds with the likes of Noveria. For the places you visit and the ones I remember most I’m giving this one to ME2 for having the most interesting visual locations.

 

Emotional Impact.

Which game got those feels going? Well in all three games characters can die and they all have monumental choices to make. All three have emotional impact but really ME3 cannot be matched in this regard. This game had some of the saddest deaths I can think of in my time gaming, Not just individual deaths impact you either, everything is on such an enormous scale and worlds being destroyed and possible extinction is something that really has Shepard on edge.

 

The sad moments are big but the lighter moments can but just as emotional. Chances are if you’re playing ME3 you enjoy the camaraderie and friendship between characters and moments like shooting bottles with Garrus can be just impactful as any other. These games make you feel like you’re really attached to these characters and moments like this really highlight that so without doubt ME3 wins this one.

 

Gameplay.

These are games so gameplay is important. The shooting element is obviously important in a game where you shoot bad guys and ME3 naturally has the best shooting mechanics. They refined the shooting in ME2 which has already refined the shooting in ME1 and added some good new features such as the ability to roll and the improvement to the melee system. I also thought ME3 had the best level design in terms of what you had to do as you played through. The focus on verticality was nice as it made the levels feel less like walking from shooting gallery to shooting gallery and put greater emphasis on a tactical approach. Despite the occasional turret section ME3 combat was best without doubt.

 

ME3’s gameplay falls down with the more auto dialogue included in the game however. ME2 was better in this regard I felt as was ME1 however the interrupt system makes me prefer ME2 as you can impact conversations in more proactive ways. Overall though ME3 didn’t have so much auto dialogue that it made the game feel like I wasn’t contributing and having less focus on the paragon/renegade system was a positive so this category is ME3’s.

 

Verdict.

This blog post hasn’t been very conclusive has it? Each game has won 2 categories and I genuinely didn’t plan it like that. Maybe I could do more categories but I think what it shows is it depends on what matters most to you in a game. My personal favourite is ME3 but a strong argument could be made for any game in the series. I guess that makes sense really, it’d explain why the series is so popular with such a large range of gamers and why people cared so much about controversies such as the ending. If nothing else it proves gaming can tell epics as well as anything else if you’re dumb and still won’ believe it so that’s something.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462

Was Patrick Star secretely a Sociopath?

Was Patrick Star secretly a Sociopath?

SpongeBob Square Pants was a happy childhood show of mine. I was blissfully unaware of what was going on back then and while I missed many adult jokes including a scene of SpongeBob watching sea urchin porn and a joke about prison rape looking back I can laugh at how this stuff was put in such a show. Some things are not a laughing matter however, this thing being the monster that is Patrick.

 

First things first in the title I used the word sociopath for a reason. The reason I use sociopath is because I think Patrick has antisocial personality disorder which means the person has a long term pattern of manipulating, exploiting or violating the rights of others. Let’s take a closer look at Patrick and prove this accusation.

 

First things first Patricks’ most defining characteristic is stupidity. Sure there was a time where you could describe it as charming and often it wasn’t particularly destructive. The key thing here is manipulation is clearly mentioned in the definition of antisocial personality disorder. Someone with this disorder would manipulate people into believing they’re harmless and what they’re doing has no malicious intent.

 

That being said maybe things are more questionable when Patrick becomes malicious, destructive cruel. I’m going to discuss a few examples although it should be noted that I could never possibly go over every example of Patrick’s monstrosities in one blog post. I will talk about what I think are some of the worst however starting with an episode I actually remember disliking for its mean spirited nature as a child, I’m With Stupid. As an adult I like to over analyse everything and look into connotations and implications of everything but as a child I was kind of easily pleased and hence an episode that bugged me back then shows the evil intentions of Patrick.

 

The episode starts with Patrick preparing for his parents coming over. He’s worried because they think he’s stupid so SpongeBob offers to act stupid to make Patrick look better. This starts off okay but eventually Patrick supposedly forgets (Although could purposefully be ignoring) that SpongeBob is just acting. The levels of verbal abuse thrown at SpongeBob, Patricks supposed best friend aren’t funny and are kind of uncomfortable to watch. SpongeBob eventually snaps and runs away and some strange ending happens where these aren’t Patrick’s real parents. The important thing however is Patrick gets away with all his bullying towards SpongeBob free of any consequence or repercussions.

 

My next example is another episode I remember from when I was younger, Valentine’s Day. Patrick thinks SpongeBob hasn’t got him a present despite the fact that he gave SpongeBob a broken up rock and the gift is on its way Patrick goes insane and threaten innocent civilians and nearly destroys an amusement park. He threaten random people because he can’t get what he wants. Guess what, at the end he gets his gift and faces no consequences.

 

There’s one more example that I want to talk about, it’s an episode called Karate Star. As the title suggests Patrick learns karate and becomes an expert as he can karate chop through anything. Naturally he nearly destroys the town but this is not the worst part. He walks over the pram with an infant inside and if he had not been stopped by SpongeBob would have murdered a baby. HE NEARLY MURDERED A BABY! Later on he apparently feels guilty and it’s supposed to be redeemable. I’ll repeat, we’re supposed to accept his redemption AFTER HE NEARLY MURDERED A BABY!

 

Those are three big examples and believe me there are many more. I know what you’re thinking (Yes I can read minds) you’re thinking that Patrick is just stupid and doesn’t realise what he’s doing. I’d argue that this shows he has no concept of right and wrong and simply does what he pleases out of selfish desires but the argument that he’s really that stupid is just as valid … if it wasn’t for one more episode called the card. In this episode Patrick has a valuable trading card SpongeBob wants. At one point Patrick walks into goo lagoon with the card and SpongeBob lifts up Patrick too keep the card undamaged. Afterwards SpongeBob asks why Patrick walked into the lagoon. Patricks reply says it all, he says SpongeBob you can’t always expect my usual brand of stupidity, I like to mix it up, keep ye on yer toes. He’s fully aware of how stupid he acts, it’s all a ruse.

 

I think this proof is blatant of Patrick’s intentions, he causes destruction and misery because he wants to. His stupidity has been a façade all along to allow him to get away with his malicious acts. I don’t think there’s any doubt he’s a sociopath. Of course some of you are thinking that I’m taking this kids cartoon too seriously. It’s not like you need to put effort in during a Kids Cartoon right? Wrong, kid’s television can really influence a child, after all children watching SpongeBob can often be at an age where they are innocent and easily influenced. A good morale with characters they can relate to is important as cartoons can be a good way to teach children important lessons in a fun and colourful way. Having a character act selfishly is fine as long as it is portrayed as wrong and they face consequences for what they’re done.

 

You’ll often hear people say something along the lines of “it’s just a kids show, you don’t really need to try”. Patrick was a loveably stupid character at first but whether it was intentional or not he became a sociopath and he’s now a very evil man … Star. Is this what we should be showing our kinds, the attempted murder of a Baby, I’ll let you make up your own mind on that.

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462

Anyone else remember the Big Al game on the BBC website

Anyone else remember the Big Al game on the BBC website

So recently I was shockingly at a friend’s house and we were looking for something to do after playing many hours of Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer. Suddenly we remembered a brilliant little game on the BBC’s website about Al the Allosaurus. We went onto the internet, found the link and discovered it had been replaced by a boring game where you out a tree on the floor and then come back later to see if your Dinosaur has eaten it. Today I will reminisce about Big Al and hopefully someone from the BBC will see this and bring Big Al back. That’s likely right? Maybe …

 

 

Big Al was created in order to promote The Ballad of Big Al, a special episode of Walking with Dinosaurs. It was a text adventure/Role Playing type game where you play as Al, a baby Allosaurus newly born into the late Jurassic period. The premise was simple, survive and live the life of an Allosaurus.

 

At the start of the game you’re in a nest. You then need to go and find food you can hunt. Naturally as a baby you cannot be hunting big dinosaurs straight away but after you start hunting small insects you move onto bigger and bigger animals until you get big enough to leave the starting area and attempt to cross the river to where the big Jurassic dinosaurs live like Stegosaurus and Diplodocus (If you were thinking T-Rex when I mentioned Jurassic dinosaurs then you go to the back of the class). Chances are you’ll eventually die of starvation but the games aren’t long enough to make starting again feel like a chore.

 

My memories of the exact game mechanics are a bit hazy as it’s been so long since I played it but I remember them being easy to use and pick up. It wasn’t a long game but was highly replay-able and an excellent time filler and it would’ve been fun to play now. So where has it gone?

 

The BBC for some strange reason has taken the Big Al game away and made it completely inaccessible to anyone wanting to play it. The Planet Dinosaur game that has replaced it is by contrast a dull program (I don’t want to say game) where you pick a dinosaur and check on it every few hours. Instead of the genuinely difficult and engaging Big Al game we have a boring thing where we watch a dinosaur walk up and down.

 

Did you ever play the Big Al game when it was still available and what did you think of it. Finally are you a member of the BBC? If yes do what should be done and bring Big Al back to us.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462 

Mass Effect's Ending and why it's terrible

Mass Effects Ending and why it’s Terrible

This discussion probably comes about 3 years too late, however as a newcomer to the series I haven’t long beaten the trilogy and thus haven’t had any reason to talk about it until now. So … here I am.

 

The big thing to mention is like pretty much everyone I loved the Mass Effect Trilogy.  It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say about 98% of the series was fantastic and it is easily one of my favourite gaming series ever. It’s very much about the journey, not the destination so that’s good … doesn’t make the ending suck any less though.

 

Many complaints about the endings have been made and I’ll be discussing the endings as edited by the extended cut as that’s what I experienced. I will say that after watching the version before the extended cut was released however that what I saw was not as bad as it could’ve been. The extended cut was an improvement and did have some really good additions. When I talk the ending however I mean the part after the scene with Anderson and The Illusive Man.

 

Before I talk plot holes and such things let’s talk the actual premise. I personally didn’t like it and that’s due to how it basically abandoned the series genre. Mass Effect is obviously a science fiction but it was always grounded in the rules of its own universe. It’s not like in Star Wars where it seems magical and the limits of the force and the characters power is essentially limitless. All along Shepard is a normal human with no extraordinary abilities. The closest thing to space magic in Biotics has its own rules, limitations and is explained by the in game codex.

 

Suddenly however this Star Child comes along and tells you the crucible somehow has 3 completely different functions which you get to choose somehow. It all felt so out of place in the Mass Effect universe. It was one step away from declaring it Shepard’s destiny or something and it felt like we weren’t even in a Mass Effect game anymore. Then these options are barely explained and you end up making a pretty blind choice hoping for the best even with the extended cuts added dialogue.

 

Looking into these choices doesn’t help. We’ll start with control. It’s portrayed as a good option and even has the colouring of paragon blue. As a paragon Shepard I’d spent since the end of Mass Effect 2 and deciding to destroy the collector base fighting with the Illusive Man saying that controlling the Reapers is a bad and more importantly morally wrong solution and now it’s pointed as a good thing. What’s more is if you do pick control Shepard descends to this other level and controls the Reapers. The problem is Shepard talks as no longer Shepard and if you pick this option the Reapers are incredibly likely to end up being used to rule with an iron fist if any conflict breaks out again.

 

So that’s bad and it seems like the same cycle would just break out again, except with Harbinger replaced by Shepard. So maybe choose Synthesis like I did first time and instantly regret it. The specifics of synthesis are incredibly vague but what I can say is it goes against everything we’ve fought for. So much for bringing everyone together despite their differences and working for a greater goal together, now organic and synthetic are basically all homogenised into one and it seems to me like everyone is being turned into a husk.

 

The other two are admittedly better, destroy is what I wish I’d picked. It makes no sense how Shepard could possibly survive but it is kind of along the right lines. We got to fulfil what we were out to do, destroy the Reapers but at a cost of all synthetic life in the galaxy, not only wiping out the Geth, but killing one of our squad mates in EDI. When people talk about multiple endings, I’d like to see multiple endings along the lines of this, depending on how well you did with war assets and the decisions you made depends on who you can save and if you can even finish the crucible at all. The problem with destroy is by itself why is it the only option when wanting to destroy the Reapers. The best ending should be to wipe them out and not have to sacrifice an entire species, especially if you’ve done everything right.

 

Finally refusal while good being able to basically give the middle finger to the dumb Star Child feels like a massive troll. It would’ve been good if having enough war assets meant you could win the war with the military might you had sent upwards of 30 hours of Mass Effect 3 collecting. But no, no matter what everyone dies. Great. Even worse if the Star Child is obviously a Reaper construct as he has a Reaper voice if you pick this ending so he could be lying to you about everything to start with and thus your decision is completely blind.

 

I’ve picked apart my problems with the ending as an ending to a story. I dislike the plot twist and what happens as an ending, I hate the ending for much better reasons than my own niggles. Now I’m going to start a new paragraph with all the plot holes I can think of off the top of my head so 3, 2, 1 and go:

 

Why didn’t Harbinger shoot Shepard as he/she ran down the hill, why did Harbinger not blow the Normandy to pieces as the squad was being evacuated, why did Harbinger fly away, why did the Reapers establish a quick way to get to the citadel which was the best way to stop them, how did Shepard survive the hit from Harbingers beam when entire buildings are demolished by it, why does Shepard’s armour and gun change after being hit with the beam, how did Anderson get on the citadel and reach the control panel before Shepard, how did The Illusive Man get there, where do the Illusive Mans magical powers come from, if The Illusive Man kills you why does he ignore the console that he believes is key to completing his goal, how did Shepard get a wound where Anderson was shot, how does Shepard heal after taking the elevator to the Star Child, how does Shepard run now, why does shooting the core thing activate the crucible, how could Shepard possibly survive the blast.

 

That’s off the top of my head, I’m sure there’s more. Many could be answered with the two words: Indoctrination Theory but Bioware didn’t do anything to prove it and basically said, you can interpret that way if you want to. The indoctrination theory I think was a brilliant idea and something that would’ve been great to expand on in the extended cut but instead Bioware largely dismissed it and it just seems too big a stretch. So instead we have plot holes galore, another one being why isn’t Shepard feeling the effects of indoctrination after everything he/she has done. Doesn’t Harbinger say he’s going to take control off Shepard’s mind in the arrival dlc, do Reapers make empty threats now?

 

I have one more thing I want to talk about, how the ending still doesn’t supply closure and switches focus away from the characters. Yes we got a slide show briefly pointing out what happened to some characters (Although some of these slides just showed the character looking at the sky). Even if you like the slide show however you still aren’t given any kind of closure on the characters from your ship in Mass Effect 3 outside of EDI and Joker.

 

I’ll talk from my own experience, after what was a very touching scene where Liara put Shepards name onto the memorial what happened to my crew. My favourite character like with many people was Garrus, what happened with everyone’s favourite space bro. Did he ever reunite with his sister? We don’t know. Did he help rebuild Palaven? We don’t know. Did he ever calibrate the Normandy’s gun to 100% efficiency? We don’t know. Not long ago I caught him sharing a moment with Tali (My second favourite character) and calling her something to come back to. Did they settle down, maybe live in that house on Rannoch that Tali always dreamed of? We have no idea. Did Garrus ever meet Shepard at the Bar, cheesy yes but I would’ve found that satisfying. Mass Effect did such a great job in getting us attached to these characters that just leaving it all up in the air felt insulting.

 

Finally is the lack of focus on Shepard. Sure you make a choice but it’s not really your choice, it’s what the Star Child allows. All the decisions you’ve made before you’ve made by using logic and your own morality and how far you’re willing to go. Here Star Child tells you what’s allowed with no budging on what he says. Everything you’ve done up to this point is irrelevant.

 

I’ve moaned a lot about the ending to Mass Effect 3 so I’ll end on something positive. After replaying the series and once again witnessing those great character moments I can conclude that it in no way ruins Mass Effect, at least for me and I’ll buy Mass Effect Andromeda without a second thought. If anything it shows how good a job Bioware did with everything else so well done on about 98% of your series Bioware, now please don’t succumb to EA’s indoctrination and make more day 1 DLC.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462?ref=bookmarks

Some Overlooked Video Game Badasses

Some Overlooked Video Game Badasses

Video Games are full of badass characters as we go on our very own power fantasy. However while you’d probably think of the likes of Commander Shepard or Lara Croft as they go and do video game world saving things some badass characters slip by unnoticed. I bring four to your attention today.

 

Rambi – Donkey Kong Country Series

I’ve recently been re playing the original Donkey Kong Country and 2 things really stuck out at me. Firstly, I was better at platformers as a child and secondly Rambi is a god damn badass. Everyone who plays these games likes the animal buddies but there’s a reason that when Donkey Kong country returns was bought out Rambi was the sole survivor. This guy just ploughs straight through everything like it’s not even there and this is a platformer.

 

It does pose the question of why Donkey Kong doesn’t just send in Rambi to every single boss fight and trample them all put that’s beside the point. This rhinoceros is one badass guy and it is completely understandable why they made a Sylvester Stallone film later taking inspiration from him. If your bananas are ever stolen, this is the guy to call.

 

Bentley the Turtle – Sly Cooper Series

When there are three main characters and you’re the one labelled as the brains as opposed to the brawn and thief then many would assume you were least badass of the bunch. Here however this is certainly not the case. Bentley is arguably the most important member of the entire gang in terms of contribution to heists. You will often hear people complain about the lack of certain groups of people in gaming such as strong females or homosexuals and both are warranted complaints as both are not exactly represented favourably there is even less representation of disability.

 

The thing is after Bentley lost his legs he became far more capable in a fight. Before he could weakly swing a crossbow at people, now he can beat you up with his own wheelchair, how awesome is that!? That’s without the plethora of toys fitted to it by the way. By the time Sly 4 came along that wheelchair was fitted with so many amazing gadgets that James Bond was starting to feel jealous. Sly and Murray was awesome too but here the brains really was the badass. 

 

Every five Nights at Freddy’s Protagonist

Five Nights at Freddy’s is a scary game to play. You sit there unable to move or escape and hope the scary animatronics won’t get bored and decide to play murder with you. It’s very similar to what you may face in a nightmare, constantly tense, scared for your life and unable to move or do anything really proactive about the situation.

 

That brings us to the player characters. They come back for the entire week, they sit in their chair and do they flinch, do they scream? Nope they stare down Freddy and his chums and even if they’re violently murdered they don’t give Freddy the satisfaction of a scream or even the slightest whimper.

 

Maybe you’ll claim the games aren’t scary but imagine yourself in the position of the security guards. At least if you were in the place of horror game characters from other game syou could just drive for about 492 miles in the other direction but for whatever reason here the night guards keep coming back. Maybe the FNAF 4 protagonist changes things, I wouldn’t know having not played it yet but the first three are certainly badass in my book … or on my blog.

 

Shuckle – Pokémon Series

Pokémon is full of fighting machines. Ranging from giant monsters of the sea to dragons to martial artists to what are basically gods there is some serious power on show. There is one creature in this world who doesn’t care as it can overpower all of them. This majestic creature is the one and only Shuckle.

 

Look at that guy. Soak it all in and the brace yourself as I tell you that of all the Pokémon ever created (Bear in mind most people have lost count) not scary monsters or gods can match the damage output of Shuckle. If the right circumstances are met Shcukle is capable of doing more damage in a single attack than any other Pokémon. Most would take that they have the joint second lowest attack stat as a disadvantage and stick to defence but not Shuckle, it doesn’t even care. Shuckle can obliterate the gods of this world, due to this and what Legendary Pokémon represent it’s possible Shuckle is one of the most powerful characters inn video game history. If that’s not badass then I don’t know what is.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462?ref=bookmarks

 

 

The issue with the July 2015 Yu-Gi-Oh ban list

The issue with the July 2015 Yu-Gi-Oh ban list

So after waiting for a long and dumb time period Konami decided to release a ban list for us TCG players and some things really stuck out at me. Most will say the top decks will remain the top decks but that’s to be expected until new things come out and make us all search for side deck cards but what struck out at me was how older decks are still not restored at all.

 

I’m not a pro player or even a good one. I don’t get to go to tournaments much due to not being able to get to them so my two decks I own are Inzektors and D.E.S frog OTK.  So while I can’t really comment on the current meta I would like to ask why Konami is so hesitant at bringing old cards back.

 

Looking at banned cards the one that obviously sticks out is tribe infecting virus because honestly … it kind of sucks now.It’s like lightening vortex but doesn’t even necessarily wipe the field of face up monsters … and takes up your normal summon. It’s ban worthy though, must by that gargantuan 1600 attack. Sarcasm aside, that card isn’t very good, if you can tell me what deck would use it then please do. Zenmaity is the other one, are we really afraid of Wind-Ups ruling the game in 2015? I’d hope not. There are other banned cards that COULD be revived, Sangan, Stratos, Thousand Eyes Restrict, Cyber Stein and Dark magician of Chaos but I can see why they’re in the banned section of the list. It’s the limits that are odder.

 

I am going to list some cards that are limited, I’m sure at least some of these anyone who reads this will agree have no business being there. Debris Dragon, Deep Sea Diva, Inzektor Hornet, Neo Spacian Grand Mole, Rescue Rabbit, Wind Up Magician, Book of Moon, Gold Sarcophagus, Royal Tribute, Infernity Barrier, Wall of Revealing Light. Those are all cards we can use 1 of in the game, maybe I’m missing some over powered interactions involving these cards but I’ve also probably missed some who could be at least put to 2 too.

 

The argument against brining cards back will often be “Well it won’t affect the game anyway” I say however if it won’t affect the game why not bring it back? Why not give players 3 grand moles? Somewhere in the world someone would jump for joy that their neo spacian deck has had a boost. Why not put Inzektor Hornet to 2, a completely random blog writer who lives somewhere in England would be thrilled that the second Inzektor hornet he bought before the ban list wouldn’t be a waste of money.

 

The point is it wouldn’t make a difference on the meta putting wall of revealing light or infernity barrier at 2, so why not? The reason these cards would be played by people would be because they enjoy using them, no matter if they’re not that good.  Seems like a god enough reason to me but then again I suck at this game and no one ever listens to me when I say ban Exodia.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462?ref=bookmarks

So let's talk the Five Night's at Freddy's 4 Trailer

So let’s talk the Five Night’s at Freddy’s 4 Trailer

Well that’s not what I or indeed anyone was expecting. In fact the trailer just brings more questions, however what can we pick up from what we saw? I’ll discuss that today.

 

The first and obvious thing that’s different and unexpected is the location. It’s a house. No one saw that coming so what exactly is going on. The red text in the trailer at one point says “What did you bring home?” however I doubt it’s as simple someone took some killer animatronics home with them, so what exactly is going on here? It seems likely the protagonist of this game will a child as it looks to be taking the scary monster under the bed and in the closet approach.

 

In the trailer we see most of the known animatronics from this game. Bonnie of course is there, he seems to be the focus of these things since all the way back when we first saw the FNAF 1 trailer so it’s fitting we see his jump scare. We get a glimpse of Chica and Foxy, we see this plush trap thing on the chair in the hallway and mini Freddy’s on the bed. The trailer had quite a creepy feel and ambience and while don’t actually see the puppet many people are comparing the music we here near the start to him and even if they’re unrelated we all know he’ll have a big role to play. So who’s noticeably missing? Freddy of course. Sure we see the mini ones but where’s actual Freddy? What’s being hidden from us here?

 

What does this trailer reveal about the gameplay part of the game? Honestly it’s difficult to say, from the different camera angles we see it looks like we may be able to move around the house. The issue is whether all these clips are even from the game itself or whether there’s just strangely placed cameras around the inside of a house (Although that one seems unlikely). It appears that closing doors will be an important feature again and Bonnie and Chica seem to come for you from different doors with Foxy in the closet in the room you’re in. On top of that the mini Freddy’s seem to be on the bed behind you which may be a reason for not simply closing both doors to the room and crying in the corner until all the scary monsters go away. I certainly wouldn’t want to lock myself in a room with Foxy.

 

As we all know these games often leave very carefully placed things to get us thinking about the lore. These games are built on their lore really so what do we find here. The scene in the trailer that stood out to me personally was near the beginning. The camera pans across a room with some very intriguing items. There’s a purple robot with a strange crank like object in its hand, a phone with eyes and of course, a fan. Naturally parallels have been drawn with the purple robot and purple man and wait, there’s a nearby phone, OMG PURPLE GUY IS PHONE GUY CONFIRMED. Okay … maybe not, the interesting thing for me is they both appear to be looking up at the closet. If the mechanics of this game are similar to the other, the presence on the fan would suggest this would be ‘the office’ of this game.

 

I think this purple robot could be why the purple man appears as a purple man in the FNAF 2 and 3 mini games. The mini game are supposedly just representations of the actual events in these games lore of course. I assume from the layout and camera angles that we’ll be playing as a child in this game (Although with the FNAF series you often cannot assume anything) so how is this character relevant in the grand scheme of things. Honestly, I have no idea how to piece all this together, we simply don’t have enough information, however at a guess I would say this child must have had a bad experience with a Freddy Fazbear’s Pizzeria and may have even seen the purple guy. Nightmare seems to be a prevalent theme with the teaser images so could this game be a nightmare based on a person’s real fears of the restaurants.

 

This is all speculation of course, we don’t know where this house is, who lives inside or when this game takes place in the timeline. It’ll be interesting to see what answers we get and discovering what happened in these games and maybe finally we’ll see whose theories were correct (Check out my own in the links below).  In the meantime what did you think of the trailer, leave a comment below.      

 FNAF theory part 1:   http://thecoolstuffblog12.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-exactly-happened-in-five-nights-at.html

Part 2:  http://thecoolstuffblog12.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-exactly-happened-in-five-nights-at_11.html

 

The Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462?ref=bookmarks

Batman Arkham Knight Review

Batman Arkham Knight Review

I’ll be reviewing the PS4 version I’ll say now, I realise the state of the PC version was disgraceful when released but I personally played the PS4 version so that’s what I can talk about.

 

So Batman Arkham Knight is the final Batman Arkham game by developer Rocksteady and overall it was a really good way to finish what has been a really good series, PC notwithstanding. I’ll start by talking about it in terms of gameplay and the gameplay is really rather excellent. It expands on the brawling and stealth elements of Arkham City making it easy to pick up again but provides enough new moves and enemy types to prevent it from feeling stale.

 

The melee combat is as satisfying as ever using the same system as previous games. You have your basic attack button, a stun button and the counter button. You are provided with gadgets that can be mixed in and are sometime required to take down enemies in combat. It feels as slick as ever and provides some incredibly satisfying brawls throughout the game. Another cool feature is fighting alongside and ally, which while not adding a whole lot to the mechanics does feel like a very Batman thing to do and let’s face it, we do play these games to feel like Batman.

 

The predator elements are also pretty similar to before. The new moves and gadgets you get feel extremely powerful at first but then once new enemies are introduced (My favourite being the ones that do not show up in detective vision) as well as greater numbers of enemies who work together makes the predator situations still feel challenging and satisfying.

 

The big new feature is the Batmobile. Diving the Batmobile through the streets where everything is annihilated as you smash through it is very satisfying and it controls well without handling too sharply to make it feel silly. I particularly enjoyed the side missions where you had to chase down enemy cars and try to smash them off the road. The big issue with the Batmobile were the tanks battles. Not only did they take up pretty much every boss battle but `they felt forced and got kind of tedious. You avoid the red lines that show where missiles are going, shoot a drone and repeat. They became very frustrating when you had no way of avoiding getting shot and had to start all over again. The Batmobile felt like a good addition while using its winch to solve puzzles and using it when you wanted to propel yourself out of it or drive around quickly, basically when it wasn’t forced on you, however when you were required to use it for missions it quickly became frustrating.

 

I’m hardly someone who is overly interested in graphics but for what it’s worth the game looks very nice. Everything from the detail to the rain effects and the characters models look very nice. More importantly you get a large map of Gotham to explore full of stuff to do whether it be Riddler trophies, side quests or just goons who needed a good punch to the head. It’s a big game that will keep you occupied for a long time.

 

I’ve heard mixed responses to the plot of this game. Personally I’d call it sort of up and down. After the brilliant scarecrow sections in Arkham Asylum I expected big things from him having his own game but he wasn’t really particularly interesting. They didn’t really use the psychological elements that Scarecrow lends himself too and used him as kind of a standard villain. The Arkham Knight was similar, he didn’t have much interesting personality and the mystery behind who he is doesn’t keep your interest very well and it’s pretty obvious who he is anyway. That’s not to say it’s a terrible plot, there are some really well done dramatic moments and twists and while the main two villains are kind of bland the way Joker is integrated into the game is very well done and a fantastic use of the character (And don’t worry they don’t bring him back to life or anything stupid like that).

 

You could very easily argue that this is the best game in the Arkham franchise and that is high praise. While personally Arkham Asylum was the most enjoyable game for me personally when I first played it through due to the deep atmosphere from the more closed off environment I do think Arkham Knight is better than Arkham City and would highly recommend the console version to anyone with a next gen console.

 

Thanks for the read, don’t forget to like the Facebook page. Why? BECAUSE IM BATMAN!!!

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thecoolstuffblog12/1807956062763462?ref=aymt_homepage_panel