DC's New 52: What Will Be Cancelled Next?

Comic books are a wonderful form of entertainment, but unfortunately they are also an increasingly competitive one. DC Comics have been criticised in the years since their New 52 relaunch for being particularly aggressive in cancelling books at the first sign of trouble, most recently cancelling six books: Batwing, All-Star Western, Birds of Prey, Trinity of Sin: Pandora, and Trinity of Sin: The Phantom Stranger. While this large wave of cancellations no doubt gives DC's other struggling books a little more time, there's no doubt that there will be more casualties to come.

This article aims to raise awareness for low-selling books, because each cancelled book reduces the already not great income of a writer and an artist. They need the support of the fans, and so if there are any titles on this list you've been thinking of picking up, why not try them now!

1. Constantine by Ray Fawkes and Juan Ferreyra, $2.99

The cancellation of the long-running (and much-loved) Vertigo series, Hellblazer, was met with controversy from many fans. Therefore, it isn't wholly surprising that the New 52 relaunch is currently struggling - DC alienated their audience before the series even began. The book is currently selling around 17,000 copies per month making it the lowest-selling New 52 title that is yet to be cancelled.

If you want to prepare yourself for the upcoming Constantine TV show, or have an interest in the weirder, magical side of the DC Universe, this may be the perfect book for you. In their review of the latest issue, Comic Book Resources said, "Constantine" #15 is a concise, well-executed example of what modern mystical/horror comic books can be with the right creators in place." They continued to say that, "Now is as good a time as any for readers to check in and jump on John Constantine's bandwagon, especially when the stories are this enjoyably riveting." They went on to give the book a four star rating.

2. Swamp Thing by Charles Soule and Jesus Saiz, $2.99

After Scott Snyder's departure from the title many feared what the future of one of DC's most acclaimed titles would be (despite Rotworld's disappointing conclusion). Thankfully, comic-book producing machine Charles Soule stepped in to try his hand at the cult-favourite character and the reaction from fans has been very warm indeed. However, while critical reaction has been great the series is struggling to find an audience with last month's sales figures placing it with just 18,000 copies sold.

Reviews of the latest issue were almost universally comprised of 8's and 9's from critics who adore this title. IGN's Jesse Schedeen said that Swamp Thing #32, "is just another excellent chapter in an excellent series," giving the issue a 9/10. Once again, Swamp Thing seems like the perfect book for those who are interested in the weirder side of the DC Universe.

3. Batwoman by Marc Andreyko and Jason Masters, $2.99

Batwoman was once one of The New 52's biggest bat-books, however after the high-profile departure of J.H. Williams III and Haden Blackman things started looking down for the series. Some stopped reading in protest of the decision to remove the pair that had been producing the series since it began, while some in response to DC's always-odd editorial decisions. Whichever reason it was, the result was plummeting sales figures for the title - currently around 18,000 copies per month.

However, by most accounts Batwoman is still a quality title in DC's catalogue. In its review of the most recent issue, Comic Vine praised the book saying, "if you've been wondering what's going on in Batwoman's life lately, this is a great time to check it out."

4. Catwoman by Ann Nocenti/Sholly Fisch and Patrick Olliffe, $2.99

Catwoman is a title that hit headlines at the dawn of the New 52 for its sexual content and nudity, however since that explosive beginning it has faded into the background somewhat. While the character of Catwoman remains an ever-present force in the DC Universe (joining a pre-Trinity War JLA), the series' sales figures continue to drop possibly due to the writing of Ann Nocenti.

While Nocenti gained fans for her Daredevil stories, her recent Catwoman arcs have recieved less than stellar reviews. However, Nocenti seems to be leaving the title soon - or at least sharing it - with writer Sholly Fisch. While Fisch's recent issue was not acclaimed, his upcoming "Future's End" issues promise to bring some interesting developments to the title and the character. If you're interested in this series, and want to try and save it, that might be the best place to jump-on.

5. Worlds' Finest by Paul Levitz and Yilidiray Cinar, $2.99

Worlds' Finest featuring the Earth-2 heroes Power Girl and Huntress has been a relatively low-profile title since its launch despite crossovers with other titles on more than one occasion. However, if you are a fan of books led by female characters - a much demanded feature in recent years - then this may be the book for you.
However, newcomers may be better off waiting until the Future's End entry of this book as well, as the current story arc is currently close to finishing.

Read More

US Box Office Top 10: 23rd June 2014

This weekend the US box office saw one of its closest match-ups for some time as last week's number one 22 Jump Street went head-to-head with Kevin Hart's Think Like a Man Too. Ultimately, Hart's comedy sequel was the film that came out on top, however it was close with a relatively small gap of around $1 million between the two pictures. Think Like a Man Too pulled in around $30 million - a little less than the first movie's $33.6 million - while 22 Jump Street settled for $29 million and the number two spot. With a budget that didn't break the bank - around $24 million - Hart's sequel should be able to make a reasonable profit for distributor Screen Gems, and a third entry will be on the table if the movie continues to perform over the Summer.

As for last week's number one, 22 Jump Street, it had a second week drop of just under 50% which is fairly healthy for the relatively low-budget comedy. The movie's domestic haul is now at $111 million, and if it continues to perform this way then it too will be on course for a third entry.
How to Train Your Dragon 2 on the other hand may not be so lucky. The animated feature had a budget of $145 million and is yet to cross the $100 million in the US after two weeks in theatres, although admittedly it is very close. Adding in the sequel's overseas haul brings the movie up to $171 million, however it is looking unlikely that Hiccup's latest adventure will be the smash-hit Dreamworks Animation wants after the disappointing performances of Mr. Peabody and Sherman, Turbo, and Rise of the Guardians.

The final wide release this week was Clint Eastwood's biographic of the 1960s rock group, The Four Seasons. The film titled Jersey Boys made a disappointing entrance at number four making just $13.5 million. While it is still very possible for the movie to make back its $40 million budget, it is unlikely that the film will be remembered come the end of the Summer movie season.

On the independent side of things, Guy Pearce's The Rover was released in another 594 theatres to disappointing results. The movie pulled in just $500,000 over the weekend averaging out to around $835 made by each venue.

Here's this week's top ten in full:

1. (-) Think Like a Man Too - $30 million
2. (1) 22 Jump Street - $29 million
3. (2) How to Train Your Dragon 2 - $25.3 million
4. (-) Jersey Boys - $13.5 million
5. (3) Maleficent - $13 million
6. (4) Edge of Tomorrow - $10.3 million
7. (5) The Fault in Our Stars - $8.6 million
8. (6) X-Men: Days of Future Past - $6.2 million
9. (10) Chef - $1.84 million
10. (7) Godzilla - $1.82 million

Be sure to get in touch with your thoughts on the latest box office numbers in the comments, on our Facebook page, or on Twitter.

Read More

Agents of SHIELD: Season 1 Review

Agents of SHIELD is finally over, and what a journey it was. This show was so up and down for so long that it's hard to draw an opinion of the overall series, but in the end I would say that I have come round to the show in spite of its flaws. Agents of SHIELD isn’t perfect, but ultimately I’m happy that we’re getting a second season. Does that make Agents of SHIELD a success? Well, kind of. There are going to be some major spoilers for the first season in this review so if you’re planning to watch it, then you have been warned. Now lets get into it.

1. THE CHARACTERS

The characters in Agents of SHIELD started off as the most generic archetypes you could possibly think up. You had the young hotshot who doesn’t want to join the team, the cute “will-they, won’t-they” pair who just can’t believe their luck, the unpredictable wild card with issues, and the serious person of Chinese descent.

These characters are not what anyone would call interesting, but I think it was Skye who got the most hate and that’s because it felt like she was being forced on us - or that's my opinion at least. To me it seemed like Joss Whedon and Kevin Feige were screaming in my face, “Look at her, look at how likeable she is. You like her. You can’t believe how cute she is, you just fucking love her, don’t you?” NO! I fucking don’t! Get her away from me.

However, after 22 hours of exposure to these characters I really do feel more attached to them, to the point where I’d say there’s a nice 70:30 split between characters I like, and characters I’m still not thrilled about. Melinda May, Fitz, Simmons, and Coulson are characters I don’t have a problem with. May is a relatively good TV-level substitute for Black Widow and Fitz-Simmons – while I was originally resistant to their adorableness – won me over in in the end and now I have to admit they’re quite a fun couple. As for Coulson, I actually wouldn’t say he’s the best character on the show, but ultimately it’s hard not to like him after his much-loved role in the MCU movies.

Fitz and Simmons began as an annoyance, but grew on me by the end...

On the flipside, Skye I’m still not totally sold on. She has improved since the pilot, but all those little heart to heart chats she had at the beginning have really tainted her for me. Those chats were even lamer than some of the quote-unquote emotional moments from early Smallville episodes. They were that bad.

Additionally, Ward is still very bland even after turning evil and killing Victoria Hand. My main reaction to that can be summed up by, "Meh, he’s still pretty boring."

Speaking of Victoria Hand though, why would you kill her off? In the comics, Hand was such a cool character, and I was looking forward to watching her flourish. And then Ward shot her two times in the chest and I was like oh. Great. The door is open to bring her back Coulson-style, but they can’t just do that for everyone who dies, especially as it wasn’t really fully explained how they brought Coulson back to life. All that was said was Fury got a robot to fuck about with his brain and some alien guy - it wasn’t a hugely thorough explanation. Also, bringing back characters left right and center would simply end up making death as meaningless in the Marvel movies as it is in the Marvel comics and nobody wants that.

2. THE STORY

Let’s talk about the overarching story of Agents of SHIELD: Season 1. The clairvoyant/Hydra. This is a story that I feel was pulled off relatively well, but still it wasn’t great. The fact that we weren’t introduced to the person who turns out to be the clairvoyant until 14 episodes in I feel is a bit weird. Plus it didn’t really come to a huge shock to me when it turned out Garrett was the Clairvoyant, mainly because we’re not really given many opportunities to get on board with the character and find him likeable. There was something about him from the first episode he appeared in that seemed off and I never thought of him as a trustworthy character.

Why is SHIELD so much cooler in the movies?

However, that being said I did like how heavily the series ended up tying into Captain America: The Winter Soldier, because it really had to given the events of that movie. I was also happy to see they didn't back down at the end of Ward's character arc. I had a terrible feeling that at the end of the series Ward was going to turn good again and it was going to be no hard feelings all round. Thankfully that didn’t happen. Like I’ve already said, Ward is boring. I’m glad he’s gone.

Ultimately, Agents of SHIELD’s story was passable, a solid C Grade, however now that the foundation has been laid – and the characters aren’t as bad as they were when the show began – I’m hoping for something a little more fulfilling come Season 2.

SEASON 2

So it was announced a little while ago that we will be getting a second series of Agents of SHIELD, maybe just as a way for Marvel to save face but even so! The question is: What can we expect from the second season?

WELL HERE’S SOME PREDICTIONS:

1.     Fitz will have some kind of brain damage that prevents him and Simmons from hooking up. Hollywood loves to drag out "will they won’t they" scenarios. Everyone knows this. Just look at Friends: How long did it take for Ross and Rachel to finally get back together? Too long. But the pair will probably finally kiss in the season 2 finale.

2.     Skye is going to have some kind of low-grade super power. It’s been hinted at throughout this series that there is something special about her, so there’s got to be some kind of pay off there I would imagine. When it comes to Skye’s ominous looking parent, I would say that it probably won’t be a character from the comics, but if it is it will be a really low-profile one that no one gives two shits about.

3.     Ward will come back at some point, either as a villain or while trying to redeem himself.

4.     May and Coulson are going to hook up because they’re the only two people on the team over the age of 30.

Read More

What Culture! What Happened?!

As I write this it has been one day less than a year since What Culture - the entertainment website about movies, games etc. - approved me as a contributor to their website. That contributor status was today revoked in, I can only assume, another attempt at the site remaking its image. In the e-mail informing me of my removal from the site, the What Culture editorial explain that they are looking to use a "smaller, more dedicated" team of writers going forward. This I feel is a mistake that is the latest in a long line of changes that I feel may be damaging to the site.

To anyone from the What Culture editorial who may be reading this I say please do not see this as an attack from a disgruntled former contributor, but instead some sincere words of advice about the future of your great site from an outsider's opinion. There were many frustrating events in the last few months of my What Culture career and now it seems unlikely I will be a part of the site going forward, I simply want to voice some concerns and opinions on the site and its recent changes.

"a smaller, more dedicated team"

First, I want to address the biggest change in What Culture's management yet: the reduction of its writing staff. That is, after all, why I'm able to write this letter. When I was accepted into the What Culture community of writers, one of the best things about it - aside from the larger audience than that of this blog - was that it was there whenever I wanted it. Currently I am in full-time education studying to do my AS Levels next month, and as a result I don't have huge amounts of time to write articles. However, on school holidays I would almost always take the time to write an article for the site because I did enjoy it, and I'm hoping to pursue a career in Journalism post-A-Levels.

I am sure that I'm not the only aspiring Journalist on the What Culture team, and I am equally sure I'm not the only writer who is still in education be that school, sixth form, college or university. To bar entry for people in my position who are unable to write frequently for the site due to unfavourable circumstances, I believe is highly unfair. Dismissing a writer from your team should be done if that writer is not writing well, not if the writer cannot post regularly. The saying "quality over quantity" comes to mind.

I feel that it is a great shame to remove these less active, but still passionate, contributors as it not only limits them in terms of what audience they can reach, but it also damages the site's image. One of the best things about the site is that it is run by volunteers predominantly, people who write articles for the site because they love to write with no financial motives whatsoever. While there will still be unpaid volunteers I'm sure, the fact that there will be far fewer is disheartening. It doesn't make What Culture look more professional (I assume that was the idea behind the reduction?), but it does make them seem like they do not care about their writers. And having written a couple of e-mails to the editorial team (who ensure you in their e-mails that if you have any questions, "don't hesitate to ask"), only to have been ignored, I'm not entirely surprised.

Shifting Focus

Another cause for concern in the new era of What Culture has been the website's shifting focus particularly towards what the site is calling "Offbeat" articles. While the website itself still manages to strike a delicate balance between most sections of the site, the What Culture Facebook page has been devoting a lot of its time lately to these offbeat articles. Take a glance at the What Culture Facebook posts of the last few weeks (March 20th to April 10th) and you'll see 2 posts linking to music articles, 3 to TV articles, 9 to film articles, and 21 to "offbeat" articles. This strange emphasis on the "offbeat" section of the site is puzzling. 

I can only assume that this section of the site is being spotlighted as it allows for more mainstream articles, possibly bringing more visitors who do not have an interest in the somewhat niche genre of movies, games and comics. While I don't have a problem with the site expanding its subject matter, it should not be to the detriment of other parts of the site - parts that have given the site the popularity it has today.

Case in point: the comic book section of the site. In my time as a contributor the section I posted to most was the comic-book one, and in the short time I was there I saw it be harshly tossed aside. While a contributor I requested to write many comic reviews, almost all of which were denied to me due to the reviews apparently getting a low amount of views. The frustrating thing about this is that while the section has never been the most popular part of the site, it certainly had its fans and those fans I'm sure would grow had the editorial made an attempt to revitalise the section. Instead they seem to have given up on it. The site currently only posts comic-book articles that are lists, with editor of the comic-book section Noel Thorne the only one with the ability to publish comic reviews, and being only one man the reviews are small in number.

Had the What Culture editorial encouraged comic reviews, they could have been able to grow a comic section the size and popularity of IGN's, or Newsarama's. However, it almost feels like they have a vendetta against the comic book section going so far as to remove it from the list of sections on their homepage. To wrap-up this section of the letter, what I am saying is don't neglect a loyal audience who have long been a staple of the What Culture website, in order to pursue a new audience that frankly seem a little out of place in a website about entertainment.

This time, it's impersonal

An interesting frustration I had with What Culture in my last few months there, was there strong reluctance to include any personal touches to their articles. Using "I" or "I'm" in a review is apparently forbidden and it puzzles me as to why. To put this in context, one of the only comic reviews I was able to write before What Culture's decision to end them was of New Avengers #14. One of my opening sentences in the post I sent to editorial was the following:

"The book went through a short phase where it lacked direction, a phase which I'm happy to say, is coming to an end."

Upon viewing the published article, this had been changed to a more grammatically incorrect, but infinitely less personal sentence:

"The book went through a short phase where it lacked direction, a phase which happily to is coming to an end."

This I bring up only because it is yet another bizarre decision by the What Culture editorial. Reviews are after all the opinion of one person and the use of "I" is common in reviews from many outlets because of this. I could perhaps understand the desire to change the "I'm" to "I am" in order to come across as a little more formal, but to remove "I" completely replacing it with a sentence that makes no grammatical sense is just odd.

5 Great Things About Lists (and a hundred annoying things)

My final and perhaps most significant frustration with What Culture comes from their over-reliance on lists. Aside from a few reviews, and occasionally a news story (if the news is big enough), What Culture is comprised entirely of lists. But why? Lists certainly have their place in a website, and I'm not saying they shouldn't post lists, but it does confuse me as to why they confine themselves so strictly to lists. Why not editorials? Why not more news articles? These would give the site a lot more variety, and would stand it up against more established entertainment news outlets more fairly.

Additionally, some of the lists thought of by What Culture staff for their Unclaimed Assignments page, are so ridiculously esoteric that a writer would need huge amounts of time to research the information necessary for one entry, let alone five, ten or however many they are asking for. This again bars entry to anyone who has other commitments outside of writing for the site, whether that is education, work, children or any other time-consuming things.

I really think that What Culture are doing themselves a disservice by relying so heavily on these lists, and would ask them to consider injecting some more variety into their website sooner rather than later.

To conclude

I once again would like to stress that I have no bad blood with What Culture. They gave me an opportunity to produce writing for a much larger audience than this blog will likely ever give. However, I needed to get the points in this letter off my chest, as I had been bottling my frustrations with the site for a long time. I feel it is likely - particularly after this post - that I may not have the opportunity to write for What Culture again, so I would like to say thank you for the opportunity.

David Craig, Editor of TEN

Read More

Is Dredd Now Over Rated?

Is a passionate fan base giving the cult hit too much credit? David Craig presents his view.

Last year I had the pleasure of finally seeing Dredd, the 2012 adaptation of the classic character created by publisher 2000AD. The movie pleasantly surprised me, my low expectations defied with a movie that showed a good understanding for the characters, and great respect for the source material. It was also greatly refreshing to see a studio take a risk in making an R-Rated comic book movie based on a character without a particularly large fan-base - even if the risk perhaps didn't entirely pay off. Yes, as expected by many members of the press, Dredd failed to find a large audience while in theatres and ended its worldwide box office run with just $41 million of its $45 million budget made back.

Some were ready to declare the film an outright failure, however through good word of mouth a fan base for the film steadily grew, and strong home video sales have now given the film a 'cult hit' status. While a sequel is still a long way off, the vocal and passionate fan base is bringing it closer to reality than many could have expected, and at the forefront of that fan base has been the Facebook page "Make a DREDD Sequel." In just a year and a half the page has raised more awareness for the movie and its potential sequel than arguably any other outlet. The page has even teamed up with Judge Dredd publisher 2000AD on occasion moving it from fan appreciation page to legitimate petition. Now, just shy of 100,000 likes, the page is stronger than ever - however over the last few months I have found myself in a strange place. I'm starting to feel the movement behind the movie is so strong now that I'm growing apathy towards it.

Let me elaborate. One of the many Dredd-promoting activities carried out by the "Make a DREDD Sequel" Facebook page is the vigorous promotion of any fan-poll in which Dredd is entered. Granted they've had a few losses here and there, but generally as soon as the page sets its mind on ensuring a win for Dredd, it succeeds. Some Dredd fans would say that this is a good thing, that it is another step in producing a sequel for the movie but I would disagree. The reason why is because I feel the page is taking the fun out of these polls on many occasions.

For example, in March the Movie/TV department of online shopping giant Amazon held a March Movie Madness competition in which movies were grouped in brackets for customers to pick their favourite. Dredd was one of the movies included, and with support from the page went on to beat genuine cinematic landmarks such as the Godfather series, the Lord of the Rings series and Pulp Fiction. Again, some may say that this is great news for the movie and for the cause, but I'm starting to feel that the movie is now being over-rated.

Don't hate me! I like Dredd, I really do. It was a fun action movie, with a nice amount of character development. But let's be real. The character development, while present, wasn't groundbreaking and the plot was light at best. Dredd was very much a movie about the action, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that - in my opinion at least - it shouldn't be challenging such greats as Pulp Fiction and the Godfather I and II.

A repeat performance appears to be happening right now in a poll run by the website Zimbio, who are running a similar contest only this time to find the best comic-book movie of all time. Once again the page have been telling their fans to vote Dredd and once again it appears to be working. Dredd's first contender was 300 which arguably was never going to be a huge threat. However in round two, Dredd moved onto one of the biggest names in comic book movies: Iron Man. But it appears the might of Robert Downey Jr. and the Avengers universe combined cannot topple the passion of the Dredd sequel Facebook page with Iron Man currently losing 60:40.

This could be perceived as a fanboy moaning about how Iron Man is cooler than Dredd, but that really isn't my intention. All I'm saying is that if I - someone who doesn't pledge allegiance to any particular comic book publisher - had to choose between these two movies, I would have to say Iron Man was the better of the two. While Karl Urban and Robert Downey Jr. both put in great performances, Iron Man has a far more substantial plot than Dredd which suffers from a very basic story which can be summed up by "Dredd has to kill all the criminals." Speaking as an aspiring screenwriter, Iron Man is simply the better-written movie, and I feel like its being beaten unfairly by a movie that doesn't entirely deserve all the acclaim its recieving.

It seems likely that Dredd will get to the semi-finals at least, as in round three its only possible contenders are 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man or Thor: The Dark World - two comic book movies with a rather lukewarm reception. But should it get to the finals? Should it win? Other likely bets for the final consist of The Dark Knight, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and the 1989 Batman movie. These are all worthy winners above Dredd again, because they have something to offer except action, and if Dredd beats these movies then I fear my apathetic attitude towards the movie will only grow.

I don't want to dislike Dredd. It's a good movie. But it's a very basic movie too. I hope we see a sequel to Dredd as much as the next fan, but our desire for a sequel should not result in Dredd being elevated to a point where it can do no wrong, because it is simply undeserving of such acclaim.

Ultimately, whether or not Dredd wins these polls is hugely insignificant when placed in the scope of the wider world and the unfortunate events currently taking place. However as a fan of storytelling, I can't help but feel distressed when I see movies that are written so well be shafted for a movie that at its core is a very basic action film. I'll reiterate again, that I do like Dredd, but I feel my patience for it is wearing thin from the sheer power it seems to hold in our comic-book movie community.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was an opinion piece. Please share your opinions on Dredd in the comments, on our Facebook page, or by tweeting us!

Read More

US Box Office Top 10: 16th June 2014

This week Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill's comedy sequel 22 Jump Street debuted big at the US Box Office pulling in roughly $60 million. The film had a budget of around $50 million meaning the film is already well on its way to making a profit for Columbia Pictures and MGM. This news will also be a relief to Warner Bros. who have publicly shown doubt over Tatum's upcoming sci-fi movie Jupiter Ascending, most recently pushing the movie from a release this Summer to February 2015. However, even with this success it still seems unlikely that Tatum will have the power to make back that film's $150 million budget.

Meanwhile, the next biggest new entry was Dreamwork Animation's How to Train Your Dragon 2 which debuted at number two with $50 million made over the weekend. While this is by no means an awful debut, it is disappointing for the studio, as the film opened in more theatres than Jump Street and had a wider audience. However, this debut is slightly higher than that of the first movie in the series, which made about $43 million when it opened back in March 2010. Additionally as the end of school fast approaches for children across the country, the movie may be able to sustain an audience for an extended amount of time in the Summer.

Behind these two new entries are Maleficient and Edge of Tomorrow which made $19 million and $16 million respectively, meaning last week's number one - The Fault in Our Stars - is pushed far down to number five with a relatively unhealthy drop of 67%. While this drop seems like a bad sign for the longevity of the film's Box Office performance, the film is already a huge success making $81 million in the USA alone with a budget of just $12 million. The same cannot be said for Tom Cruise's Edge of Tomorrow which has made $56 million in the USA, with a huge budget of $178 million yet to be remade.

Here's the Top 10 in full:

1. (-) 22 Jump Street - $60 million
2. (-) How to Train Your Dragon 2 - $50 million
3. (2) Maleficient - $19 million
4. (3) Edge of Tomorrow - $16.1 million
5. (1) The Fault in Our Stars - $15.7 million
6. (4) X-men: Days of Future Past - $9.5 million
7. (6) Godzilla - $3.1 million
8. (5) A Million Ways to Die in the West - $3.0 million
9. (7) Neighbours - $2.4 million
10. (9) Chef - $2.2 million

Read More

E3 2014: New Crackdown Announced!

In news that has excited me quite a bit, a new Crackdown game has been announced for XBOX One! Crackdown is possibly my favourite Microsoft franchise, and this new entry looks to be a huge upgrade both graphically and gameplay-wise. Hopefully this will make up for the slightly disappointing second entry, but it will mean that I'm going to have to buy an XBOX One and I'm quite poor! Sad faces all round.

For more gaming news be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter using the buttons in the column on the right hand side of this page!

Read More

E3 2014: Tomb Raider 2 Announced

At the Microsoft press conference today, a cinematic teaser trailer was shown for a new entry in the Tomb Raider series titled Rise of the Tomb Raider. The game appears to be a direct sequel to the successful reboot of 2013, and may be an XBOX One exclusive although this has not be announced.

For more E3 news, be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter using the buttons in the column to the right-hand side of this page.

Read More

E3 2014: PlayDead's Inside Announced

Limbo developers PlayDead showed off their new game, Inside, which Phil Spencer announced would debut on XBOX One in 2015. The trailer shown was just as eerie and shadowy as its predecessor, looking quite stunning indeed.

For more E3 news be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter using the buttons in the column to the right hand side of this page.

Read More

E3 2014: Halo The Master Chief Collection Announced

Microsoft announced at its E3 press conference today that Halo: The Master Chief Collection would be coming to XBOX One this fall. The game is a collection of the first four Halo games that will be put onto a single disc with a "seamless interface."

While showing it off at the conference, a spokesperson for 343 said that they have retouched Halo 2 to make it prettier, while also restoring Halo 2's multi-player modes to the exact state they were in when the game first launched.

The game will run at 1080p HD on dedicated servers, with 1000 Gamer-Score up for grabs for any achievement whores out there.

For more E3 news be sure to like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter using the buttons in the column to the right-hand side of this page!

Read More