(Feature) 5 Things That Can Make Or Break A Game

Creating a video game involves a lot of complex planning, but there are a few things that can make or break any game, regardless of genre. Here is my take on 5 things I think can make or break a game. For the record; I avoided going for directly obvious choices, such as 'Gameplay' because it is such a vast genre to include. Instead I've singled out more specific issues.

Audio Quality

Sound is as, if not more important, than graphics in a video game. It is often, wrongly, underrated when considered, with other aspects being put first, when in reality it should be near the top of the list of necessities. Audio quality is of the utmost importance.                                                                                   

 Many games have hollow sound that lacks good meat and bass and it can pull you out of a game in an instant. This is especially relevant if you use a headset or headphones, because when using normal speakers the sound simply goes out into the room and drifts to your ears, whereas when using a headset it goes directly to them, giving them the sound right from the core. There is no sound loss here, as it is on a one-way trip through the cable and to the receiver's ears. 

This means it can be incredibly easy to pick up on poor audio.

There are plenty of culprit games here. Red Dead Redemption had mediocre sound quality, as did the likes of games like Enslaved: Odyssey To The West and Fallout 3. It doesn't matter if the games are made by big or small developers; poor audio is a much too common issue.

While the sound effects might actually sound good, it can often be the actual dialogue that sounds particularly poor. The actual quality of the talking may be shallow and echoey and unenjoyable on the ears, often sounding like it has been recorded in a big, crowded room with a £20 microphone.

If a game does have good audio quality, I guarantee immersion will increase by a large percentage. Games like L.A Noire, Halo 4 and Far Cry 3 have great, if not, in some cases impeccable, audio, and it does wonders for the involvement.

Story and Characters

Not all games are story orientated, so that part of this section may not necessarily completely and directly apply to all games, however a lack of story can still result in a poor and not that enjoyable experience, regardless of what the game focuses on. What's more, characters are essential too. Bulletstorm, despite being a generally awful game and having too many other faults to count, also had a God-awful story and characters who you just wanted to punch in the face.  

The whole plot was a shambles and even if the dialogue hadn't been full of excessive expletives, most of the characters would still be as unlikeable as they were.

I'm not saying had it had a better story it would have naturally been more enjoyable, but it would've helped a bit with the 6 hour slog that was the campaign.

A game has to have something interesting to play for in the story as well as a good cast. Alan Wake, Uncharted, Red Dead Redemption, Catherine, even Gears of War, all had interesting plot lines and characters. Sure Gears of War wasn't as dedicated as Uncharted in terms of really hammering home the story, but it had a great cast and the plot was definitely interesting and involving enough to be sustained throughout three (soon to be four) games.

When it comes to games like Uncharted itself, then you have a series really focused on making everything story related truly work and it helps a ton with how fun the overall game is. It's so important for games to have more time for the story because not having something deeper than just gameplay to play for easily makes the experience more boring. 

Some games actually suffer from poor characters too. There are a fair few games that include almost no likeable or involved characters leaving you wondering why exactly you're playing the game. If there is no one to like or miss when they die, what is the point?

While not as much of a focus for all games, story and characters don't have to be, they just have to be portrayed well enough to involve the player. Whatever you do devs, don't, and what's more, stop, getting lazy over these things.

Controls

So you probably thought of your own list of things that can make or break games the moment you read the title of this feature, and I'm also guessing it didn't feature controls - after all, it's not the first thing that likely pops to mind. 

Controls are so vital to the enjoyment of a game that it really baffles me when a developer screws it up. Some games naturally have more complex controls because they are of a different kind of genre than usual, but even then it is ridiculous that some games get released with awkward, weird and borderline broken control schemes. 

Sometimes the variant, replacement, control layouts are just as rubbish too. 

Having to click an analogue stick to gain access to the ADS (aim down sights) action is outrageously annoying for almost any game. Halo focuses almost entirely on hip fire aiming with only a few weapons utilising the use of aiming down the sights, so it just about gets away with it. But in many other games it is one of the worst control decisions ever.                                                                          

There are tons of control problems games can have. Non moveable camera or poor camera control (for third person games mainly), stupid crouch and go prone buttons, awful accelerate, break, gear up/gear down controls, rubbish get in cover button (I'm looking at you L.A Noire), poor aiming, sensitivity that still sucks when turned up to full, terrible sprint button too and a host of other ridiculously common design flaws. And they are design flaws. There are no 'we were just experimenting' or 'it compliments the style of the game' excuses here: poor controls are stupid, avoidable, practically game breaking flaws. 

Oh I forgot the stupid button combinations too, and no, I'm not referring to fighting games (I'm looking at you, Enslaved. Take a good hard look at yourself. I hope you're happy. What the hell was up with those awful button combos? Really? REALLY?) 

Pacing

If there was ever anything that made me get bored of a game, it was pacing. Poor pacing is not only an issue in itself, but when a game has bad pacing it highlights other issues with the game too. For instance, in the case of Call of Duty: Black Ops II, the game had pretty bad pacing, to be frank, and when it started getting boring due to this, I found it hard to keep playing because it highlighted how there was little else in the campaign to keep me going either. With poor pacing, which makes it tiresome to play anyway, and a mediocre story it became a chore more than anything.                                          

Pacing really is make or break. Gears of War 3, Final Fantasy XIII and Spec Ops: The Line are great examples of games with bad pacing - especially Spec Ops. 

The game started off pretty slow, and then it included a couple of fight scenes before going quiet again. Sounds OK right? Not really; it soon swung the other way. The more you got into the game, the less breaks there were until it got to the point where it was basically fight scene after fight scene with one cutscene or remotely quiet patch every half an hour. 

It got to the stage where I started dying in one section and just walked away from the game - not because I was angry, but because it was so wearying. Luckily the game had an incredible story so it balanced itself out in the pros and cons department. 

Pacing can easily destroy a good game, though. The games mentioned above were all really good in other ways so it wasn't completely one sided, but when a game lacks the finesse in its story, gameplay and other attributes and overall isn't as high quality, then bad pacing can make it far from worth playing.

It doesn't really matter what form of poor pacing a game might have, whether it be too many fight scenes or not enough; in the end it still makes it become a tiresome to play, so it's a lose lose situation. Having well laid out action and cutscene/quiet time pieces are essential in making a game as good as it can possibly be and avoiding these all too common issues.

Lack of Co-Op

I didn't really want to make this article about multiplayer because unless a game is multiplayer only or completely focused on that part of the game, it isn't really relevant to making or breaking a game. That said, a lack of offline and online co-op can be a killer for good games. 

Games that don't offer good or even any cooperative play should take a good, hard, look at themselves. Not that all games need co-op, but many game that should offer this sort of feature but don't suffer as a result.

Offline split screen co-op isn't catered for as much these days, which is baffling given how useful it can be. There is nothing like playing with a family member or friend and having a great time. Yes, online co-op and multiplayer is the focal point of many games and gamers but split screen should not be ignored, at all.

Unbelievably, most of the recent Need For Speed games lack split screen, which is a total shambles because pretty much every racing game should offer this ability. That is what makes racing games so enjoyable to play with other people. Having a laugh with a mate while playing on the same console is rarely replicated in the same way online. It's unique really and needs to be included.

Games like Gears of War, Halo, FIFA and Call of Duty don't cut any corners when it comes to this area of co-op and they do well from it. It adds so much to a game when it includes split screen play or/and online co-op and definitely increases the length of time you may spend with it.

If games don't feature split screen when it seems pretty necessary, if not essential, it doesn't effect the overall enjoyment of the single player; but a lack of added modes for two players can really bring it down. I've abandoned plenty of good games early because after finishing them there is just little to do. 

Aside from their stupid reluctance to offer split screen, some games still lack online co-op too, which is just as absurd. In the end, regardless of whether it is offline or online cooperative play, it is necessary and developers need to learn this.

While it may not determine if the game is actually good or not, lacking this feature certainly can cause issues.

So there you have it. What are your thoughts on what can screw games up? Give your opinion in the comments!

(Series:1 Ep.2) Ultimate Team Player Of The Week

This series will now be appearing every Friday! Hope you enjoy!

Dami án Álvarez 

Club: Tigres U.A.N.L

League: Liga MX

Nation: Mexico

Position: LM (Left-Midfield)

Height: 5'5"

Foot: Right

Week Foot: * * * *

Skill Moves: * * * *

Attacking Workrate: Medium

Defensive Workrate: Medium

Average Cost: 600 - 1,000 Coins

Card Type: Rare Silver

Base Stats:

Pace: 82

Shooting: 62

Passing: 70

Dribbling: 79

Defensive: 44

Heading: 47

Why is he so good?

Unless you're a hardcore Silver Player collector/user then it isn't massively likely you've heard of Álvarez. He's a rare silver player who is, simply, awesome. 

So why is he so brilliant? Well, his 82 pace feels far more when you use him, most likely due to his tiny height and light weight which make him instantly more speedy than you might expect. He can accelerate incredibly fast, however, quite like Antonio Di Natale, his actual sprint speed isn't the fastest. He is fast, but he doesn't zoom off into the distance. 

His tiny height doesn't come in useful at all when up against other players in a physical sense. While it helps his pace and dribbling, he will get pushed off the ball by the slightest nudge. If you like running at players and trying to push past them, this won't work with him. His strength is a mere 53 which I suppose does an OK job of representing how puny he is.

As mentioned above, his small height and weight does come in useful when dribbling. Getting around players is fairly easy, especially with his 4 star skill moves. He can dodge challenges and dribble his way past players before accelerating at great speed to rush away, which is great.

Being positioned in LM it is likely you will want to use him to make a fair amount of passes. He fairs very well in this area, luckily. His lob through balls and other passes are as accurate as any player I've used, however he doesn't quite have the vision or skill to pull of magnificent, Xavi-Esque, balls.

He is the type of player that is great to use in a Give & Go or One Two situation due to his good passing and pace as well, which comes in useful.

No doubt shooting is a fairly important part of a player that most people look to as well. While his card states he has a mere 62 shooting ability, he is far more skillful than that. 

His actual finishing is labelled as 50 while his longshots are 71. Despite this he finishes most shots that come his way in the penalty area and is very good at hitting the target from long range. His finesse shots are particularly impressive. 

That said; he won't be worrying the keeper from acute angles or difficult positions. If it is set up right he'll do the job but if it's more of a tricky shot, expect maybe a miss or two. On top of that, while his is great at getting shots on target, not all of them, mainly his longshots, will worry the keeper due to his low shot power. Unless he has a run up and the shoot button is held down for an appropriate amount of time, his shot may just bobble on towards the goal and not really cause any hassle.

His height obviously puts him at a massive disadvantage when heading and we've already discussed his poor strength so defending is pretty much of the same quality. He won't excel in those areas, although he is actually pretty good at closing down opponent players and performing standing tackles. He is still far from efficient in defensive situations though. 

To sum up why he is such a great player, it is simply due to his great pace, equally as good dribbling ability and his underrated shooting. He gets into great positions, can play a pass and finish a chance. He is a real star player that must be considered for any silver orientated squads.

Should you buy him?

I would advise you to, yes. He is actually very cheap when other silver players of similar stats and ratings are considered. He only cost me 400 coins, although usually he goes for around 600 to 1,000.

While price isn't an issue, he does play for a pretty obscure club in an equally as obscure league, so he won't appeal to any people interested in 'team' or 'league' orientated squads. That said, he is a silver player, so anyone who is building a silver squad of mixed nationalities and clubs should certainly consider him. 

Overall, he is just one of those great, underrated players you find around. He may not fit in with every squad but if there is room for him: buy him. He may be a bit obscure, but if I were to give a simple answer to the question in hand - Should you buy him? - I'd just answer yes. Yes, you should buy him.

(Feature) This Generation Of Rockstar

Rockstar are undoubtedly one of the best video game developers in history, making some of the most explosive, story and action driven games ever. They immerse you in the worlds they create with deep characters and intriguing stories that play off of the present as well as history. 

With Grand Theft Auto: V only around the corner and the next generation of consoles soon to be appearing on shelves, I take a look back at Rockstar and their efforts to entertain people during the Xbox 360/PS3 generation. (This list consists of the main releases by Rockstar during this generation and some less important titles are not covered).

2008 - Grand Theft Auto: IV 

Rockstar kicked off the new generation with a bang with the release of GTA: IV. Well, it was a little later than people would have liked; 2008 to be exact, a full 3 years after the Xbox 360 was released.

People queued for hours at midnight releases just to get their hands on a copy. The game itself caused a ton of controversies. Even real life crimes were committed that the press and opposers to the series suggested were because of the new game. 

In the end the game received critical acclaim, although personally I never bought into it. Grand Theft Auto: IV just wasn't good enough in my book. The start of the game was compelling and brilliant and set the tone just right. But it seemed to deteriorate as the game went on. The story became a chore and characters, aside from Niko, were just plain out boring.

What's more, having characters phone you up every 2 minutes to ask you to hang out with them or go on another date was annoying as hell. If the mini games you had to play on these dates had actually been enjoyable it might not have been so bad. However they sucked in every way. Pool and Darts mini games were like something from a cheap 1980's arcade game - and I mean that in the worst way possible.

Generally speaking GTA: IV was a solid game, but the successor to its brilliant predecessors? Not really. That said, I certainly liked its darker, more cynical take on things compared to the more comedic tone of previous games.

DLC didn't take too long to come and when it did, it impressed me a fair amount more than a lot of original missions. New characters were introduced and some old ones reappeared, however the game still suffered a lot of the original issues.

It was hit and miss for me, but ultimately, while flawed, it was still a good play. In a way it felt Rockstar were trying to make the game amazing, but just didn't completely pull it off - but at least their heart was in the right place. In other words: the game wasn't not that great because of lazy developers; Rockstar just didn't succeed in all they tried.

2008 - Bully: Scholarship Edition

The very popular Playstation 2 game 'Bully' made a reappearance on the Xbox 360 and Wii in 2008 after Rockstar released a revamped version of the game including new missions and characters. 

However, despite this added content, the game was still very much the same as it had always been. Bully is the type of Rockstar game that represents their older material very well. Quite like the older Grand Theft Auto games, it isn't nearly as story driven or involving as later, more recent, Rockstar games. 

One of the key points that make Bully such a brilliant game, though, is the entirely unique setting and angle it takes. Rockstar have always received a lot of recognition over the fact that their games tend to be extremely violent and adult, however Bully proves that they should really be receiving attention for how brilliantly designed and different their games are. 

Bully isn't exceptionally violent or distasteful. You play as a pupil in a school. It's as simple as that really. However with brilliant angles taken on the lessons, missions and characters, it becomes an intriguing experience you can't put down.

In a way it is just like GTA: San Andreas but in a school. Every bit of equipment in GTA is included in Bully but just in a different, more innocent, form.

The key point, for me at least, that made Bully so brilliant wasn't just the uniqueness of it, but the fact that while the story and characters may not be massively engrossing, the game world was so interesting and different it made the game as good as it is. Certainly, without the epic open world to explore, Bully would suffer and end up as a game with little aim that would simply bore most people. However with this aspect of the game included it makes it all the more worth playing.

If you haven't played Bully at all, I suggest you pick it up. It doesn't represent how amazing Rockstar can make characters and stories, but it does represent how incredible and unique they can make a game and its world.

2010 - Red Dead Redemption

Rockstar didn't release any epic new titles for a little bit and then this gem came out.

In a way, Red Dead Redemption is the turning point of Rockstar games and how brilliant they are. They'd always made epic games, but RDR incorporated such an incredible story it took me by surprise. Certainly, all Rockstar games since RDR have seemed far more satisfying in the story department.

That's the thing about Red Dead; there is so much about it to love, including a phenomenal and unique setting and world to explore as well as superb gameplay; however it is the balance between these aspects of the game and its almost perfect story that make the game so (borderline) perfect.

This isn't GTA: IV, where you go from mission to mission meeting characters you don't really care about with the main focus always on the driving, shooting and Liberty City; RDR was all about having a brilliant everything. The setting was nailed. The Wild West environment? Beautifully crafted. The gameplay? Outstanding. The story? No more shallow characters and a plot that is best used as a bedtime story; Red Dead Redemption had a superb story full of great characters and voice acting that was pretty much perfect.

Sure, going back to some of the characters and revisiting them instead of going about missions in that scripted, linear way would've been nice, but that is a small beef with such a deep and emotional story.

The game wasn't perfect but many of its faults were actually ones that were impossible to avoid, like having a fairly bland environment to explore. Unfortunately that is just the way the West was back then and unless Rockstar were to abandon the realistic aim of the game, having the game world that way was inevitable.

Red Dead was, and still is, brilliant, and it sums up just how amazing Rockstar can be. Their commitment to the cause and their ability to make everything as high quality as possible is incredible. The deep story, the gameplay and the setting were all outstanding.

The DLC for RDR didn't impress everyone. Instead of either a direct story follow up or a new story with new characters, Rockstar opted for the rather, well, weird. Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare was what was on the menu for fans. It featured the same characters as in the original game but put them in a zombie attack situation. It was a spin off and didn't have any relevance to the original games story.

Quite frankly, while it was pretty enjoyable to play through, the multiplayer was the great part. Having to survive wave after wave of zombie hordes with a few buddies might sound extremely familiar, however Undead Nightmare didn't take itself seriously in any way and it was so easy to jump in and play that it wasn't intimidating either.

While story focused DLC would have been nice either instead of or as well, Undead Nightmare got the job done, and it certainly satisfied in the multiplayer department.

2011 - L.A. Noire

While Team Bondi are noted for being the 'developers' of the L.A. Noire, there is no doubt that Rockstar, the publishers of the game, had a fair amount of say in the development themselves.

L.A. Noire isn't a game I have a solid opinion on. It's hard to say exactly how I feel about it when there are so many aspects of the game to consider.

The bottom line is that the game is flawed and can become tedious after continuous play due to its repetitive style, but despite this, it is easily one of the most brilliant games I've ever played. In a way it is similar to the just as brilliant Heavy Rain in that the gameplay can become a bit overwhelming but the actual story and concept is superb.

Yet again the word 'unique' can be used in abundance when referring to L.A. Noire because it is, simply, unique. There is no game like it and it succeeds in being involving, deep and having an almost perfectly executed story.

Cole Phelps is the sort of character that may at first appear the stereotypical American hero who, despite being caught up in a racist and bigoted time in the world, is trying to change everything for the best. In reality he is a brilliantly flawed and realised character. He'll do things you hate, things you agree with and be pompous yet innocent at the same time.

All the characters are deep though. They are involved people with different opinions on different things. Some of them you'll dislike, others you'll like but none of them are perfect - which is a very important point.

The outstanding facial animations help add to the character involvement too. They seem more alive and it's surprisingly easy to get caught up in the game and forget they are actually animated.

Solving cases might include the slightly over the top and tedious clue finding, but despite this it is still a great and important part of the game. Interrogations and questioning of both victims and suspects are great to conduct and are where the facial motion capture really comes into play.

There are things wrong with the game, but at the same time it seems almost hard to put it down and heavily criticise in any way. It is easily one of the most involved games I've ever had the pleasure of playing. It's not just witnessing the story, it's being a proper part of it. Other games do a similar thing but L.A. Noire is very unique in everything it tries to do.

It's an outstanding game and highlights even further just how incredible Rockstar are when it comes to making deep, richly detailed games of any genre. Obviously a lot of the credit for this game goes to Team Bondi too, so thumbs up to them!

2012 - Max Payne 3

Rockstar's first attempt at developing a Max Payne game went incredibly well. Max Payne 3 is an outstanding game and, as it seems with all Rockstar releases, it proves yet another point about them. While Red Dead Redemption showed how gameplay, setting and story focused Rockstar are and L.A. Noire proved how character and story orientated as well as unique they can be, Max Payne 3 concludes that Rockstar can easily develop a far more scripted action game than other titles they've been a part of.

Rockstar did a fantastic job of replacing Remedy as devs of this very popular series. Max Payne 3 is an epic game for so many reasons. The awesome shooting mechanics and great cinematic feel would be nothing without the deep narrative and, in all honesty, sublime story. 

Yep, Max Payne 3 is pretty much brilliant for similar reasons that Rockstar's last few games were so good. Gameplay: Check. Story: Check. Characters: Check. Graphics: Check. Voice Acting: Check - I think you get the picture. The bottom line is that this game rocks, but it rocks because of Rockstar (no pun intended). This is what Rockstar do; they create games with deep plots, sensational characters and voice work and really enjoyable gameplay. 

Sure, not all of their games are 'amazing'. I haven't been impressed by all of their work, no, but when I played Max Payne 3 and saw just how deep they kept the drug addicted, sleep deprived, heart broken character that is, well, Max Payne, it became so obvious that Rockstar are one of the best developers around.

They are getting better with every title released. I'm not a massive fan of their older work but as time goes by and games are released they are clearly one of the most capable developers there ever was. They can turn their hand to any genre; racing, shooting, action, sandbox or just outright violent trash (Manhunt) but they'll always come back with the same results: not just games worth playing, but games everyone has to play. 

Grand Theft Auto: V is obviously the soonest to be released and, quite frankly, I'm expecting it to be a bomb. Hopefully they will keep the game focused on being just as brilliant in all areas, including story and characters (and mini games) and ensure it is as involving to play as their last 3 games have been.

If they fix the issues that GTA: IV had and improve the formula, GTA: V could easily gain every Game of The Year award going.

Rockstar are also working on a supposedly Playstation exclusive franchise, the first game of which has been called 'Agent'. It's a stealth action game set during the cold war and focuses on political and secret missions. As usual it sounds just like a game like no other and will no doubt be as story orientated as ever (after all, we're dealing with politics here).

In all honesty I can't fault Rockstar - or at least the modern Rockstar. They've become far more focused on what their games offer and there is no reason for that to change in the future. The next generation will no doubt open up many new opportunities for developers, however it can be guaranteed Rockstar will be one of the main devs making the most of these new tools.

Rockstar, I salute you. You have provided me with hours of entertainment that has cost you up to and over 100Million dollars per game, at the expense of a mere £40 from myself. You are a top developer, and one to be respected by everyone for your contributions to the gaming world. If you were ever to stop developing, it would become apparent just how much you offer in your games, as we would all miss them.

Thank-you.

(Series:1 Ep.1) Ultimate Team Player of The Week

Introduction: This new series will be weekly and will feature my pick of a FIFA 13 Ultimate Team player who I want to highlight. The player may be well known or lesser known; either way they are a player who I believe is worth noting and reviewing. Each episode will be posted on both Michael The Kyle and Michael The Entertainer. Each series will be the duration of a FIFA game.

Víctor Hugo Montaño

Club: Stade Rennais

League: Ligue 1

Nation: Colombia

Position: ST (Striker)

Height: 5'9"

Foot: Right

Week Foot: * * *

Skill Moves: * * *

Attacking Workrate: Medium

Defensive Workrate: Medium

Average Cost: 300-500 Coins

Card Type: Normal Gold

Base Stats:

Pace: 80

Shooting: 75

Passing: 65

Dribbling: 76

Defensive: 53

Heading: 72

Why is he so good?

 Montano is one of those players whose card does not even close do justice to what they are capable of. 

His pace certainly feels more like 83-4 than 80, as he is quick and speedy to get away from defenders. He gets into great positions so he is always available to pass to and get in on goal. Similarly, his dribbling is far underrated, as is his agility rating. He is able to dribble round players well, although the main key to his success in this area comes from his quick turning. Getting away from the opposition in a tight area is easy enough. His agility, which is rated 66 is far from justifying of how he plays in game. Certainly, he feels as agile as Alexandre Pato in many instances.

His shooting is arguably his best skill, despite being only 75 rated. He is able to put away chance after chance with no hassle at all. Quite simply; his shooting is outstanding. There's no point going on and on trying to give examples of his excellent shooting ability, but let's just say he managed to score a 35+ yard volley from the edge of the pitch on the turn for me in a match. He can finish inside or outside the penalty area with any kind of shot. Truly excellent.

In terms of passing, Montano links up with fellow players fairly well. He can play simple passes left and right but don't count on him pulling off an exuberant long pass over the heads of defenders to a player making a run. He gets the job done, but that's as far as it goes.

Obviously no one really cares if a forward is good at defending or not, although it's always nice to have a striker who is good at pressuring defenders. Montano is surprisingly good at tackling too, however. He is great at containing defenders and making tackles and, ultimately, winning the ball. That said, his strength, while satisfactory, is nothing amazing and is comparable to Faclao, but slightly weaker.

Heading is the last base stat to cover and, quite frankly, it is nothing to brag about. He can win a header OK but getting it into the back of the net is another story. They aren't always on target and even when they are, they are saved easily due to their low power. If the goalkeeper is out of position and no more than one defender is marking him, Montano can put headers away, but those are very special circumstances and so this should not be a part of his game to focus on.

Ultimately, Montano performs extremely well. I still own him, myself, and have a separate squad dedicated to him and other underrated players. His shooting is brilliant, dribbling and agility great and his pace feels faster than stated.

Should you buy him?

With so many well rated gold players easily available for cheap prices, it would seem hard to justify buying one rated lower than average. For example, it's easy to get the likes of Vagner Love - a great Brazilian striker with better base stats than Montano - for only a slightly higher price or even the same in some instances.

That said, not every player does perform to their stated stats, and it can be hard to find players, especially forwards, who perform well and score a lot of goals. Montano, despite his lower rating, does do this, so he is definitely worth a look. 

It would be easy to recommend him for a particular squad (ie. an Italian Squad, Premiere League squad etc.) however, given his fairly obscure league, country and club, it is unlikely anyone would need him for any such squads.

He is definitely worth a look, no matter what your interest and is a very capable player. Given his cheap price and easy availability, it is worth just picking him up and trying him out.

(Feature/Blog) The Outrageous Truth Behind Microsoft's Support and Laser Burn

Everyone can agree Microsoft can be a total pain, after all the Xbox itself is an issue-ridden console and their customer service can be very helpful and totally useless at the same time (assuming you can actually get to contact them that is).

For me, though, the biggest issue with the 360 has always been laser burn. I've had something around 5-6 games made redundant by this issue in the past 2 years and, like everybody with this problem, I've had to compensate for them myself. When laser burn strikes, it's always up to you to deal with it. Microsoft shelves any responsibility for the console fault because it 'says on the box' that it shouldn't be moved when the disc is running. 

Anyone who has spoken to Xbox Support on the issue of laser burn will be greeted with the typical "Don't move the console then" and "Why don't you get the disc buffed at your local game store?" 

What's more, Microsoft will only replace a game if they publish it, and even then they charge for it. Other publishers offer the same service for their own games but, again, the service costs.

It's possible to understand why they won't compensate though. To ignore cases of games laser burnt by the console having been moved when it clearly states on the box not to do that is fair enough. Mostly.

However if you're like me, and have a disc laser burnt by the console for no reason when it is in a stable condition, then surely compensation is in order?

Well, as Microsoft likes to prove now and again; they are just a big greedy corporation with no one but themselves at heart.

Having had my FIFA 13 disc savagely scratched to death by my Xbox 360 console for no apparent reason at all I decided enough was enough and wanted something. Compensation from the company whose console had already done exactly the same mysterious laser burn to a few of my games before was in order.

Remember to read what I'm about to tell you with the knowledge that this laser burn case was not my fault. My console is not broken or faulty and simply, like my first Xbox console, decided to have a go at one of my discs.

So let's take a look at what Microsoft did.

Contacted Xbox Support On January 3rd Through Online Chat Support and Conducted Research on The Matter

Being forced to contact Xbox Support via online chat wasn't what I wanted, but it seemed the only option, as my phone had been out of order for the last 3 weeks.

I began a chat and explained that my disc was laser burnt for no apparent reason. The response received pretty much sums up any support person when you have a complaint with their product: Denial.

Over and over the woman on the other end kept saying not to move the console when in use and linking me to the EA Disc Replacement website. 

After getting nowhere with this person, I decided it was time to employ sneaky cornering tactics. Doing a quick search online found other people had the issue of random laser burns too. According to an article these could happen just as much, if not slightly more, when the Kinect was connected to the console; though my own one was Kinect free.

I found an entire group of articles on a website dedicated to the issue of unexpected disc scratches by the Xbox (all referenced articles that I have a link to are linked at the end of the article). 

Doing some more research found an article on Wikipedia dedicated to faults with the console. According to a report by 'The Llamma's Adventure's'; the 360 lacks a mechanism to keep the disc in place, so even vibration can cause the disc to move around and get scratched when stationary. I'll let these quotes say the rest:

"Tilting or moving consoles with these drives, when operating with a disc spinning inside, can potentially cause damage to the disc, in some cases rendering the disc unusable. Discs have also been scratched by stationary consoles during normal use. One side of the disc can also be scratched by the disc tray if it malfunctions by closing with the disc in an odd position."

Not done there though:

"Prompted by consumer reaction to its February 2007 report, Kassa performed several tests with Xbox 360 units from consumers who claimed their Xbox had the problem. Kassa stabilized these consoles and positioned them at a location remote from contact by anyone. The results of the laboratory conditions test revealed that one of the nine tested Xbox 360 units had spontaneously scratched a disc after five hours of gaming. The consoles were also tested standing upright, and the test revealed that three of the nine tested Xbox 360s significantly scratched discs."

So there it is, right there; proof. I think it's safe to say that the Xbox 360 DOES randomly laser burn discs.

Despite this massive digression, though, let's return to what was started at the top.

After doing this research, I told the Xbox Support woman that there were articles and posts online that supported my accusation that the 360 does just massacre discs out the blue.

To my shock she ignored me and simply linked me (again) to the EA support page. I then asked her: "Am I to assume that you are denying that the Xbox 360 Console randomly laser burns discs?" 

As I recall, she simply replied either with yet another link or a description of how the console only does it when being moved.

That is disgusting 'Support' Microsoft.

E-mail of Complaint and 1st Phone Call

Due to my outrage by the support person I had just spoken to, it was time to complain. Unfortunately, Microsoft don't like complaints and refuse to give any decent way of contacting them unless you need help with a particular issue. 

I decided to start yet another chat, however this time with a Microsoft assistant. Asking for a way to complain led to nearly 10 minutes of waiting until; finally, I received a link to an e-mail page. Funny it doesn't appear on the website normally.

Upon writing out and sending a well-worded e-mail of complaint demanding an explanation and some compensation, I received a response the next day.

It was short, reading:

Hello Michael,

Thank you for contacting Microsoft Customer Service.

I have learned from your email that you are having complaints about Xbox 360 console.

Xbox has a dedicated support team to assist you with these types of questions. You may contact the Xbox Support Team directly by calling 1-800-4-MY-XBOX (800-469-9269). Support is available from 6:00A.M. - 10:00 P.M. Pacific Time, 7 days a week including holidays.

For more information, please visit the following site:

http://support.xbox.com/en-US/contact-us?xr=footnav

Let me also provide you the dedicated Chat Support team for Xbox: http://support.xbox.com/en-US/contact-us

Please let me know if you have any other concern about this email.

Thank you

This was a massively disappointing response, and not just because it didn't give me the call times or number for the UK. I was complaining, not asking for help anymore. I was moaning to Microsoft about them and their support, so why were they telling me to talk to the Xbox Support team?

It became obvious that the simple and best thing to do all along would've been to request a call from Xbox Support to my phone. That way mobile charges would be avoided and the ability to speak directly to another human being would be gained.

So that's what I did. 

The call was mediocre. In truth the support person on the other end came across confused and didn't know what to do. They simply explained about how (yep, you guessed it) not to move the console and buff the disc and blah blah blah... All that, to be quite frank, crap.

She actually asked me what I wanted her to do. I replied with something like: "Well what can you do? I'm not happy about this and maybe some compensation would be in order!?"

She didn't compensate me though and after going through a pointless process that involved giving her my details and my console serial number, then answering questions on my 360; she simply said "Yeah, that is unfortunate" and then went on (did you guess right again?) "Well it's best not to move the console when it is in use. You could try getting your disc buffed...."

Really? I'd already told her multiple times that the issue was not with me affecting the console. 

The phone call ended. It would've been easy to badger her over and over but that would be unfair. She didn't seem to be very confident about tackling the issue and I already felt bad for putting her on the spot. 

2nd Phone Call

After deciding to give up on the issue, but then, after pondering it for nearly a week since my last call;  I took matters, again, to Xbox Support. With my phone recently fixed I was able to call them myself. 

I waited on the phone, my Xbox 360 serial number in hand, ready to give the person on the other end a piece of my mind in the most sophisticated way possible. A man answered my call and I began the chore of explaining, again, what had happened to me. 

It was fairly surprising when he recited exactly, word for word in some parts, what the woman I had spoken to less than a week back had said. 

As usual: "If you move it when playing a game it can scratch the disc" was the main point he continually made. 

I began to explain it wasn't me that caused it though. I threw the idea that maybe it does it because of vibration at him and he responded with a shocking, shocking admittance. While I cannot remember word for word what he said, I can remember exactly the point he made.

He went on to explain that playing Kinect games can cause laser burn because 'you're jumping around'. I think we all know why that statement is shocking. Microsoft are selling a device (the Kinect) which features many games that require you to 'jump around' and are admitting that simply playing those games can cause and increases the risk of getting a game laser burnt; all to NO compensation from Microsoft themselves.

I was shocked, but I didn't delve into that statement and focused mainly on the issue of laser burn caused by natural vibration (mainly because I do not use Kinect, so this point was invalid in my case). After nearly an hour on the phone of me complaining over and over, and him responding with information on how to avoid it happening again; I did what I should have done all along. I asked him to give me compensation. Just asked, and suddenly he offered to talk to his superiors if I held the line.

Unbelievable.

After waiting more than 5 minutes he came back on the line with 2 options for me.

Option 1: I pay them nearly £100 for them to "inspect my console" and "fix it" even though he himself stated that all Xbox 360's sent in with the issue of them scratching discs had no faults found with them (there is so much wrong with that statement alone). 

Option 2: I escalate the case and take it higher up the board to his superiors. 

So that's what I did.

Recall...

Before I continue, let's recall what we've learned so far about Microsoft, their support and their attitude towards laser burn and their own customers.

First of all there is proof the Xbox 360 console laser burns games at random due to its own vibration as well as normal household vibration. They openly admit that using their own Kinect device increases the laser burn risk. However, despite this, they refuse to take any responsibility for it and are in denial about it being anything to do with anyone except the user. 

The fact that moving the device by hand can cause laser burn is just about acceptable, given it does warn not to do this on the box. However laser burn at the hand of its own vibrations AND household movement? THAT was not warned of on the box and is disgraceful. 

Phone Call From Microsoft

After 8 days I finally received my call from Microsoft regarding the escalation of my complaint.

The man on the other end sounded bored before we'd even started the conversation properly. After describing the issue and complaint, he immediately denied the Xbox scratched discs. I asked him to clarify what he'd said and he elaborated that the 360 does not 'randomly' scratch discs. I argued the points I brought up in my other calls but he did something odd. He took what I said, and while he didn't deny it, he used it against me. 

After stating the Xbox has many reports of scratching discs due to it's own vibration and household activity and did this with me and had not been touched by my own hands, he implied that was why my point was 'invalid'. 

He continued something along the lines of: "You just said yourself about your household movement". 

He said it as if, because I, and any gamer for that matter, move around my house when a game is running, that is obviously going to get the disc scratched. But it shouldn't. What's more, he didn't deny the Xbox scratches discs because of vibration, but denied the console did it at 'random'. That doesn't even make sense. Again, this is disgraceful.

I took another side, mentioning that it stated on the box of the console not to move it when it was running, but did not mention vibrations contributing to this. He did not answer me directly and avoided the question.

I decided to ask for compensation. He then stated that if they (Microsoft) were to compensate me, they would be admitting what I was saying was true, which they deny. This confused me because it seems while they admit it scratches discs, and even does because of movement and vibration, they deny it does it itself. All they seem to be doing is contradicting themselves.

He then continued that if he could compensate me in any way, he would, but Microsoft wouldn't allow it.

I asked if I could take my complaint higher, to which he answered yes, but they would only say the exact same thing as him - which I believe(d).

In the end, the phone call was short and pointless, but at least opened my eyes to how deluded and messed up Microsoft's support is. 

This isn't the end.

This is, to say the least, disgusting. They're support on this issue is pathetic and they do not take responsibility for their product faults. What's more, it's not unrealistic to say that the 360 has been mis-sold to people as it NEVER stated on the box it laser burns because of its OWN vibration and the users household movement. 

However this isn't the end. It is clear no one can penetrate Microsoft's in-denial support, so it's time to take this further. I will be contacting Trading Standards and Watch Dogs to make this complaint heard. One person isn't enough though. The Xbox 360 may be nearing the end of its life cycle, but users have been ripped off for years. It's time to do something. If you have suffered laser burn in ANY way, I urge you to make an official complaint to Xbox Support and get your voice heard. If the next Xbox is released with any issues of a similar nature, why would Microsoft improve their support then if they never needed to for the Xbox 360? 

I will be posting updates on this issue and my progress to take this further. If you have any experiences of poor support from Microsoft/Xbox or Laser Burn issues but don't want to complain; send me an e-mail or tweet with the details. Any information I can gather here will help to get this point backed.

Thanks for reading,

Michael Kyle

Links:

http://www.kitguru.net/site-news/highlights/jules/microsofts-xbox-360-eats-your-game-disk-whos-responsible/ (there are a lot of other laser burn articles on here too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems#Scratched_discs

I read many other articles too, but recently I deleted a lot of my bookmarks and got rid of links to some of those other articles by accident.