Chindie

Fair play. Indeed. And based on the prices I'm hearing for downloads, they appear to be actively encouraging people not to (in fairness this is true of all the consoles). Must admit that Forza looks to be a horrible DLC vector rather than a game to me - it seems like rather a lot of content has been nickel and dimed. Shame. I don't mind DLC but it very easily becomes a cynical accountant exercise IMO.

I really want Patrick Stewart to play Herr Starr, due to one gag it the comic. Also Cass really is just Colin Farrell. I'd be very interested to see who they picked up to play Arseface...

I watched the first 2 series of Game of Thrones before picking up the Song of Ice and Fire books (the books that the series is based on). I've tried, and tried, but I simply cannot read them. Part of it is a dislike of GRR Martin's style, which I find pretty dull, but there is a significant part of me sat there going 'I know exactly what's happening here and theres 600 pages before anything particularly new is going to happen'. I don't know if I were able to shoot through the bits I already know and get onto the new stuff I'd find the books a revelation, but I'll never know it seems. It is odd - I can watch a film based on a book or comic and know exactly where everything is headed and thoroughly enjoy it. I regularly do it with comic book films because I know the story lines and I end up sat there with my mind running through all the stuff thats coming and waiting to either a) see how they translate it, or see how they change things and surprise me. I knew the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit like the back of my hand and watched those first time round with a kind of awe at seeing my imagination brought to life on screen. But I struggle to go the other way, and in fact I've found I struggle to read the book after watching the film - I used to read LOTR on an annual basis but I can't anymore, as the book seems almost tedious. I do think it depends on the source though. I adore Pratchett's books, I've read them all time and again, and while we've never had a movie made they did do some TV movies for Sky and I found that I could enjoy those adaptations and still return to the books unsullied. Saying that, if ever a proper big screen adaptation of the Discworld books, or perhaps worse Good Omens, came to pass I would be watching with baited breath... especially after Gilliam wanted to adapt Good Omens and shift it to America, where the fundamental character of the entire novel wouldn't work.

Case in point. The Gangster Squad book was a good read - showed its origins as a series of magazine articles, but it was informative and fascinating to someone like me, who's interested in the whole 40s/50s LA crime/police genre (i.e. James Ellroy fans). As someone who hasn't read the book and isn't a particular fan of that genre or era, I'll be able to watch the film objectively and as a standalone entity. Hopefully I'll enjoy it more than you did! Gangster Squad is completely fine if you take it for what it is - it was always intended to be a fairly lightweight pulpy bit of entertainment and little more. Unfortunately the genre is one that has... certain expectations of it that means the audience goes in with baggage, in part the films fault as it hints towards being something more worthy more than once and also a fault of that look the film has - you end up watching it as almost a parody at times, but then you realise they were never going for anything other than a pulp actioner that just so happens to be set against that backdrop.

AMC have apparently ordered a pilot for a series based on Preacher. This is supremely excellent news. Preacher is **** awesome, done properly a series could be incredible. Difficult to do well perhaps, though.

Batkid saves San Francisco

When we last did this someone on here said I looked like David Arquette. I look nothing like David Arquette, for better or worse.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think the series has ever been that polished, gameplay wise, it's always had bugs and niggles - the most obvious being the traversal system's foibles that they never sorted out entirely and was always a source of frustration in the series. I always managed to look past it because the games had charm and interest and sometimes where just downright so pretty you let it go - and there were also always those moments where it worked and it was magical. AC3 just struck me as lacking that charm as well as being especially buggy and niggly, often feeling downright unfinished and rushed, so I ended up just really disliking it and it actually soured me on the entire series. I'd loved them, but they had started to lose their shine to me when they became annual releases and 3 just disappointed me so badly I didn't care any more.

The studio has been leaning on Aronofsky to change things because the story he wants to tell isn't the story that every man and his dog knows (and more importantly, depending on your viewpoint, what the hardcore Christians out there know - which is what the studio is concerned about as some preview screenings to the religious community did not return good thoughts)... I do think this has more than a little of 'flop' written over it. It'll be a glorious disaster. A spectacle filled worthy piece of film making that comes over more than a little pretentiously that ultimately doesn't resonate with the audience and ends up being talked about with a giggle in a few years. Saying that I love the Fountain so I'll probably love this - the shot of the flower blooming in the trailer is VERY Fountain-like. Incidentally, if you want an idea of what Aronofsky's take on Noah might be like, he turned it into a graphic novel while he was trying to get the movie funded. The cover looks like this... This ain't you're daddies Noah...

It seemed to divide quite a few people from what I read. I really liked it, but I've always had quite an interest in the American Revolutionary War and that period in time so that was a big factor in my enjoyment of it I think. That and the naval battles, I loved those things which is why I'm particularly looking forward to AC4 as they're expanded upon, that and the Golden Age of Pirates is another one of my favourite periods in history. And pirates are just cool. What in particular did you find about AC3? Gameplay-wise was pretty much the same as AC2 onwards I thought, with the exception of the frontier areas but I really liked those. The only thing that bothered me with AC3 was Connor. Compared to Ezio he was really boring. I think they could have done a lot more with him, and I'm glad to hear that Edward Kenway seems to be much more well received. Oh and the only reason I haven't got AC4 is because I promised not to buy it so my brother and sister could get it for me as a birthday present. Sigh, two weeks to go. I felt it had a load of niggles and faults that I struggled to look past because there was nothing about the games'... character?... that made me want to forgive it. By that I mean I didn't like Connor, he was a complete damp squib of a character, a character with no personality hooks to grab you, or anything to make him especially likable, and the setting did nothing for me at all - I felt from the get go that the setting was a poor choice and I never got past that. Sadly, from an environmental point of view, the US in that time period is really, really boring - flat environments with cardboard cut out buildings. The frontier was no better - climbing the same tree, again and again, running through ready made tree branch runs. It's also not a period of history I find terribly engaging, unfortunately, so I was sat there in an environment I found more than a little dull, with a character I had as much invested in as I would a slightly soiled cardboard box. I also didn't much like how 'YEAH! AMERICA!' it was - every villain I encountered in my time playing was British/Irish, and it seemed to treat the big names of the revolution in a curious mongrel role of both window dressing and almost pornographic reverence. I don't think I encountered a single 'bad' American, apart from a couple of moments where US troops would attack you. With that, I found that the niggles and issues annoyed me more. The usual problems with traversal irked me more than ever. The frontier disappointed, the hunting feeling superfluous and the predator attacks utterly, utterly rotten and pointless QTEs that never, ever changed and may as well have not been there at all. I constantly felt the game explained things terribly, from basic elements of the gameplay (I think it has a very explicit tutorial of the homestead stuff that doesn't actually explain things very well at all) to mission parameters (telling you what it wanted you to do mission to mission I remember feeling particularyl annoyed by in a series of games that loves insta-fails). I don't think I ever got the Brotherhood mechanic thing down, after loving it in AC:B, that I can recall. I also encountered a few bugs. And then you have the whole Desmond thing, the series dirty little secret that should have been strangled at birth because it is all rubbish, here given actual missions to do that were awful stillborn sections of hamstrung twaddle that nobody gives a damn about. And then ultimately it all felt tired, done too many times, a series that never should have become annualised dying before my eyes. I had loved the series, even with its quibbles just for the moments of joy in it, when the traversal worked brilliantly and you were running around gorgeous historical pastiches of interesting places and time periods. And then we got this boring retread of what we'd already done countless times before but somehow just that bit more tedious, and that bit more rubbish. So I'm surprised to hear that the new one is a bit of a return to the joy of the Ezio games... and I'm tempted.

Shillz, on his way to work http://youtu.be/OtMtIItimjQ#t=2m32s

Well, it deals with Connor's (the protagonist from AC3) grandfather, so there will be things in the ancestor story you will miss if you haven't played AC3 I would assume. As for Desmond's story, it kind wrapped up for the most part in AC3, so I'm not sure what the modern-day story in AC4 is going to necessarily concern. I personally wouldn't, but I'm quite OCD about this sort of thing. I'm sure you'd enjoy the game regardless, but you could always just do a quick read online of the main story elements of the games you've missed. I really loved AC3 though so I'd recommend playing that anyway. AC3 was the first of the series I couldn't finish - it's still sat on my shelf, haven't touched it since the end of last year I'd guess... just found it spectacularly tedious and dull. But all the talk of 4 actually being a bit of a return to fun form, I'm tempted to slog through it and get onto the latest in the series...

The launch exclusives aren't that much to shout home about, IMO. You've missed Killzone there, which is an acquired taste, Killer Instinct which might be alright, Dead Rising, and Crimson Dragon. I can't say any of them would set my pulse racing. Ryse looks pretty but also completely vapid.

go on then cos it certainly had me scratching my head, assume its something to do with guardians of the galaxy, im really hoping that's a superb one (although saw the CA trailer on the big screen, that's got every danger of being brilliant which really surprises me seeing as no1 was as bad as they've been IMO) It is to do with Guardians of the Galaxy. Guardians is very likely to be another interesting entry in the MCU - it has an awful lot of the elements needed to do set up a massive story arc, but it seems like, given that we know what Avengers 2 involves, that it's a little too soon for that...

Went to see Thor: the Dark World last night. Going in, I thought it was likely to be one of the more interesting entries to Marvel's stable as we hadn't seen a lot of it, Marvel seemed to largely forget it existed at SDCC (despite showing a clip and wheeling out Tom Hiddleston in full Loki gear) this year instead focusing efforts on next years releases Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy, and they hadn't had the PR and talk surrounding it anywhere near to the level they had done before. So, going in, we'd had a couple of trailers, a SDCC clip that never leaked, and a few nods to thoughts of what was going on behind the scenes (composer walked out, Portman was said to want to take part about as much as she might want to shovel shit barehanded, there were even rumours director Alan Taylor of Game of Thrones fame might walk late in the day, reshoots for extra Loki scenes...) and little else beyond some hastily cobbled together thoughts based on the cast and characters... Thats a bit odd with these films - usually we see a lot and know a lot and the studio plays a game of hinting things to get the hype up so in the end you sit down more or less knowing exactly what will happen - case in point, The Dark Knight Rises. Thor: the Dark World kicks off in the immediate aftermath of the Avengers - Loki's attack on Earth has been foiled and he has been taken back to Asgard to face justice, consigned to the dungeons for the rest of his days. Meanwhile, the effects of the Bifrost, the intergalactic transport system of Asgard, being destroyed has seen Thor and the rest of Asgard's forces policing the rest of the Nine Realms as thins went to pot in their absence, and Thor still pines for the love he left on Earth in the shape of Portman's Jane Foster. Jane has decamped to London, continues her work with handwavey astrophysics-fartoocomplexforyoumrviewershutupandforgetaboutitshesascientistology, where she stumbles on a force of universe threatening power and awakens an adversary of Asgard, the Dark Elves, thought long extinguished. All very straightforward comic book McGuffin filled stuff. The script is going to win no awards - it carries few surprises, it delivers what you expect. But there is much to enjoy here, if you know the characters. You will get far more from this film if you've been along for the ride with Marvel since Iron Man in 2008, but particularly if you watched Thor and Avengers - the film largely assumes you know these characters and you know the journey they've been on so far. The films crowning glory is Loki, Tm Hiddleston is having a brilliant time playing up as the beaten but still comically slimy adoptive brother of Thor, and has some of the films best scenes despite being the definition of a supporting character, in the main providing some sarcastic comedy but also some of the more touching scenes in the film, particularly an all too brief moment in which the imprisoned trickster lets his glamour projection of himself down and reveals his actual state. Hiddleston steals every scene he's in. There is an enjoyably odd Star Wars meets Lord of the Rings feel to it all - the Asgardians use medieval weaponry but swords have an almost lightsaber feel to them at times, glowing as they cleave the air for instance, and this universe also has spacecraft and laser guns. It seem incongruous but works somehow. And of course it's pretty with successful art design (the Dark Elves craft are gloriously weird - check the bizarre biomechanical peristalsis lift mechanism, and how the ships appear to have been forged from stone at times), well shot despite the television background of the director. Not going to blow your socks off but rather nice all the same. The 3d is... inoffensive. As per usual it breaks at times and is at it's best when very slow moving objects are shown against depth - things moving quickly or pointing out of the screen simply do not work, at best taking you out of the film or worse, making the image a bit messy. The best instance of 3d is a brief scene with a single close up shot of Jane and Thor talking on a balcony, which says it all. It's also a curiously funny film, often playing almost like a comedy. The first had it's comedic moments, playing up to Thor's fish out of water nature when banished to New Mexico, but this plays for jokes whenever it can - be it Thor making an army surrender with a single hammer blow, or Loki making wisecracks as Thor struggles to put a plan into action. It works, but I can see some people finding it frustrating that the film seems, a few choice scenes aside, unable to take itself seriously. Perfomances are all decent, about the only bum note being a pretty flat performance from Anthony Hopkins as Odin. He has more to do than the first film, but in that film he had a calm sterness than was strangely affecting, especially when revealing an appropriately almighty rage beneath it all. In this he is wooden, despite a few chances to again display that disarming sudden anger he cuts a rather bored figure. Hiddleston steals the show, theres a delight in his portrayal of Loki that is a captivating watch, he's a genuine character amongst some more 1 note presences the movie. Hemsworth gives his best Thor performance and is starting to take on the same kind of level Downey Jr has with Tony Stark - he is Thor now, I think, and again you can feel that he enjoys the role, particularly in the little moments. Portman is pretty, so can handle her role, Dennings does comic relief well, Skarsgard gets to raise some laughs, the rest of Thors posse all get a brief badass moment but feel somewhat superfluous, particularly notable for Idris Elba's Heimdall who still feels like an interesting character they don't know how to use as anything other than a prop for the plot. Christopher Eccleston, as big bad Malekith, does well with a pretty slim role - he has very few lines, even less in English, and isn't actually on screen much, as such his character is thin beyond belief but he does have some presence as a villain and carries what little he has well. The lack of depth for Malekith underlines a feeling throughout that this is a film that got cut to within an inch of it's life, it flies along and details of plot (that that there is) are hurled at you and never linger. We get a brief set up for the Dark Elves/the MacGuffin, for example, but it feels like there was originally going to be more development for Malekith in an earlier draft. The same is true for much of the film, it does feel like scenes were trimmed and trimmed to the bare bones. I rather suspect this was originally a far 'bigger' film and had the script culled at a rewrite, the film then edited down from that script to cut all the fat off it. As such, I suspect a few people might ave their head scratching at a few of the less important elements of the plot. Saying that, at it's heart it's a simple picture and a lot of the stuff you might go 'sorry, what?' at really are not important in the grand scheme of things. It is a little disappointing that we don't quite get the grand affair we might have wished for, and that Eccleston's villain isn't as fleshed out as we might like, but the film marks a brilliantly enjoyable entry in Marvel's ever growing stable, with something for everyone. It's truly funny, there's some good action (a few scenes with Malekiths right hand man are certainly fun... and also will have a few comic fans punching the air when it dawns on them what's coming), it's pretty and well made if light and simple. I think it stands as one of Marvels better films to date, easily top 5, and I can see a lot of people enjoying it. Go see it if you've enjoyed the Marvel Cinematic Universe to date. By the way, there are 2 credit scene 'stingers' - one follows the film's end title sequence and is likely to leave a few people scratching their heads (a nod for things to come ), the second follows the end of the credits proper and acts as more of proper end to the film (with one last gag). I'm not entirely sure why they cut that scene away from the film proper, but it is what it is. Certainly more worth hanging around for than Iron Man 3s efforts, though if you can't be arsed you could skip the second, it's not essential viewing.

Only because of the compulsion to buy games on Steam because under a fiver is too cheap to resist

Bit of a strange trailer that. It feels thrown together, not as slick as most trailers these days. The visuals look a little off which I have to guess is because it's very early footage, but again even early trailers tend to be more polished than that - see Cap last week. Saying that, there's hints to some decent stuff there, but also nods to part of my concern with it, which is that there will be too many characters. The series already had a fairly large established characters, and with this film they're introducing more as well as chucking in alternative versions of some of those characters with the past timeline. I've got my fingers crossed, because there's potential for gold adapting Days of Future Past and I do think a lot of the established cast is excellent and characters like Bishop could be great additions, but it could be a mess.

The upgrade system in this is **** stupid.

Singer also made Superman Returns, remember. I like X1 and 2, and elements of First Class, and the story they are using for this one is a great comic arc, but it could so easily become a mess. They're walking a fine line and its one they could easily fall off. But I don't doubt there will be some excellent moments- for comic fans just having the sentinels in it properly will boost it.

Ooh, if that's done right it could be brilliant. Not watched the trailer yet but that's a bloody big if IMO...

Ah, not overly familiar with Destructoid. Even so, I'd argue it's the definition of an average game, it's not 3.5 on any scale. If it wasn't buggy the only thing really separating it from the other games is some polish, a little more quality throughout and frankly the mechanics feeling a little tired after 3 games. As said, it's bang on average. I can understand, and agree with wholeheartedly, the game being a fairly cynical farted out cash in 3rd sequel, but on its own merits the game isn't bad.

3.5/10 is cynical click bait, it's not that bad at all. It's a solid enough, if buggy, game. It feels a bit tired and it's not up to the standard of the Rocksteady games, but it's OK. It's the kind of game that has 6 written all over it.

Had the easiest trip into work for months this morning. I am therefore in favour of apparently stormy weather.

I genuinely quite enjoyed World War Z. But I guess I didn't watch with any expectations of it and knew what it had set out to be. It was never meant to be your standard zombie movie, it was never meant to be a horror. They wanted to make a semi realistic/serious action movie against the backdrop of a zombie virus pandemic, which they did, with the book serving as a conceptual inspriation for the movie rather than a glorified script. It's not masterpiece but it's completely solid fun stuff.

It's not a horror movie.