Action = Game of the Year 2011

And the best Action game this year is...

Now that the year’s fast moving towards its end, we’ve come to the part where we honour the best of the best. We’ve categorized this year’s awards by genre and kicking off the festivities today is everyone’s favourite, the Action genre.  And the nominees are...  Gears of War 3 (Xbox360) Marcus Fenix and his Gears go out with a bang The third and final leg of Marcus Fenix’s journey may have been a tad predictable (as is with all sequels), but, it was an explosive end to the Gears of war trilogy. While gameplay largely stayed the same as previous iterations, Epic bumped up the production values, beefed up the visuals and dialed the set-pieces to 11. It was without a doubt, a violent, bloody and an unapologetic conclusion to one of the Xbox360’s most beloved first party titles.  Batman: Arkham City (Xbox360 PS3 PC) The Dark Knight brings his A game this year Arkham Asylum was a superb action game that managed to capture the essence of what it was to be the world’s greatest detective. With Arkham City, developer Rocksteady expanded on that mentality greatly with a quasi open-world structure, improved gameplay mechanics and enough super villains to give any serious fan a tent in his pants. Best licensed superhero game? We certainly seemed to think so.  inFamous 2 (PS3) Superheroes love their pensive poses inFamous  was a rather enjoyable game that allowed players to step into the boots of a supercharged courier, as he dished out justice by the kilowatts. inFamous 2 expanded upon its predecessor in every way with a brand new setting along with new and improved gameplay mechanics making it one of the most fun open world games, this year. The game’s also enjoying a rather long life span, thanks to the user generated content, courtesy of the game’s map editor.  Dead Space 2 (Xbox360 PS3 PC) Isaac Clarke, your life really sucks Few games can tread the fine line between action and horror and Dead Space 2 definitely tops that list. Moving out of the claustrophobic confines of the USG Ishimura, Dead Space 2 dragged players to a brand new setting, one that allowed developer, Visceral to incorporate some new gameplay elements, new weapons, newer enemies and breath-taking set pieces. The game even introduced a new multiplayer mode that really wasn’t all that bad.  Uncharted 3 (PS3) A day in the life of Nathan Drake I personally wasn’t too happy with Uncharted 3’s control scheme or the incessant spamming of grenades, but there’s no doubt about the fact that no one does cinematic action better than Naughty Dog. From an entire level that takes place aboard a ship on a turbulent sea to an intense mid-air fight aboard a plane that’s about to crash, this game fully immersed players into the deadly, yet thoroughly entertaining life of treasure hunter, Nathan Drake.

And the winner is... Batman: Arkham City (Xbox360 PS3 PC) Even though the PC port of this game was a complete mess, Batman definitely brought his ‘A’ game, this year. Expanding upon gameplay aspects that made millions fall in love with Arkham Asylum, Arkham City was a treat to everyone from serious Batman fans to action gamers in love with open world games. Arkham City was designed from the ground up to reflect the danger, dirt and corruption populating every street and it did so with much visual aplomb. It also offered players a plethora of diverse side activates to indulge in, while they made their way to the game’s antagonist, Dr. Hugo Strange.  The Winner! Besides the Dark Knight, gamers also got a chance to traverse the length and breadth of the game world as Catwoman. She was significantly weaker than Batman, but she brought her own set of feline and acrobatic moves to the table that made her segments an utter blast. We really hope she gets a spin-off real soon.  As you can see, Batman: Arkham City offers plenty of bang for your buck and is a shining example of licensing done right.

Read more »

Game of The Year 2011 - 1st person shooting

The best shooter this year is...

Now that we’re done with Action genre, it’s time to move onto first person shooters. And the nominees are: Crysis 2 (Xbox360 PS3 PC) Explore New York, Crysis 2 style Crysis 2 ditched its predecessor’s island setting in favour of a more urban one with New York City. Granted the game was a lot smaller in size, but this change in direction allowed developer Crytek to craft one of the most beautiful game worlds, out there. The AI populating this game world was unfortunately dumb as hell, but that didn’t make kicking butt in an augmented Nano suit any less fun.  Battlefield 3 (Xbox360 PS3 PC) Time to get your battle on After all the trailers and the trash talk, DICE and EA finally managed to deliver a superior military shooter experience this year. Sure, the single player campaign felt a bit contrived, but you never really play a Battlefield game for its story; you play it for its addictive, persistent multiplayer that delivered the goods in spades. And it really helps that all this is neatly wrapped up in a very technically impressive package.  Portal 2 (Xbox360 PS3 PC) Oh there you are Even though Portal 2 was not exactly a shooter, it was one of the most entertaining puzzle games played from a first person perspective. Picking up directly from where the sequel left off, Portal 2 amped up the puzzles, introduced a ton of new gameplay elements and even added in a stand-alone, co-operative play into the mix. We were a bit skeptical about how co-op would work in the Portal universe, but rest assured, it’s the cleverest implementation we’ve seen till date. Bulletstorm (Xbox360 PS3 PC) My foot, your butt Bulletstorm was an ode to old school first person shooters developed by none other than People can Fly, the guys behind the original Painkiller. The game was juvenile, crude and a bit low on the whole story front, but it made up for that in leaps and bounds with explosive, balls-to-the-wall gameplay. And even though the game never made a huge dent at sales, it still has a special place in our hearts. Killzone 3 (PS3) Killing in the name of The Killzone franchise is associated with gorgeous visuals, heart pounding action, large scale battles and intense multiplayer and in that respect, Killzone 3 did not disappoint. Also helping matters was the fact that Guerrilla Games tweaked the game’s control scheme, so it didn’t feel like you were controlling a 1200 pound guerrilla (yes that’s a pun not a typo), anymore.  And the winner is... Battlefield 3 (Xbox360 PS3 PC) If you’re a fan of modern day military shooters, Battlefield 3 is your best bet, this year. The single player campaign may have been a tad dull and predictable, but DICE more than made up for that with a highly addictive multiplayer component we’re playing till date. Unlike other online shooters that penalize players for lacking razor sharp reflexes, Battlefield 3 allows newcomers to ease into the game by offering them support roles as well. If running around the battlefield dishing out ammunition or health doesn’t seem like an exciting prospect, grab a chopper and rain down hell fire on ground targets or command a jet and become a force to be reckoned with. The undoubted winner Battlefield 3 also gets our unanimous approval for being the most technical sound shooter out there. DICE’s Frostbite 2 engine brings fire fights to life in a very gorgeous way with some phenomenal lighting effects and texture work, while the game’s sound, simply put is the best in the business.

Read more »

Apple company has big lead over Apple company in mobile snacks, professional says

Steve Jobs introducing the A5.

(Credit: Apple)

A chip analyst has written a sobering assessment of Intel's chip prowess vis-a-vis Apple in the mobile device race, an odd underdog position for the largest chipmaker.

In the brave new world of tablets and smartphones, chip competition isn't so much about Moore's Law but rather how the "blocks" of circuits are put together and the nexus with the software that runs on those circuits, Gus Richard, a senior research analyst at securities firm Piper Jaffray, wrote in a research note this week.

More specifically, tablets and smartphones use silicon called system-on-a-chip, or SoC, that doesn't always use the latest and greatest chip manufacturing technology but gets the job done.

Not so much about Moore's Law: "The economics of technology has shifted. In the SoC era, system performance and development costs are not dominated by cost per gate (Moore's Law) but rather by design and software," Richard wrote in a research note this week.

Richard continues. "As an example, there is nothing leading edge about Apple's A5 processor. However, the performance of an iPad is perceived by users as better than a PC. This is because the product has a longer battery life, instant on, and a fast internet connection. The A5 processor is not faster than an Intel processor but instead has a large number of IP blocks that execute different functions with lower power and typically more quickly than a general purpose CPU (Intel)."

Software: Software plays an important role too. Apple's software is written to work with one set of hardware resources, wrote Richard, streamlining development compared to Windows "that needs to run on an infinite combination of hardware resources."

Beyond the PC: And Richard had some even more sobering words for Intel further down in the note. "Intel's manufacturing is in the lead...but it has not yet demonstrated that it can design its way out of a PC," he wrote. "We believe that a general purpose processor can not compete with a purpose-built SoC with dedicated IP blocks like the A5," he said, adding that he doesn't believe Intel's manufacturing process is optimized for SoC integration.

Richard's research note aside, Intel is moving quickly to close this gap. Its Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge (coming next year) processors are more akin to an SoC than traditional Intel chips and this trend will become even more pronounced with the Haswell chip, due in 2013, which is expected to be Intel's first SoC for mainstream laptops--not to mention tablets and tablet-laptop hybrids running on Windows 8.

And Intel is putting more emphasis now on graphics and media-accelerating silicon than ever. In fact, Ivy Bridge's biggest improvements will be in special circuits based on 3D transistors that accelerate graphics and media.

And Intel actually manufactures chips, Apple doesn't, so Apple has less control over the entire process. The latter point could potentially become an issue for Apple as it skirmishes with Samsung on the legal front while continuing to rely on it for chip manufacturing. Though Apple is trying to shift to other manufacturing sources such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), that has not gone smoothly to date.

Finally, needless to say, Intel's processors are in all of Apple's Mac products, which are extremely successful. And the MacBook Air, in particular, has been a runaway hit. That packs Intel's newest power-efficient Sandy Bridge chips. The take-away here is that Apple's A series of chips are not--at least not yet--up to the heavy lifting needed when running demanding applications.

Read more »

Battlefield 3 vs. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3

This year witnessed one of the fiercest video game rivalries in years. You had EA taking on Activision’s juggernaut, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 with Battlefield 3. Now that both games have released and the dust’s settled, we weigh in on who emerged victorious.  CAMPAIGN Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3’s campaign was short, but it was like an intense shot of adrenaline straight to the brain. Even though you know exactly what to expect from this series, after all these years, the single player still managed to impress. It also provided fans of the series with some much needed closure. MW3 triumphs as far as single player is concerned Battlefield 3’s campaign wasn’t too bad, but it wasn’t too good, either. It constantly felt like it was trying to ape the Call of Duty series and while certain set-pieces (especially the whole Jet sequence) were impressive, there were segments that just felt boring. Winner – Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 MULTIPLAYER  While Modern Warfare 3’s single player was entertaining, multiplayer was pretty much a copy paste of older Modern Warfare games with a few new modes thrown in.  Killstreaks, something that started off as a nice way of rewarding skilled players today has become a highly imbalanced tool that can make the game frustrating for newcomers. In MW3, I hardly got shot; most of my deaths were caused through air strikes, chopper gunners or some Killstreak called in by the other team. I also think COD’s lone wolf attitude is its biggest drawback today and sadly, multiplayer is structured in such a way that it just rewards that style of play. Plus, the game needs to slow down; it’s way too turbo charged for its own good. I really can’t enjoy a game where my life span is not more than a few seconds. MP in BF3 is a blast...literally! The Battlefield series has always concentrated on team-based gameplay and this game is no different. Play well and you’re rewarded with perks that can be used, not just by you, but by your entire squad like the ability to sprint, carry more grenades and so on. Another thing that works great in Battlefield 3 is that it rewards players who aren’t very good at shooting as well. In MW3, if you can’t shoot fast, you’re dead. In BF3, you can take up a supporting role and provide your squad with ammunition or health. Besides that, if you work on your aerial skills, you can even dole out death with your chopper or jet.  Winner – Battlefield 3 PRESENTATION Modern Warfare 3 had some pretty impressive set-pieces, but there’s no denying the fact that this game looks crazy outdated. With the amount of money Activision makes with this series, you’d think they would invest in some new engine tech, but no, it’s the same engine you’ve experienced since years and I doubt it’s going to get upgraded anytime soon. How can MW3 compete with such visuals? Battlefield 3, on the other hand made use of DICE’s new Frostbite engine and it is one of the best looking games of this generation, especially if you have a beefy rig to boot. The immersive factor is also greatly enhanced by some of the best in-game sound effects I’ve ever heard in a game, till date.  Winner – Battlefield 3 PRICE Since I played both games on PC, I’ll be using the PC prices as my benchmark. The PC version of Battlefield 3 costs around Rs.1,500, while Modern Warfare 3 will set you back by Rs.3,000. If you’ve pre-ordered Battlefield 3, you’ll even get access to the Strike at Karkand DLC absolutely free, while with MW3 you get jack. In fact, Call of Duty Elite, Sledgehammer’s detailed stat tracking software hasn’t been released for the PC platform yet. More bang for your buck Winner – Battlefield 3 EXTRAS Besides the single player campaign and the multiplayer modes, both games featured additional modes. Battlefield 3 has its co-op mode that felt very similar to the campaign. Also for some reason, you could not team up with a friend unless he’s unlocked the same mission as you. Redundant indeed! MW3 packs in more extras Modern Warfare 3, on the other hand has a bunch of co-operative Spec Ops missions, in addition to a new Horde mode both of which can be played solo and co-operatively. Plus the experience you earn in both game modes can be transferred to your versus profile making levelling up a lot easier. Winner – Modern Warfare 3  And the Winner is... BATTLEFIELD 3 At the end of the day, Modern Warfare 3 is not a bad game; it’s just that we’ve seen the same content wrapped in the same package far too many times. Even though Battlefield 3 didn’t change its core gameplay, it presented it in a terribly attractive package. It also refined its multiplayer experience opening up its doors to accommodate newcomers as well. In our mind, it’s emerged victorious.  Of course, if you disagree, you could state your winner in the comments below.

Read more »

Windows-on-Intel little pill for the future about sharing

Windows tablet runs on Intel processors are not expected to take significant market share of ARM market leader, at least a couple of years, according to market research firm DisplaySearch. 
In 2012, the tablets of Windows running on x86 chips - which are predominantly Intel - to obtain only 1.8 percent of the market or units of about 1.8 million of a total market of 100 million units, according to Richard Shim of DisplaySearch, which issued a report released today. Most of these pills use Intel Atom processor, Shim said.
This will improve slightly in 2013 to 3.1 million tablets of Windows 8 running on x86 processors, or about 2.1 percent of a market, according to Shim. In 2013, the tablet market in general is expected to increase to 148 million units. 

Wedge expects a lot of these units based on X86 in 2013 for use Haswell Intel processor that is due in the first half of this year. Haswell is expected to be more highly integrated chips leading Intel to date, even more than the processor to replace - Ivy Bridge.
Haswell Intel calls a system-on-a-chip (SoC), which means it is likely to approach the level of integration of Qualcomm SoC that populate many smartphones.
Haswell also be able Ultrabooks in 2013. However, what constitutes a Ultrabook in 2013, nobody knows. Haswell is based on Windows 8 hybrid Ultrabook more tablets? And if they have a tablet? If so, Intel's participation could be much higher in 2013.
Of course, the elephant in the room is ARM. Shipments of tablet PC with chips that have their roots in the design of the ARM is still dominating and is expected to grow 211 percent year over year in 2011 to 59.9 million units. And the tablets with ARM-based chips will grow just below $ 100 million in 2012.
Apple and Nvidia are the largest suppliers of ARM chips for tablets, but today Qualcomm and Texas Instruments are expected to be major players in 2012.

Read more »