It was famously said that $40/$60/etc is a lot of money for a bad game, however the same amount can be deemed cheap for a great game, one which is entertaining, engaging and can be enjoyed for a long time. For this reason Halo 3 was easily the cheapest game for me as to this day I still enjoy playing it, especially with friends in a competitive environment.
   Halo 3 was the game which encouraged me to improve in the first-person shooter environment, going from an average player to being more successful and consistent. Having invested time with the intention to improve I discovered a new layer to the game along with friends I would regularly compete alongside, against other challenging teams. For this reason along with Halo being such an enjoyable, balanced experience, I am thoroughly looking forward to the next instalment in the series, one which will hopefully once again inject enthusiasm into the series and multiplayer games as a whole.
   Halo: Reach, the final in the series, is set to culminate the best features, aspects and content from all the previous titles alongside innovative new ideas. Despite the Beta only including four maps and not all armour abilities, customisation options and gametypes, we learnt a lot more than meets the eye. Even in only the Beta it seemed that online matchmaking has been improved along with the overall feel of the game.
   I have mentioned before how there was some aspects of the Beta which I disliked, felt should me removed or altered alongside new ideas I simply adored. My hopes is that in the release, the grenades and plasma grenade launcher will be altered to restore the effort needed to kill another player. In previous games whilst the grenades were somewhat overused they were balanced, with a small blast radius, limited capacity and the fact that one could not attain a kill alone dealing with this problem was fairly straight forward. However in the Reach Beta I found myself not being able to compete against those willing to mindlessly toss grenades, which were now capable of killing on their own and wither a larger blast radius. The Plasma Grenade Launcher, despite there being only one on the map was a powerhouse capable of launching plasma grenades which would home in on a target. With only one grenade required to land at its target, the launcher was capable of many kills when using the ammo conservatively.
   Armour Abilities were to some a concern, possible of altering the much loved recipe of a Halo game, particularly the multiplayer experience. What they did however was add a new layer to the game without taking over. Instead of the player revolving around the armour ability, it was successful in aiding the player in the chosen style.
   Halo: Reach will easily become my chosen game to play in my gaming time, coupled with friends sharing the same thoughts it seems I will be continuing the experiences I had with Halo 3 in an improved environment. 

   With the concept of health and gaming being related, it is only fit that I discuss this. In this sense those that regularly play games can be split into two groups, those who take gaming as their primary hobby and choose to spend their free time doing this and others whom fit it around other activities.
   For the latter, these other activities they are regular involved in will likely suffice towards maintaining a healthy lifestyle as whilst gaming is not a form of exercise,  it is neither unhealthy. Other interests provide what other gamers do not have in their routine. Those who play games possibly exclusively may do so for many reasons. On top of being a relatively cheap hobby it can be enjoyed around any schedule and connects people with friends in an entertaining, stress free environment.
   With the general premise of the Wii, Kinect for Xbox 360 and Playstation Move, gaming has certainly turned towards getting players up and moving. Whilst the more serious games may still take advantage of precise controls on the stick, the Wii's sales speaks of the popularity of this new form of gaming.
   The average gamer tends to be depicted as a teenager and possibly not in adequate physical shape. However with the average age of gamers currently at thirty-five, how many people in their thirties and even twenties are not too committed to careers and families to spend their lives playing games?
   Actual evidence of games pertaining negative effects is rather weak, whilst there is no doubt that prolonged, excessive play is not healthy, other aspects of these peoples lives should be investigated as to why problems occur, as many people who enjoy the same games equally are able to responsibly balance them with commitments including a healthy lifestyle.
   When looking at the case of someone with medical problems with a background of playing games, pre-existing complications, environmental and dietary issues are often overlooked. Those sensitive to epilepsy or suffer from photosensitivity may experience seizures and other effects from playing games, this however has no relation to the amount of time played as a seizure for example could be triggered during only minutes of play, furthermore any form of media through a television could provoke one of these ailments.
   What is rarely discussed is the positive impact in which games may have on a persons health, in particularly mentally. A few years ago I remember reading about a kidnap victim who was held hostage for many months and possibly years. He said how he owes his life to games as all he had to entertain himself during the time was to play an old console on a small TV. Whilst this is an extremely rare case it is worth mentioning and is an example of how games can act as a distraction. Cancer sufferers have been known to play games as a form of distraction, aiding in their dealing with their situation. Games which challenge the mind such as strategy and puzzles have been known to improve problem solving skills whilst more fast-paced, action games such as first-person shooters have been recognised to increase hand-eye coordination.
   Despite the positive points raised, gaming will always exclusively been seen as negative to a persons health. In reality I, and other alike feel that negative health effects stem from many factors with excessive playing of games being only one of these. With diet, lifestyle, environmental and other medical issues also possibly playing a role. It can be argued that my view is biased towards games not having a negative impact due to my enjoyment of gaming, however I think having raised pros and cons for each side has helped me form a valid opinion. Whilst some genres of games promote inactivity, others which are becoming more prominent, encourage players to take full use of their body and subsequently to exercise. With the majority of points raised all over the world and in many forms coming down to opinion, the affects gaming may have on a person come down to the individual.

   Whilst Playstation Plus has been out for just over two months now, my reluctancy in purchasing it led me to waiting for reviews, opinions and feedback before diving headfirst into a decent investment. Upon purchasing a years subscription after deliberation in Augsust, I was happy with what I would be getting in return over the course of the year and the initial content.
   Having become a Playstation Plus member I was suddenly the proud owner of a little symbol next to my online id, but more importantly I now had access to the exclusive purchases in the Playstation Store. Whilst satisfied with what I first saw I was surprised by how much of the content was discounts as opposed to 'free'. Despite this I began downloading what was on offer.
   Along with a few premium themes I had access to two heavy rain avatars for my online id, of which I sport the swan to this day. Along with the PS One Classic: Medievil, the full game for free, I had access to the minis Blast-Off and Alien Zombie Death, both which were simple but entertaining for a short while. I also received the PSN title Zen Pinball and had access to the full game trials of inFamous (to which I sadly already own) and Mushroom Wars, which I decided not to buy but took full use of the hour. August's DLC was for Motorstorm: Pacific Rift, which I do not own and therefore took no advantage of and the demo's for Mafia 2 (which I played but was unimpressed by) and of PixelJunk Shooter, a title of which I own the full game of, even worse is that September brought a discount off of the purchase of PixelJunk Shooter, a bad choice in my opinion as most interested in buying the game would do so after playing the demo, the month before.
   Exclusive DLC for UFC 2010 was the only other exlcusive content aside PixelJunk Shooter's discount I would not be able to take advantage of this month, September. This month a discount for Warhawk coincided with a full game trial which I put to good use. September's PSN title is the entire season of Sam and Max comprising of 5 episodes, having tried the first I had no intention of wasting my limited hard drive space with the rest, finding it childish, severely simplistic and flawed. Things looked brighter however with the PS One Classic Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee, a game I vividly remember playing on the original Playstation and the mini's Vector Tower Defense and Echoes.
   Vector Tower defense is a refreshing look at the tower defense sub-genre whilst Echoes is comparable to Geometry Wars, putting aside shooting in favour of evasion. The other half of September's discounts really struck my interest with the PS One Classic and revolution to the world of gaming the original Metal Gear Solid at Half price, which can be enjoyed on both the PS3 and PSP as do all of the PS One Classics and the Ico and Shadow of the Colussus costume pack for Little Big Planet. With Little Big Planet 2 allowing the original games' content to be used in the sequel it is both an entertaining and long-term investment.
   For me an injection of games to play and other useful utilities for my Playstation 3 are worth the investment provided I would be able and want to take advantage of a reasonable amount of the content it comes with, whilst the content aims to please all varying interests it is important to be fulfilled. An extremely useful and time-saving feature which I take most advantage of out of Playstation Plus is Automatic Downloads. Having set a time parameter (in my case 4am - 6am), with Automatic Downloads enabled you PS3 silently turns itself on and downloads firmware updates, game updates and any Playstation Plus exclusive demo's. Having found myself waiting to play Little Big Planet many times for an update after having not played for a while it is extremely satisfied to be notified that the update is already installed and waiting for me to utilize. The other feature which I am highly anticipating is the guaranteed place in specific betas and demos. Not having to pre-order the game or sign-up months in advance is small weight of my shoulders and one which would certainly prove value for money.
   Whilst Playstation Plus is not for everyone, my experience with it so far has been positive. Despite not utilising or taking advantage of everything the service has to offer, I am satisfied with what I have so far used from it.

   Monday Night Combat is a third-person shooter released over the Xbox Live Arcade on August 11th. The class based shooter features character customisation, an online, team-based multiplayer along with singleplayer and coop missions centred around waves of enemies. Each class, the Tank, Gunner, Assault, Support, Sniper and Assassin are equipped with a primary and secondary weapon along with 3 abilites and a further passive ability which can all be upgraded mid-game. Each class also boast unique stats modified by three customisable options known in-game as endorsements. Players can choose from roughly ten endorsements including speed, accuracy, reload speed, clip size and can choose up to three of these, one being a gold endorsement boasting the greatest modifier to the stat, one silver and the third bronze.
   With an emphasis on teamwork and objectives over mindless killing, teams are tasked with escorting their respective teams AI robots to the enemies base where they attempt to attack and lower the shield of their money-ball. Once the shields are temporarily lowered players and their robots are free to attack the enemy money-ball in hopes of destroying it, resulting in the game ending and the attackers success.
   The online experience is both entertaining and balanced. The skill upgrade system is similar to that of Shadowrun. Players start off with a modest amount of money which they can spend on levelling up their abilities, constructing turrets, activating jump-pads or spawning attack bots. Killing enemy players, bots and turrets grant money along with objectives.
   For a reasonable price I have already received hours of entertainment in a stress-free environment. Exploring classes, builds and tactics. One thing I have noticed particularly in Monday Night Combat is the ability for a player to adapt to a desired playstyle or away from one resulting in little to no success. Favouring the Gunner, a hulking being sporting high health, a mini-gun and a mortar launcher with a grapple, slam and deploy abilities. Whilst most aim to improve their mini-gun through specific skills and endorsements, I opted to improve and practice using the mortar launcher. Capable of sending explosives arching over the map possible of landing in the enemies base. With practice I envisioned using the mortar to reign terror on the enemy, their turrets and money-ball from a position unknown to them. Using endorsements such as fire rate to increase the barrage, crippling the enemies attempts at home defence.
   Unfortunately ideas put into practice do not always turn out as planned as I found myself having attempted to effectively use the mortar. Upon trying my hand at this unique style of play I took comfort in the element of surprise. Unfortunately my lack of knowledge did not take me far past this and achieved nothing more than a highly negative kill/death ratio and little aid to my team. Persistence however slowly saw me learn the way of effectively using such an underused weapon and style of play, furthermore I found myself having to adapt to defending myself whilst in a particularly more vulnerable position, being less mobile. After many dues being payed I eventually found myself familiar with the arc and damage capabilities of the mortar and later became aware of spots to aim my reticule upon which my mortar would land on unsuspecting enemies and their turrets. With perseverance I was able to overcome a poor start at an idea, this perseverance however is not unheard of if not recognised. Many gamers have strived to overcome a poor start at an unfamiliar game and having fought through finding not remembering their humble beginnings.          This perseverance and ability to adapt from a style resulting in little success or a desired one is somewhat unique to gamers and even those designing said games. It is something that will not be lost or even forgotten if not recognised.

   Making a return from a long break, free of daily commitments of all sorts, the first topic covers a minor aspect present in a number of games soon to be released onto shelves followed by them inevitably flooding household.
   The multiplayer first-person shooter titans Halo and Call of Duty both have the next in their series around the corner, with Halo: Reach to be released in two weeks, September 14th and CoD: Black Ops on November 9th the concentration of gamers is soon to be refocused passed just rumours.
   With both of these games having a key focus on multiplayer it is only natural that any campaign singleplayer will likely suffer. A question to be raised however is whether a campaign bodes any relevance towards the success of a game with its selling point being a different aspect and whether the time invested in creating a campaign could have been better allocated.
   It can be viewed that the more time poured into the multiplayer portion of the game the better it would be, however this may not be true as there may be a point where nothing more can be added or adjusted to improve the experience. Building upon this if total development time was invested in multiplayer would it be overcrowded and layered with unnecessary features and mechanics ultimately ruining the experience? Furthermore minor examples of this have already emerged. Modern Warfare 2 was criticised for the significant increase in the number of features and how it resulted in a saturated multiplayer with an overwhelming number of player customisation options leading to balance being almost impossible to keep track of and manage. The campaign of Modern Warfare 2 was aesthetically identical to its multiplayer with the same weapons, layouts and even environments with the only true difference evident in the story and the AI. It can be assumed that the success of its predecessor CoD: Modern Warfare left a high benchmark to be beaten and that Infinity Ward chose the road of bringing more and more to the table, altering with the recipe which should never have been disturbed.
  Whilst there are still games alive which boast in-depth story and character driven plots with multiplayer the afterthought (Uncharted 2 comes to mind, winning many awards for its singleplayer with an enjoyable third-person multiplayer, yet not the main selling point of the game) and whilst these are not dying out, more and more commonly gamers seem to be unsatisfied without a multiplayer to jump into from first inserting the disc.
   In my eyes the campaigns of these multiplayer-driven games indirectly provide a lengthy tutorial which is much valued when entering the multiplayer environment, which for anyone new to multiplayer gaming or even that particular game itself can be daunting. By the end of the singleplayer experience players will have likely gathered advanced knowledge of the controls and tactics to aid in engagements, highly valuable in an environment where your enemy is no longer a computer.

   Next Tuesday, the 13th of July I will be embarking on my trip to Tanzania along with twelve other students and four teachers for three weeks. After an interesting experience of raising £1000 my next step will be in Tanzania where I will be staying with a local family and in a few volunteer houses. When out in Tanzania I will be teaching in a school and experiencing life out there. In the school I will most likely be teaching music, this will be taught to many classes with each class holding a surprising forty kids. With the aid of just a guitar and my knowledge of music theory I hope to enlighten those I teach to the world of music, and how it is everywhere and part of everything. Along with a dozen vaccinations I will be required to take anti-malaria tablets which in all will keep me safe along with being smart about how I conduct myself out there.
   Whilst in Tanzania I imagine it will take a large piece of me, leaving me changed but will also give a lot back. I know in me that what I take back will be significant to the rest of my life. As I see this as a website about Games Design and not as a blog, despite utilising one as the best way to present the site, the only reason I mention this is to inform those who check the site, possibly making sure I keep to my word of a post a day, that I will obviously not be able to update the site during this time.
   Despite not being able to write on the site or even play games, I feel I will learn more about Games Design, playing games and being a person in general than I ever could reading about Games Design, playing games or going about my daily life. Stephen Lewis once said: "All I know is that every time I go to Africa, I am shaken to my core."
   My time in Tanzania, Africa will teach me a lot and open up vast new experiences for me, I will be living with people who I may not be able to fully communicate with, I will be teaching kids with a completely different ethic to education than those in London, England and will try new things that I could barely dream off.
   A Games Designer is someone who dreams the impossible in an environment with no limits, with this said I question how the impossible can be conjured up in ones mind without experiences, both mundane and alien,  worthy of retelling or one for recollection. My hopes is that the day I first realise that I am a Games Designer it will take me back to the days of playing games and wondering how they are made and if people actually do it for a job. I expect that the day I realise this will not be the first released game that I made a contribution to, my first pay-check or even my first acceptance into a development company, rather the day I play a game which I made a significant contribution to and one which made the game what it is for the better. With new ideas I hope to come back enlightened and refreshed, able to discuss many more topics and able to bring more to what I have already.

   With new games flooding the iTunes app store everyday and many more for independent phones, mobile gaming is on its way to being one of the dominant gaming forces. Many people own mobile phones for different reasons and with a proportion of these already into games the chances are they will take advantage of being able to utilise it as a console. Whilst a mobile cannot match up to a true gaming consoles it does offer a few things that other console cannot. For a start a phone offers mobile gaming on the go and in many cases these days incorporates a touch-screen which opens up the styles of games available to be effectively played on a phone. With games on your primary communications device you are not required to carry around another piece of hardware just to play games, furthermore those who may feel insecure about playing games in public can do so much more discretely on a device which is not its primary use.
   For the most part games on iPhone's, iPod Touch's and other next generation mobile phones for the most part revolve around puzzles, shooters and platformers and others focusing on fast-paced gameplay where each individual game only lasts a few minutes at most, allowing players to be fully engaged without having to leave or quit a session midway through due to being on the move.
   Mobile Gaming will never compete with the full titles of the consoles dedicated to gaming, providing unparalleled graphics and size along with online multiplayer. For this reason mobile gaming has no choice but to focus on what it can better provide. A mixture of short games which are repeated to beat previous high-scores and longer games which can be continued with each play, this provides a variety which caters to all, and with the majority of mobile owners having access to games despite possibly not being gamers, the widest audience possible is naturally going to be pursued.
   With an emphasis on gameplay, using only simple graphics and subtle sound effects, these games do not intend to impress players through what it looks like but through the gameplay being entertaining and refreshing. Using touch-screen and in some cases an Accelerometer (tilt-controls), the games on phones fully utilise the fact that the controls and screen are in your hands.
   The hardware of phones has and will naturally improve over time and will subsequently affect the games played on them. As the hardware of gaming dedicated consoles will also improve at somewhat the same rate, the focus of mobile gaming will stay relatively the same. With games design also constantly evolving the gameplay in which mobile games rely on will therefore improve. With this prospects of mobile gaming in the future will improve in predictable ways due to following a core theme, and unpredictably due to progressions and advancements in technology and games design which for the most part are unimaginable.

   Those new to a game, particular a multiplayer game may know the horror and what feels like unending frustration of not being able to perform the actions you have done in similar games. Many games come with a learning curve, whilst many stories integrate a tutorial into the first few levels, much more time than this is required to master the more challenging aspects of the game. In the case of a multiplayer game those you face may be better aware of their surroundings, the controls and even have access to more of the game allowing them an advantage over you, what can be frustrating in this situation is being at a disadvantage despite possibly being more skilled.
   After some time is invested into a game requiring this, every player will naturally and unavoidably become better at the game, whether it is being more skilled in general through accuracy and precision (i.e: memorizing button combinations), knowledge of the game and its environment and mechanics or through developing tactics and techniques giving you an upper hand.
   All players will gain knowledge of the environments and games mechanics, also in some degree all players will develop tactics and techniques to give themselves an advantage whether they are a 'pro' or not. Whilst the more serious players may learn routes, combinations and practice, the less keen players will learn from experience to use a certain ability more, reloading weapons in between firefights, using cover and height advantages and recognising high traffic areas. Observing the gameplay of a first time gamer during the beginning of their playing experience in a game and sometime after, noticeable difference will crop up.
   The only aspect of improvement which is not inherited or unavoidably developed is skill. Whilst many refer to skill in different ways and forms, the general view on a skilled player or gamer with skill is in how they differ from other players. Those skilled at a particular game or games in general will tend to be more accurate and precise in their movements and controls, have a better understanding of the genre and subsequently the particular game giving them the advantage of knowledge and may respond better under pressure and time. Skilled players are often at a clear advantage to others, for these others it may be a frustrating when faced against an opponent with more natural skill. Whilst there are measures to prevent this by pitting players of equal skill against each other, people may bypass this by creating a new account to continue to play against weaker players.
   Stronger more skilled players can validly argue that they have the right to play against all and should not be restricted, Halo 3 is an example however of a game which rewards skill by having Ranked Matches. Here every match counts and generally is where people go to experience a more serious game. With ranks in each playlist people are rewarded for being able to beat other players and are able to advance in levels until they reach a point in which every match is challenging due to being connected to people of equal skill and rank. Despite this not being the best fit for every game, there should be a similar incorporation as to allow skilled players to be constantly challenged and therefore entertained whilst at the same time less skilled players are able to experience much less daunting and frustrating game.

   Having discussed notably different styles of gameplay and the overall experience in First-Person Shooters, I shall now focus attention on other genres of games. Whilst first-person shooters naturally tend to cast a shadow over others, they still have relevance and produce some of the best games arguably better than any FPS. Without the popularity and attention that FPS' receive however, games of other genres such as Role-Playing and Sports games get overlooked.
   In general an RPG puts the player into the shoes of the games protagonist where you are free to make choices and decisions which shapes the characters development and how the narrative progresses. Having evolved a great deal since the first RPG's, today's titles of the genre allow players too experience a time or fictional setting different to today's and are often centred around many users playing online.
   World of Warcraft is a grand example of a game which has opted for the fast paced style of play, similar to the Call of Duty series of the FPS world whilst focusing on timing and correct decisions as accuracy does not play a part in RPG's. When groups of people meet up and play together in WoW it is often to conquer a task none of them could accomplish on their own and in many cases the obstacle is centred around an in-game, A.I challenge. Here timing is key as being in the right place at the right time can define whether a group succeeds or not, precision is therefore imperative and is something overlooked by some MMORPG players and by many who prefer to enjoy other genres, particular those which are centred around traits such as accuracy, but also precision and timing as in FPS'.
   Player vs Player is another aspect of World of Warcraft which is extremely fast paced and requires expert timing along with finely tuned, split-second decision making, with a single keyboard or mouse-click possibly determining the outcome of a battle all is laid out on the table, worlds apart from an FPS where aces may be hidden up the sleeves of the particularly crafty. With WoW being so fast placed assumptions and comparisons to turn-based RPG's are instantly dismissable.
   The most well known example of a turn based RPG would have to be Pokemon. Whilst at first seen to be a simple game for kids, the second layer or higher understanding of the mechanics of a Pokemon game sheds light on the true reasoning behind the turn based gameplay. Along with promoting fairness in gameplay which is ludicrous for springing random effects such as critical hits and status', the turn based combat promotes tactics, giving the player as much time as they need to choose their next move. With the game much more reserved compared to a game like WoW, success and outcomes are in no way focused on who can react first, which is a major part of PvP combat in WoW, but rather who chooses the next best move.
   Whilst noticeably different there are core similarities between the aspects of a single genre of games amongst genres, with FPS' and RPG's both reporting success with games requiring more thought and others rewarding fast paced action and reactions and precision, subsequently offering something for everyone with acquired preferences in some genres and a wide selection for those fans of the genre as a whole.

   Whilst genres such as Real Time Strategy focus its gameplay and challenging players on carefully planned; strategic choices, others choose to base gameplay around skill, precision and accuracy often in a more fast-paced environment. Most games, in particular those with a strong multiplayer aspect tend to choose between one or the other as the basis of the experience, whilst the style of the game may automatically fit it into one of the categories secondary aspects may be implemented and influential enough as to shift the focus of the gameplay. An example of this is in First-Person Shooters, for the most part assumed to be both highly fast paced and requiring skill over patience. Adding a layer of required consistency or realism however possibly through more on-target shots than the convention to kill an enemy needed or adding high levels of recoil to weapons making them both somewhat difficult to use and more realistic. Simply implementing these secondary aspects transforms the game into a war simulator in which people are forced to effectively use cover, use suppressive fire and support team-mates, a completely different experience from a game where fastest finger first rules over any coordination. With these implementations an FPS can be more comparable to an RTS when thinking past simple mechanics, with a tactical approach, possibly greater penalties for death and more skill and patience required to effectively manage a weapon the gameplay would naturally slow down compared to other first-person shooters without any of the entertainment suffering due to the levels of awareness and concentration being at a much higher level.
   An example like this, which sets itself apart from others of its respective genre or sub-genre can do well for itself by taking a leap of faith in creating something out of the norm of what its audience is used to, in result however it may attract a whole new crowd who dislike what the usual and only option has been and may turn the regular audience, convincing them that this is how a game of that genre should be made.
   With Battlefield: Bad Company 2 closest to my example, its rival and main competitor Modern Warfare 2 can be seen as the other form of gameplay which focuses on reaction time, often requiring only one or two bullets to kill an enemy, using weapons unnaturally easy to control and utilising perks possibly allowing inhuman feats in a supposedly realistic shooter. With the game often very fast paced there may not be any time for a strategy to be formed among team-mates and with games often lasting for such an insignificant amount of time a player may find themselves competing against their team-mates for the rights to fight the enemy. To those who prefer the lone-wolf style of uncooperative play or develop tactics with a regular team and prefer utilising skills of accuracy combined with reaction time, a game like Modern Warfare 2 may be for them. Arguably more of a simulator, Bad Company 2 can be compared to a game of chess, with gametypes such as Rush, one team may wait for the enemy to make a move before striking and visa versa, or in a game like Conquest where objectives may be deliberately ignored as to focus efforts on others.
   Despite clear and noticeable divisions and comparisons between these styles of play, slower-paced, more coordination and tactical teamwork and fast paced, split second decisions, a hybrid may be particularly hard to come by which effectively utilises aspects of both in an attempt to attract the audiences of both styles. With clear divisions a game which offers both types of gameplay in different situations can naturally not produced either style as polished or immersive as a title which focuses on one, the trade-off however is in appealing to a larger number of total gamers of that genre but with a game that offers only a portion of what others may offer.