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

 

Jurassic World Review

Jurassic World Review

After all these years since the first Jurassic park one thing hasn’t changed and that’s that dinosaurs are still awesome.

 

I wasn’t a fan of the original Jurassic Park and I’ve never seen either of the two sequels (Although I’m assured they’re pretty abysmal) so I can talk about this new film with no nostalgia to influence this review.

 

To cut to the chase I really enjoyed Jurassic World, I think it did a large amount of things well. I liked the characters in this film and while they weren’t exactly original, there’s the badass former military guy and the cold women who’ll learn passion and love but these arcs were done well and both were fun and likeable. Being a Jurassic film means there obviously has to be kid characters and they were okay too, the older one in particular progressing throughout the film.

 

Some of the side characters were quite well done too. While not overly memorable they were fun to watch such as the rich person who owns Jurassic World and the science comic relief man.  The biggest weakness in the character roster was the villain and while I won’t spoil who it is, it is pretty damn obvious. He was pretty much just a dumb cartoon character which was kind of disappointing and made you wonder why a film about a hybrid dinosaur killing machine needed a human villain.

 

The most important characters of the film arguably however are the dinosaurs.  The thing to get out the way is the effects are fine. They’re not ground breaking like the first Jurassic park but they’re not bad and I never really noticed them which can’t be a bad thing. The hybrid dinosaur itself wasn’t anywhere near as stupid as I thought it would be. Take one look at it and you can probably guess what dinosaurs have been combined to make it but it served as a good monster for an antagonist for the film.

  
 

Everyone saw the trailer and thought the raptors looked like they’d be ridiculous. Were they tame or something? As it turns out no, the film made it very clear that they were still wild animals and killers. I liked their integration into the plot, they played quite a big role and they weren’t silly so that’s good although it really bugs me that these Jurassic films have such a focus on Raptors, a dinosaur from the cretaceous period.

 

Honestly you can see where the plot is going throughout the film and nothing was really surprising and the pacing seemed a little off. It seemed to have quite a slow build up before at one point everything went crazy. It would be kind of like slowly cooking a jacket potato in an oven for a while before deciding to shoot it with a rocket launcher. The first half of the film was good too while the second half was a little up and down. Jurassic world had some really good creative scenes with others that felt really forced and kind of messy.

 

The thing is, it’s a fun mess. I found out afterwards that part of the team that worked on Pacific Rim worked on Jurassic World and that seems like a good comparison to me. It’s no masterpiece but I don’t think it’s really trying to be. At the end of the day it was well acted, kept you on for the ride and was fun and for a cynical mind like mine to be able to look past all the dumb stuff in the film it must have done something right.

 

 

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

 

Top Gear on Reflection

Top Gear on Reflection

So the final episode of Top Gear was played on BBC 2 on Sunday and at the end all I could think was ‘that was weird’. Something just felt so strange about the experience. I have no idea how many years the show ran for but I grew up with it and now it’s gone and it is genuinely sad.

 

Top Gear was built on the comradery and chemistry of its presenters. From its origins of a humble car show it became one of the most recognisable television shows worldwide. When you get right down to it the show was three mates messing around in a bunch of strange scenarios whether it be expensive super cars or piles of scrap they bought for a couple hundred quid. It was full of humour and hilarity and even occasionally an emotional moment that made you genuinely feel quite good about yourself.

 

There are so many great moments I couldn’t possibly mention them all. In a way the final episode was similar. I laughed a lot watching it, Clarkson’s line, I hate working on Top Gear really got me. It was good however the two films weren’t the farewells I’d always imagined from Top Gear. In a way it was fitting, the last thing Clarkson did was drive a £250 car cut in half through a muddy field towards an extravagant house full of smartly dressed people in a convention for some environmental thing. It was what came after I found strange however.

 

Watching Hammond and May close the show felt incredibly sombre. Hammond looked ready to well up and there was no acknowledgment of the elephant in the room, no talks of the future, simply the TWO of them said thanks for watching and Goodbye. It’s always goodnight said at the end of a Top Gear Episode. Then the credits came up with the usual black background and white text.  There was the simple change of no music, instead a silence lingered over the screen. It almost felt like there’d been a death, it felt meaningful as did that first line, “Hello and welcome to what’s left of Top Gear”.

 

I’d be incredibly surprised if this is the last we see of the three of them together, equally Top Gear on the BBC will be back, we already know Chris Evans will be hosting which for what it’s worth I think is a good choice. It is the end of an era though. It’s strange, I always imagined Top Gear would in in a barrage of tyre squeal, explosions, the Stig removing his helmet with those three morons all there before declaring that on that bombshell it’s time to end. The expression on the faces of Hammond and May said it all however. There’s genuine sadness to see it go, not bad for a pokey motoring show on BBC 2 I suppose.

 

Leave your favourite Top Gear memory in the comments, there are so many but personally I think I’d have to say the Reliant Robin test, it was so incredibly funny. I’m not really sure how to end this, I kind of want to say something fitting but I’ve got nothing. Not much of a bombshell really is it.


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

Can Video Games be Art?

Can Video Games be Art?

This is a question asked by gamers everywhere. It is a question answered by none gamers as no way now go back to the basement. Let’s face it however, these people are pretty ignorant so let’s take a look into the argument with intelligence and logic.

 

I’ll start with that all so common argument, video games cannot be art because art has no purpose. A painting is simply there to be looked at while a video game is there to be played. True, however this definition of art seems rather restrictive and surely the purpose of art is to have no restrictions and to allow an artist to create their own vision without shackles. The definition of art in fact is as follows: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

 

The first part talks of an application of human creative skill and imagination. I’ve never created a video game but it’s obvious that it takes skill and imagination to create. Video games are often compared the films, however I find this comparison to be unfair. I’m not going to try to argue one is harder to create than another, that’s not fair but both have unique challenges to overcome. A video game can look great, sound great and have an enthralling story but if the gameplay is poor then it isn’t a good video game. The interactive element is the key element in a video game and if a game plays badly then its good story and visuals are wasted and may as well have been a film. The opposite side to this argument is a film has to keep your attention without any interactivity, games can fall back on good gameplay to keep you interested. Name the most well-known video game franchise. I’d say Mario which has little to no story for the most part, it’s about the gameplay. A movie meanwhile has to be interesting on its own without player interaction.

 

Producing works for Beauty or emotional power. If you play games then it seems highly likely a game has impacted you emotionally at some point. When people mention art and games the one that springs to my mind is Shadow of the Colossus. That game made me think, it was artistic to me and it was an emotional experience. It made you question yourself every time you killed a Colossus and yet when you fight them you’re taken over by a wash of determination as the music builds up and you begin that feeling of an epic struggle. Seems pretty artistic to me.

 

I could keep mentioning the definition but earlier I mentioned art being un-restricted. What is artistic varies from person to person. Personally I found Shadow of the Colossus an emotional and impactful experience and many other games delivered on a similar scale. My favorite game ever made, Professor Layton and the Lost future not only had a beautiful visual style, it had extremely likeable and relatable characters with interesting arcs, it had a gameplay style of puzzles that challenged you on an intellectual level and a story that kept me hooked from beginning to end and almost bought a tear to my eye at the end. That to me cannot be described as anything other than art.

 

Art is in the eye in the eye of the beholder, if someone tried to convince me that Professor Layton and the Lost Future isn’t art by some dumb technicality I’d tell them they’re pretentious and idiotic. I went to a modern art gallery in London a couple of years ago, I nearly gnawed my arms off out of sheer boredom. At one point there was a grey canvas. A GREY CANVAS, and if I’d talked to a lot of the people in that place they’d say my video game isn’t art at all. Art is a different thing to each person so to answer the question that started all this, can video games be art? Yes they can, to claim they’re not is to claim you’re idea of art is the only one that is correct.

 

Thanks for reading, share your own opinion and if you enjoyed like the Facebook page.

 

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

 

Why Do so Many People Hate Call of Duty?

Why Do so Many People Hate Call of Duty?

When you think of the most successful video game franchises what springs to mind. I’d be very surprised is Call of Duty wasn’t up there somewhere. The strange thing about this franchise is it seems to have just as many people who hate it as it does who actually buy them. People blame Call of Duty for stagnating the game industry and promoting a lack of innovation. They say it has one hell of an annoying fan base full of angry 12 year olds and it’s the worst thing ever made ever. I’m going to discuss this today.

 

I’ll start by saying this, I don’t like Call of Duty. It’s not really my thing, military shooters are not one of my preferred genres especially considering I prefer to play by myself and leave multiplayer alone. I will happily admit that parts of them are enjoyable, the co-op missions in Modern Warfare 2 were fun to play with friends and some of the Zombie modes were fun for a while to play with those two friends. I find the premises to the stories hilarious for how ridiculous they are and it’s pretence at realism is kind of endearing, like a small child pretending to be an old man. However, I do not own a COD game, I probably never will and I don’t like them a whole lot. I do not HATE them however like many do.

 

Many gamers point at them as the big casual game that suckers in all the casuals and is making developers want to dumb down their games into Call of Duty clones. The casual gamer argument is an odd one, yes I get that for some gaming is a genuinely hobby and some just play occasionally in their spare time and there is a difference between that. Gamer Entitlement is a dumb issue, acting like people who aren’t as hard core as you shouldn’t be allowed to play games is really dumb, if you think hard core players should be the only people allowed to games then you are quite clearly pretty dumb.

 

The thing is I’m pretty sure people like this are a minority so I’ll discuss the second point. The stream of games who try to be Call of Duty is very annoying, we all know of the franchises that once had a unique premise but the developers try to turn them into Call of Duty because it sells lots of copies. The thing is though, Call of Duty isn’t to blame for this, COD set its ground work to sell well and form its fan base. Other companies should take the blame for trying to copy Call of Duty, not Call of Duty itself.

 

The fan base full of angry 12 year olds is definitely worth mentioning. Yes they’re annoying but also very easily ignored and more importantly are really funny. I have a friend who once convinced an entire match of random people that if they could copy his actions on the map exactly they would unlock a hidden emblem. He lead them on a ridiculous little tour and at one point was walking along a thin pipe. One angry 12 year old fell off the pipe and they all started panicking for me and my friend to enjoy laughing at their idiocy and they cried about having no hidden emblem. Yes they’re annoying but at least you can laugh at them.

 

Most importantly I think in the argument for the hate of Call of Duty is how they basically bring out the same game every year. The type of game it’s equated to is the like of FIFA and Maden, bro games that just release some updated team rosters and refined gameplay each year. The thing is I’m a football fan and FIFA is a great game for me. I imagine if you like that sort of thing Call of Duty is the same. There’s no denying that Call of Duty works incredibly well, the controls are good, the graphics look good, as a FPS it works extremely well. If you want a multiplayer FPS then really I can see why you’d buy it every year.

 

All these points are all well and good but there’s one more reason I don’t hate Call of Duty … lads of other people do and a strange part of my strange and warped mind likes that I disagree. Whatever you think on gaming’s biggest franchise leave a comment, like the Facebook page and enjoy playing what you like. I’m going to stop typing now, all this COD talk is boring me, I’m going for a game on Battlefield.

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

Are Disney Films Sexist?

Are Disney Films Sexist?

 

Disney has released many timeless films over the years, classics that we’ll still be watching in a hundred years’ time. They usually have the hero’s prevail and give a good message but one issue has always been lingering over these films, that argument of sexism. While some people would just say that it’s just a kids film and it shouldn’t be taken so seriously many, myself included would argue that kids look to role models and good examples should be prevalent to a growing child. Not only that but media already indulges stereotypes too much, surely it’d be a good thing for adults also to have characters they can relate too. Today I’m going to look into this issue.

 

Firstly what films do things wrong? Sleeping Beauty stands out in my head as the typical Princess. She gets rescued by a prince and has no real personality, she’s just there because she has to be. Not exactly an interesting character to put things likely. Many early princess stories from Disney get hit with similar criticism, Snow White and Cinderella are often said to be poor role models. I however am not so sure.

 

Snow White while does end with the falling in love happily ever after thing does have some very admirable qualities. She acts as a motherly figure to the dwarves, she takes care of them and is often working as a Mother. Is this really a sexist character, a kind person who is always working away to take care of her loved ones? Cinderella is similar, she’s working non-stop while on screen and treated awfully but after working hard is rewarded with her own happily ever after. Then again I would assume it’s the falling in love with the prince that’s the sexist bit. However I think that saying this is a poor role model to children is not looking at the full picture. Firstly these stories were written a long time ago when this sort of thing was more acceptable, more importantly however I would argue it’s understandable that someone in the position of one of these characters would want something like that.

 

Walt Dinsey’s favourite fairy tale was Cinderella because she works hard for a long time and then is rewarded with everything she ever wanted. I think that’s a good message to have, working hard brings good outcomes. Is it also worth noting that the princess falling in love in a few glances is an argument that goes both ways, it happens to the prince too. I’ve never really saw this as a sexist event in a film, rather an exaggeration of what real people really want. What is the purpose of a fairy tale? To tell a story to make us feel good and let us enter the world of the story in our imaginations? Is it sexist to say that going to a place in our imagination where you are loved and rewarded is a bad thing? A child imagination is an incredible thing, these don’t make them think a man will do everything for them, rather it helps them imagine and believe in good.

 

These are old films, newer films have really made an effort to make the female characters more real and interesting. The Princess and the Frog is a fine example, the male and female leads in that films are portrayed as equals in ability despite their different classes and upbringings and they work better together than apart. Neither were bland stereotypes, both were interesting characters with flaws and goals. I never found Belle that interesting because she was a little too prefect but I didn’t have that problem with the Princess and the Frog. Frozen goes one step further by having Anna and Elsa’s relationship having such focus as well as making the typical prince the villain and forming a romantic relationship over time. Both these films are trying to have good role models for kids without sacrificing character to do so and while I like the Princess and the Frog a lot more than Frozen both have good intentions in their morals and messages.

 

One film I do take issue with in this discussion is the little mermaid. Ariel in that films spends loads of time whining and expecting to get everything she wants and unlike Cinderella or Snow White she never has to work. She never grows as a character either, Ariel wants the prince so Ariel gets him and forget consequences for all her selfish actions. This I think is a lot more sexist than many of the films people take issue with.

 

I could mention more examples but I think all this boils down to what you consider sexist in what are designed to be family films. The happily ever after ending is used to make people feel good and pleased for the characters, not to degrade women. The important thing I think is what people take away from the experience, not necessarily everything that happened. People recall that Cinderella married the Prince, not worked hard to get to that point in the first place. What’s important to remember is how many people enjoy these films and characters for being interesting and fun. A lot of these female characters have their flaws or obstacle to overcome in situations we will never be in but they’re more interesting for this. Giving your female character flaws doesn’t make you sexist, it makes the character more interesting and relatable to people.

 

If you’re sat there thinking I’m just one of those ignorant males then you know what, maybe you’re right, I don’t know what other people are offended by but personally I don’t see much issue with sexism in Disney. Take that for what it is but I would like to hear the other side of the argument if you disagree. Thanks for reading and don’t forget to like the Facebook page linked below.

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