A Guide to Battlefield 4: Solo PTFO

Hello readers, welcome to the second installment of "A Guide to Battlefield 4" where I will be outlining some basic solo tactics to help you better PTFO. So if you want to stay alive on the Battlefield, I suggest you pay attention, soldier.

Stick Together, Team!
This one should be a no-brainer. Battlefield is a team-based game, so, remember to stick by your team. More importantly, stick with your squad because everything you do to support them will net you additional points. If separate from your squad, try and get back to them or at the very least, back up your team. By working together, you can capture objectives faster and have additional firepower when faced with the enemy. Plus, you can get ammo, health, revives and repairs if your team/squad knows what they're doing.

Target Spotted
Always remember to spam the spot button when you see an enemy and they aren't shooting at you. If you can manage to spot while shooting or being shot at, even better! Spotting gives a massive advantage not just to you but your team because the pesky enemy has a floating dorito over his head and appears on the minimap. This gives you and your team the tactical advantage of knowing where the enemy is and having them sighted in for friendly artillery (either the M142 rocket truck or the M224 mortar).

Hey! I Need a Ride!
Chances are, if you've played Battlefield 4 enough, you've heard the above phrase. Try to stop for your team or squad when you're in a vehicle to give them a ride to the next objective because it's just the nice thing to do. I'm sure you've spent a lot of time hoofing it if you've played many a Battlefield game where you just wish there were a vehicle so you could just get where you want to go, so, do the nice thing and offer people a ride. Of course, common sense should also dictate that you don't stop in the middle of a firefight and offer a ride, make sure it's clear and safe for you to stop and pick up passengers.

How to Defibrillate Correctly
Did you know that you can charge up the defib paddles before reviving someone to give them full health? It takes some experience to know when the paddles fully charge up but don't just do a quick tap revive when you have time, because your revivee will need to recover their health from a measly 20 points meaning they have a significant disadvantage if they get shot. If you do go through with a low health revive, at least throw down a health pack or health bag to accelerate their healing. Also, for the love of Battlefield, check your surroundings before you revive. No one likes a Rambo revive. Don't just revive people just because you can, it's a waste of their life and a waste of your life when you revive someone when there are enemies still around shooting at you. Consider the situation and act accordingly.

Recon 101
While I think that people can play the game however they want, don't be that guy camping halfway across the god-damned map contributing nothing to the team. If you want to be a sniper, fine, but at least spot some enemies, lay down some suppressing fire, deploy a SOFLAM or designate vehicles with the PLD. Don't just lie there thinking about the next headshot, it's just selfish. Alternately, be an aggressive recon, equip a DMR or shotgun or carbine and run around pew-pewing people and dropping motion sensors everywhere.

A Guide to Battlefield 4: PTFO Basics

If you've played Battlefield for more than an hour, you'll probably have heard or see the term "PTFO" get thrown around. For those who are terrible at using the internet to search for the meaning of this term or those who just like hanging around this terrible excuse for a blog, today's your lucky day because I will be breaking down what it means to PTFO in Battlefield 4 (or any Battlefield game, really).

Defining PTFO
"PTFO" stands for Play the F**king Objective as some of you will no doubt have learned. The "F" in "PTFO" arises from the frustration many veteran players have with noobs or lone wolf players who apparently bought the game under the impression that getting kills is much more important than taking the objective and helping your team. If you want to make sick montages with your long-range sniper kills or maintain a super-high K/D ratio, please play Domination, Team Deathmatch or Squad Deathmatch because those three game modes emphasise killing the enemy above all else. If you want to play Conquest, Rush, Obliteration or Defuse, then please contribute by playing the objective.

Learn to Play, Mother Truckers: How to PTFO
If you take "PTFO" literally, you'd think that all it means is to capture flags in Conquest, arm/defuse MCOMs in Rush and make a mad dash for the bomb in Obliteration. While this is what you should be doing in the first place, that's not what "PTFO" is all about. Playing the objective is all well and good but you have to make sure that you're playing the objective right. Don't just throw yourself blindly at an objective, value your life because it might make the difference between winning and losing during those hard-fought and ridiculously close matches.

For example, there's no point capturing an objective in Conquest if you know you can't hold it. You'd be wasting time better suited to defending an objective you can hold. Alternately, there's no point assaulting a heavily-defended objective because you'll just be wasting tickets and giving the enemy team some free kills. Ah, but what about if you are an attacker on Rush, you may ask. Well, don't just throw yourself at the objective. Watch the enemy, determine if there are any weak points in their defence and flank like your life depends on it because it very often does. If it looks like they have an impregnable defence, then send up some armour or send in the EOD bots. Where there's a will, there's a way.

At the end of the day, to PTFO means to contribute to the team towards victory. As long as you're doing something for the team, that's PTFO and you'll be considered a valuable member of the community. If you don't, that's fine but know that you'll probably one day find a torrent of swear words headed your way. I don't like telling people how to play but this is a team-oriented game, so, put aside your lone wolf tendencies and help your team out.

A Guide to Battlefield 4: Game Modes

Having recently purchased Battlefield 4 and seeing as many people will have hopped on to the Battlefield bandwagon for the first time or from other franchises, I thought I'd write up a series of articles covering everything from game modes to maps to weapons to classes etc. written from the perspective of a Battlefield veteran. This week, we'll be visiting game modes where I'll break down the different types of game modes and my overall strategy for each.

Conquest

The classic Battlefield game mode involves capturing and holding a majority of flags to bleed the enemy team's tickets where both sides usually have 400 tickets each. Typically there are 3 to 5 flags depending on the map with the centre flag being the most contested by both sides. Vehicles are extremely important in Conquest as they provide much needed force multipliers in tough situations and maps are often so large that walking will be an absolute pain, especially when snipers are out in force. 

The best way to approach Conquest as a new player is to explore the map as much as you can. Two things will guarantee victory in Conquest, a good team and map knowledge. Having a good team is sort of a 50/50 gamble every time you join a server unless you have 11 other friends to play with you on the same team so learning the map is a must if you want to win. Most importantly, find flank routes and look out for heavily populated enemy areas. You want to avoid heavily populated enemy areas or alternately, bombard them with the mortar or the M142 HIMARS on the map Zavod 311. Flanking is key especially when the enemy has most of the objectives locked down. An effective squad who knows how to flank can take objectives while the team is being held down by the enemy at spawn. Or at the very least break out of the spawn and do some damage to the enemy from behind.

Team Deathmatch

Classic first-person shooter fare. No vehicles and relatively small versions of the existing maps make for exciting close-range firefights. Map knowledge will be a huge help but the only real way to win is with the best weapons and fast reflexes. Unless you're a fantastic sniper or know the map inside out, a carbine or quick-firing assault rifle is recommended for Team Deathmatch. 

There's not much advice to give about Team Deathmatch, it's a relatively simple mode with no real objective or strategy behind it except to kill the enemy.

Obliteration

This brand-spanking new game mode to Battlefield involves a bomb that spawns somewhere in between the two sides and three objectives you must detonate within 20 minutes. The winning team is the one that manages to detonate all three before the 20 minutes elapses or to have more detonated objectives than the other team. Furthermore, the person carrying the bomb is a giant target for everybody, so, it's not a job for the faint-hearted Obliteration is an extremely fun mode and really provides some pulse-pounding action particularly when you are the bomb carrier.

For Obliteration, the only real way to win is to have a really good team that knows how to work together. Always cover the bomb carrier and for the love of God, provide transport for the poor bugger with the target on his back. Also, keep your distance from the blast site because once it detonates it will take out most people near it and even the odd unlucky vehicle that strays too close. Vehicles are a must to carry the bomb carrier to his/her target and to cover the location from enemies attempting to defuse the bomb. Avoid main roads when driving because there will almost always be M15 anti-tank mines or M2 SLAMs on the ground. The helicopter, either transport or scout, is the best bet for delivering the bomb carrier because they're way faster than anything on the ground and really only susceptible to portable anti-air and mobile anti-air.

Rush

A more recent but extremely popular addition to Battlefield involves a set of M-COMs in every base which the defenders must prevent the attackers from detonating. The attackers get 75 tickets only and to win they must detonate the first set of M-COMs to move on to the next set and so on until the final set. The number of M-COMs depends on the map and range from 6 to 10 but will always involve a set of two at each base, no more, no less.

Unfortunately, DICE has tweaked Rush to provide a massive advantage to Defenders on almost every map particularly for the first two M-COMs with perhaps the exception of Golmud Railway and Flood Zone. For defenders, just dig in and take out the swarms of attackers coming at you. Don't forget to watch for snipers as well. If you have a half-decent team, you should be able to win pretty easily as defenders. Most maps have M-COMs in easily defensible positions provided your team isn't too stupid and too aggressive to guard the objectives. For attackers, it's really down to how effective the enemy team is on most maps because there's no real set way to break enemy defences. Having a good team helps but even then the map advantage afforded to defenders is insane. On the bright side, you'll get a go as the defending team so you'll probably get a victory at some point.

Squad Deathmatch

A slight twist on the staple in all first-person shooters, Squad Deathmatch features four 5-man squads duking it out for ultimate victory. Teamwork is crucial because you have less players backing you up and each member of the squad has to pull their own weight because you will effectively be fighting 15 other players with 4 players backing you up.

I wouldn't recommend playing this with randoms. Find some friends or you will be utterly demolished. Aside from having friends to play with, perhaps have a mic to communicate with randoms?

Domination

It's like Conquest without the vehicles on a much smaller scale. Three flags in fairly close proximity with 300 tickets on both sides means that killing is the main means to victory although capturing flags will help bleed the enemy tickets dry. Also it's 20 players on all platforms rather than the typical 24 players or 64 players in other game modes.

Capturing flags is quite important but again the main attraction here is close-quarters fighting particularly around the flag. There's very little time to relax as this is a ridiculously fast-paced game mode with action around every corner. Speed and reflexes are key although having some map knowledge will put you in good stead. Controlling the roofs on Siege of Shanghai and Zavod 311 is a must because you can move to any flag on the map with relative ease and you get a height advantage and positional advantage over the enemy.

Defuse

Basically Search and Destroy for Battlefield. One side arms objectives, the other side defends them. One life then spectator mode if you get killed until the end of the round.

Not sure if there's any tips for this other than sticking together and making sure to stick to whatever cover you can find that isn't destructible.

Medal of Honor: Warfighter - A Retrospective

My, how time has passed. It's almost a year since I started writing on the interwebz and it's been a fairly rough ride. Getting content on isn't easy and getting people to read this stuff wasn't any easier. Hell, I'm still not sure if anyone actually reads this stuff other than the bots and spam-machines that occasionally drop by. As some of you may know, I started this whole project because I was disappointed in the state of video game "journalism", with the impetus being the disastrous reviews of a game I thought received a lot of undeserved criticism, Medal of Honor: Warfighter. As I predicted when the game came out, the negative reviews would lead to some pretty severe consequences. Thanks to the poor reviews the game received, the sales tanked and EA yanked the Medal of Honor series out of rotation for an indefinite period, marking the end of what I felt was the series that really launched a great era of first-person shooters. Furthermore, a majority of the development team was let go following the closure of Danger Close with some lucky enough to be transferred to the newly-created DICE Los Angeles, an off-shoot of the Swedish studio responsible for Battlefield and Mirror's Edge.

This infuriates me to no end because the Danger Close team were not a bad team of developers and they did not put out a shoddy game. They put out a decent game that unfortunately had to take the hit for the modern military shooter subgenre. Sure, the first-person shooter genre is flooded with military shooters but that did not make it fair for Warfighter to take all the criticism that could've rightly gone to Modern Warfare 3, released the year before and was seriously a re-hash of the previous games in the Call of Duty series. At the end of the day, because a few "journalists" decided to trash a game as an example rather than because it was a poor game, a lot of people lost their jobs and a great series has been put on ice, perhaps even killed off. Look, I'm sure there are a lot of detractors out there who would disagree with me, saying that reviewers were right for calling the game a buggy, unfinished piece of trash. To those people, I say they're entitled to their opinion but they should recognise that at the end of the day, it is an opinion. Sure, Warfighter had its fair share of bugs but what game doesn't? In addition to that, I can think of a few examples of games with fairly massive flaws that got ignored because the reviewers like the game so much (e.g. Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Skyrim, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops for the first week or so on the PS3 etc.). I don't know about you but that seems like a huge double-standard to me. The point is, all the reviews for Warfighter were just opinions. Understandably, the general consensus that the game was bad would turn any sane person away from purchasing the game but unfortunately, reviewers aren't always right.

I've always recognised that reviews are opinions and they should be taken with a grain of salt, but the problem is, most people don't see it that way. I'm not going to claim that reviewers should receive all the blame for Warfighter's dismal sales but if you read the comments or are even remotely tuned in to the internet at large, many people basically decided not to pick up the game because of the poor reviews it got. Fair enough, people want to spend their money wisely and a poorly-rated game across the board seems like a pretty risky purchase. I get that. The problem is, reviewers are stating opinions as fact and people actually believe that. Not that I blame them. Reviewers or video game "journalists" have been trying to convince people that they are actual journalists for a long time. There are definitely a few actual journalists in the field but unfortunately, their work isn't as popular or widespread as their more populist tabloid-y counterparts who work for the major gaming networks. These people are not journalists just because they are paid to report on gaming news. They are basically glorified bloggers with fancy job titles. Now don't get me wrong, not everyone in the business of reporting gaming-related news is a pretentious or elitist snob. On the contrary, I'm sure a lot of the people in the business are passionate and dedicated writers trying to improve their craft. The problem is, they work in an industry that keeps trying to convince itself that it is a serious business that people should take seriously. This isn't a negative thing. As an Arts student, I completely understand the need to justify your choices and your work because people don't take you seriously. My problem is that these people fail to fulfil the basic requirements needed to be a journalist. Many cannot spell properly and have terrible grammar and even worse prose making it somewhat difficult for me to take them seriously as journalists. Furthermore, there is a disturbing lack of ethics particularly when certain sites advertise the games they are supposed to be impartially reviewing and receive special gifts or trips from companies publishing said games. On the subject of impartiality, there lies the biggest problem I have with video game "journalists". They seem to have none although they try to portray themselves as experts reporting facts to the public. If they really are professionals who are reporting facts then they shouldn't be accepting special press trips or gifts from publishers. Even if they have the utmost integrity, it is completely unacceptable for a journalist to be getting preferential treatment. And on the flipside, journalists should thus not throw a hissy fit because they failed to get a copy of a game early from a publisher especially one that is notorious for not handing out early copies. This was the case with Warfighter when reviewers flat-out accused EA for withholding early copies because it was an unfinished product that they didn't want the public to see. Or perhaps it was because EA is wary of reviewers who give their competitors higher scores because they get showered with special events, previews and gifts way in advance of the game being released.

Back on the subject of Warfighter, the reviewers/"journalists" demonstrated an epic misunderstanding of what their job involves by nitpicking on small things rather than focusing on the whole package. As a fan of the game, I'm more than willing to admit that Warfighter had its shortcomings but it was a genuinely decent game. It had problems and there were some things it got wrong but there were so many things that it did get right that none of the reviewers noticed or bothered to point out. First of all, the graphics were, on the whole, excellent. Sure it's not up to the same level as Battlefield 3 even though both games use the same engine but you have to give Danger Close some props, this was the first time they were working with the Frostbite engine and they managed to get quite a lot out of it with so little experience working with it. Furthermore, the game had a nice degree of realism to it with realistic weapons, gear and equipment and if the advertising is to be believed, even fairly realistic recounting of real-life events. I mean, come on, they even bothered to actually put in and animate the fire-mode selector so that it actually moves to the correct position when selecting various fire modes! I think the problem in this respect was that the realism was in the details rather than the big picture. The way the weapons were handled, the camouflage used, the types of gloves the operators wore, the weapons and equipment they used as well as the realistic dialogue were all things I noticed because I'm an avid military enthusiast. I'm not suggesting that all the reviewers should have known this but with realism being the major marketing point used by EA, it probably would've paid off if they did their research and see if the claims of realism were right. Keeping on the theme of realism and details, the developers definitely put a lot of work into the weapons and attachments, allowing a vast array of customisation that actually affects the performance of the weapon based on whatever accessories were equipped unlike another big-name competitor where the balance is so fine-tuned that attachments barely do anything and occasionally aren't even modelled correctly (Long Barrel, anyone?). Furthermore, the sound design was brilliant with some of the best audio I've heard in a game since Battlefield 3 or ARMA II with the guns actually sounding like guns, the suppressors actually working like suppressors rather than magic silencers and the various sounds made when a bullet hit various surfaces.

I suppose Warfighter's downfall can be partly attributed to their focus on the nitty-gritty and putting the devil in the details while failing to account for how people might perceive the big picture. At the same time, these people reviewing it are supposed to be and often call themselves professionals. If this were the case, they would've done their research and actually tried their best to present an impartial case when reviewing any game. If they keep reviewing games as they do now though, that's perfectly fine but it'd be nice if they acknowledged that their reviews are simply opinion and not fact as they lead people to believe and people do actually sometimes believe, a misunderstanding that I find is still prevalent. On the specific subject of the Warfighter reviews, I was extremely disappointed by most of the reviewers who had a need to trash the game because they didn't get an early copy (only a smattering raised this point) or because they were burned out by the genre (a majority of reviewers). If they wanted to express their disappointment with the military shooter genre, then write a god-damn opinion piece on why the market is saturated with military shooters and how much of a disaster it is, not attack a fairly decent game because you want to make an example. The absolute best part is, when Black Ops II came out, apparently everyone got over their disillusionment with the modern military shooter and praised an old game with a few small tweaks sold as revolutionary and innovative.

In short, I have two main points:

1. Reviewers should try and act with some semblance of impartiality if they want to present themselves as experts in the field that offer recommendations and advice, if not, stop pretending like they are more qualified than anyone else and mention that their reviews are merely opinion, not fact.
2. Cut Warfighter some slack. It got a bad rap because of an unfortunate series of events which led to it taking the fall for the modern military first-person shooter as well as some poor reviewing on the part of a majority of the major sites. Gamespot, in my opinion was the only major site that gave a fair score, the rest sort of gave scores that don't seem to match the descriptions of their scoring system. I mean, a score in the 30s or 40s would mean some pretty serious problems and somehow, Skyrim for PS3 which had A LOT of issues, including freezing and massive lag, but was nonetheless a good game got scores in the 80s and 90s.

Battlefield 4 Exclusive Beta (PS3) First Impressions

Hello readers, I'm currently downloading the Exclusive Beta for PS3 as I write this and will be updating this blog post with my experience with the game as I go along. As far as I can tell, the beta will feature the map Siege of Shanghai, demoed at E3 earlier in the year to spectacular reception (mainly because of the awesome destructible skyscraper). I'm really excited because I also took part in the Battlefield 3 beta two years ago and that was a blast even though it was Metro 24 hours straight for about a week. Check back every few minutes as I update this blog post with my impressions of the game as quickly as I can.

Update 1: Just finished playing my first match, overall, I'm extremely satisfied. Battlefield 4 is a beautiful game, no doubt about that. Despite the texture pop-ins and occasional glitches with graphical fidelity, this thing is quite the looker. Gameplay-wise, it's classic Battlefield with the exception of the controls which have been changed quite a lot. Also, I saw the skyscraper come down during the course of the Conquest match. It was beautiful.

Update 2: The controls are a little hard to wrap my head around because I'm so used to the Battlefield 3 controls but other than that, so far so good. The gameplay is solid teamplay, vehicles are still fairly integral and gunplay is just fantastic. My only criticism so far is that Siege of Shanghai is a little big for 24 players, it's a bit hard to come across enemies unless you're already engaged or near an objective.

Update 3: There's an interesting glitch whereby the textures disappear after the skyscraper has been destroyed, making it look like the textureless pre-alpha build shown on YouTube by a bunch of Battlefield YouTubers. Also, the 5-man squad doesn't quite work because of the 12 vs. 12 limit on PS3. There's always a squad of 2 players in the end, a bit of a problem. Man, it is difficult to fly a scout helicopter now. The controls are really weird and hard to control, it has the ability to become extremely accurate and intuitive but having just jumped in, the new control scheme for helicopters feels weird. I hope they provide Battlefield 3 controls in the full game.

Update 4: Tried one match of Domination, didn't quite enjoy it. Too fast-paced and reflex-based for my liking. I'm the slow tactical type. It's an interesting combination of objective-based gameplay with what appears to be a team deathmatch driven philosophy in the sense that it's a micro-version of Conquest so that you are always in the action at any given moment.

Update 5: After a couple more matches, I noticed some interesting changes from the last game. Firstly, when you reload, your ammo count drops based on how many rounds were left in the last magazine. That's a pretty awesome feature since it adds to a bit of realism. I'm a bit annoyed that you don't keep the magazine, instead you toss it out but I suppose from a balancing perspective, it makes sense. As well as that, there are distance markers for where your squaddies are, which is a great little innovation. Additionally, the commorose is back! Or it's finally arrived on consoles. For those of you unfamiliar with the commorose, it's basically a menu where you can select some commands/requests such as "Need Ammo" or "Need Health" or "Need Transport" or "Attack/Defend". Very cool. Battle pick-ups are also present in the map and I had the opportunity to test out the Milkor MGL, the M82A3 and the HVM Starstreak. These are very interesting and in the right hands, can change the course of the battle. The M82A3 is a joy/nightmare depending if you're on the giving end or the receiving end because it's a one-hit kill superweapon with a range-finger attached.

That's it for my first impressions of the Battlefield 4 Beta. I'll write a more comprehensive article once I've stress-tested the crap out of the beta and gotten Bernt Toast and Brancake's opinions on the beta when they can finally join during the open beta because the suckers didn't buy Medal of Honor: Warfighter or pre-order Battlefield 4.

Weapons of Battlefield 3: DAO-12

Welcome back, readers, to another Weapons Of, still in the Frostbitten locales of Battlefield 3. Having mastered the PDW-R quite quickly and quite easily because of its all-round awesomeness, I thought I'd change it up a little by trying to master a shotgun. Since I've already mastered the Remington 870MCS, the M1014 and the Saiga 12K, the DAO-12 seemed like the perfect candidate for some field-testing.

Background:
The DAO-12, or Armsel Striker as it is called in real-life, is a rather unique South African weapon that has combined the power and ammunition of a shotgun with the rotating mechanism found in revolvers. Chambered in the extremely popular 12-gauge shotgun shell, the Striker typically has a 12-round revolving cylinder feeding it ammunition, except in the more compact models which only have a 7-round revolving cylinder. Due to its rather unique design, the Striker requires shells to be loaded into each cylinder individually and has a strange clockwork mechanism to wind the drum. While the weapon is extremely interesting, it does seem to come across as a rather cumbersome and ineffective weapon.

(source: Wikipedia)

Statistics:

• Ammo capacity = 8 rounds (standard), 12 rounds (extended magazine)
• Damage:
• Buckshot = Maximum of 18 decreasing in a linear pattern to a minimum of 6 from 25 metres onwards 
• Flechette = Maximum of 12.5 decreasing to a minimum of 8.4 from 30 metres onwards 
• Frag = Maximum of 20 decreasing to a minimum of 5 from 40 metres onwards 
• Slug = Maximum of 75 decreasing to a minimum of 37.5 from 50 metres onwards
• Rate of fire = 220 RPM (180 RPM when using frag rounds)
• Bullet velocity:
• Buckshot = 300 m/s
• Flechette = 450 m/s
• Frag = 150 m/s
• Slug = 300 m/s
• Reload times = 0.69 seconds mid-mag, 2.30 seconds from empty

(source: Symthic)

Weapon Assessment

This is actually a pretty solid weapon. I'll admit I was quite surprised at how decently it performed when I started using it because it's not a weapon you often see in the hands of many players. In terms of damage output, the DAO-12 can deal out a ton of punishment and hold its own with the other shotguns because of its 8-round revolver-style drum magazine, making it the shotgun with the highest ammo capacity in the game, tied with the MK3A1 which is a significantly worse weapon than the DAO-12. Personally, I found the DAO-12 quite versatile, depending on what ammunition and attachments you decide to use, the shotgun can perform various roles, from close-quarters devastator to accurate long-range powerhouse.

Recommended Attachments

• Iron Sights
• Extended Magazine 
• Buckshot

For a down-and-dirty fight in the trenches, the iron sights serve well for the kind of range where you'll be engaging your enemies while the extended magazine gives you a whopping 12 rounds of 12-gauge goodness to spread around. Buckshot provides a large spread, allowing you to potentially damage and kill multiple enemies in quick succession.

• IRNV 
• Flash Suppressor
• Slug

For anything other than a close-up battle, this is the kit to go with. The IRNV may seem like a strange choice considering the epic nerfing it has endured following accusations of it being too overpowered, but it's excellent for spotting hard to see targets, particularly in dark areas although it gets difficult at range. If you keep watching the screen and paying attention, however, you should be able to spot most enemies when they are hiding or blending in with the environment. The flash suppressor helps you to reduce recoil, allowing you to fire quick follow-up shots in order to dispatch of your opponent as quickly and cleanly as possible. Finally, the slugs give immense firepower and range at very little cost and as such, should be used at all times except with the situations reported earlier. 

Weapons of Battlefield 3: PDW-R

Hello fictional readers! Welcome back to another instalment of Weapons Of, again in the brown backgrounds and blue-tint combat zones of Battlefield 3. Today, I'll be covering a brilliant weapon, the PDW-R. Just an update on the RPK-74M, I managed to successfully master the rather difficult and inconsistent LMG, scoring five service stars and a mastery dog tag in the process. Now, on to more pleasant weaponry with the PDW-R.

Background:
The Magpul Personal Defense Rifle (PDR), called the PDW-R in-game, is a personal defense weapon (PDW) currently in development at Magpul Industries. Chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, the PDR is an interesting PDW because it doesn't use a proprietary rifle round, although this could be due to the fact that Magpul doesn't actually have a proprietary round, unlike Heckler and Koch's MP7 which uses 4.6x30mm round or Fabrique National's P90 which is chambered in 5.7x28mm. The sleek, futuristic ultra-compact bullpup is a traditional PDW at heart though, aiming to bring immense firepower and range to its wielder in a small, manoeuvrable frame. With its ergonomic design, compatibility with standard STANAG magazines and ultra-compact frame, the PDR is definitely in a class of its own when it comes to PDW design.

(source: Wikipedia)

Statistics:

• Ammo capacity = 20 rounds (standard, +1 in the chamber during mid-mag reloads), 30 rounds (extended magazine, +1 in the chamber)
• Damage = 25 maximum dropping in a linear pattern to 14.3 minimum at 50 metres onwards
• Rate of fire = 750 RPM
• Bullet velocity = 430 m/s
• Reload times = 2.50 mid-mag, 3.40 empty

(source: Symthic)

Weapon Assessment:

This is one hell of a weapon. I don't know what it is about this gun but I've been doing fantastically well with the PDW-R scoring lots of kills with only a few deaths in return. The low recoil is remarkable, the amount of firepower you get is ridiculous and the fire rate is just perfect. Excellent in close quarters and medium-range combat, I'd recommend this weapon for most standard engagements in Rush, Conquest, TDM, SQDM or whatever game mode tickles your fancy. Although I dislike the playstyle, I found the PDW-R well-suited to running-and-gunning, it has fantastic hipfire accuracy and the reload times are really forgiving, making it well-suited for the soldier looking to race through the battlefield. The only issue I found with this weapon was that I kept running out of ammo because I kept killing so many people, even though I had squad ammo on as a specialisation.

Recommended Attachments:

• EoTech Holographic Sight 
• Laser Sight
• Extended Magazine

While the iron sights for the weapon are fairly good and since the weapon's effective range tends towards close-quarters battle, I would recommend going with the EoTech from an aesthetic perspective, as it lends itself well to the futuristic look and feel of the weapon as well as giving the player a slight zoom when aiming down sights when compared to iron sights. The PKA-S would provide the same function but unlike the EoTech, it takes up a fair amount of screen room and really detracts from the player's peripheral vision. The laser sight is to help with hipfire accuracy when you come across an enemy quite suddenly and have no time to aim down sight, a common occurrence because this weapon really lends itself well to moving quickly around the map, taking out targets on the way to the objective, or as an objective in TDM and SQDM. For the last attachment, the extended magazine is a must to balance out the weapon's fairly high rate of fire, allowing you to engage more targets without reloading constantly, which you will be doing if you stick with the standard 20-round magazine.

Weapons of Battlefield 3: RPK-74M

Welcome readers, if you exist outside my imagination, to a new series covering the various firearms that appear in various video games, mostly providing recommendations regarding the best ways of using them, particularly in the fast-paced world of modern multiplayer video games. Today we'll be covering the RPK-74M since I'm trying to get the Mastery Dog Tag for it in Battlefield 3. Hopefully, if I can scrounge up funds, I can buy a DVR and editing software to make some videos that complement the text.

Let's start with some background then move on to some basic statistics and numbers (yay, numbers!) before I give my recommended loadout. Before you go out and try my recommendation then come back screaming because it doesn't work, let me remind you I am in no way an expert or the best Battlefield player in the world. I'm an enthusiast and I recommend the loadout that works out the best for me, it might not suit your particular style of play but as an average player, I reckon it should fit most people just fine.

Background:
The RPK-74M was a product of modernisation in the Russian army during the 1970s, transitioning from the big and beefy 7.62x39mm to the relatively small 5.45x39mm, the same cartridge used in the AK-74M. This modernisation and tendency towards smaller cartridges was reflected at the same time in the rest of the world with China moving from the 7.62x39mm round towards the 5.8x42mm DBP87 round and the West moving from the 7.62x51mm NATO round towards the 5.56x45mm NATO round. In terms of design, the RPK-74M is basically an AK-74M with a longer and heavier barrel, a bipod, raised front sight as well as a special 45-round box magazine, although it can also accept the normal 30-round AK74 magazines, for better performance during sustained fire.

(source: Wikipedia)

Statistics:

• Ammo capacity = 45 rounds (+1 in the chamber when doing a mid-magazine reload)
• Damage = Maximum of 25 dropping in a linear pattern to a minimum of 18.4 from 50 metres onwards
• Fire rate = 700 RPM (rounds per minute)
• Bullet velocity = 600 m/s (metres/second)
• Reload times = 3.00 seconds with at least one round in the chamber, 4.00 seconds from empty

(source: Symthic)

Weapon Assessment:
I'm not particularly fond of the RPK as a light machine gun because it has a small magazine capacity in comparison to other weapons in the same class save the M27 IAR, meaning it has less suppressive capabilities than say the M249 or PKP Pecheneg. However, if you think of it as an assault rifle with a higher magazine capacity and utilise it in this manner, there is quite a lot to like about this gun. First of all, the recoil is relatively low, in comparison to other weapons in its class which makes this a prime candidate for accurate fire. While the comparatively small magazine might seem like a disadvantage, if you aim and use small bursts to increase your accuracy, then this becomes a potent mid-range weapon. Sustained fire isn't too bad but the problem is that you have to keep reloading unless you have extended magazines but even then, I wouldn't recommend using it like a proper LMG, you'll eat up all your ammo and waste valuable time reloading. Running and gunning with the RPK isn't a particularly good idea because the hip fire spread is all over the place and it's a little slow to bring to bear. What you want to do is move cover to cover and firing only when stationary rather than when in motion.

Recommended Attachments:

• Kobra Red Dot Sight
• Bipod
• Flash Suppressor

The Kobra RDS is probably your best choice for optics because the sight itself is relatively unintrusive and gives a much better sightline than iron sights. Compared to the other sights, this takes up the least room which means you get a clearer view of your peripherals. The bipod is excellent for when you need accurate sustained fire while remaining stationary and more useful than the foregrip which helps manage side-to-side recoil but is ultimately pointless since the side-to-side recoil is very manageable and gives you a penalty when aiming down sight. The flash suppressor provides a reduction in vertical recoil and helps mask your weapon's flash when firing, allowing you to stay visually hidden from your enemies, provided you have good cover.

Battlefield 3 Field Notes: We Must Be Supersoldiers

Hello readers, welcome back to another installment of Field Notes! This time, we're headed back to the bright and ridiculously lens-flare prone Battlefield to examine what the player-character in multiplayer actually is. To help break up the monotony of text, there's a video in the middle somewhere, enjoy!

Have you ever considered that the troops in Battlefield 3, on both the US and Russian sides are basically supersoldiers? Let me give you a run down of why I think this might be the case. First, these guys absorb bullets like the various types of rounds are made out of rubber or some sort of material that hurts you but doesn't kill you. Second, when they do get shot, they have healing factors that can be accelerated by standing around an unopened box of medical supplies. Then there's the issue of explosives apparently doing very little damage to the player other than taking down their health if there's enough distance between the player and the explosion. If I remember correctly, explosions typically involve shrapnel which could hit a major artery and lead to heavy bleeding or at least ruin the use of limbs and a rather powerful shockwave that has the capacity to turn people deaf without proper ear protection (I suppose this is mitigated by the fact that most soldiers wear a form of hearing protection) and occasionally break some bones.


Then, there's the ridiculous weapon proficiency that each soldier seems to have. Arguably, a gun is a gun and there probably won't be too much of a problem wielding various firearms if you're trained in using one already but each gun tends to have different characteristics that would probably take some getting used to. For example, in the Assault class, you can use a conventional assault rifle like the Colt M16A3 or a bullpup like the FN F2000. While most weapons operate on roughly the same principles (i.e. point the gun, pull the trigger, lead spits out the barrel towards where you point), I suspect it would be difficult to operate one weapon from the other especially when you were trained for one design and not the other. Keeping with this example, reloading would be a confusing mess for a pretty long time since your muscle memory from using the M16 would influence you to load the magazine up front when the well is at the back on the F2000. Then, there's the issue of compensating for fire rate and recoil, which isn't too bad in terms of recoil for the M16 and F2000 but the fire rate would be a different story since the F2000 fires significantly faster that M16. Imagine the difference in recoil though between a 5.56x45mm rifle like the M16 and a 7.62x51mm battle rifle like the G3A3, I suspect it'd be a bit harder to handle the 7.62 when firing full-auto even though it has a significantly lower rate of fire.

Alright, maybe that last bit was a little too much of a gripe and realistically, you could use most guns if you know how to use one in general. However, the fact that you are apparently trained in using all sorts of vehicles is definitely ridiculous. Apparently, the player-character has received training in piloting helicopters (transport, attack and scout varieties regardless of the faction), piloting planes (fighters and ground-attack varieties, again regardless of faction), driving and manning the weapons system on tanks, driving and using the weapons systems on IFVs/APCs, driving land transport (fast reconnaissance vehicles and personnel carriers) and driving water transport (boats mostly). Man, the US Marine Corps and Russian Army are made up of some really talented, or ridiculously well-trained people, especially since their troops apparently have the capability to use all sorts of vehicles and weapons systems.

I realise that Battlefield 3 is nowhere near realistic but it's still pretty hilarious if you think about how insane all the mechanics in the game work if you apply some semblance of realism or logic to it.

Battlefield 3 Field Notes: Re-Enlisted

Hello readers, if you exist outside my mind, at least, I like to think I actually have readers although that's probably wishful thinking. To celebrate the upcoming release of Battlefield 4 and because I felt like getting back to it, I'm playing Battlefield 3 again after nearly a year away from it and let me tell you, post-patches, Battlefield 3 is a vastly different game. This will be a semi-regular series written in both a meta-universe and in-universe style, varying depending on the content. For example, this introductory post will be about the game while the next one might be about a specific match/battle or vehicles and weapons. It's largely practice for my skills or lack thereof in creative writing.

The first match back and I've realised I've lost all semblance of motor control in a first-person shooter. I'm not the best video gamer, most of my friends will tell you that, but I like to think that I'm skilled enough to move an analog stick around but my reflexes have gone to hell after playing so many third-person shooters and fighting games for the past year. Some things I haven't lost, though, I still spam the select button to spot enemies for my teammates, a force of habit from my Bad Company days. Also, I'm still fairly proficient with vehicles. I can drive a tank and engage enemies with the best of them and I got skills when it comes to helicopter flying. Let's not talk about jet flying though. Before I took a break from the battlefield, I could barely fly a jet let alone dogfight properly. I tried flying one by spawning in a FA/18 Super Hornet and I basically crashed into the aircraft carrier when trying to takeoff.

Still, my performance wasn't too bad for a soldier off the battlefield for a year or so. Managed to get a decent score, fifth overall and third on my team. KDR doesn't mean jack on Battlefield but I managed to get better than 1.00 KDR, which is an achievement for me since I die most of the time trying to arm MCOMS or capping flags. PTFO, right? People are mostly the same though. They run down the middle and are pretty predictable. It was pretty much a massacre for the enemy team because they were headstrong and kept pushing down the middle. I never understood that mindset. As a rather poor combatant, I've always used varying tactics to outwit rather than outfight the enemy. An exposed flank is basically death to half an enemy team or more. I mean, if you slap a suppressor on your weapon and sneak in from their side and get the enemy from behind, they have little time to react and even if they take you down, you would have taken a fair chunk without them noticing or reacting quick enough.

Weapons-wise, I'm sticking to my 5 Service Star quest whereby I try out every weapon until I get 500 kills so as to unlock the dog tags for it. The current weapon I'm working on is the FAMAS and that thing has been nerfed to oblivion. No other way to put it. Usually, DICE does a great job in balancing weapons but man, they really made this thing terrible. When Back to Karkand first came out and the FAMAS got unlocked, it was a pretty popular weapon. A nimble, fast-firing and devastating close-quarters weapon. Now, it's got a ridiculously high rate of fire coupled with a small magazine, a long reload time and ridiculous recoil. The only way to use this thing is to walk right up to an enemy and pull the trigger. No need to aim, the recoil is way too difficult to control. Most guns I can develop an understanding of and a tactic to compensate for its weaknesses but this gun has too many to count. This is going to be a long 5 Service Stars.

I didn't play too many matches but I did have a lot of fun and now I remember why I love the Battlefield series so much. There'll be more Field Notes for Battlefield 3 and other games that fit the theme in the near future and until then, we've got a few awesome articles on the way. This is Renegade Sandwich, signing off.

E3 2013 Watch

The Electronic Entertainment Expo, or E3 for short, only starts tomorrow, but the hype -- which has already begun -- is palpable.

This year's show is definitely one to watch with the next generation of consoles and the announcement of their highly anticipated titles. Personally, Murdered: Soul Suspect has already started pinging on my sonar but I can't wait to see what is in store this E3. I'm expecting a lot from E3 this year, but I have a feeling the unexpected will resonate with the biggest impact. It's a busy time for university students in Australia, with examinations and assignments, but even that can't kill the enthusiasm we have here on the blog. We'll be updating this post with all the developments we see buzzing on the Internet.

We're not reporters, we're not even at E3 2013. We'll be biased, we probably won't see everything there is to see at E3. But we hope you'll join us in the excitement of the biggest video-game and tech show the world has to offer.

_{*note: our thoughts may differ from yours, so share your thoughts in the comment box below beginning with the day followed by the subject.}

LAST UPDATE: 11 June 2013 11.00am

Call of Duty: Ghosts
10 June 2013


-bernt_toast

This morning, two gameplay videos were revealed from an Activision pre-E3 special. A few details came through, especially of Riley your canine companion. The footage took place in two levels were seen snippets of before, the underwater mission and the mission in a cataclysm-ravaged America. During the latter mission, it seems as though the player was controlling Riley (via an attached canine camera) but I'd like to think that he's merely guiding Riley rather than directly inputting commands.
The footage, while nothing compared to the beautiful graphics we've seen on next-gen, looked great. I mean, they have to balance it out considering they're developing for current and next-gen. It implies epic set-piece moments, and fine pacing. Can't wait to see and hear more!


- Renegade Sandwich

I'm going to disagree with you, buddy. It's Call of Duty through and through. The graphics are a nice update from Modern Warfare 3 and Black Ops II but it still doesn't look as good as Crysis, which is a current-gen game (arguable) and the benchmark for all good graphics. With something as powerful as the Xbox One or the PS4, you'd think they'd at least try to make a bigger graphical leap instead of trying to retain that awe-inspiring 60 frames per second. Gameplay wise, nothing new. Only thing interesting to me was the use of the APS underwater assault rifle, that's a Russian-made bolt gun created specifically to work underwater, it's nice that they actually used that instead of some random weapon that shoots underwater even though really, it can't. I'll wait until the game is actually released to make a definite judgement but it's not on my sonar at the moment. On the Riley front, it's explained as them giving him instructions like a real-life SEAL canine unit but it's pretty much you controlling Riley like a drone.

Watch_Dogs
10 June 2013


- Renegade Sandwich

This is my pick for the game to watch for this year's E3. Ubisoft Montreal working on an open-world game set in the future and basically allowing you to hack an entire city? Yes please! I think my favourite thing about Watch_Dogs so far is that it looks like a playable version of Person of Interest, one of my favourite TV shows on at the moment. The gameplay looks superb, allowing you to be both the bad-ass John Reese while wielding technology like the eccentric Harold Finch. The co-op element which hasn't really been shown but has been mentioned is also intriguing as it allows two players to run around Chicago wreaking havoc on the CtOS. Looks and sounds very much like my kind of game.

Kingdom Hearts 1.5 ReMIX
11 June 2013


-Brancake

Alright. As the only Kingdom Hearts fan in the entire blogosphere of awesome blogs, I've got to say that I've been waiting for this remake ever since I got my hands on a PS3. In fact, I was sold on the PS3 ever since I played the first 2 KH games. I'm still waiting on the next release. Yes, I've played the PSP and DS continuations of the story but damn it I will not watch my beloved franchise die. This HD remake of Kingdom Hearts 1 & Re:Chain of Memories will satiate my fan hunger. For now.

If its anything like the Zone of Enders 1 & 2 HD remake, I know that it will satisfy fans everywhere too. This is a game that makes you invest in the characters, like emotionally. It's got half of Disney in it for goodness sake. It's the only opportunity I have to relive my childhood while feeding my desire to mash buttons and kill demons. No, it is not a 'new' game. But it is a big game, with a lot of post game and replay value, and an original game, almost a classic in its own right. The remastered cinematic scenes (you know you're getting quality stuff from Square Enix) can be played in theatre mode and up to 66 tracks have been remade with REAL instruments.

It's just a game you say. Obsession is not a good thing Brancake you say. NO MOM This is a franchise that has been under so much uncertainty and taken so much risk in its conception that it deserves to be valued. Decades into the future, Kingdom Hearts will be our Mona Lisa, our Picasso, our Van Gogh, unappreciated in its time but nonetheless a work of magnificent beauty.

It looks like this game...(puts on sunglasses)...has unlocked the Kingdom to my heart. YEAAAAHHHHHH!

No but seriously I want to play the shit out of this game.

Battlefield 4
June 11, 2013


- Renegade Sandwich

DICE has once again demonstrated why they are one of the all-time greats in the business. Wow, just wow. That gameplay demo for the mission, Angry Seas, and the live multiplayer demo sold Battlefield 4 again to me. I was going to pick it up anyway because I love the series and DICE but man, that makes me want to buy the game twice. For now, it seems that the Swedes have taken it up a notch with the return of Commander Mode integrated with a tablet, no less, and destructible environments on a massive scale. Brilliant, just brilliant. The single-player is shaping up to be a lot stronger than the disappointing Battlefield 3 campaign but only time will tell, really. Also, Michael K. Williams (of The Wire fame) as one of your squadmates? Count me in!

Kingdom Hearts 3 & Final Fantasy XV
June 12, 2013


- Brancake

As you can see from my posts above, I am now officially one happy camper. KH 3 is announced in development. This is not a drill. My long awaited beloved is back in the developer's loving embrace, for a potential 2014 (but realistic 2015 IMHO) release. That said, I've still got a long way to wait seeing how they kept moving FF Versus XIII  (which is now FF XV, proving the rumours right) back from 'this is an early PS3 game' to 'this is an early PS4 game'.

From what I can see in the trailer, its everything you would expect for a revamped continuation of a classic - newer, finer detailing, familiar art direction and a similar battle mechanic. However, Square Enix has acquired a flair for improving sequels while keeping the things that make the game so enjoyable in tact, so this game is in good hands.

There is still uncertainty. But for a moment crystallised in time the fans will have received a new hope. A new beginning. If there ever was a time where KH fans everywhere had to take action, that time is now. Or yesterday. Or potentially in three days time. Basically, we need to start a riot demanding Square Enix to finish what it started or so help me I will burn every copy of every Final Fantasy to the ground. I will not raise my hopes and dreams into the palms of your hands just to see you crush them.

In other news, FF XV was also announced to be in development (again), but it looks like they are one step closer to climbing out of development hell. Not much has changed from the first announcement in 2006, besides a new trailer and a new title. Still, the idea of an FF in the realistic modern present day (-ish) is an invigorating one and one I am still anxious to see.

---

E3 2013
The Electronic Entertainment Expo
11.06.2013 - 14.06.2013

The Backlash against Microtransactions: Why It's Immature and Wrong

Hola readers, if there are any that actually come here regularly. Sorry for the lack of updates in recent weeks, it's taking a very long time to write the multiplayer review for Black Ops II because I want to be as detailed and impartial as possible, leading to a lot of editing and a lot of editorial changes to the review. To placate any regular readers, which I'm sure there are none, I thought I'd write a small opinion piece on the recent furore against microtransactions following their introduction to Dead Space 3 and EA's Chief Financial Officer announcing that all their future games will include microtransactions before taking it back about a day ago. Once again, this is my opinion and for the conspiracy enthusiasts among you, I am not paid by any video game companies (although I wish it were the case) to defend them or promote their products.

A Brief Background on the Kerfuffle
Before we get to the meat of the issue, let's talk about what microtransactions are in the first place. As I understand them, microtransactions involve a system with a game, usually a free-to-play game, that allows players to purchase virtual items like weapons, vehicles, equipment or hats for real-life money. Aside from a few jabs at so-called freemium games, a portmanteau of free and premium, usually criticising the idea that players could feasibly skip the whole experience grind and just pay to get better equipment for their characters, microtransactions have been largely uncontroversial in the video game community.

The catalyst for all the hate and rage against the corporate machine stems from EA's decision to incorporate microtransactions into Dead Space 3, a full-priced retail game. Most of the criticism directed at EA involved the usual spiel of them being money-grubbing corporate leeches who were trying to drain gamers of their hard-earned cash. The more reasonable members of the gaming community pointed out that these purchases were entirely optional. The thing that infuriates me the most about this latest expression of what I like to call "gamer's entitlement" is that all the anger is directed at something that hasn't been controversial in the least in other games like Battlefield 3, Assassin's Creed III, Need for Speed, World of Warcraft, League of Legends but suddenly becomes a huge issue when a single-player game published by EA is involved? I mean, come on, even Xbox Live uses microtransactions when you want to customise your Avatar. So, gamers are okay when they can pay to win when fighting other players but get pissed when they can pay to win against AI?

Again, rather predictably, gamers are up-in-arms at EA and have been calling their brethren to boycott all EA games until they fix this travesty and remove microtransactions as a concept, damning it to the dustbin of video game history.

Why is Hating Microtransactions Immature and Wrong?
In short, because it's an optional payment. Let me put this in a way that some of the less mature gamers can understand. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE PART IN THE MICROTRANSACTIONS TO ENJOY THE GAME. The whole point of microtransactions is that they are optional whereby people can choose to pay a small amount of money to give them a headstart in the game. If you want to go through the grind as part of your experience, then by all means, do it. Look, I'm not a fan for paying for virtual items in a game with legal tender but I genuinely couldn't give a toss if someone else decides they need cooler hats in Team Fortress 2 or more resources in Dead Space 3. The brilliant thing about video games is that people can enjoy different parts of the game or enjoy playing the game in any number of ways. To highlight how illogical all this misplaced hate is, I'll use an example. Imagine for a second, you are a person who dislikes bananas. One day, you see someone who is eating a banana. You then proceed to walk up to them, complain that bananas are the root of all evil and promptly give the banana a dressing down for being a waste of money even though you haven't spent a single dollar of your own money on it.

Actually, if you think about it, gamers should love microtransactions because they help to subsidise games and keeping them at the normal retail price of $60. Think about it. Why would companies jump on the microtransaction bandwagon unless they knew that it was a surefire way for them to make more money? If that's the case, it'd go a long way to help retail games stay at a fairly reasonable price since publishers have found a brand-new way to keep their profit margins without bumping up the prices and chasing away all their customers. If you still think that's money-grubbing and don't want to have anything to do with microtransactions, then, fine, boycott the entire catalogue of games published by EA, even if you do enjoy some of their other games. To take it further, why don't you boycott games by other publishers that use microtransactions as well? Why not boycott Ubisoft or Activision Blizzard? To use another stupid example, it'd be like boycotting a Quarter Pounder because McDonald's charges more for extra patties in a Big Mac.

Look, I'm happy for people to have their opinion regarding microtransactions. It's fine that people don't trust it and think that it shouldn't be part of video games. I respect that. What I cannot respect is the sheep-like response of the community in general who are basically painting microtransactions as the arrival of the Anti-Christ of gaming. As a nickel and dime gamer myself, I understand the desire not to have to spend extra money to play a game but why care about microtransactions if they aren't hurting you personally. Sure, someone else's wallet might take a hit but does that really affect you? If you say that in multiplayer games, it could give the p-l-ayer (pun intended) an unfair advantage, then you're dead wrong. Developers nowadays understand the need for balance and tend to balance their multiplayer games extremely well. If the things that people get from microtransactions are overpowered though, you don't have to wait long for the community outrage and the resulting patch nerfing that item. Also, don't forget that because these players have paid for the equipment, they never underwent the grind to get them which means more likely than not, they haven't picked up any new skills or improved their ability along the way.

Conclusion
Anyway, that's my two cents on the issue. If you want more in-depth discussion and detailed analysis, you can buy the Additional Information Article Pack for the low price of $5.00. Just kidding. The next article will likely be the multiplayer review of Black Ops II, to be published some time in the near future. Until then.

Renegade Sandwich, out.

Medal of Honor Warfighter Multiplayer Review (PS3)

"For Queen and Country."

This post contains Part 2 of my Warfighter review, this time focusing exclusively on multiplayer.  Now, this is going to be a proper scrum. At its core, Warfighter is a very solid shooter using pre-established mechanics but adding its own little twists to the first person shooter genre.

 

Multiplayer

Gameplay

Like in single-player, the controls for Warfighter are precise, intuitive and generally well thought-out. In terms of movement, Warfighter employs three fairly unique (for the FPS genre in general and if considered as appearing together in a single game rather than multiple games) gameplay mechanics in the form of leaning, sliding and diving. The lean mechanic present in singleplayer is also present in multiplayer and is just as useful for checking a corner before proceeding or leaning out of cover to take a few potshots at the enemy. There's also the option to slide into cover or dive into cover by either tapping or holding the crouch button while running. Sliding or diving is great for escaping a firefight if there's cover readily available and also provides some pretty hilarious ragdoll physics if you're killed while performing said slide or dive during the killfeed. As well as that, sliding can be insanely fun to use, sometimes resulting in some pretty spectacular kills if employed properly. 

Having gotten the controls and mechanics out of the way, let's turn to some discussion about Warfighter's multiplayer. The biggest selling point of the multiplayer for me was the ability to play as various special forces units from around the world. While the differences between said units is quite superficial in that they only have different accents, languages and appearances, it is a step in the right direction as it recognises that the United States isn't the only country with special forces. On a more personal note, it's nice not to play all the time on the Western good guy faction or on the ethnic or Russian bad guy faction. Furthermore, the units picked to appear in the game represent what are basically the most important special forces units due to their recent activities and contributions in the War on Terror (which is what the game is examining, in case anyone wasn't paying attention). As well as representing a realistic take on the factions involved in the War on Terror, these different units from all over the world also inspire the sense of nationalism and patriotism that is brought out by war. This is further enhanced by Warfighter Nations which is run on Battlelog and basically encourages competition between nations through the contribution of tokens earned while playing multiplayer. While Warfighter Nations is nothing innovative or awe-inspiring, it is an interesting integration of the multiplayer conception of national competition on a more global scale.

Continuing with the talk about the national units, there are some distinct features that separate the different factions although they are few and far in between. One of the distinctions I noted was in the way that different operators from different countries handled their weapons. For example, when reloading with a magazine that still contained ammunition, the Polish GROM operator would take out a fresh magazine pointed downwards then hold it next to the magazine already attached to the gun which they would then detach and flip upside down so that they could insert the fresh magazine before keeping the half-empty magazine. Meanwhile, the American Navy SEAL operator would just detach the half-empty magazine, keep it then take a fresh magazine and insert it into the gun. On a side note, it's pretty clear that Danger Close has invested a lot of effort, time and passion into this game as there are so many little details that people don't necessarily pay attention to such as the use of Mechanix Workwear gloves (reportedly favoured by most special forces operators), the different types of grips that operators use when holding their weapon and the types of camouflage used by different countries. It's in these little details that Warfighter truly shines through.

Next up, I'll talk about the classes. The types of soldiers you can use are subdivided into six classes with their own individual appearances and special abilities. There's the sniper who, unsurprisingly, wields a sniper rifle and whose special ability consists a remote spotter that helps players spot enemies when the bipod is deployed. In addition to the sniper, there is the assault class which employs assault rifles and has a 40mm grenade launcher as his special ability. Next up is the demolition class which uses sub-machine guns and shotguns as well as having the special ability to deploy ballistic armour which gives them extra protection from gunfire and explosions. Following that, there's the heavy gunner who is armed with a machine gun and has the ability to deploy a bipod for said machine gun which gives it unlimited ammunition (but does still overheat). The point man is armed with assault rifles as well but has the ability to use Heavy Hitters (a special type of ammunition that does more damage but causes higher recoil). Finally, there's the spec ops class which uses carbines and has a very special ability called Signal Scan which gives the player a brief thermal vision sort-of thing where you can see through cover to where enemies are. All in all, the classes feel balanced and cater to all kinds of playstyles. If you want to run and gun, then you can use the point man or spec ops classes as they have the edge in speed over the other classes. If you want an all-rounder that can hit at most ranges if used carefully, then look no further than the assaulter. Maybe you want to stay in one-spot and provide covering fire for your teammates? If that's you, then the sniper or heavy gunner are right for you. What's that? You want to be a tank and draw fire for your teammates? That's possible with the demolition class!

From a tactical perspective, Warfighter gives you some sense of freedom to approach a problem from your own angle albeit in a more limited fashion than say Battlefield. However, just like Battlefield, the game rewards skill and strategy over firepower. In my experience with the game, approaching a situation cautiously and taking time out to analyse the situation and formulating a plan usually ends better than running in blindly. Another thing I noticed is that accuracy plays an extremely big factor in helping players to win a firefight. From the 20-30 hours I've sunk into the game, I've found that aiming down sights before opening fire usually ends up with me coming out of the firefight alive. Another tactical component available in multiplayer is the ability to use support actions that can be unlocked through achieving a certain amount of points through kills or objective-based actions. There are 4 levels of support actions divided into offensive actions and defensive actions that differ with each class with the exception of the last support action which is always a controllable Apache helicopter gunship. The support actions feel a little more balanced than the killstreaks present in Call of Duty as most of them aren't powerhouse offensive weapons that can basically wipe out the other team. Furthermore, the game incentivises players to use defensive streaks more than offensive streaks since they provide more points and are usually more beneficial to the entire team. That is not to say that offensive actions are lame, they're pretty potent in the right hands. One well-placed cluster bomb and you can take out the entire enemy team guarding an objective.

In terms of gunplay, Warfighter excels as it really provides a sense of satisfaction when you manage to kill another player. Unlike other first-person shooters, the damage profiles are slightly different in that it requires more hits to kill. While this is a strange tweak to the genre, it does provide more intense and satisfying firefights which require skill and accuracy rather than raw power provided by the guns themselves. Meleeing is fairly well balanced as it takes time to actually swing the tomahawk and said tomahawk will only kill in one hit if you manage to sneak up behind or beside an enemy and activate the execution animation. The one thing that does bug me about the gunplay is the MacMillan TAC-50 which is a .50 calibre sniper rifle available to the sniper class as it literally takes only one shot to kill from the torso upwards. While there is nothing wrong with a gun with such high damage, the problem is that the gun is far too easy to use. The scope sway is manageable, the scope-in time is the same as other rifles, the accuracy is pretty much dead-on, racking the bolt takes about the same time as other rifles and the reload speed is fairly the same as well. Now, the ease of using the gun presents a problem because it provides no incentive for snipers to use any other weapon available. Dare I say it? Yes, I do. It is overpowered and using it is just cheap.

Keeping on the topic of guns, there is a pretty good variety of guns and a ludicrously deep level of customisation. In addition to that, each gun is given its own individual identity in the way it handles and sounds. However, while there is a fairly wide variety of guns, I was a little disappointed to find that a lot of the units used the same gun. To be fair, the guns came with different attachments and customisations to make them look and feel different but it would have been nice to see more guns. Another thing that irked me was how some of the weapons used by the different national units didn't match the weapons used in real-life. Although to be fair, if Danger Close did give them the weapons they actually used in real life, most of them would be using the M4 or some variant of it. However, what we do get in return is the partnership between Danger Close and various weapons and attachment manufacturers which allowed them unparalleled access to authentic weapons and gear although they aren't really in service with some of the units in real-life. To me though, it feels like Danger Close did pay attention to the details and made the guns as realistic as possible. In terms of customisation, it is ludicruously deep in the sense that you can customise everything from the scope to the stock to the barrel as well as being able to add attachments. It gives you the ability to basically build a gun any way you want it or perhaps the way you need it. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it feels like the game is giving you a sense of individuality, a way to distinguish yourself from the pack, much like a special operator could. The one thing that irked me about weapons and weapon design was the provision of unlimited ammunition for sidearms. While this proved useful in extended firefights and after running out of ammunition for my primary weapon, it took away from what is a quite realistic experience. Furthermore, one of the sidearms is a Remington 870 MCS shotgun which is pretty potent and can be used to deadly effect with basically no curtail except maybe in range which is still quite good for a shotgun. 

Moving on, the game modes are the same basic game modes you would usually see in a first person shooter. There's Team Deathmatch, Combat Mission (it's like Rush mode in Battlefield), Homerun (basically Capture the Flag with the twist of only one life per round), Sector Control (Domination), Hotspot (similar to Combat Mission where opposing teams try to win 3 rounds out of 5) and Real Ops (Hardcore). Most of these modes do require quite a lot of teamwork and this is where the Fireteam Buddy system comes in. Your Fireteam Buddy is basically your best friend in the game. You can fully replenish your ammunition and instantly heal yourself by interacting with him as well as having the really useful option of spawning on him instead of spawning all the way back at the other end of a map. In addition to that, you get additional points for killing enemies or having your buddy kill an enemy when you are in close proximity. While I am a huge fan of the Fireteam system, it does come across as very frustrating as the emphasis on teamwork makes it extremely difficult when saddled with a lone wolf as your Buddy. Most matches I played were with friends and were extremely satisfying as we worked together well and managed to outmanoeuvre and outgun the enemy through solid teamwork. However, there were also a lot of matches where I was playing with randoms that had no idea what teamwork meant. They would run off into the distance and refuse to stick to cover so I could spawn on them to help out. As well as that, I found myself forced to use my sidearm quite often because I would run out of ammunition for my main weapon and be unable to replenish ammo from my buddy who would be dead or all the way across the map.

Presentation
The graphics are alright but nowhere near as stunning as single-player or Battlefield 3 which shares the exact same engine. This disappointed me a little bit but as I've stated before, graphics don't really matter that much to me. The rendering of the weapons and equipment is superb though and that does claw back some points for the graphics department. While the maps tended to look alright, the game does tend to suffer some frame rate drops on certain maps when the action gets really hectic. As well as that, the screen sometimes has a white box that blocks out more than half your vision which can be extremely annoying.

In terms of audio, Warfighter once again excels in the music department as well as the sound department. Weapons sound like they are supposed to and bullets hit targets with a deafening thud. As well as that, range from the object making a sound also seems quite accurate whereby the nearer you are, the more details you can hear in the sound. The music borrows from the campaign and is as sharp and as beautiful as in the single-player portion of the game.

Probably the biggest problem with Warfighter is the user interface (UI) and heads-up display (HUD). They are hideously cluttered and contain way too much information for any player to handle. Furthermore, selecting or customising weapons and units is deeply confusing as the buttons to do so are counter-intuitive and difficult to get used to. The user interface is especially bad as it is confusing and extremely hard to figure out. The HUD fares no better as it presents a mass of information to take in which can be disconcerting when approaching a situation due to the vast amount of data you need to sort through quickly in your head before approaching a firefight.

Conclusion
Warfighter's multiplayer carves an interesting niche into the modern multiplayer first-person shooter market. In my opinion, it brings something unique to the table and does very well in trying to be its own game rather than a knock-off midpoint between Battlefield and Call of Duty.

Pros:
Excellent gameplay and gunplay.
Fantastic attention to detail.
Some of the best audio I've heard in a game for years.
The lean mechanic.
The Fireteam Buddy system and the teamwork it encourages.

Cons:
Unlimited ammunition for sidearms.
Graphics are a bit of a letdown.
Extremely cluttered and confusing UI and HUD.

Multiplayer Score = 40/50

Overall Score = 70/100

Medal of Honor: Warfighter Campaign Review (PS3)

"For Mother ... and for Rabbit." 

Medal of Honor: Warfighter (2012) is the sequel to Medal of Honor (2010), a modern reboot of the classic World War II Medal of Honor franchise. As a massive fan of the franchise, it's safe to say that Warfighter was one of my most anticipated  games of the year. Admittedly, the game has been out for a while now and this review is a little late to the party but certain circumstances have prevented me from acquiring the game until about a week ago. When I did get my hands on the game though, I can assure you that I put it through its paces and thoroughly tested both the campaign and the multiplayer.

For ease of reading and because I feel like it, I'm going to split the review up into campaign and multiplayer, with this post dedicated to the campaign while the next post will be devoted to multiplayer. Ready? Alright, ladies, time to deploy. 

  

Campaign

Story

The campaign of Medal of Honor: Warfighter primarily follows the exploits of a group of Navy SEALs with the overarching plot device being an explosive chemical substance known as PETN. The SEALs travel all across the world in an effort to stop a shadowy organisation led by an elusive leader  known as The Cleric (basically, a thinly-veiled reference to al-Qaeda and Osama bin-Laden) from being able to use the PETN. While the plot itself is a work of fiction, many of the individual missions are "ripped from the headlines", in that they are representations of real-world events. Warfighter sees the return of some familiar faces like Preacher (one of the player-characters), Mother, Voodoo and Dusty from the previous game while adding new ones like Stump (another player-character), Dingo and Tick.

In my opinion, the storyline for Warfighter is fairly well put-together and coherent if a little unbelievable. My main gripe is the chronological flashback structure of the first few missions which is not exactly confusing but seems ultimately pointless. I understand the flashback narrative as a plot device in that it attempts to create a sense of intrigue and mystery regarding the shadowy organisation behind the movement of the PETN. However, the story would probably flow a bit better and be a bit easier to understand (for the less attentive gamer) if they made the events in chronological order.

The main strength of the story, though, lies in the humanistic portrayal of the Tier 1 Operators, particularly Preacher and his interactions with his wife and child. This aspect of the story is played to devastating effect, in the sense that it shatters the illusion of these men as supersoldiers and reminds us that they are human too. As well as the relationship between Preacher and his family, the game explores the relationship between the SEALs themselves. Through the banter and little snippets of conversation between the SEALs during the cutscenes, we get to see the camaraderie and sense of fellowship shared by operators, reinforcing the idea that operators are at the end of the day, only human. Yet, at the same time, I find it extremely difficult to relate to the characters of Warfighter. Sure, the characters crack jokes and make smart quips about their line of work, but in the end, I wouldn't call them likeable. While Danger Close does succeed in humanising the warriors, there is still this sense that I'm on the outside looking in. This isn't necessarily bad as the main approach they seem to be taking with the series is telling the story of these operators. However, this is problematic with the player-characters as Danger Close tries to flesh Preacher out but is somehow always silent during gameplay and really only speaks quiet infrequently during cutscenes. This could be excused by Preacher's mannerisms with other characters which indicates that he is a quiet person. However, this cannot account for Stump's characterisation as he seems like a bit of a joker when he speaks with the rest of his teammates, yet, he is strangely quiet during gameplay even during breaks between combat. Understandably, the game is short and there is little time for character development and the genre isn't conducive to great characterisation, but it'd be nice if Danger Close took out the time to flesh out the player-characters a little bit more to make the game that much more believable and authentic, as they set out to do.

On a thematic level, Warfighter is ambitious in that the developers strived to make the game as realistic as possible (barring the occasional setpiece along the way) during actual gameplay while focusing on the human aspect during some cutscenes. The result is a sort of hybrid narrative with the gameplay representing what operators do while the cutscenes featuring Preacher's relationship with his family representing the consequences of what operators do.

Gameplay

Starting with the controller-side of gameplay, controls are extremely tight, intuitive and well thought-out. An interesting feature returning from Medal of Honor (2010) is the lean mechanic which is extremely useful on the harder levels. It also gives a sense of realistic movemement and fluidity when compared to other similar titles. Basically, the lean mechanic in Warfighter gives you the opportunity to limit your exposure to fire while engaging the enemy. It's absurd to think that well-trained military personnel would stick their entire body out from cover to open fire on the enemy before moving back into cover like in some more popular first-person shooters (ahem, ahem).

Combat, while featuring the run-of-the-mill shoot and scoot structure, is extremely intense on every level. The main reason for this is the intelligent enemy AI that presents quite a challenge to the player. These aren't your average bad guys who run into your line of fire and wait out in the open for you to pick them off. The enemies in this game use full advantage of the lean mechanic and stubbornly stick to cover to make your job that much harder. While the micro-destructability provided by the Frostbite 2 engine does allow you to chip away at their cover, by the time you manage to get a shot at them, these guys will have moved to better cover. As well as that, enemies operate as a cohesive unit rather than as individuals. They provide cover fire and suppression so that their comrades can move forward or flank you. However, the opposite could be said of your teammates. Your teammates, are quite simply retarded. In one level of the campaign, I left my controller on the table and watched the friendly AI try to clear the map of enemies and they failed disastrously. They would miss when shooting at enemies standing literally in front of them, shoot at non-existent targets, throw grenades at walls right in front of them and rather hilariously, shoot at whatever part of the environment that was their cover. This can be extremely frustrating on harder difficulties as the tons of enemies you seek to dispatch are pin-point accurate and can kill you in about three shots. It would be nice if I could depend on my teammates to take out at least a few enemies so that the missions wouldn't be so tedious.

An excellent break from combat (and your terrible teammates) is derived from the driving levels and sequences in various points of the campaign. The full driving levels are really fun and the little boat driving sequence near the end of one of the levels is simply exhilarating despite its length. The driving level in Dubai is a gem as it involves a very interesting and very ingenious stealth sequence that I thought also tied in very well with the narrative of that particular mission. The first driving sequence is no slouch either as you engage in a frantic chase of an enemy combatant through the busy streets of Karachi, Pakistan.

Presentation
In terms of graphics, there are some, I guess. Honestly, I'm not a technical wizard who can figure out how many frames per second or what the resolution is. From my amateur viewpoint though, the game looks fantastic. The cutscenes are rendered in extremely realistic and high quality animation where the characters look almost life-like, it's scary. The graphics within the game are good but not spectacular given the capabilities of the Frostbite 2 engine. Weapons look fantastic and add to the pseudo-realistic nature of the game.

The soundtrack, once again scored by Ramin Djawadi and featuring more of Linkin Park, is as good if not better than the soundtrack of the last game. What struck me the most about the music was how much it was a throwback to Medal of Honor (2010) while still maintaining a sense of originality about it. Personally, it seemed like the music reflected Warfighter quite well in that it relates to and draws from the last game while moving in its own direction for the future. As well as that, the music conveys a sense of emotionality that accentuates the game while still standing out as a great score. It's not music that takes the spotlight away from the subject but rather matches it extremely well while still being good enough to be recognised as good music outside the game.

Conclusion
Despite some bugs and the slightly mind-boggling narrative, I thoroughly enjoyed Warfighter's campaign to the extent that I'm still playing it now on the higher difficulties. To sum it up, I'll give a SparkNotes version of my review for those who have limited attention spans.

Pros:
Ambitious plot.
Great gameplay.
Excellent enemy AI.
Beautiful graphics in cutscenes.
Fantastic music.

Cons:
Confusing flashback structure in the first few missions.
Unrelatable characters.
Stupid friendly AI.
Game doesn't seem to utilise the full power of Frostbite 2.

Campaign Score: 30/50