Latest news with #Lords
Tom's Guide
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Tom's Guide
Elden Ring Nightreign is equal parts brutal joy-ride and frustrating mess — yet I can't put it down
Platforms: PC, PS5 (reviewed), Xbox Series XPrice: $39Release Date: May 15, 2025Genre: Action RPG Elden Ring Nightreign is one of the most-hyped experiences of the year and 2025 is already pretty stacked with some heavy-hitters. But with developer FromSoftware at the helm and Elden Ring in the name, this action RPG roguelite is already well-primed for game of the year contention. Yet, unlike many of its predecessors, this doesn't feel like an easy shoo-in. With cooperative multiplayer the major focus in Elden Ring Nighteign, pushing to the side rich lore-seeking and deep exploration that prevailed in FromSoftware experiences past, this fresh take on the Souls formula might be a hard pill to swallow for casuals and veterans alike. The underlying challenge remains the same. Whether you're running deep with a group of three or (God willing) solo, Elden Ring Nightreign still keeps the pressure on just like Elden Ring and Dark Souls before it, touting its own list of tough bosses, aptly coined "Night Lords." And, instead of the Lands Between, it's Limveld you'll be surveying this time. The procedurally-generated map is ever-changing and will keep you guessing each time you drop in, but don't dilly-dally — you only have three in-game days to gear up and gain levels to take on the Night Lord that awaits. Herein lies the major folly: the time-sink and minuscule rewards gained from each 45-minute run. Remember, base Elden Ring this is not. Whether you're an age-old Souls fan or a newcomer, Nightreign is a steep learning curve and shows how the Souls identity can't always fit every mold. Read on for my full review to see where Elden Ring Nightreign hits all the sweet spots and where it leaves me feeling totally parched. Without any major overarching narrative elements (that you can solve on your own or otherwise), Elden Ring Nightreign plops you into a story of survival. As already mentioned, you have just three days to suit up and attain levels to take on any of its eight Night Lords, and there's not a whole lot of time to do it. Most of my 95+ runs tended to last anywhere from 40 to 50 minutes. How it works is you face two tough bosses at the end of each day and, provided you live long enough to make it to the third sunrise, you come face to face with an even more menacing foe that puts all others to shame. Every run feels relatively different enough, up until around the 70-hour mark. The world of Limveld is supposedly "ever-changing," but it remains largely the same in some critical ways. Sometimes you'll see newer night closing bosses — for instance, I only saw the Nameless King (a returning boss from Dark Souls 3) once — or you'll get varied upgrades along the way that change how you play. It's in the Shifting Earth scenarios and random boss raids where things get interesting. These tend to follow the defeat of major Night Lords, or will spawn in randomly later into your time with Nightreign. Shifting Earths completely change the map, netting you particular rewards based on the environment. On the other hand, those aforementioned Raids can often change the run entirely. You might be in the middle of fighting a boss or trudging through the map to get a valuable item, like an extra flask that might prove vital against a Night Lord, when, out of nowhere, Margit the Fell Omen comes in to shake things up. On paper, this might sound like something that scratches the itch for wary challenge-seekers. In practice, though, it often gets annoying — even despite the fact that Margit is relatively easy to beat. It's just an added encumbrance on top of an overly large map and the stress of a ticking clock nipping at your nerves. Although there might be some alternative methods for getting around the map more easily, they don't always help in the end. I found myself using jump pads (known as Spiritstreams) the most versus the Spectral Hawks. The latter were often far too much out of the way and didn't always offer me the fastest route to my objective, which made navigation largely feel tedious at times. Much akin to the start of many a FromSoftware experience, Nightreign similarly offers players a list of characters to choose from. Except, this time your experience is largely fueled by that character's individual playstyle — meaning you don't have much of a say in that character's particular skillset. Therefore, you're locked into one mode of play depending on the character you choose. Luckily, there's a lot to enjoy in this department. The range of eight Nightfarers includes Wylder, Executor, Iron Eyes, Revenant, Recluse, Guardian, Raider, and Duchess. Each has a Passive Ability, Character Skill, and Ultimate Art that match their playstyles. I mostly played with Wylder and Executor, but also tried a bit of Revenant, Iron Eyes, and Recluse. Executor was one of my favorites, serving as the Nightreign-branded dex build and Sekiro insert of the bunch. He wields a trusty katana and an ultimate that allows him to turn into a monstrous beast that can do devastating damage to bosses. With Executor, I usually ran dual katanas for that incredible bleed buildup and with Wylder, I tended to use dual greatswords. I kind of enjoy power stancing in this game (as much as I did in Elden Ring and Dark Souls 2), and it's nice that you can even use weapons you don't want to wield to your advantage. For instance, a weapon might not be the best for a particular build, but it could have better jump attacks as a passive ability. Even just keeping this in one of your slots will be highly beneficial, and it incentivizes you to constantly pick up new gear even if the item in question doesn't match your playstyle. Ultimate Arts can prove the end-all be-all of an entire run. You'll have to wisely choose to either save an Ultimate for picking up fallen teammates or using it against bosses, just to get a good stagger in so your friends can wail on them. It's a tough balance and cooldowns often vary, but largely depend on the amount of landed attacks you make on a foe or even a fallen comrade. Nightfarers also have some interesting story beats to dive into. Coined "Remembrances," these side missions expound on their motives and can bring you to some interesting places, granting you new skins and even some useful Relics. These can be used to upgrade characters for every run. Relics are a handy way to incentivize runs. Whether you die or defeat a Night Lord, you're granted a list of rewarded Relics, which can grant you a variety of different things like boosted stamina or intelligence, heightened attack power when applying poison to foes, or granting fire to a weapon when using a Character Skill. Although these can be incredibly important in your first few hours, after a while, repeat Relics become common, and even some new ones become entirely useless. Eventually, you'll find the ones that match your mode of play and simply roll with them — and that's kind of the end of them. Elden Ring: Nightreign is a tough game to judge. It's provided me with some of my favorite co-op gaming memories in literally decades, like the time Ryan, an industry peer, and I defeated one of the game's toughest foes with barely a sliver of health remaining after three unsuccessful attempts. But the repetitive nature of each run can lead to lengthy stretches where you feel you're going through the motions and making precious little progress. It's an experience of highs and lows, but when the final Nightlord finally fell to my volley of arrows (and the cold steel of my co-op companions), I did find myself itching for just one more run. But heed my words, don't venture into the night solo; you'll need strong partners to defeat this challenge There's a lot to love here. As someone who has played all of FromSoftware's catalog, I was thoroughly excited to give this fresh spin a try and it's been a lot of fun, for the most part. Despite the underlying enjoyment, there are a bevy of hindrances and the most glaring of them all is the fact that you really need a solid group of three to persist in this game. There's just no way anyone's going to run through Nightreign with just random players casually. If so, you'd have to get real lucky. Communication is key in this game. While you can get by with simple markers and pings on the map, sitting in a voice chat makes this a total breeze. Otherwise, you can't accurately time when to use an Ultimate or specify where someone's going at a particular moment. A major point of contention for me was picking up teammates. When another hero loses all of their health, they'll fall to the ground in a glowing purple hue and you'll have to hit them several times before they're rejuvenated. Although it might sound simple enough, it proves a little tedious given the lackluster in-game targeting and the minimal amount of stamina you have in this game. The stamina gauge in Nightreign is a huge misstep in my opinion. It's one of the biggest problems I had in most of my runs, always running out of stamina in the worst situations — largely because bosses jump around the map so much you have to run around to catch up with them, only for your stamina bar to deplete in seconds. It would make more sense if you didn't have to expend stamina on dashes to get to bosses or use much less stamina in boss scenarios, making Night Lord fights and even night cap bosses feel a lot less time-consuming. I feel like a good portion of the time is spent waiting for my stamina gauge to replenish and with a couple of tweaks, I feel like this could easily be amended. And one of my biggest gripes is not being allowed to buy more items at the final night market or even sell items to get some extra runes back. It prevents you from shifting all the useless gear you've accumulated over the run. What this game needs the most, though, is duos. I truly don't understand why a solo mode was prioritized over duos — I guess for offline players, mostly, but I see a large side of the player base running with randoms or friends, for the most part. Duos could add such an awesome dynamic to this game, and I hope FromSoftware does end up adding this mode in a future update. I could yap all day long about this game. Elden Ring Nightreign is totally different from anything FromSoftware has done before. It fits into a whole new mold, one that gives Souls veterans a seemingly never-ending challenge that will test their skills for years to come. But after over 70 hours of gameplay, I feel I've seen pretty much everything Nightreign has to offer, and there's little else drawing me back in. Aside from playing with other Nightfarers and running their Remembrances, there's not much else here in terms of replayability and the relics I could garner won't amount to much against what I've already got. I'll be around helping new players take down bosses, of course, but once I've seen them through the Night Lords, I don't see much else keeping me (and others) sticking around until future DLC. And that's a real shame coming from the spinoff of an experience that heralded hundreds of hours of enjoyment.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Labour plan to let foreign states team up to own newspapers sparks alarm
Labour's plan to let foreign powers own shares in newspapers has sparked alarm that they could team up to gain sway over Britain's free press. Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has proposed laws to allow states to hold passive stakes of up to 15pc in newspapers and news websites. There is no planned rule on what portion a group of foreign states could own, however, raising concerns in the House of Lords over 'where will it end?' The legislation is partly intended to dispel the uncertainty faced by The Telegraph since a takeover bid led by the United Arab Emirates was blocked by the Conservatives over a year ago. By easing an existing outright ban on foreign state ownership, Ms Nandy's plan is also meant to help improve British relations with the wealthy Gulf state, which were damaged by the saga. The UAE is now expected to become a silent minority shareholder in a consortium led by RedBird Capital Partners, the US private equity firm which was previously the junior partner in its bid. The Conservative Party leadership has said it will support a limit of 15pc. However, after analysing the proposed statutory instrument, the Tory peer Baroness Stowell, a pivotal figure in the rebellion that derailed the UAE bid, has written to Ms Nandy to demand changes. Baroness Stowell, who has said she will not oppose single passive stakes of up to 15pc, told The Telegraph: 'Without a cumulative limit on foreign state shareholdings you have to ask where will it end? 'You could have countries teaming up to seek influence. I don't understand why this hasn't been addressed in the proposed legislation. It may be that there are other ways the Government believes it can address this risk. If so, let's hear it and debate it.' Ministers have other powers to block foreign investments, such as those they believe are a potential threat to British security, under the National Security and Investment Act. Lord Fox, the Liberal Democrats' culture spokesman in the Lords, backed Baroness Stowell's demand for a rethink and said there were 'glaring loopholes … ready to be taken advantage of by foreign states'. He added: 'It's wrong that this Government has no qualms with multiple states owning unlimited aggregate stakes in British papers. The independence of UK media must not be made subject to foreign sway. 'We are pressing peers from right across the House to stand with us, block this legislation and defend press freedom.' The Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' in the Lords to obstruct Ms Nandy's legislation. They argue that it would effectively overturn the ban on foreign state ownership approved by Parliament last year. Some Conservative peers, led by Lord Forsyth, are expected to back the bid to block the legislation. He has said the idea that a stake of 15pc could be entirely passive was 'utterly naive'. The Conservatives originally proposed a limit of just 5pc to allow sovereign wealth funds to make small passive investments in newspapers, such as via share index trackers. Ms Nandy opted to increase the limit three-fold after lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, the owner of The Daily Mail. She agreed with them that a 5pc limit would cut news publishers off from a potentially vital source of international capital at a turbulent time as the decline of print accelerates. It is not clear whether any foreign state has already made an equity or debt investment in a UK news publisher. The Independent news website, controlled by Lord Lebedev, sold a 30pc stake to a Saudi investor in 2017. A subsequent Ofcom investigation explored potential links between the investor and the Saudi state but did not draw conclusions. The Independent subsequently formed an editorial and commercial partnership with a Saudi state media company. Under Ms Nandy's proposals, she will have a duty to trigger regulatory investigations when there are concerns of foreign state influence. Baroness Stowell said there was a need to ensure MPs and peers had a bigger role, with a guarantee that questions about press freedom would be heard in the chamber. Questions she attempted to ask about the fate of The Telegraph were rejected by parliamentary officials in consultation with the Government on three occasions. Baroness Stowell said: 'My concern is that Parliament has all the tools it needs to protect freedom of the press. This is especially important given the proposals from the Government create an ongoing duty to monitor and investigate issues with foreign state investors. 'When it comes to press freedom it is critical that Parliament can ask any questions it sees fit.' The Department for Culture, Media and Sport was asked for comment. Sign in to access your portfolio
New European
23-05-2025
- Business
- New European
Give Trump the Nobel Prize, Tory peer pleads
The 43-year-old, handed a seat in the Lords by Boris Johnson in 2020 after chairing the Business and Entrepreneurs' Forum, a £3,000-a-year club for Tory-supporting business leaders, has only spoken in the House 38 times in five years, the most recent being last summer. And he has only just submitted his seventh ever written question to ministers. You can be forgiven for not having heard of Conservative peer Aamer Sarfraz – the former Tory donor and treasurer turned lawmaker-for-life is not one of the most engaged members of the red benches. But what a question! Earlier this month he wrote to ministers to ask whether the government 'would support the nomination of President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his role in averting war between India and Pakistan'. Alas for Sarfraz, the government declined to back his bid, although not on the entirely reasonable basis that the cooling of hostilities had absolutely nothing to do with the US president, who had shown his customary grasp of geopolitics by claiming the tensions between the two countries went back 'a thousand years'. Rather, Foreign Office minister Jenny Chapman wrote back that 'the award of the Nobel Peace Prize is a matter for the Nobel committee, and not for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office'. A shame, then. But at least Sarfraz can console himself he's unlikely to have any troubles with immigration officials next time he's heading Stateside!
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Tory peers rebel over UAE stake in The Telegraph
Tory peers are poised to defy their party leadership and seek to block a deal to hand the United Arab Emirates a stake in The Telegraph. A split has emerged since Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, said last week that she would change the law to allow foreign states to own up to 15pc of British newspapers. The threshold is three times the figure proposed and consulted on by the Conservatives last year before the general election and after they had blocked the sale of The Telegraph to RedBird IMI, a vehicle 75pc bankrolled by the UAE. Julia Lopez, a close ally of Kemi Badenoch and media minister at the time, quickly attacked the Labour decision to amend last year's primary legislation so significantly as a 'sell-out'. However, Stuart Andrew, Ms Nandy's Conservative shadow, then announced that the Conservatives would support the changes. Mr Andrew said: 'We believe that the proposed 15pc threshold seems reasonable as it is combined with a new duty on the Secretary of State, which will safeguard editorial independence.' The signs of a Tory split were confirmed by shadow cabinet sources who questioned the wisdom of Mr Andrew's intervention. It came as RedBird Capital, the US private equity firm which is the junior partner in RedBird IMI, attempts to lead a new consortium to acquire The Telegraph and end two years of damaging limbo. The UAE is expected to seek to retain a 15pc stake alongside other minority investors. Now, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers, the Lords equivalent of the backbench 1922 Committee, has launched a rebellion against party policy with a scathing attack on Ms Nandy's plans. He accused her of a 'surrender' to lobbying that opens the door to any foreign state 'however odious their regime'. He said he will take the unusual step of supporting a Liberal Democrat 'fatal motion' to stop them becoming law. Statutory instruments are typically waved through the Commons but can face debate and an obstructive – but not decisive – vote in the Lords. Writing for The Telegraph, Lord Forsyth said: 'Allowing foreign governments to hold stakes in national newspapers is a systemic threat to a free press and a free press is a necessary condition for a free country. 'The Government's proposals … open the door to state-funded media and undermine independent journalism. At a time of great geopolitical upheaval, the Government should be strengthening media independence, not trading it away for foreign capital. 'Now Parliament must act to reassert the protections enshrined in the legislation and make it clear that foreign governments have no place in ownership of our national media.' The proposed legislation prohibits foreign states from active involvement in newspapers, but Lord Forsyth warned it would be 'utterly naive to believe that a 15pc holding would not result in a degree of influence'. Baroness Stowell of Beeston, who played a crucial role in collaboration with Lord Forsyth and peers of all main parties in forcing Rishi Sunak to intervene against RedBird IMI's attempted takeover, said she would not support the fatal motion. She has instead tabled a less potent 'motion of regret' expressing disappointment with the level of the threshold and the fact that the legislation effectively makes Ms Nandy the guarantor of The Telegraph's independence. If she has reason to believe the UAE is interfering she will have a duty to trigger an investigation and powers to force it to exit the investment. Baroness Stowell said: 'I'm concerned about any threat to the general principle that foreign states should not be involved in our independent press. 'I'm also disappointed in what the Government has proposed but this was always going to be difficult legislation. 'I won't support a fatal motion but I want to mark the Secretary of State's card that I will be watching closely and holding her to her statutory duty to protect press freedom.' A vote in the Lords is expected in the next few weeks. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Wales Online
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Wales Online
Government defeated for third time in Lords over copyright protection against AI
Government defeated for third time in Lords over copyright protection against AI undefined Elton John is "angry" about proposed changes to copyright laws (Image: BBC ) Peers have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Government for the third time over copyright protections for the creative industries against artificial intelligence (AI). It came as the upper chamber joined artists and musicians, including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, in speaking out against AI companies using copyrighted work without permission. The House of Lords supported by 287 votes to 118, majority 169, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, adding a commitment to introduce transparency requirements, aiming to ensure copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by who. Peers backed independent crossbencher Baroness Beeban Kidron's transparency amendments at report stage of the Bill, which were later voted down by MPs. The unelected house supported her again during the first round of so-called ping-pong and now again in the second round of ping-pong, with the majority increasing each time. Among the 287 to vote in favour of her amendment on Monday were 18 Labour peers, including former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, now known as Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. Article continues below The Government has said it will address copyright issues as a whole after the more than 11,500 responses to its consultation on the impact of AI have been reviewed, rather than in what it has branded "piecemeal" legislation. Lady Kidron, who directed the second film in the Bridget Jones series, rounded on the Government, accusing them of being "turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley". She said: "The Government have got it wrong. They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley, who have stolen – and continue to steal every day we take no action – the UK's extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output. "Silicon Valley have persuaded the Government that it is easier for them to redefine theft than make them pay for what they stole. "If the Government continues on its current intransigent path, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry, fundamental to country and democracy. It will be a tragedy and it's entirely avoidable." The online safety campaigner explained that her new amendment accepts that the Government's consultation and report will be the mechanism by which transparency measures will be introduced, and gives the Government free rein on enforcement procedures. However, it does require the Government to ensure clear, relevant and accessible information be provided to copyright holders so they can identify the use of their copyrighted work, and that legislation to be brought forward within six months of the Government's report being published, 18 months from the Bill's passing. Lady Kidron told peers: "If the Government is not willing to accept a time-limited outcome of its own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling widespread theft of UK copyright into the long grass. "Because failing to accept a timeline in the real world means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive." She insisted that UK copyright law as it stands is unenforceable, because "what you can't see you can't enforce", and that without her amendment it will be years before the issue is legislated on, by which time the creative industry will be "in tatters". Former BBC children's TV presenter and Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Floella Benjamin backed the amendment, saying it would "secure our children's future and not sell them down the river", assuring them that "their creativity will not be stolen". In a nod to Sir Elton's comments on the issue, former Labour deputy leader and UK Music chairman Lord Watson said: "It's a little bit funny this feeling inside that I rise to support Baroness Kidron's amendment today, an amendment that my front bench so clearly opposes. "But my lords, I'm still standing. I'm still standing because I do not yet believe that ministers have heard the clarion cry from our country's creators that they need more from this Bill." Also backing the amendment was former EastEnders actor and Labour peer Lord Michael Cashman, who recalled character actress Claire Davenport cherishing the royalty cheques she would receive by rubbing them on her "ample bosom" and saying: "Now, I can eat". Responding, technology minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch insisted that transparency "cannot be considered in isolation" and that the issue of copyright is "too important a topic to rush". She said: "Alongside transparency, we must also consider licensing, the remuneration of rights holders, and the role of technical solutions and any other number of issues relating to copyright and AI. This is why we consulted on all of these topics. "We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted by the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright, the creative sector and AI development. We cannot ring-fence the UK away from the rest of the world." She added: "This is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others." Article continues below The minister told peers: "We are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI. "This isn't about Silicon Valley, it's about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors. We have to find a solution that protects both sectors." Earlier, peers ended their stand-off on two other amendments, one designed to require public authorities to record sex data based on biological sex, and another to change the definition of scientific research, which critics argued gave AI companies a "powerful exemption" to reuse data without consent.
