YESSS NEW RANT - FANBOYISM 2013: THE STATE OF THE SMARTPHONE WARS.

RANT: AND HISTORY LESSON
    Wow, it's been almost a year since I last posted on here... not like this blog gets traffic to begin with (only 3000+ views in a span of about 3 years.), but it's a long lost stress relief tactic that I should engage in more often. What better way to do so with a relatively new but relentless war? Smartphones have been evolving from an exclusive luxury item to the cellular standard of today. I don't know about you, but I welcome technology.
      The most notable "war" is the Apple camp with all of their diehard fans and the Google camp with all of their subdivisions. "Subdivisions, you say?" Absolutely! Not every Android-powered device are created equally. Let's face it, there are a ton of Android-based devices, and a lot of them suck. You know this is true; faulty hardware, horrible OS builds, and terrible optimization plague a lot of the devices that were out during the beginning years of the Smartphone wars. A lot of this had to do with a service carriers control of content within their device (i.e bloatware), as well as the manufactures take on the Android OS (i.e Touchwiz and Sense), and even hardware, itself. There were a lot of weeds in the garden, and they were often stomped out by Apple and their crazies for awhile.
     Sifting through the carnage, a couple companies were relentless in ousting Apple's reign in the market, and this pursuit ultimately put a bitter rivalry on center stage: Apple vs. Samsung. This relationship, as you know, has gotten so bad that we have ongoing lawsuits against each other (Apple first... of course). Today, Samsung owns a 30.8% share in the market, compared to Apple's 18.2% (down from 22.5% in Q1 2012). It's amazing if you just look at just the numbers and no context, but it's the iPhone 4, 4S, and 5 versus (and I listed EVERY device currently being sold by Samsung in the US... to make a point) the S2, S3, S4, Note, Note II, Galaxy Stellar, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Stratosphere, Galaxy ATIV Odyssey, Galaxy S Blaze, Galaxy Relay, Galaxy Exhilarate, Galaxy Focus, Galaxy Express,  Galaxy Focus 4G, and the Galaxy Rugby Pro. These are all Samsung smartphones; this is not including the regular cell phones that they sell like the flip phone Rugby or Gravity.. I really hope that you get this picture. 3 devices versus 16. 3:16... Austin 3:16... that reminds me.. beer. (Publish edit: At the time of publishing, I neglected to add Sprint's Galaxy Victory and Transform Ultra M930.. which really doesn't help Samsung's case, anyway. 3 vs 18, and the difference is only 13%? Yeah..)

Yep... beer.

    So while this war is ongoing, the proverbial climax of the conflict has hit in the form of the initial ruling in the US which a judge ordered Samsung to pay for damages of infringement to Apple. Of course, this is being contested and Samsung has been successful in reducing the billion dollar price tag. This obviously is a company to company battle... and yet, the diehard fans, and the bandwagon fans from both sides somehow feel justified to religiously defend one company and destroy the rival through a series of "Internet White Knighting," logic, and lack-of-logic. From Cult of Mac to Cult of Android. From Mac Rumors to Android Central. From 4chan to Facebook. The Fanboy War reached the vast killing fields that is the internet, surpassing the noise made by the likes of PC vs Mac, Call of Duty vs Battlefield, PS3 vs 360 vs Wii and even Fairy vs Fairy (AKA, Team Edward vs. Team Jacob). The biggest volleys of words seemed to have occurred in the later half of 2012, and while it has somewhat subsided for now, a Civil War of sorts is about to hit the Samboys (<----I'm a crafty muthafucka) future.

THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.

     What's the state of smartphone fanboyism in 2013? Well, we haven't seen it get to it's peak yet. Apple has yet to release their lineup for anything. Google hasn't announce any new Nexus hardware, as well as the elusive Moto "X-Phone" (or XFON). Nokia is also releasing newer Lumia devices and Sammy & HTC are always pumping new products throughout the year. This doesn't mean that nothing exciting came out. Two of the biggest Android flagship devices released in US markets weeks apart from each other and they're both selling like crazy. These are the Galaxy S4 and the HTC One. Both devices showing new features that are (somewhat) groundbreaking in the industry. Both phones have received universal acclaim by professional critics, as well as amateur YouTube reviewing critics. While there has been manufacture fanboy defense (and offense) within the Android community, nothing has been more prominent than the battles being waged right now. Yes, it's HTC fanboys versus Samboys. 

Yes, it has come to this. Click pic for huge awesomeness!

    These two devices are now in the sights of fanboys from both sides.. and it's getting pretty nasty. The biggest arguments coming from the HTC camp (that I been reading on forums, and comment threads) is that the S4 is only an incremental update of the S3 (wrong.. it's more based off the Note II), has a ton of gimmicky features (Smart Scroll, Smart Pause, S-everything, etc) that bogs the OS down, and feels cheap (rational phone techs should know better and see past that lame excuse). Samboys look at the HTC One and see their arch nemesis, the iPhone. It must be the unibody-like design. The main arguments on the Sammy camp is performance comparisons (which is obvious due to the lower clocked CPU and DDR2 memory), smaller screen (by a whopping 0.3 inches), weird button layouts/menu (I give them that.. that shit is weird), and most of all, the non-removable battery and expandable memory option. Again, this is seriously the main arguments I read/seen/heard about both devices.. and both sides have been in bitter contention for the past couple weeks. 

THE TRUTH ABOUT THESE DEVICES..

    Have I mentioned how ridiculous fan-ppl are? Well, they are. The way I see it, both of these devices are really, REALLY good. They have impressive specs. Both companies have come a long way . Lets get this right, The S4 is by no means an incremental update to some past device like the S3 or even the Note II. The model is based off the Note II, rather than the S3.. but that's where it ends. The currently available US model has a Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 Quad-core processor. There is even an Octa-Core Exynos processor. That is unheard of in a smartphone, and the benchmarks for these two S4 variants are off the charts. Next is the gimmicky features.. Yeah, that's true, IMO. I had a lot of playtime with a friends S4 (4 hours, give or take.), and the only feature that I would be using is Air View, which acts like the Note II when you hover the stylus over the screen, except its your finger or hover hand (pun not intended)... and that's only if  I have food in my hands or I don't feel like putting fingerprints on my screen.. something that's relatively silly. Now, about Smart Scroll.. I just can't get that to work.. seriously.. I think it hates brown colored eyes.

If a properly and consistently (keyword consistently) functioning Smart Scroll were the only thing that would save my life from the likes of Jigsaw, I would be dead...

    I can go on with the gimmicks, but luckily, you can turn all of that off and save some battery life and the OS didn't really get so bogged down as claimed, so the argument is on thin ice to begin with. As far as it feeling cheap.. "yeah, well... that's just, like, your opinion, man." Seriously though, as long as you're not playing baseball with it being the ball, or some other unlikely activity that requires you to use your device in a manner that it was not meant to be used for (like dropping it, or eating it, or using it as a soccer ball), it's going to feel fine. The build quality still feels premium.

    As far as the HTC One is concerned  the unibody design is, again, a matter of user preference. It certainly feels nice on the hand (when compared to the S4). The design and the decision to not include expandable memory or a replacement battery may also be a big reason why Samboys dislikes the One (lolNEO). I can understand people's full dependence of their phone so much that they need more than one battery to go through the day and most of the night. OK, if you're using your phone THAT MUCH. For us normal people (and even a good majority of power users), the battery is sufficient  to last the day. People are also dynamic. They have unique needs. If they really feel that they need a removable battery, they'll just get S4 anyway, or they'll pull a me and have a 6,000mAh tiny battery brick in my bag. The point is that not everyone is the same, and certainly, not everyone will be carrying an extra battery to begin with. Get over that, Samboys.

     This leads to the second part of this argument: expandable memory. First of all, the S4 needs it... badly. The 16GB model has a significant chunk of storage already taken, out of the box. You already need something like a 32GB or 64 GB MicroSD card. That's fair enough. The HTC One starts at $199 (w/contract and/or upgrade); the same price as the S4 16GB.. The HTC One has 32GBs of storage. Cough up another bill and you get the 64GB version. I currently have a 32GB Apple iPhone 4S, Jailbroken with 2 videos, 365 photos, and 91 apps (not including Cydia apps/tweaks).. I have 28GBs available and I have 21 GBs left. "Where's your music, Ryan?" Well, I have this thing you probably heard of.. its called cloud services. In fact, not only do I have iTunes Match, I also have Amazon Mp3, AND Rhapsody. I have 3 Cloud based-services... plus Pages, Keynote and Google Drive all work in the cloud. With the exception of videos, apps, and the pics I choose to keep in the 4S, everything that would otherwise be in my device is in the cloud. Again, i'm not saying that everyone is doing this. People's use of their device are unique, but even if I wasn't using any cloud services (which wasn't that long ago), I would still have a considerable amount of space... and I'm a heavy power user who believes in making my phone as my own and no one elses. I did that when I was using the [Samsung] Captivate. I did that when I had the [HTC] Inspire. I'm doing it with the 4S (until July when I can upgrade to some Android goodness). 

     Whoa, whoa! We're not done with the HTC One... unfortunately, the Samboys are a much larger demographic than HTC folk. They're also pretty damned vocal about their devices. They have a lot of complaints (and sound more like Apple fanboys.. but I'll get to that, later). So performance comparison between both devices... not much of a difference. In fact, some of the general use comparisons from pro sites showed that the HTC One was slightly faster than the S4 in a number of normal tasks... tasks that most people would confront daily. I can't find the relevance in arguing performance until both devices are running Stock Android (one down, one to go). Finally, the weird button layout. Yes, that is a problem. I don't know what HTC was thinking when they decided on the two-button layout and very intrusive menu option button while running in-app. Luckily, for power users, there is already a hack to turn the HTC logo into a capacitive button (apparently). Rejoice, current One owners who are tech savvy! There is also talk of HTC getting rid of that menu bar in a future update. Rejoice, every other non-tech savvy HTC One owners!

The button layout.. and that trickery of a HTC logo button that's not meant to be...

The menu bar, meaning that out of place, black bar with the 3 vertical dots... yeah, that one.

    I'm sure there are more technical-related issues that the hardcore fanboys would dish at each other.. I feel that this is scratching the surface. The point is that, in the end, both of these devices are amazing. There really  needs to be more recognition for that, instead of a e-peen measuring, "my daddy is better than your daddy" contest. It was stupid 5 years ago. It's still stupid today. The hard truth is this: fanboys are afraid of admitting their commitment to whatever company they think should rule the world. They'll deny it up and down, but for someone who has been observing the battle from a distance, it's clearer than day. You have to accept this:

HTC fanboys = Samsung fanboys = Apple Fanboys = Nokia Fanboys = Motorola fanboys... etc, etc, etc.

If you engaged in such activites or feel a sense of duty to defend your favorite companies honor, regardless if you stood to make money by doing so, than you are that person. You are a fanboy. You are part of the problem. You are not a solution. In the hastag of the recently ousted Adam Orth of Microsoft: #dealwithit

...and the war continues.

SUPPLEMENT. FANBOYS OF A DIFFERENT TYPE - THE MINDLESS, CASUAL OUTBREAK.

Example 1

...annnnd Example 2

    So while the most noise can come from your typical fanboys, there is always a left out demographic within our midst. They're left out because they're simply silent majority. These are the people who don't look at phones the way power users look at their phone. These are the users who buy devices such as the S4, HTC One, iPhone 5 or the Nokia Lumia 920 (as shown in video), just to use Facebook, Instagram, play Candy Crush and text to their hearts content.. AND even obtain social status. These are just the average users who honestly know little or anything about the true capabilities of their devices..WHICH IS COMPLETELY FINE! The majority just wants a phone that just works. 

   The thing that I have been noticing as of lately is how vocal they are about their phones... and worse, the companies behind the phones. I see people asking their peers "which phone should I get?" Is it condescending to think that the random folks who quickly scream out "X, because derp derp!" is clueless and blindly following a device/company and bashing the other for some external, irrelevant reason? I'm talking about the people who use the "because its better" and  "I hate blah blah, so you should get this" justification. 

   "What do you mean my administration derp dee derped in Benghazi?"

 The contribution of what I like to call "depring points" doesn't help... at all. No, I'm not saying STFU. You have a right to say whatever the hell you want. I'm am saying that if you haven't thought about it all the way through and have some sort of backing or formulation or articulation as to why you think this device is legitimately better than another, than respectfully STFU! One can only read/hear/watch so much until they're flipping desks in rage. "Get X because I hate Y" is not legitimate. Here is the main point as to why you shouldn't be so quick to voice anything in regards to this: people are unique. People can think for themselves. No, I'm not saying that you shouldn't stop asking others what phone should you get. I'm saying that you should really read whoever answers that question; look who has given you well thought out answers or who actually has the device and whether they actually compared it to another device in question. Formulate your unique reasoning and decide on your own at the phone shop.

    To not blabber anymore, I'm saying to think about it. Claim: "I need a new phone." Warrant: "my other phone is broken/old/shitty." Data: "This phone is better because the battery life is much longer than my old phone and/or other device i'm looking to buy," or "i'm looking to game a lot so I'll get X over Y because X has better graphic capabilities," or "X uses LTE and Y uses the older HSPA+ so i'll be getting X so I can have faster network speeds." Now you have the device and you can talk about it and recommend it to someone with legit reasoning instead of something as quaint or childish as "herp derp Apple is turd; Samsung is durr!" Every time I read the comment boards on Apple's, Samsung's, and even Hawaii News Now (of all places) FB pages regarding any phone tech, I see the shit comments everywhere. They bury the legit comments or are responded with childish and irrelevant replies. Don't be that person!

 "Upham, careful you don't step in the bullshit."

First Blog of the Year! REVIEW: KWA LM4 PTR Gas Blowback Rifle

After several attempts of publishing a blog this year, I finally got to the point where I am satisfied to publish (not to mention emerging from writers block, and finding my blogging monkey xD ). This one is out of left field. I usually don't review guns of any kind, but I felt so compelled to do so tonight. I do want to make a disclaimer before I proceed. No fucking crybabies. I found some relevant uses for having airsoft guns in the house. For starters, suburbia Manoa is only a couple minutes from the city...this is an urban area, so it's only common sense that people not brandish their real steel around the yard when houses surround you. If you're too dense to sense that brandishing and even discharging your gun is wrong, you're just dumb; stop reading my blog. Secondly, even though I am saving up for this, much of O'ahu is not ideal for discharging your firearms. I'm not hooked up with the private range connections. Kokohead is dumb with their rapid fire rule. Magnum has an indoor range, and other places here and there Other than that, there are only a few hunting areas that permits us to hunt boars and feral goats (only during season) and that's it. Lastly, airsoft is good for muscle memory, form, and you get a bit of stress relief. In fact, I believe the stress relief is bigger than shooting downrange at Kokohead. You're getting a workout AND shooting someone? Damn, son. That's stress relief. 

So, getting the above through your skull, I found a gem in the airsoft world, and I would love to review it

This is the KWA LM4 PTR (Professional Training Rifle) Gas-Blowback rifle:

Click for Larger View

This beast was recently released by the very diligent folks at KWA, a California based company, and the LM4 was considered a heavily anticipated system in the airsoft world (along with the Magpul Edition LM4, and the Kriss SBR). Needless to say, these folks delivered again. KWA is known within the Law Enforcement community for training. From the Colorado Springs Police Department, to DHS, they use KWA systems because of the quality and detail they go into for their Professional Line guns.

The LM4 is gauged in mil-spec configuration, so real components can be used if you want (The following is real deal stuffs: Magpul MOE Grip, and Mission First Tactical BATTLELINK Utility Stock Fake gear: Troy Battlesight Fixed Rear Sight (old style), Magpul PTS Rail Vertical Grip, SureFire Muzzle for a 1st gen SureFire FA556AR suppressor replica). In fact, it is possible (with minor mod work) to use a number of real steel upper receivers, so if you do have an extra laying around, you'll be able to use it

Bolt carrier in the lock position

The manipulation, and appearance is supposed to replicate the real deal M4 system, complete with a full-slide bolt carrier & charging handle, buffer plate, bolt assist (not recommended to use, but it does work), trigger assembly, the ping-pong paddle (taking a cue from Chris Costa), and the safety/fire selector in relation to the position of the hammer.

Magpul MOE Grip.

MFT BUS. Note the storage has watertight lining,

 multiple strap & singlepoint attachment areas, 

and the space for a separate cheekpad assembly

The SureFire  suppressor replica with Muzzle.

The breakdown is also familiar among AR users. No need for high temp grease for your bolt assembly; just a couple sprays of 100% silicon [on the cylinder and hammer], barrel cleanup and an inspection/cleanup of the cavity (microfiber, recommended, but cotton is fine) will do the trick. Overall, maintenance is easy, granted you OCD on equipment to begin with. Special airsoft note: the hop up is at the front end of the upper, along the barrel. It is recommended that you open the rifle and adjust the hop up instead of what is shown in the manual. the teeth on both, the included key and the hopup adjuster can easily wear. Always make sure the teeth is flush on both ends and make small adjustments at a time.  

Innards 

Bolt Carrier & charging handle.

Finally, the magazine is a NATO STANAG style that holds 30 rounds, and it comes with a loading tube in case you don't own a speedloader. The material itself is made out of aluminum along with polymer on the top. I highly recommend that you keep the top of the mag free from debris, as this (if you can imagine) can damage your magazine! Based on personal testing in 85 degree weather, I was able to fire 3 1/2 magazines (105 BBs for those who keep count) before the gas ran dry. It tells me that this magazine (and the gun itself) is very efficient in the right conditions. Always remember that results may vary with the region, weather, and state of the magazine. In Hawai'i's case, the magazine is very efficient. 

Overall, I absolutely enjoy this rifle. It's accurate at a distance for a green gas gun, customization is nearly endless since it's built with the idea that law enforcement agencies will be putting their own custom gear onto the rifle. Lastly, the price to performance ratio is unbeatable at the moment. A lot of the high performing gas rifles cannot keep up with this gun (as stated on various forums and the below video), and until [very] recently, the LM4 was cheaper! Regardless to the competition response, the price for this type of airsoft gun is plus. Online retail: $379.95. Local retail Power Edge (account the extra bucks for shipping): $395.00.

At this point, I'll let the folks at Airsoft GI talk more about LM4 Personal note: the target portion of the vid..lolz, but that guy did an ok grouping for using light, .25gram BBs. Still, before I got the LM4, I was more worried about the performance under certain conditions, and it convinced me well enough. Hey, this will keep me busy and richer until I drop my moneyz for a Larue.

Comet Elenin/Nubiru/2012/Flying Pigs/Demon Clowns/Evil Pixies/Killer Babies

Obviously, my title screams my position on the whole "end of the world" scenario. Anyway, using my favorite addiction, StumbleUpon, I stumbled across the below video. I wasn't too sure if this was under the space category, or science... or comedy. This is for all those people who believe in this crap without any sort of credible source:

lol Notice the gigantic FAIL overlay.. watch it. It's funny stuff. Hoping to find a followup, I jumped to the posters page to find this:

"Knock it off, dipshit!"<-- what an excellent tagline!

Please, stop saying that the world is going to end next year. Lookup "The Great Disappointment of 1844" and move on.

The First 24 Hours... With the iPhone 4S

You see that? That's what we like to call the Apple iPhone 4S. We also would like to call this an Apple iPhone 4S armored with the Ballistic HC case, but we'll get to that in a bit.  I have some explaining to do with a disappointed Android community that I just alienated in a full circle fashion. My very first smartphone was the Samsung Captivate. I instantly fell in love with this phone. I was on this "don't fall into the iPhone fad" phase, so originally, I had to force myself to like the Android format even though it was a pseudo copy of iOS (which I had some experience with through my 1st gen iPod Touch); all the way down to the framework and the terminal interface (both being UNIX based OS's). Regardless of this, there is one thing that separated Android and iOS. That being the fact that Android is Open Source. Basically, if you know how to, you can alter, replace and rebuild Android to your liking without any reprieve from original creators or current property owner, Google. iOS was designed by Apple, for Apple products, and is similar to OS X (technically is OS X). Under those terms, the OS is Closed Source, and that makes the act of Jailbreaking your iOS device evil and wrong [in Apple's eye].

Goodbye, old friend.

Now, that is Androids clear advantage over Apple. Yeah, people do Jailbreak their iPhones, so this applies more in the legal sense (and Apple just loves to sue the pants out of you). I enjoyed my Rooted Android devices for the time being, but ultimately, it has become victim to the network provider. Up until Tuesday (Dec 20th), I have been using my Rooted HTC Inspire 4G. For the past month, this phone has been suffering from massive network issues. Places where I usually get at least 4MBit/s is now getting around .9 if i'm lucky. Changing the Antenna drivers to boost signal failed to work. Smartphones are nothing without the network to interface with. You can have full signal, but what good is it for a smartphone when it can't access network resources like the internet? I was getting tired of it.

Another thing that started to bug me is my already integrated life in the world of Apple and moreover, iCloud. In particular, contact syncing, calendars, and document syncing. Yes, I know Google has the same exact thing, but one, the only thing I use is Google Docs. Two would be that the contact syncing, and calendar interacts with my Google sync phone lists and Google Calendar by default, so I can add a person or event and it'll sync not only with all my Apple products, but with Google Docs and address list anyway. I might as well use the devices that can do both. I have the newest iPod Touch, iPad 2, and my old Macbook. All interfaced through iCloud. I might as well complete the circle... and that's what I did.

So my 24 hours started on Tuesday at around 1:45pm when the phone went live. The rep asked me if I wanted all my contacts transferred and I said no. Giving me a weird look, he gave me the phone and I showed him the magic. I entered my login info for iCloud and after logging in, I set the phone to sync my contacts. Seconds later, all my contacts that were on my Inspire showed up on my iPhone. I set out to the local shop that sold phone cases and found this Ballistic set staring me down. I couldn't resist and I bought it.

The cool thing about this case is that it's quadruple layered with an extra silicon insert and a clip. It also has a protective film covering the screen and camera lens and I have experienced no interference between the film and the touchscreen itself. 

I make it home by 4 with 20% charge remaining in the battery, so I register the device, and sync'd my device with the apps I wanted. I also started to download the top of the line camera apps due to my excitement that I now have a bitching camera for my iOS device and NOT that VGA crap that's on the iPad and iPod. Aside from the new camera hardware, the internals for the 4S are only slight upgrades from the iPhone 4. In fact, I'm know the average user wouldn't even notice the internal changes of the device, so without getting into too much detail as I usually do, I'm just going to say that the 4S runs on an Apple A5 processor which is slightly slower than the A5 processor in the iPad 2. It still uses the same 3.5 inch Retina Display known for it's clarity and brightness. It comes in 16, 32, and 64GB (model used is 32GB). It's particularly optimized for iOS 5, but you shouldn't notice any difference with the iPhone 4, iPad 2, and current gen iPod Touch. The camera is a very capable 8megapixel lens that can autofocus, tap to focus, and record videos at 1080p (30fps) with video stabilization in place. Add a app like 8mm, Camera+, and Instagram and you have a very potent camera with a variety of styles.

Check out the following Instagram shots: 

http://instagr.am/p/anR28/?ref=nf 

http://instagr.am/p/aoAiT/?ref=nf

http://instagr.am/p/apgo5/?ref=nf

Also check out these generic shots with the default camera app:

The big thing that this phone has over the rest is Siri. For those who don't know, Siri is an AI assistance program built within the 4S, and it's main purpose is to dictate actions that you may want it to do. At the most basic, You can tell Siri to either call someone on your contacts, send a message/text, create an alarm, set up appointments, and create reminders. You can also ask about the time or the weather at a certain place. What restaurants are in the area, do web searches, and do math. Siri is a big hit for the majority of users. It is known for it's sassy personality and the best part is that there really is no preset way to ask things. All you have to do is ask as if you're asking somebody else a question. You can even ask further. For instance, you ask "Siri, what do I have scheduled on Thursday?" After her answer, you can follow up with "well how about Sunday?" Speaking to it is easy, and don't have to sound like a robot or someone reading off an instructions manual. There is a problem that people overlook. Siri is actually learning as you use the iPhone. No, it's not forever on, but the more you look up stuff and interact with programs, it'll pick up on that for further ease. It also picks up your unique tone, so if you say some things in a certain way, it'll pick that up and eventually learn and understand it. People overlook that, and some have written Siri off because of it. They don't realize that it has to learn and build knowledge in order to converse with it. Remember, Siri is not a gimmick. It was a DARPA funded project meant for military application. If you're one of those people, you have to give it time and actually talk to it casually instead of yelling at it or reading like you're reading a book for the first time ever. Look out for the Easter Eggs as well. Ask Siri if it knows HAL (as in 2001: A Space Odyssey's HAL 9000). You may also ask about Skynet, and what the meaning of life is. It'll even help you if you need to hide a body, call a prostitute, or find drugs.

Yep, dumps...

...and it knows Monty Python flicks, too!

So where do you stand with the 4S? Are you in the market for a new phone? In my humble opinion, if you're integrated into with other iOS devices, Macs, and iCloud, you might as well get the phone that interacts with all of the above. If you have an older iPhone, I suggest that you keep it until the iPhone 5 drops sometime next year. Those who already bought the 4S but have regrets knowing that the iPhone 5 is around the corner, stick with your 4S. Yes, the iPhone 5 is expected to be a major upgrade. Yes, you may feel a little Jelly about it. There are two factors which will make or break this phone for you. The first is the area you live in. No signal from one state is the same in the next. Hawaii is notoriously spotty when it comes to data coverage. You can have full cell/SMS signal, but as I said earlier, it does a smartphone no good if you can't utilize the data coverage. Some places work better than others, and it's always changing. This ties into the second factor. 

The iPhone 5 is expected to carry the 4G LTE antenna. That's really fast data speeds; that's up to 34MBit/s or faster than most consumer broadband internet speeds. The problem is the slow rollout plan that companies like AT&T is doing. I mean, their fake-4G system (HSPA+) isn't even fully operational in Hawaii, and they already started rolling out LTE in 15 Mainland cities. Another thing about 4G anything is that it's coverage is much more spotty than expected due to the radio band it uses. I already see this going bad in Hawai'i and we're expected to get LTE last, so it'll definitely get here and cover the whole state well after the iPhone 5 is released. Stick with the 4S, alright? For the most part, it works with a consistent data speed and is predicted to be more reliable in the long run. This will ultimately set you up for one-upping the friend who rubbed his iPhone 5 in your face when you pull out an iPhone 5S or 6. You're welcome. Cheers!

Battlefield 3 - The Review

This is a true review. It may sound a little narcissistic, but as I stated in the prelim review, you all should know that the professional critics on top gaming sites are paid off, and it shows statistically when certain game titles get high marks on title alone even though they noted some significant issues, while another title gets slightly lower marks for having the same issues (i.e latency, glitches, washout, etc). BF3, having high to extremely high scores, still suffers that kind of stigma. I'm typing up this FULL review to praise and expose features for what they are. I will be breaking this down into sections, and sub-sections since I'm reviewing the PC and console version.

GRAPHICS

Praises

• PC - BF3's hometurf is where the graphics shine. It is a true DX11 title complete with all the bells and whistles such as Ambient Occlusion, and Tessellation. Things like the ground sprout up and look more like a rocky surface, while wall surfaces such as brick walls, and bullet holes pop out (or cave in). BF3 is also somewhat optimized for an array of different rigs, with little reduction in overall picture quality. Anti-Aliasing (or the reduction of jagged edges on a rendered object) is also very optimized even at low settings. Even at rig-straining settings and a resolution of 1920 x 1080, BF3 runs anywhere between 30 to 70 frames per second.
• Console - Dice tried extremely hard to keep the look of the PC version in the console version, and it somewhat worked. Of course, the console version has taken a hit, but despite that, BF3 on the console is a work of art. Much of the lighting in the PC version remains in the console version. The PS3 version also has slightly optimized features (MSAA, slight HBAO.. technical mumbo jumbo) which would make it the more superior version when compared with the 360 version. I don't think that's the case though. The 360 version has a default resolution of 1080p for all of it's game, and while that shouldn't matter as far rendering and textures are concern (i.e the game is rendered at 1280 x 704), the upscaled resolution makes a difference that places the 360 version as more graphically pleasing over the PS3 version. Regardless, Dice did a nice job reversing the order and porting BF3 from the PC to consoles, but it's not perfect by any means.
• Both- One word: Destruction. Now before the crybabies start saying that there isn't enough, you have to realize that because this game was built for both platforms, the limitations of said destruction is very obvious. You can't just expect to blow away an entire building because YOU thought it was possible. Remember, the hardware for the 360 and PS3 are 6 years old! You're looking at RAM and vRAM sizes of 256MBs - 512MBs as well as pretty dated CPUs. Now compare that to a quad core (or in AMD's case, 8 cores) CPUs with multiple GB's of RAM and a separate GPU with it's own set of RAM... Even slightly older PC builds are still more powerful than consoles. Before I get carried away, I'm just gonna narrow it down to the fact that consoles are holding multi-plats graphic potential, and this is no exception. Get that out of your head so you can actually see how this game engine shines.

Issues

• PC - Right now, the PC version has green screen tearing on several maps. This is quite annoying, but it's managable. The only case of going into (or under) a map that I have seen is at Damavand Peak (conquest) when you're fly a chopper through the mountain. Now that's a class A screw up right there. Originally, the game was littered with stuttering and it almost made the game unplayable for me. Luckily, a large part of that had to do with the servers back end and was nearly fixed after about 2 or so weeks.
• Console - Dice's efforts to keep much of the games bells and whistles may be commendable with the kind of hardware at their disposal, but it may have been too much. For instance, the foliage littered throughout a number of maps takes away from how the rest of the map looks. Add into the fact that the textures and resolution are rendered at 1280 x 704, and the experience is rather degraded. I may have spoiled myself by having both PC and the PS3 versions because the graphic differences are night and day. MSAA can only do so much as far as smoothing the textures are concerned. Another thing is that the games frames were capped at 30 frames. Again, hardware limitations considering how immense Frostbite 2 is. It does suck for someone who is used to seeing this game running between 50  to 70+ frames and even the likes of MW3 (that is another story for another day). 

The following are equivalent settings parallel to the Console version as told by Nvidia. 

SOUND
Sound is top notch! It is unbelievably detailed. If you have a good surround system, or surround headphones, make use of it! from shots cracking from a distance, to CQC situations, you're always going to be blown away by the sound engine. There are a number of output options that suits your current setup whether you want Hi-Fi, headphones, or even "War Tapes," be sure to cycle through your options. There is also a setting to enhance the sound even further for people who are using TV speakers, or your current speakers are made of doo doo or equivalent. All in all, I can't further describe how good the sound is, and YouTube can only preview what I said about it. You have to experience it for yourself.

Watch this in HD... listen to crazy ass sounds

SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN
In this day and age, it seems that the community just loves flashy explosions, flipping cars, and basically the same format as Michael Bay creates his movies. The folks at Activision is the master of that art no doubt, but does it make it any better? Yes and no. It's a yes because it keeps things visually pleasing, and it's a no because it also requires a good story.
What does that mean for BF3? Well, the flashy stuff wasn't as epic as you see in MW3, and the story sounds and looks familiar. Generally, the story is lackluster. It also has a bunch of quicktime events and rail play sequences that take away from the experience. What this game does well is show off the visuals as well as give the player a general rundown of the play mechanics. You also want to keep in mind that BF games are remembered by it's multiplayer aspect and not the singleplayer. If you observe previous BF games (before Bad Company), like BF2, single player was no more than 16 player bot matches. My thoughts on this recent emphasis on singleplayer is the simple fact that the publisher demanded they have an actual campaign to go after the likes of you know who.
If you're still interested, the story is about a typical terrorist bringing a WMD into the US with the plans of using it. You mainly play the role as Marine SSGT Blackburn who is being interrogated by a pair of government agents. You play his flashback missions to understand the background, and then you move onward and the like. Kind of sounds like a mix of Spy Game and The Sum of All Fears. I enjoyed both of those movies, but I definitely didn't feel it in BF3. Personally, I blame the industry for over saturating FPS games.
Another plus for the SP is the more realistic approach it takes. I find BF3s campaign more plausible than MW3s. It also can present a problem though because some people look for escape rather than reality. That is something MW3 brings to the table. In the end, you have to be into the premise to really enjoy the campaign.

MULTIPLAYER
Ah yes. The staple of this franchise is the multiplayer, and with BF3, it's really a complex situation. This is why it's broken down as such. Another thing is that I only have the PC and PS3 versions, and I know that the 360 version is generally the same, but they're also seeing different problems and play styles. Obviously, I won't cover those issues.

• PC - 64 players. More vehicles. More base caps. What's not to like? It felt like that over the past 4 years, the industry has been taking steps backwards with the player count per server with BFBC2 maxing out at 32 players, and MW2 maxing at 18. For some games, it works to have less players (like Gears and Rainbow Six Vegas), but for games like COD and BF, I don't think that the player count should be lower than 32 at the least! Folks who played COD 1 at Caretan and Brecourt will know my pain. Same for BF2 maps like Wake Island, and Gulf of Oman. 64 players work. Map sizes shouldn't even be a problem (considering Caretan is no bigger than Village on MW3), yet some genius thought that 18 players is enough even for the PC version? F*** that! And the publishers wonder why the PC community still plays COD 1, 2, 4 and BF1942, 2, and 2142.. Anyway, the 64 player limit is a welcomed re-addition. The only minus I seen is the fact that some areas are extreme bottlenecks of death. Grand Bazaar for instance where CP B is located (and Alleyway) is basically Rocket Arena. Imagine the scene in Immortals when Theseus and his band of Greeks was fighting in that main entry of the Great Wall... but with snipers, LMGs, and rockets. The player count also accommodates for the amount of vehicles that are present on the map and the amount of CPs.  Another PC related issue I seen (aside from bottlenecking) is the stuttering and artifact flickering that plagued several maps. My case in particular is a case of green flickering that happens more often than I want, but it wasn't game breaking. Fortunately, a new set of Nvidia, and AMD drivers was released recently, so keep a lookout for that. Absent from the retail build is the ridiculous giraffe prone glitch that plagued the beta, mainly because it was funny to see (google BF3 giraffe.. collect lolz).

• Console - Is the opposite of PC. 24 players. Less vehicles. Less CPs. Of course, this can't be helped because of the limitations. Before someone cries M.A.G and Homefront, compare those graphics and netcode to the likes of BF3... it's night and day. For M.A.G in particular, Sony made exceptions for it's bandwidth limits for obvious reasons (it was a PS3 exclusive). Another big reason for the reduced player count is the fact that Microsoft wouldn't accept a multiplat title if the PS3 version had more stuff. The hardware limitations of one system over the other was another factor of a reduced player count. Aside from that, the play count to map size ratio was balanced somewhat. Sometimes it works, and other times it felt like the maps (like Caspian) were still too big for the player count. Also take into account that the play style is also different. We're always going to see campers doing absolutely nothing for the team, but in general, other players are playing more like a team, rather than boosting their KDR. Ultimately, the fact of the matter is that every player counts. You only have 12 players on one side, and if one or two are camping on a rock overlooking  the opposite end of Caspian border (Definitely saw that), your team is going to lose plain and simple. Obviously, if you have 32 players on one side, it's not going to be as big of a deal, so it definitely is a console problem unless you're just playing TDM. Another issue with the PS3 version is the spotty chat. It always seem to cut in and out.

• Both - Customization, awards, leveling up and game modes make it to both sides (obviously). Awards range from class specific ribbons for doing their job (like reviving, or resupplying), to leveling up your weapon and receiving attachments, to medals for winning conquest matches a hundred times. Customizing comes down to how you set up your class, weapons, and vehicles. For instance, Assault and Medic are in the same class (like 2142). You can setup your class to be either dominate Assault (equipping an M320 grenade launcher over the medic pack), or dominate medic. Support class can either supply ammo to other teammates or be a demo man with C4. Engineers can either be anti-tank or anti-air. Recon can either be dominate sniper along with using an MAV drone to spot enemies at a distance, or go into the map using a PDW or sub machine gun and lay enemy warning devices or mobile spawn points. Customizing can be used according to situational awareness (like using a ranged weapon in a open field and switching to a shotgun in  a subway or alleyway). You can even change your uniform scheme based on what you like or if the environment calls for a certain pattern to be used. Leveling up consist of an array of aspects. Of course, there is just leveling up your account in the form of ranks. These ranks typically unlock new uniform patterns, dog tags, and general weapons to be used for all classes. The next aspect is leveling up your class which unlocks class specific weapons and equipment. The next one is vehicles which gives upgrades as you use a certain vehicle. The last aspect is the weapons. Not every weapon has an level system, but for those that do, it unlocks new accessories for every kill that you make. With the exception of Conquest Large (which I have no idea what the difference is), all the game modes are the same throughout the board. Of course, CQ makes it way into the game as well as the console born Rush and Squad Deathmatch. New to BF3 is Squad Rush, and Team Deathmatch.

• Battlelog - Let's get one thing straight. Battlelog is the EA FPS equivalent to Need for Speeds AUTOLOG and NOT Call of Duty's Elite service. For everyone, it's a social networking hub where you can add friends, chat with them, and brag about whatever. It comes with a forum board for posting issues, praising, or writing off the game. Unfortunately, these forums are plagued by Generation Derp who really use the forums as their personal bitch box. Aside from that, Battlelog posts your stats, unlocks, and reports on your last matches played. For the PC, Battlelog is used to launch the game. You use the server browser to search for a server and it activates EA Origin to start the game. The Same goes for Co-Op mode, and Campaign. I never had a real problem with Battlelog. Originally, it didn't list the ping of a server, and display the correct amount of players in the server, but has since been fixed to update in real-time. The com center is also another welcomed edition. If I see my friend online, I can either jump into his match, or we can form a party by dragging and dropping. Battlelog is shaping up more better than I originally thought it would be. I had my doubts about whether it would just work, but it did since the Alpha trial and has improved immensely. I wish I can say the same for MW3 and Elite, but I have NOT been able to log into the page through a web browser as well as the app from within my PS3 (one of the main reasons why I haven't posted a MW3 review).

• Console Server browser - While the PC has Battlelog for listing servers, the consoles have a specific server browser. This is a godsend for the console realm of random quick matching and not knowing how far that server is to you. The main point of having such a feature is so you can make the most of your distance to a server. Unlike the hosting method that MW uses, the server is dedicated and not bound by a host or his connection. Like Battlelog, you can filter your search based on region (keyword, REGION), game mode, amount of players in the server, gameplay rule type (regular or hardcore), and maps. I know that 360 users were reporting problems with the browser, but as far as what I seen on the PS3 version, I have not seen issues with it other than sometimes, there isn't enough servers online. It's not to say that there is a low amount of servers in general, but rather, my filter is too narrow. In the end, this is a welcomed addition to the console version and I encourage every console player to make use of it. In other words, unless your internet connection sucks ass, lag shouldn't be an excuse.

• Gameplay - I can't emphasis this enough: gamers are never satisfied. They either want more, or they want something to be more like a previous game. BF3 is no exception with a following of players who would rather see this game play more like BF2. Ironically, the very same people also use the argument of MW3 being a rehash of MW2 against people who only play COD. Now I agree that MW3 is a rehash. It is. Face the facts. What I also say is that BF3 shouldn't be BF2.3. I don't want that game. I have it already. It's called BF2 and BF2142. MW3 may be a rehash, but it's not to say that it's a bad thing. It's not. So how does BF3 stackup gameplay-wise? It plays a lot more like Bad Company 2, with elements of BF2. The gunplay is based on the type of weapon and how you fire said weapon. Sometimes, spraying and praying works and at other times, controlled burst shots will help you. There is also the option of firemodes for guns such as the M416 which can be used for sniping if the distance permits. Muzzle climb depends on what kind of accessories are equiped and how you fire at our enemy. Vehicles are actually well balanced, with a few minor gripes. For instance, the jets are very noob-friendly and are rather useless unless you have items that actually do damage on the ground. As of right now, I don't see anyone with enough experience to have laser guided ground munitions, so unless they know how to use the rocket pods, jets are only useful for shooting helos or keep opposing jets busy. Another factor is your aim and the presence of physics. One person argued that it takes too many bullets to kill someone. As much as 6 bullets! Now that's a waste if you ask me. If that person knew how to control their shots correctly, you can drop some one in 2 - 3 shots. Remember, headshots count! Bullet drop is also in effect! It's not laser tag! It's not a hard concept. It's as easy as gauging your distance and adjusting your shot. I mean, the numbers and distance notchs are already on the ACOG or ballistic scope. Another thing is that people make use of the buildings in ways that aren't just for camping. Blasting a side of a building with a rocket or tank shell will cause rubble to crash onto the street. people use the rubble to not only blow away potential camp sites, but to kill people with the rubble. It's a minor detail, but it keeps the games dynamic. Camping is possible, but not recommended in urban maps because chances are that the wall or pillar you're hiding behind may no longer be there when rocket gets shoved up your ass. Again, there is a bottlenecking issue on the PC version especially on linear maps like Op Metro in CQ, but it makes an opportunity to build up some of your classes.  Gameplay as a whole mainly depends on the team you're on. If the team is actually acting as a team, it's going to be a much more enjoyable experience. Kill/Death Ratio is considered secondary in BF, so you can have a KD of 1/10 and still have a chance in placing as the number 1 player just because you were resupplying, reviving, healing, or spotting. If your team setup their tents at Camp Campfield, then you might be a little overwhelmed by the other team. 

• Replay Value - Simply put, it has the potential of be just like BF2. BF2 has been out for 6 years, and I still find maxed out 64 player servers. The same goes for COD 1 and United Offensive. There are several factors that hinder the replay value. The big one is the fact that EA and Activision are over saturating the market with FPS titles, the chances of seeing a new BF title in the next year or two is high. Another factor is the absence of mod tools. Mods have kept games like BF2, Crysis, and COD alive on the PC. BF2 has excellent mods like AIX, and Project Reality, while games like COD 4 has the very excellent Star Wars mod. The mod community is what keeping those games alive. BF3 is currently setup so mod tools are a near impossibility. The console version will suffer heavily because when a new title comes out, the majority will flock to it. It can be the same for PC, but it hasn't been a factor for the likes of BF2 and COD4. I hope it will be the case for BF3, but don't count on the majority replay value lasting more than 2 years tops.

SUMMARY

• PC - Battlefield has returned... somewhat. It hasn't been a smooth transition and people need to face the realities to the fact that gaming industry and it's state dictated what the game is and is not. The visuals are top notch and unrivaled by other titles within the genre. The folks at Dice used DX11 to it's full potential. The singleplayer may have been lackluster, but that's not what BF is all about. Any long time BF player would know that this is a multiplayer game, and it shines beyond any level of gameplay that other games in the genre possess. If you have the hardware to support it, BF3 has to be part of your library. 

• Console (PS3) - While its a graphic marvel under technical grounds, It didn't have to have all the details and bells and whistles. IMO, if the console version had at least 32 players with the sacrifice of some foliage and rocks popping up from the ground, I think BF3 could have been a better game on the consoles. Generally, it doesn't take the overall experience away. It's still fun, especially when you're playing in a party. Gamers are getting into the mindset that this is an objective based game rather than a lone wolf game even though you can do it if you want. Don't fret too much console only players. There is still word that Nintendo will be releasing BF3 for the Wii U, so if you're planning on getting that, expect to see better visuals, and hopefully higher player count, and other bells and whistles that may be added to that version.

SCORE (based on a 10 point system. Overall score consists of adding the 5 category scores together and dividing it by 5. )

PC

• Gameplay: 9 / 10
• Graphics: 10/10
• Sound: 10/10
• Singleplayer: 7/10
• Multiplayer: 9/10
• Overall: 9

PS3

• Gameplay: 9/10
• Graphics: 8/10
• Sound: 10/10
• Singleplayer: 7/10
• Multiplayer: 9/10
• Overall: 8.6

And a preview of what's to come...

COD folks! A MW3 review is in the works! As soon as Elite becomes accessible, I'll be able to start it.

Thoughts: MORE BF Vs. COD + [Preliminary] Review: Battlefield 3 (PC & Consoles)

FREEZE! SCROLL DOWN FOR BF3 PRELIM REVIEW! FOR THOSE CRYING LIKE LITTLE BITCHES AND CALLING ME A FANBOY...READ ON (IF YOU CAN)


THOUGHT
So here we are. It's been nearly a month since I posted my first impressions regarding the beta, and now that the final build is out, what do I think about BF3? Well, I have to be real when I say that this game needs to grow on me a little more. This is by no means a bad game. On the contrary, it a pretty good game. There are elements that I seen right off the bat that makes me shake my head. A lot of it has been somewhat stated by professional critics, but their profession is often left with suspicion that a publisher has "paid off" the editors (of IGN, Gamespot, etc, etc) to praise their title or diss the other. I find their judgements clouded and irrelevant.

I have an obligation to say how this game really is without bias. Yes, I been hyping BF3 up religiously over the past month. Yes, I'm more of a BF fan over Call of Duty, but some of you know that I still play COD anyway (G, Ian, Bird, FBGM..). Today, they're both 2 different games suffering an identity crisis. For MW3, they're trying to hook BF fans with the changes of the perks, weapon experience system and more team oriented modes. IF anyone played the best COD games in the franchise, COD 1 and COD United Offensive, you would know of a little mode called Base Assault. This game mode was directly aiming to score BF 1942 fans with large maps, vehicles, and of course, 64 players. Overall, the direction Activision wanted to take was the fast paced, yet casual, arena-type. Obviously, it works! I still find myself playing COD1 (PC), COD4 (PC), and Black Ops (PS3). The formula is still relevant, but I wish that MW3 had things like 64 players... at least. For BF3, they're trying to lure in the COD fans with modes like Team Deathmatch, and as far as I can tell, it's really a sniper's paradise. I don't know if it's the COD fans attempt to quick scope (to which they're doing it wrong), or the map is way too imbalanced for run and gun, but as of right now, it's not working.

All complexities aside, the fact of the matter is that BF and COD are different games. They both have their unique skill set so that whole "BF requires skill" deal is irrelevant simply because I'm able to play decently for both games. The ideology in what's pro or not is also different. If you haven't noticed, BF awards on the level of getting objectives done and supporting your teammates (Dropping ammo, health, reviving, etc). Your score and your win/lose ratio is important. COD is also about win/lose, but your Kill/Death ratio counts a whole lot. Keep that in mind.

Another big thing that I wish IW/Sledghammer/Treyarch did for MW3 is create a new engine! IW4 has been used since COD2, and even that variant was a heavily modified version of Id's Tech III engine used in Quake III Arena. Personally, and word from various forums, the game just looks like more of the same thing. It didn't jump out like COD 4 did back in 07 (and I was hyped, Hyped, HYPED for it!). While it's not prefect, at least Dice has the time to develop the a new engine, and the results were still a beautiful outcome. It's nice.

I can easily say that the worse part of these two franchise is the fans. In particular, the most vocal of fans... the fanboys/girls/trolls. They are the loudest, narrow-minded, and ignorant of fans. They habitually support their franchise and/or gaming platform, and the worse part is that everyone is somehow guilty of being like that. I'm a little more reformed these days, and that's only because I reunited my 360 with my PS3, and my PC. I tend to still poke a little fun at folks from time to time, but all platforms seem to have it's merits and flaws. I also love to let these folks speak their newspeak and whatever witty remarks they may have. They're just so easy to put in Cloud 9 only to yank them by the eye socket back to Earth. Personally, I think game franchises are the worst when it comes to fanboyism, ESPECIALLY when it comes to BF and COD. It's horrible, and it's worse this generation because we are so net-connected to the world, EVERY ONE  has an opinion. Even I have an opinion (I love BF), but how can you be a fanboy if you end up buying the products of both sides and put some hours in said product? Anyway, a lot of these fantrolls also impose their opinions to dissuade, or piss off the opposite crowd. This may seem like typical behavior throughout the years, but it's especially noticeable because of internet outlets that seem to give everyone a chance to speak on a soapbox.  Compared to the last 3 generations of games and gamers (PSX/N64/Saturn, PS2/Gamecube/Xbox, PS3/360/Wii) the current generation is by far the worse batch. It begs the question about if a gamer is ever satisfied. Maybe my standards are too low, but despite that, I still stand by the fact that the Fanboy Generation (or Generation Derp) has damaged my perception of the majority of gamers.  I thought that people played games because it was fun. I didn't think that a cult following had something to do with gaming. Sadly, those folks who have been playing for 5 generations (and beyond) are always part of the demographic, so there really is no way to distinguish who is a part of this generation. Sadface is sad. :(


SO WHAT ABOUT THE BF3 REVIEW?

Jeez, alright! This is a first impression, preliminary review. As you may know, I bought both the PS3 and PC version. There was no way that I was going to miss the eye candy, large map, 64 PLAYER carnage on the PC. I also am also catering to the friends who won't make that step and build a PC, so the PS3 was also a must. Figuring that I have both, console and PC versions, this is great in the future when I have enough playtime, and time in general to muster up a full review. In the meantime, I put in about 3 hours on the PC version and close to 6 on the PS3 (as of 26OCT).

GRAPHICS/SOUND
For the PC, I was mainly trying to load test my CPU/GPU, and I was able to crank out 40 - 50 frames on a mix high/ultra graphics setting and all the bells and whistles enabled. The game looks incredible! I couldn't believe how it looked. I was impressed by the detail and optimization. So how did the PS3 (or consoles) fair? Well, if you turn the settings on the PC version to low, that's what the consoles look like. Is that bad? It's a yes, and no because Dice wanted to add as much detail and foliage in to maintain the looks of the PC version. The effort is great and all, but they had to sacrifice a lot, and the end result is so-so. It's not to say that it's not inferior, but the effort may have been a bit too much for the consoles. Another thing is the fact that the console version is rendered in sub-HD. Yes, SUB-HD! The game is displayed at 1280 x 720 (aka 720p) for the PS3 and upscaled to 1920 x 1080 for the 360. In reality, the game for both versions are rendered at 1280 x 704. Dice did that to reduce memory usage while maintaining the foliage. It doesn't incredibly hurt the visuals, but I think I would rather sacrifice some foliage and random objects for a high overall appearance.

The following 3 shots are PC shots emulating Console specs according to information released by Dice and Nvidia. The resolution is @ 1280 x 720 and the overall settings are set to Low. Keep in mind that the actual resolution for consoles is @ 1280 x 704. Basically, 8 lines of pixels were eliminated. Click for better detail.

That issue is just where it starts. We have to break it down to specific consoles, and while the difference is really minor (and I mean REALLY minor), it is still noteworthy. Playing the PS3 version, I have noticed texture loading is slow. Not really slow, but if you're looking for it, you can see it. Based on what I heard about the 360 version, textures load much faster, and the clarity is slightly better.

There is one thing that all versions are currently suffering from and that's graphic tearing, artifacts, and floating objects. My advice is to just standby and wait for a patch. Believe me, the same thing happened when Battlefield 2 released back in '05 and even COD United Offensive when it released. Things got better, and this is no exception.

As far as sound is concerned, it's probably one of the best experiences I ever heard for a video game. From bullets flying, to buildings crumbling, it's a symphony. I highly recommend that you have surround headsets (at least 5.1), or a surround system.

These shots are PC @ 1920 x 1080. The settings were a mix between Ultra and High and with the 560 Ti, it was running anywhere between 30 to 70 fps. Click for better detail.

GAMEPLAY (SINGLEPLAYER & MULTIPLAYER)
What can I say? It's still feels like the same ol' Battlefield to me. Yes, there are new tactics, but I think I'll go into that in the full review. We do have some issues that I noticed off the bat.

For the single player campaign, I highly recommend that you go through it once even though the professional reviews say that the singleplayer is dookie. It'll give you most of the play mechanics for the folks who never played a BF game. Another thing, believe it or not, is interaction with the enemy AI. The AI is rather....bad, but it's mainly bad because they're overpowered. There are random moments in the game where you just die out of nowhere. It's annoying, but a lot of it reminds me of run and gunners on MP who would do the same, only to get a random bullet to the dome. All in all, the campaign should run you about 8 hours, and it kind of feels like The Sum of All Fears. Is that a good thing? Well, the concept is rather stale these days.  It's really down to playing either a gritty, yet boring story.... or Michael Bay on Ice (MW3).

This is also a game of discipline. Someone cried about popping 6 or so rounds before dropping someone. Muzzle discipline is in effect! Especially for the console folk who have to use the statistically slower thumb stick to control things like muzzle climb. Yes, there is more emphasis on controlling your weapon, but for those who played games like COD 1 or BF2, controlling your guns muzzle shouldn't be a problem. It's really a matter of who fires first and how good your latency is. Another thing that will help is the fire mode toggle. If you're tucked in pretty good and fast with sending rounds downrange in semi, do it. It's very effective, especially if you're playing Support.

The multiplayer maps are of varying size and tactics. From the vehicle dependent Caspian Border, to the infantry focused Seine Crossing, there is something for everyone.  More to come in that department.. but be aware that buying the game now will give you access to 4 additional maps from previous BF games (among other things).

From the looks of things, there are many unlocks that keeps the replay value. From guns, to accessories, to class enhancing equipment, I have a long way to go before I have my classes all setup the way I wanted.

So far, Battlefield 3 is shaping up to be a game of it's own. It's a fusion of BF2, and Bad Company 2, but it really stands out on it's own. It's not perfect by any means, but as the critics are already saying, you're not going to find a more in depth game than BF3. As the server backend gets fixed, and more patches are released, I can give a much better and full review of the game.