Yes, another post about Tomb Raider: 2013. What can I say, I'm extremely excited about it's upcoming release. So I have been doing some browsing and have come across a really informative and interesting website for all things Tomb Raider. On this site, I located a news article detailing the announcement of the game's first multi-player map. Now, this is the first time a multi-player aspect has come to the Tomb Raider franchise but, let's face it, it's what everyone looks for when they buy a game these days - "can I play with my friends", well yes you can! Right from the title, you can see that the first map is going to be a shanty town style. Now, whether or not they actual map will be called Shanty Town I do not know, but it's a brilliant source. It also states that certain retailers are now offering you the map if you pre-order the game. Whilst this may entice some people, I don't like the idea of being forced to pre-order something in order to get a perk before anyone else - I am quite happy playing through the single player campaign before jumping into multi-player. After all, the Tomb Raider games are renowned for their single player action. I've included some concept art below. All three are taken from the source website, but I cannot find them anywhere on the official tombraider.com site, so I cannot guarantee their authenticity.
Click on the icons for a larger preview image. All Photos: www.tombnews.com
I really don't know what to expect from Tomb Raider multi-player. I can't see how it's going to work, unless they're going to make it the bog standard FPS model. If they do this, it'll just be a Call of Duty masked as something else. I hope they incorporate other features into the multi-player. Perhaps a unique co-op campaign?
I will add more Tomb Raider news to the blog when something juicy is released. If you want all the latest news, regardless of category, you can visit the website that I got my information from today - www.tombnews.com
So the latest trollop to come from our country is the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) making the statement, "the fuel market is working well" - they will not investigate fuel prices any further, despite them once again going on the rise.
The OFT have stated that the retail price of fuel is one of the cheapest in Europe, once you minus the VAT and tax on there. What a pointless statement to make - it is something we already know. The main issue I, and many others, have is that prices always sky rocket when the wholesale price of crude oil goes up, but it fails to reduce in cost when crude oil prices drop. Now, even with tax in the loop this shouldn't be happening. If anything, the tax is less when the crude oil prices are lower so why aren't these savings being passed down to the consumer. Another issue I have is the many different variations in price, depending on where you are. Competition is fine, it helps the consumer by providing the cheapest possible price but I'm not talking about these variations. Take me for example, I live in Stockport where the average price of fuel is around 132.7p per litre(source: www.petrolprices.com). Sam, on the other hand, lives in Oldham where the average is 132.2p per litre. Now I know this isn't a massive difference but the further up into the Saddleworth moors you go, the higher the price becomes. I think I remember driving past a service station up there that was selling unleaded at 153.4p per litre! To me, this does actually warrant some form of investigation. I can understand the small, family run service stations charging a bit more but surely there should be some consistency to major brand pricing. Why does a Shell near me charge 132.9p, yet a Shell 10 miles away charges 139.9p? I just don't see how this is fair. Below I have included a diagram from www.petrolprices.co.uk, showing the breakdown of a lire of unleaded at 132.9p and a litre of diesel retailing at 137.9p:
It is quite clear that the government is taking the largest chunk of the price we pay (don't forget they take the duty AND the VAT). This leaves 5p of every litre for the retailer. Whilst compared to the government share it looks pretty dire, it still doesn't excuse why the retailer puts the prices up in certain areas - maybe to increase the profits to compensate the lower priced areas? At the end of the day, it's the consumer that is the victim in all of this. Maybe it's time the government rethought their strategy on fuel duty - it isn't helping put them on motorists' Christmas card lists...
Okay, so this is more relevant to FPS games but I am sure there are rage fuelling moments in most genres. There's nothing worse than working your balls off to reach a certain point in the game and then - BOOM - game over. Whether that be something from the environment screwing you over, or that self obsessed, no life camper.
Trust me, I have experienced it all. Just tonight I was catching up on some Modern Warfare 3, playing CTF which is one of my absolute favourite game types. The point of this tale is that the enemy team was almost entirely made up of kill-whore rushers, who only captured the flag once per round, within the last few seconds to ensure a victory.
The amount of rage I was filled with during the above game was immense. In fact, I almost threw my controller out of the window. It annoys me so much when people play objective-based game types with no intention of playing the objective. Maybe their intention is to make people angry, that notion certainly works a charm. On the flip side, I can see why many people are against any form of video game related rage. It unnecessarily stresses you out, can make you cause damage to your home and more worryingly to yourself in the process and is it really worth it? From that 5 minutes of rage, what have you achieved - apart from maybe giving others a laugh. At the end of the day, you will always encounter a rage moment when playing video games. Whether this be your own or someone else's. Perhaps if people actually played the game properly, and didn't K/D whore in objective based games, maybe rage would be less prevalent. However, trying to stop those that do this from doing so is a mammoth task in itself. Like anyone else, they are playing the game for fun. I suppose if that makes them enjoy the game then so be it - perhaps back out of the game and try another. I might start backing out and choosing another game when I can feel rage creeping in. I just may be able to counter a repeat of the many situations I have put myself in before. The only problem with this comes when you are in a party, or playing with others. Just because you're playing really badly, or something is winding you up, should your party have to suffer and back out with you? It would be interesting to hear others' stories about video game rage. If you have a little spare time and have a memorable moment, why not share it? Comments are open to all and your contribution is greatly appreciated.
Just a quick post to tell you that I have now added a short poll to the blog, on the right hand side. I'm wondering if people want to see me review more products such as gadgets, games, apps, electricals, etc. Please take a moment to vote, it'll help shape my blog to one that people enjoy reading. If you want to contact me, you can do so via Twitter (@NathanCashman) If you want your app, game or product reviewed, you can always contact me via email (innaterambler@gmail.com) I will get back to you as soon as possible, most likely within 2-4 hours (I am in the UK, so if you are in a different timezone please be aware of this. Don't expect a reply at 4am)
Garage inc HD is and iPad time management game. I personally love time management games and came across this app whilst browsing the store for something new to fill another slot on my iPad home screen. I was delighted with the result.
One of my Twitter followers today posted a video that really set a spark off in my brain. It's regarding the topic of video games, and how they affect the real world - more specifically if violent video games are having an impact on the crime rate in today's society. You can find the video at the bottom of this post. Ironic thing is, he's debating the topic whilst playing Black Ops 2 - immense!
Video games are always a scapegoat when something tragic happens in life. The hype seems to fade away after a while, but then quickly resurfaces as soon as another major event occurs. This is exactly what has happened recently. One big reason why - Connecticut school shooting in December 2012.
The aftermath of the Connecticut shootings was one of deep sadness which, once everyone began to calm down, quickly turned to anger. A lot of this anger was aimed directly at video games. Somehow this anger has, once again, led to a massive debate on whether or not violent video games should be banned.
The problem I have with this argument is that there is literally no scientific proof that violent video games cause real life violence. If you actually take a moment to look at the statistics, you can quite clearly tell that the percentage of people who play these games do not, in any way shape or form, correlate to the percentage who then go on to massacre people, or commit some kind of violent crime.
Call of Duty: One of the many video games blamed for violent crime. Photo: codocom.com
If anything, it is the perpetrators own mental state that is the cause of violent crime. In my opinion, to be able to commit such acts of violence towards another human being indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong upstairs - nothing to do with video games. Just because they have played video games, and may have played the latest Halo, or Grand Theft Auto, before commencing their attack does not mean the game is to blame - yet this is the only factor that critics of violent video games seem to take into consideration.
I have done a little research, and the facts prove what I kind of knew already. Most of the gaming population who are playing these violent games on a daily basis are children in their early teens. This shows a complete lack of parental guidance. There is no way a 12 year old should have their hands on an 18 rated game. The only way they have managed to own the game will be their parents buying it for them - if anything this is the main cause of violent behaviour.
Trying to defend their actions, one parent commented:
"My son has a bad temper and is defiant. But when I remove his violent video games for a few days he becomes nicer, calmer and more compliant. It's very clear to me that the games have a negative affect on his behavior. I am afraid that if he is allowed to continue playing the violent games he may become a very scary teenager and adult." - Source: http://www.debate.org/opinions/do-violent-video-games-cause-behavior-problems
Okay, so your son has a bad temper and is defiant - discipline him. Be a good parent. Why does he have the video game in the first place? Why should grown adults have to suffer just because you can't parent properly and your child is aggressive as a result?
All of these parents who are up in arms against violent video games really need to start waking up and smelling the coffee. Your argument is invalid. Don't buy your under-age child an 18 rated video game and then complain that its content is affecting their well being! It's hypocrisy at the highest level.
At the end of the day, you cannot please everyone. Regardless, my point still stands. Violent games are rated appropriately and the rating is there for a reason. Besides, even if they did manage to ban violent games, do you really think that'll stop them being created and distributed? No. Look at the mass market of illegally downloaded music and films - this is banned but still continues. People will find a way to play the games that they have a right to play. Don't let some begrudged bad parents and old timers with no sense of modern society ruin it for the rest of us.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I could literally go on for days about this topic...
As promised, here's a link to the video that got me thinking in the first place:
I am just about fed up of people reporting faults, and then as soon as I ask them to try in the test socket I get the following reply, "I am not touching my socket, that's an engineers job" - give me a break! Firstly, the test socket has been implemented to save time and help both you and your ISP identify where a potential service fault may lie. By refusing to connect into the test socket, you are being uncooperative and rude. How am I supposed to help you fix your fault if you refuse to perform the basic diagnostic procedures that I ask?
The above image shows just how easy it is to access the test socket. Believe me, if it was only intended to be used by engineers then they would make it a lot harder to get into, and there would be signage all over it warning you not to touch it. Furthermore, it is actually a BT recommended diagnostic. Do you know why? Because it eliminates your internal wiring as being at fault. If you have no fault in this test socket, but do with the faceplate connected, then your wiring is probably naff. On the contrary, if your fault still exists whilst connected to the test socket, there is a greater likelihood that the problem lies outside of your remit and requires further attention. Do you see just how simple, yet effective, the test socket is. Picture this scenario: You experience a loss of dial tone. You immediately call your SP without checking the test socket, they are unable to locate a fault and so book an appointment for BT Openreach to attend in 3 days time. 3 days later, Mr BT Engineer turns up, tries the phone in the test socket and obtains dial tone. He'll be in and out within 10 minutes, and charge you for the privilege. As a result, you have been left without a dial tone for 3 days and been landed with an engineer call out charge of in excess of £115. Now, the alternate scenario: You experience a loss of dial tone. You take 5 measly minutes of, what you make out to be, your very busy schedule to remove 2 screws and try your phone in the test socket. You can get dial tone from the test socket. Hey presto! you have found the fault is internal and does not require attention from BT. You have therefore saved yourself 3 days of waiting and a bill for over £115. Which scenario would you prefer? I know which one I'd go for!
