Resident Evil 6 Features Four Hours of Cutscenes

There are going to be a few cutscenes in Resident Evil 6 - 4 hours and 15 minutes of them, to be precise. This information comes courtesy of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), which serves as the UK equivalent of the ESRB in the United States. Noting that Capcom's latest action/horror game features "strong violence and gore," the BBFC gave RE 6 an '18' (think 'M').

For comparison, Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil 4 both feature approximately one hour of cinematics each, but there is an important distinction to be made here. Resident Evil 6 contains three separate main campaigns, with a fourth that somehow unlocks later on.

Capcom has publicly stated that the three main storylines are separately not quite as long as RE 5, but collectively they are considerably longer. Taking that into consideration, and dividing the content over the span of three or four cutscenes, and what might at first seem like an interactive movie might be a little less so.

Rich is an Executive Editor of IGN.com, and the leader of the network's Nintendo team. He also covers all things Assassin's Creed, Resident Evil, WWE and much, much more. You can follow him on Twitter and IGN, if you dare.

Source : ign[dot]com

Joe Quesada Talks Marvel NOW!

Earlier this week, Marvel Comics dropped a bombshell and announced Marvel NOW! -- a new publishing initiative focused on freshening things up across the board. Among the coming changes are some huge creative team shake-ups including Jonathan Hickman taking over the Avengers titles and Brian Bendis delving into the X-Men at length for the first time. Marvel's also expanding their focus on their digital presence, their attitude toward cover design, and of course, giving some new looks to their most popular heroes.

But with the announcement came speculation that this was a universe-wide "reboot" which, in fact, is not the case. To do away with that misconception and talk about the exciting things Marvel has got planned, I sat down with Marvel's Chief Creative Officer and A-list artist, Joe Quesada.

IGN Comics: First and foremost, I know there will be a lot of discussion about what you guys are doing with Marvel NOW!. But just to clarify for our readers – this isn’t a reboot, correct?

Joe Quesada: No, it’s not a reboot. There are some absolute reconfigurations of characters and their status quos and maybe an alter ego here and there, but this is not a reboot of the Marvel Universe.

IGN: Why was staying true to the past, as opposed to just “restarting” or doing something like DC did last year, important to you guys?

Quesada: I would argue that DC’s 52 was really just a tremendous marketing campaign. They did promise a reboot, but I don’t think it was a complete reboot in the actual sense of the word. So if and when that day were ever to come from Marvel, we will promise that that’s what we’d do. But that’s really not something that’s in our game plan right now or something that we’re looking to, or need to do.

The Marvel Universe is operating fine and the thing that is always most important to us is to make sure that characters are evolving, changing, and keeping our readership interested. That’s really what Marvel NOW! is all about. This isn’t the first time we’ve done something like this. We’ve been very, very successful at shaking up our universe without shaking up people’s collections and continuity and starting everything from scratch. That being the clear past roadmap to success for us, that’s what we’re going to continue doing. Marvel NOW! is this generation’s version of Marvel looking at its universe from a fresh perspective.

IGN: Like you mentioned, this is obviously a huge shakeup for you guys – can you talk a little bit about what led to this decision?

Quesada: You know, it’s just the stories. As creators come in and creators come out, it’s the stories that really take us to where we’re going next. What’s interesting about Marvel NOW! and ReEvolution is the fact that it’s change within the Marvel Universe story status quo as well as technology digging its heels into the modern publishing world of Marvel as we start looking toward the future. And not just the future of our characters, but the future in which we’ll be delivering these stories that offer all this change.

So there’s a lot of great stuff happening that’s dovetailing into this one singularity, beginning with Marvel NOW!. We’re using the opportunity not just to market the changes that are coming to the Marvel Universe, but also the great changes coming to the readership with respect to how they will be enjoying their stories in the future.

IGN: Like you were talking about, a huge part of Marvel NOW! and ReEvolution in general has been the digital component. How have fans responded to things like the digital downloads and Marvel AR and how did that inform the decisions you’ve made?

Quesada: The response has been fantastic. We’ve seen our digital sales grow in huge, huge numbers, more than we’ve seen at any time in our modern publishing history and that’s really a wonderful thing to see. At the same time, it’s not cannibalizing the sales of hard copy comics. The goal is to find a world in which people enjoy both, and I think it’s been very well received. The Infinite comics have, critically, been outstandingly received and people love them; I do think that’s the wave of the future. The AR stuff is fun; the fun stuff always gets well received, but I look at that stuff and go, boy, I know that two years from now we’re going to be so much further along with the AR stuff. What we’re doing right now is like cave paintings compared to where we’re going to be in the next year or two. But you gotta start somewhere, right?

So that’s the part that’s really interesting to see evolve, because there is so much growth there. It’s one of those things where no one can really tell you where the technology is going to take you, you just know that when you get there, you’re there. I think the important thing for us is to be first out of the gate, as we always have been in the digital world, and that we’re out there experimenting with the different formats and leading the way and eventually finding what the readership wants. Ultimately, the decision isn’t ours. We just put a bunch of things on the table for our fans and see what they gravitate to. They’re really going to lead us to where we’re going to go.

IGN: Awesome. Well I have to tell you, I’ve been loving the Infinite stuff and the exploration of that canvas and everything. Is that something you’re looking to do more of, post-AvX?

Quesada: Thank you. And yeah, absolutely… but let me preface this by saying that I think Infinite comics and/or a variation of how the Infinite stories are told is really how comics design for the digital medium will eventually be told. I really do firmly believe that and that’s why we’ve invested so much in it. The thing about doing an Infinite comic and, this will be a little bit of a long-winded explanation, but, going from the standard way a comic is made to the way an Infinite comic is made is going to have a learning curve attached.

I think if you look back at the origin of the comic book, when the very first comics came out, what those stories ended up being really were just repurposed Sunday strips from the newspapers that were shrunk down into the comic page not unlike today’s digital comics which are hard copy comics edited and chopped to fit the digital medium. Back then when you looked at those early comics, they didn’t translate well, because those Sunday strip pages were drawn huge to begin with and proportionally they weren’t the right size for the dimensions of the comic book. So what ended up having to happen is that as creators had to learn how to draw for the size of a comic book, and the way that they told their stories and the way that they designed their pages had to change from the way they were doing it for the newspaper, because it was all very different.

So I think that there is going to be a transition period between going from the hard copy comic to the Infinite comic. Not just because of the size of the aperture, but also just the construction and thought that’s involved in making the comic and using all the additional tools it gives the writer and artist to tell their narrative. While much of the skill set is the same as a regular comic, there are new skills that have to be learned. So the question is, how do we become proficient at doing it? It’s publishing. We publish comics every week, we publish every issue once a month, sometimes twice a month. So there’s a learning curve to get us from how long it takes us to produce an Infinite comic to being able to do it on a regular basis. It’s not as time consuming as a motion comic or anything of that complexity, but there’s a learning curve because everybody’s got to learn the new techniques and how to work this way and that includes our editors.

I think once that hurdle is crossed – and it’s not a big one – I think you’ll start to see these with more regularity. The only reason you’re not seeing more right now is because we’re testing the market, using AvX to see how the readership feels about it before spending a significant amount of money on it and producing regular content. So we take the initial investment, see how the readership feels and if all goes well, away we go. That said, reaction has been incredible, so keep your eyes and ears open.

IGN: That’s exciting to hear. Now, in terms of the changes for Marvel NOW!, do all of those events, story-wise, spin directly out of the events of AvX?

Quesada: Yeah. AvX launches a lot of things.

IGN: So far you’ve announced three new titles with a promise of more to come, including some current books being relaunched. Can you say what titles will be the most affected, which might be shifting direction the most drastically?

Quesada: I can tell you about two titles that I’m really excited about and a third that I can’t discuss, so let’s not go there. Now this is not picking favorites or anything, but being in the room and hearing the books that are going to offer a tremendous amount of change – not just change in their books, but change that will affect everything in the Marvel Universe. I think Jonathan Hickman’s Avengers is going to be groundbreaking just because of the way Jonathan thinks in a very, very universe-expanding way. And Brian Bendis’ All-New X-Men is going to rock the X-Men world. It’s going to be such a significant title for us; I can’t wait to read those books. We do have other stuff going on like the third mystery title that has me jazzed, but right now, from the initial launch, those are the first two that I’m reading as soon as they’re back from the printer.

IGN: One of the problems that some fans had back when DC relaunched last year, is that many of the ongoing titles didn’t really get a decisive end. We’re getting a lot of creative team change-ups in Marvel NOW!; is this a situation where those lengthier runs are going to come to a natural end?

Quesada: Yes. Everything is writer-friendly, all the writers are in the room, everybody’s handing off the baton to the next guy and making sure that it’s a seamless transition from one to the other.

IGN: Awesome, that’s great to hear. What about the success of the Avengers movie and hopefully Amazing Spider-Man – how are you guys making sure that movie fans can find a gateway into these books?

Quesada: I think it’s by keeping our characters consistent. It would be hard for us to just start everything from scratch, strictly for the movie-going public, because that’s really not fair to our hardcore, loyal fans that got us here in the first place. I think what’s important is that we keep our characters as consistent as possible, so that when somebody who decides to delve into the world of comics from experiencing the movie at least gets an experience that is similar to what they saw on the big screen. But at the same time, we also have plenty of trade paperback collections both in hard copy and digitally that are specifically designed for the movie-going public. So I think our bases are covered in that sense, but I do think there is a consistency of character – and that’s not just important for movie-goers, but anyone coming to comics for the first time.

IGN: With your being an artist, I should ask you about the changes Marvel is making in cover design. I haven’t seen an example yet, but it sounds like you guys are taking a more cinematic approach?

Quesada: Yeah. Artists have played with the idea of changing cover design and where they place the logos from time immemorial, but usually those are special one-off cases or things that don’t traditionally go to the newsstand. Traditionally, comic book covers, the way they’ve been designed, is that the top third has to have your logo; the name of your book. Because traditionally, the way they were stacked in newsstands is they were layered one over the other, so you’d only see that top third. Now as we move into the digital realm and the modern era of comics where there really isn’t much of a newsstand presence, I started questioning why we were doing this.

This really came about one day when Tom Brevoort had asked me to give a talk to the junior editorial staff about comic book design. I started to prep for it and I started pulling some of my favorite movie poster imagery to demonstrate layout, color, and how all of these things work into capturing the viewer’s eye and drawing them to your product. As I started doing this, I realized that all of my favorite movie posters, hardly any of them had the logo in the top third of the poster. The name of the movie was used as a design element and placed in the best spot to work with the piece and convey the message in the most clear fashion. If it was having the graphic or actor more prominent and leading your eye to the logo that was really the best solution, well that’s what they’d do.

So I started thinking, we’re now entering a digital age; we’re entering a time where comic shops don’t rack their books like the newsstand, for the most part, fans get to see the entire cover sitting on the shelf. In many cases fans are ordering their books in advance from their local retailers. In those cases they’re ordering from a catalog where they always see the full image and sometimes it’s just a thumbnail. So it became clear to me that we really should be thinking in terms of what is the punchiest design that captures the reader’s eye. Sometimes, that may not include the logo being in the top third. We challenged our cover artists to start thinking in more of a design sensibility; more of an advertising sensibility to how to design your cover. This doesn’t mean that the logo can’t be in the top third, but you’re not locked in. So we’re starting to open up that palette a bit more for our artists and moving into the modern era, because realistically speaking, I can’t think of anything – with the exception of magazines that are still sold on newsstands and video games these days – that still have the top third logo. But we’re not locked in anymore, so having that freedom is going to be interesting to see where it goes from here. Nothing is sacred anymore!

IGN: Is there a hard-and-fast point of where those kind of designs will start seeping into the titles that you’re shipping?

Quesada: I have a feeling it’s something that will slowly work its way in in. I don’t think it’s going to be a clean “here we go.” Because we are in the middle of the Marvel NOW! initiative, there are a couple of cover elements that have to be in place for the next few months that might infringe on complete design freedom. Chief amongst these is that the Marvel NOW! logo has to be top-center of our covers, just because we have to keep the consistency for a couple of months, but eventually that will fade away. It’s going to be interesting to see how our designers work out their covers.

IGN: Joe, I really appreciate your time, and thanks.

Quesada: Appreciated too, thanks man!

Joey is IGN's Comics Editor and a comic book creator himself. Follow Joey on Twitter, or find him on IGN. He will love Star Wars until the end of his days.

Source : ign[dot]com

Battleship Review

Battleship Review:


Somehow, the big-budget Hollywood adaptation of Battleship – an aesthetically sterile board game with little plastic pegs – ended up looking a whole lot like the Transformers films, albeit without generating the same kind of audience interest (as evidenced by the comparatively wimpy box office returns). Activision's multiplatform title of the same name actually pulls from both bits of source material, oscillating between first-person shooter segments and a tactical grid that lets you align ships to battle alien carriers and provide occasional ground support from afar.
Much as it's pleasing to see a movie game that isn't another generic hack-and-slash affair, Battleship opts to enter an even more competitive space with a generic shooter, which packs only a startlingly short single-player campaign with not a lick of multiplayer action in sight. And as is often the case with such film tie-ins, the game feels very much like a surface read on the genres it pulls from, offering little in the way of depth or variation from a rigid routine.

Ship or Shore

Battleship stars Cole Mathis, a U.S. Navy demolitions expert who must wander the islands of Hawaii detonating enemy turrets and communications hubs, all while taking down scads of aliens using a paltry selection of firearms. He's not the lead in the film, as the game's storyline purportedly takes place alongside that of the film, though you wouldn't know it from piecing together the dull dialogue snippets and cut-scenes. If the inanity of the plot wasn't assumed from its board game-to-film origins, the game actually prompts you to skip every cinematic on first viewing. So don't worry about missing anything – you're encouraged to dodge the narrative!

To some extent, Battleship is a tale of two very different games: the core first-person shooter campaign that dominates the experience and ultimately starts and ends each mission, and the map-based ship maneuvering that plays a strong role in many objectives, and cannot be safely ignored or marginalized. While the disparate elements are nicely intertwined, Battleship is limited by its narrow scope. Neither side of the equation feels particularly fleshed-out or expansive, and pairing them together in the seven single-player campaign levels doesn't make them feel any less shallow. And even within those elements, there's so little depth or variety to the action.

On foot, Battleship generally proves competent, though uninspired. Each stage charts a very straightforward path to its goals, so much so that the game enacts false barriers at times – like an unmovable ally blocking a pathway – to keep you on the intended path. And though they shake up the order and terrain, all seven missions follow the same routine, mixing stop-and-pop encounters with detonation tasks, which means simply holding a button near an object and then watching it blow. Occasionally, you'll protect an ally or installation for a brief period of time, but these moments do little more than trigger light enemy waves to attack.

Beyond the simplistic goals, a lack of diversity within the combat keeps the campaign from picking up steam. Just a few distinct enemy types – common bipedal foes, railgun-toting snipers, explosive rolling balls, and big brutes that take a few shotgun blasts to fell – pepper the stages, and the five firearms (plus standard grenades) encompass traditional fare, from the common pistol and machine gun to a chain gun and the aforementioned railgun. Battleship's on-foot combat has about as much kick and personality as a mobile touchscreen shooter, and doesn't look much better, either, thanks to simplistic models and effects plus some rough texture work.

Fire at Will

But wandering the islands and leaving alien guts in your wake isn't the entirety of the Battleship experience, as you'll often swap to the grid map to reposition ships and subs to engage in nautical combat or assist with the on-foot action (like calling in a volley of missiles on a target). Left to their own devices, the ships will attack nearby enemy cruisers, though you can focus their attacks as needed and move them around to any available opening. As they lumber about in the water – assuming you're near the shore while on-foot – you can actually see them move in the distance, which is a nice touch.

You'll take a more active role at times thanks to the wild card power-ups, which often scatter along the battlefield when you take down foes – another example of the strong link between the two aspects. While many of these simply enhance your ships' offensive or defensive capabilities, one wild card lets you take control of the cannons for a 20-second shootout, in which your ship earns a 200% boost to its firepower. Expectedly, these moments pass in a heartbeat as you completely overpower the opposition, and there's nothing more to each than aiming at a large target and hammering the triggers and a shoulder button.

That's a symptom of a larger issue with Battleship: every bit of the experience is so rudimentary and superficial that it doesn't add up to much. On the shore, the combat and objectives alike lack both variety and originality, while at sea, the ship positioning requires little tactical planning and the skirmishes are damn near automated. And the game lacks serious design consideration at times, such as absurdly long gaps between checkpoints, plus I experienced a scenario in which a checkpoint triggered right as an essential ship sank, leaving me stranded to restart the entire mission. Battleship lacks not only ambition, but also at times care towards what little is included.

Hardly Sunken Treasure

And it truly isn't much. Battleship is easily conquered within just four hours, with no semblance of bonus missions or even a whiff of multiplayer. All for $60 – the same price this publisher attaches to its annual military blockbuster, which sports a bigger and bolder campaign, much better production values, and a multiplayer experience that keeps on giving. Battleship is little more than a checkmark on a to-do list; a completed contractual obligation. Just a handful of red pegs on a board, signifying a failed effort.

Want more information on how we score reviews? Read the "How G4 Reviews Work" article here. 
Editor's Note: Battleship was reviewed using an Xbox 360 copy of the game; however, we also played the PS3 version, and found no differences. If further investigation reveals any differences between the 360 edition and the PS3 edition of the game, this review will be updated to reflect those differences. 



Source : http://www.g4tv.com