Search This Blog, Linked From Here, or The Web


Sunday, July 17, 2016

Let the Nerds Go at It: How Media is Changing for the Better

The general rule of thumb for any new thing is that corporations and people who generally have no idea how to handle this new thing will pick it up and take it for a test drive. Fairly often this ends up being a bad thing. Either the product fails and now the market believes there isn't any interest in this thing anymore and drops it completely or it succeeds and they end up running it into the ground trying to replicate the formula they've found which then results in the previous point. Think of it kind of like the Michael Bay Transformer movies. While they are stupid and genuinely hated by a majority for very valid reasons they still make massive amounts of money when they're released so obviously there is a market for them.
My point being is that profitable isn't always good but its unfortunately what drives the market forward. Imagine a world where Star Wars tanked at the box office. We'd be left without Carrie Fischer, Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford as brand name actors with their legendary status. It wouldn't have spawned a franchise of movies, games, books, comics, toys and etc to the point where there's still demand for an entire new trilogy of movies and even more of everything else. Star Wars is one of those few moments where a nerd, George Lucas, was successful.
The reason I bring this up is kind of about my last post about my feeling on the lackluster DC movies as well as a few other things. A lot has changed since the first video game ever and the industry is showing it in both good and bad ways. But the one thing I like most of all is how the nerds, or rather people who are extremely passionate about a particular subject to the point of fanaticism, are now being put in direct charge of products. This isn't something new but its become more of a thing in these past few years. If I had to categorize the 2010's in a market term it would be a burst of nerd culture actually run by the nerds. Time long ago nerd was actually kind of a bad term. It generally meant a person who wasn't physically capable or someone who was a loner. Now its the passionate director, designer, fan and pretty much everything else positive in society.
What I mean is the the higher ups are finally listening to the fans or their consumers. And I mean really listening. While money is certainly a deciding factor now its more about how it will be received. I think that's the power of hindsight. A lot of classic movies were bombs at the box office but found a devoted following later on. The opposite can also be inferred. From a gaming perspective, hindsight has allowed us to find a market for retro gaming and things like it. Remastered versions of cult classic titles now available on a massive scale. I think a good example of this is the cult classic Psychonauts. When I was a kid I heard about this really cool and inventive game... and never saw it on store shelves. I saw magazine ads and even a few trailers in those free game demo disks... but could never find it. Funny thing about that is the game didn't do great either from a money perspective. For whatever reason there wasn't any copies really anywhere for the consumer to pick up. And while it was considered a success from the stand point of a well made game it failed financially. While people can say that it was part of the still budding internet age it still was sort of an anomaly.
I'm not saying that I as a self proclaimed Star Wars fan should direct the movies or as a gamer I should make a game, rather that the market is open for someone like me to show how much I appreciate these things, either in money for fan creations. Let the nerds take over for a while. Its been working so far, why not see how far we can run with it?

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

What's Wrong with DC's Movies

Hey guys. I've been thinking since my video game reviews and other content is a bit sparse that I might branch out, just a bit, into some other media. I won't really address anything I can't comment on so, while requests are a nice thing, I personally will just talk about what I want to talk about as it comes to me.
Batman v. Superman was released a while ago but its effects are still going on even now. I hear people defending the movie for very small points but ultimately I feel it is the absolute worst of all DC's movies, and I say that knowing that there are probably some direct to video titles that DC has done their best to shove under the rug. Honestly I don't think, and really hope, it doesn't get much worse than this. I personally consider myself to be a Marvel person though that's more of a wish than an actuality. Not only are the majority of the comics I own from DC but I often find myself being drawn back to DC in one way or another. Marvel is sort of a daunting company, almost monolithic. Even more so now that they've been acquired by Disney. The ultimate problem I have with Marvel is the fact its far too difficult to get into any of their content without a guide. While this can be true for DC as well the difference is that DC has its own one off stories which make up the bulk of my limited amount of comics. If I don't want to discover an entire universe I can just pick up one of their Elseworlds stories and get my fix without having to do prior research if the comic was handled correctly. Apart from something like Days of Future Past there's not really that much that Marvel doesn't cross over or blend with their other series. While this is great for long time fans, any newcomers will be confused to say the least. But we're not talking about Marvel here.
The reason I consider it to be the worst comic book movie is a simple case of not handling the characters sensibly. I watched snippets of the movie with a break in between every so often of walking somewhere else to let off some steam by their ridiculous decisions. I want to say first off that Batman and Superman both kill people, though they don't revel in it or go into a fight with the intent to kill. Its more of like an after effect like Batman punching someone so hard they go into cardiac arrest or asphyxiate but since Batman is kind of an asshole and doesn't call the paramedics they just end up dying. And Superman could just forget how strong he is as well as doing what I previously mentioned about Batman as well. The furthest I think they should ever take Batman straight up killing someone in the media is basically what happened in Batman Begins where he just refuses to save someone from certain death. I don't really understand why most people had a problem with how Zod was killed by Superman in Man of Steel. While a boring movie, the scene was actually my personal favorite, being very conflicting for him. He ended up having to kill not only one of the few members of his dying race but also simply to protect innocent people. However the idea of Batman willingly killing people in BvS and actually taking further measures to do so knowing full well they would die from it spits in the face of the character.
Prior to writing this I got caught up with the first season of Gotham. The interaction between Bruce and Alfred is a really clear example of how their relationship would immediately crumble should Alfred know as he has had a troubled past. Father figure or not, torturing people and brutally killing them isn't something Alfred has been okay with in the comics. The only instance I can ever remember him being 'okay' with this is in the really god awful All Star Batman and Robin series. And even then they had a moment where Batman realizes he's done something awful to someone as he sees the Green Lantern almost die in front of him and saving him is a turning point where he vows not to kill any more criminals.
Zach Snyder has gone on record stating he has no idea what to do or what he's doing. The very flimsy reasoning behind Batman killing people comes from The Dark Knight Returns from which he based the character off of. To which I have to say if he really wanted to make the Dark Knight Returns why not just make it? As it is now cannon, Batman brutally kills people. I would say this would put him in stark contrast to Superman as he would never tolerate his behavior without a stern warning, non-Elseworld or alternate universe Superman anyways. But given that this version really just doesn't seem to care at all just completely screws up the dynamic of what the characters have been for the past X amount of decades. In contrast, Civil War came out a while ago too and stayed true to the main characters. Granted I have no idea why Tony Stark would be in bed with the government on the decision of registering superheroes but it actually makes sense given the albeit terrible comic the story was lifted from. Even the part about Spiderman being the posterboy for the registration, though that was more fan service and cameo stuff than from the original story line. Point is the characters weren't compromised for their movie appearances and were portrayed as competently as possible.

Thanks for reading this. I'm not entirely sure if I'm going to keep up with non video game articles but if it allows me to write more in lieu of lacking video games then I think this will work out.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Keep the VR Exclusives to a Minimum: What We Forgot About the 70's

I'm going to say it right now, I don't want virtual reality games. I don't want to buy them, the system and I really don't want to play them. This is less of a 'this is a gimmick that will fall out eventually' and more of a I have had serious medical problems my entire life and putting one of these things on legitimately terrifies me. Back to my previous point, I don't think this is a gimmick. This seems like the next step in technology in general. Like the precursor to those god awful sci-fi movie technology things that we've been seeing in just about every future movie/game. While I will not be a participant in this decade I still believe that this is a step into the future and therefore in the right direction. As I'm writing this I have an eye splitting headache and putting on a headset whirring with power and flashing lights into my eyes sounds like a nightmare.
My dream for video games is that eventually we'll hit a wall and we can go no further from a technical stand point. Not from the sense that games will never evolve in a technical department sense, rather we will have a baseline for all consoles and PCs that will last until the end of time. If I looked to my right I currently have seven gaming devices which isn't counting the 3DS right in back of me. If I counted how much all of these things would cost it would probably be in the thousands, and that's just having two consoles from this generation not counting the Vita or aforementioned 3DS. Whenever I hear a new console is being released that isn't a special edition I get really depressed. How much will it cost and how long will it take for me to raise up the money to get this? I still haven't been able to get my hands on a PS4 and I'm still sort of down about it. To put it bluntly this is one of the most expensive hobbies in the world to stay up to date on. I also have a love hate relationship with PC as whatever I have there will always be something better and when I get my hands on that I will still be under the curve. "Its good but will it run Crysis?" is a pretty good example of this.
In order to keep myself being somewhat up to date without becoming destitute I must forego certain additions ie. Kinect, PlayStation Eye et cetera. I generally look at exclusives to these things as a necessary evil. You should get the most play/work out of an item and an exclusive for this item is a good way for a company to recoup costs. Only by good graces have the majority of these exclusives been lack luster to say the least. VR is one of these additions but about six hundred percent more expensive but that isn't without good or sensible reasoning. The system is expensive and the price is indicative of that. I've been seeing a few games on Steam designed for VR and have heard talks of VR exclusive games. While I'm not going to hope that these games fail and, by extension, the equipment fails I would like to remind you of a time when no one knew how to market, produce, distribute and price games fairly...
While I was not alive in the 70's its ripples are still felt today. A rocky road of a time that shaped gaming into what it is today. Back then most games were a far cry of what they are today, no pun intended. Most times they were ridiculous little time wasters and would just barely classify as a game. My mom bought me an Atari emulator type console for Christmas a while back. My first jump into these games was nothing short of a culture shock. I had no idea what was going on, what I was going to do or how to do it. Diverting from this, during this time everything gaming related was insanely expensive. Taking these prices into inflation by today's standards some of these, mind you, basic consoles would cost around a thousand dollars today. And that was normal. Expected. One of these consoles was the Neo Geo. A console so expensive just having one back in the day made you a legend that kids would pass around during Recess. By today's standards that console would be around a thousand dollars. There were also exclusive games for this console and since no one was able to afford it these possible franchises died out simply because there was no market for them. Apart from that the games were also overpriced and were extremely difficult to find.
My main point is that not everyone will be able to afford a VR system. Others may not want to buy one in the first place. While I'm not going to stop anyone there needs to be a steady increase in this technology. Don't force people to buy it to enjoy what is happening rather allow them to steadily digest what is being released to pique interest so that eventually every person will have this standard without having to tear into their wallets. VR is the future but we can wait a bit longer.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

How Anita Sarkeesian is Saving Gaming (By Being A Terrible Person)

Being a video gamer comes with a degree of defensiveness like liking anime or really anything society wouldn't consider the norm. On the one hand you love this thing and want others to love it too while on the other you know people will outright dismiss what you love and that can come with some mixed emotions. While detaching yourself to be able to take 'criticisms' is the best option its difficult to maintain. My mom and I disagree on this wholly. I use my time to play games while she says that I should be improving myself. I want to unwind and she wants me to do work. As hard as I try, sometimes I just snap back if only to end the conversation quicker.
But this isn't about me, rather a figure more caustic than my mom when it comes to the subject of video games. Anita Sarkeesian is pretty well known by this point but basically her story is that she became internet famous for 'discussing' women in video games. She blew up a few years ago and has kind of died down since. The White Knights of the internet have stopped defending her after more about her was revealed, specifically how she doesn't play games at all yet feels she can commentate on them. While I will hold my peace on her, at least for now, her videos are actually pretty intelligent and touch on some things I would consider to be good topics. While women in video games isn't a new concept their presence could use a bit of an update. While we have our now fair share of action heroines and complex female characters not simply there for sexual purposes we still have a bit of a ways to go.
The last thing I heard about her was before the release of Overwatch. She complained that there weren't enough females with diverse body types. Blizzard responded with the news that Zarya would be added to the roster and thanked her for her comment in so many words. Zarya is a... full figured woman. She's bad ass, strong and not overly sexualized. While I'm entirely sure she was planned to be launched with the game at the beginning Blizzard's response was spot on, which brings me to what I'm actually talking about. Demagogues (the people who speak the loudest) unfortunately will always be heard. Using what little fame she had she directed it to a problem and the problem was... 'solved'. This kind of thinking is like if you yell at a politician long enough they'll have to listen to you and solve your problem. The more people who join in the better.
Since Ms. Sarkeesian has been introduced to the world there has been a steady albeit slow up rise in female characters being put front and center or at least nearby their male counterparts in some equal capacity. Call of Duty Black Ops 3 released with the idea you could create your own character, male or female, to play in the world they had created. I just got an issue of Game Informer magazine in the mail not too long ago and the cover was for the new Call of Duty with both a male and female character each sharing a proportionate amount of space together. No one being greater or lesser than the other. While its not entirely thanks to her the market has now become more inclusive of the opposite sex when it comes to featuring roles, at the very least on the surface level. The new Mass Effect trailer released with, presumably, the female default character and no main male character. At least none that has been confirmed. This is a step forward from Mass Effect 3's cover which had a flip able cover between the two faces of Shepherd but featured Male Shep in all of the ads.
Part of the criticisms against gaming is the lack of complex female characters. While we haven't seen much of female villains (I believe the villain in the new Doom game is a lady) we're still taking great steps in the right direction. Each new step we take cuts down another one of these arguments that people use to cut down gaming as a whole. Not every game is a violent shooter, games can have complex narratives and now a balancing point for each gender is being struck. The new TellTale Walking Dead game is set to come out soon with Clementine still as the main character like the previous game. As little as you may like the woman she has brought forth a pretty decent dialogue. While places like Japan do have their own female driven games in greater supply than pretty much everywhere else (despite the sexual content they may contain) now American developers are getting in the groove with this. I remember not too long ago Ubisoft said there wouldn't be any female co-op characters in Assassin's Creed Unity because they "-couldn't get the character models to work with a feminine figure" (which is total bs btw) and then they released Assassin's Creed Syndicate which featured a brother and sister duo who were both playable from the start and the female twin, Evie, was almost completely non sexualized in favor of creating an interesting character.
To make an antivenom first you need the venom. Something caustic and pretty bad, but what can come out of it will be more beneficial than was before the venom itself.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Mighty No. 9 PC Review - 6/10

I'm going to start off by saying that firstly if you came here to see me absolutely destroy this game then you'll be disappointed. Second, I'm going to be reviewing this based on the game, rather than the time cycle that it took to make it as well as how much money was given to make this. A bad game is a bad game regardless of the people behind it, the intentions or even how long it took to make/how much the product actually is. With that being said...
Mighty No. 9 (or Mighty Number 9) is a game made by the original creator of MegaMan. The game is clearly influenced by it intentionally as the creator felt his original game was underutilized by the company that now owns the rights so he formed his own studio to make essentially the same game minus the name and brand recognition. Its a platformer and a sidescroller.

The Good:
I do like the concept designs for all of the robots to say the very least. They're interesting and make sense based on their powers and such.
The game runs pretty well on my PC. I always hate it when I purchase a new game and its choppy or doesn't run well. So at least there's that.

The Bad:
Honestly this game is super floaty. Platformers should feel direct and purposeful. Its hard to explain in words but basically the main function of the game to go from left to right and get over obstacles is not as well as it should be. I finally stopped playing after I couldn't figure out how to get up on top of a platform as I tried to walk across a conveyor belt as boxes fell on my head. Maybe this would have told me I needed to go fight the other robot masters, or Mighty Numbers as this game calls them, to gain a new ability but just about every single MegaMan game before this allowed you to progress regardless of what abilities you gained at least the original games. The powers should enhance the experience rather than be a necessity.
The majority of the sprites just look awful. Beck's initial design was pretty decent but his in game sprite is just awful. Sprite refers to a model in the game that usually can move. Kind of like Pokemon as they just stand there or move. Its not the design rather the fact they decided to go with a 3D style for the graphics. 2D would have been much more welcome as well as been better for processing and for the general look of the game. My favorite MegaMan games have been on the DS and they were all in 2D and looked awesome. It really just doesn't make any sense to me why they went with this style other than the idea that it was done to make the game more modern looking. Though that's just my personal thought. Though this doesn't just go for character models but... well, everything else. Explosions look terrible, the backgrounds look bland. The only thing I can actually say looks decent are the human models and even then Dr. White just proves to be the exception.
The voice acting is just so... hit and miss. While there's not an abundance of bad there's definitely a lack of good, if that makes any sense. Look, actors are probably expensive to hire but I honestly could have done a better job that most of these people. The mighty numbers aren't terrible but I'd be reaching pretty far just to make that comparison. The actress (I presume, I'm not going to look it up) for Call speaks all her lines in monotone. You have no idea how annoying that is to constantly hear that all the time. Dr. White is probably the best considering he sounds pretty bubbly about everything and optimistic. Again, far reaching.

My scoring might be a little generous but honestly its really just a "You could have been worse" type thing. This isn't the worst game I've played and it isn't even the second. 6 for me is Mediocre. Its just sort of... there. Honestly it doesn't even seem to have its own identity. The intention behind the game is noble at the very least to the fans who wanted more from MegaMan and I've seen worse reasonings for making a game. If you want a decent MegaMan clone try Gunstriker Gunvolt. Its probably cheaper than this game.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Ways They Can Make Assassin's Creed Awesome Again

As E3 has rolled around and left once more I did my best to not notice the cool new games coming out that I can't afford or the games coming out on systems I don't have and certainly can't afford. In my spare time I picked up Assassin's Creed Unity knowing full well how bad people said it was. Why? Well at heart I'm a masochist when it comes to games (I bought the same terrible, terrible game three times and each time I said, "It couldn't have been that bad!") and I saw it on sale for eight bucks. Cheap and stupid!
I kid really. Personally I wanted to see what the problems were about it. I've been a fan of the series ever since it came out though my love died out a little when Revelations came out. Yes I know Brotherhood was one of the best games in the series but did we really need to see Ezio again? But while Revelations was just... kind of boring in a way with some redeeming qualities, I can see why Unity was so poorly received X amount of time since it was released (I'm not going to spend the energy looking up when). I picked up Syndicate a while ago and was happily surprised to see it was actually pretty good. The two main characters were both cool in their own ways while not being faultless, the scope was grand enough, there was plenty to do and the toys. Oh the toys! Seriously, I need a grappling hook in every AC game from now on. So, while I wait until my next paycheck to see if I can finally buy a new game at all I thought, why not make a list?

1. Grappling Hook (I was not joking)
"But part of the fun of these games is the climbing!" No! No one likes the climbing! Well... okay maybe a little. But I don't want to climb all the time. Its a simple addition and it really works... sometimes. And who doesn't want to feel like Batman. Throw down a smoke bomb and then zip away. This addition, while simple, changes up the game in a nice way. I suggest adding the ability to freely control it like aiming it like a gun and having some uses in combat like the rope line did in AC 3. I would definitely pick that game up again just to hang some British red coats from trees just to frighten a guy. So awesome!

2. Alright, enough Europe
I say this not as an American but also as a tired gamer. I would list off how many games in the series go to some place in Europe but it'd be easier if I just counted the ones that don't take place there on my finger. Seriously, I know its a big place and most of the stuff in the world happened there but I don't need to see anymore. If you really feel the need to stay there, go to a time period extremely early. Or...

3. The World Wars
Yes it was bound to happen. In Syndicate, you can actually visit the World War 2 time period through a descendant of the Frye twins. While brief, it really shows how awesome the concept could be. WW2 is a bit... controversial, but the first war could actually work. Not a lot of people know it off their head so it would make for an interesting setting. Unity also had a World War type segment but Unity is annoying so I'm not counting it. Side note: yes this game needs more guns. I know that would kind of ruin the pacing when it comes to automatic guns but honestly guns are a cool idea to keep up with. Especially if we get to play as an Assassin who is also a sniper. YES. Maybe... maybe even some cars? Hm? Maybe a tank?

4. The Assassins need to be assholes and the Templar can be good
A glaring plot hole in the series is how Abstergo, the Templar front, shows the Assassins as being these altruistic bad asses who are also super handsome and get all the ladies while their Templar counterparts are weedy creepy weirdos who eat babies and kick puppies. If you want to be seen as the good guys then show us some stupid Assassins and awesome Templars. It makes even less sense now that Desmond is dead and we've got faceless protagonist living out these memories. They're making it like a VR game to show to the public like some type of game. Alright, ya the Templars are trying to rule the world, but its a whole lot easier if you make your one enemy look like a bunch of tools. Barring that, why can't we have an idealistic and noble Templar? "If the world is to be saved, great men and women must rule it!" See?

5. We need more present day
This may be just me but come on, I need more story! The games have been set in the present day... but we focus about 90% on the past. Ya, I get that we're looking for clues in the past so we can find them in the future but my biggest problem with the titles is that they're very linear. If you've played the game once you've played it enough. There's no choice whatsoever under the guise "Well that didn't happen in the past." Ya. And you keep telling me this ancestor didn't kill civilians. I get it, but that doesn't change the fact that I am doing it now! Look we've all done it. Anyone who's played a Grand Theft Auto game has gone on an insane rampage only to be gunned down by the police or killed via gravity and every single person who's played AC has gone on a melee rampage on those annoying ass civilians. Now, I'm not saying that would be the whole game. Of course your assassin buddies wouldn't be super open to you killing randos left and right but I mean choice like as in killing an enemy or letting them live. Does this Templar agent really need to die? Or perhaps I see the villain early on and I kill them and the game has to play around that. That would be awesome! Is this main villain dead? Or was it a robot? So many possibilities!
As a side note, I want my own assassin character. This new present day assassin would resemble me and I would control them as they rise in the order. Killing Templar agents, buying new gear, actively shaping the future. I NEED THIS.

Come on! The one place where THE MOST FAMOUS group of REAL ASSASSINS and you choose NOT to go there? WHY?! I'm not saying every ninja NEEDS to be a member of the order. Maybe the order was trying to fight against some samurai the Templars were working with and the ninja rose from that. They helped the disenfranchised farmers pick up their tools and use guerrilla warfare to quell a rising threat. And I'm not making this up! Most of it anyway... The ninja were farmers and the lower class put down upon by their samurai masters as they stood above them on the scale of class. While not being stupid pompous weak noblemen of Europe, they were trained warriors skilled in the art of killing. Knowing this they took up their farming tools and made makeshift weapons and items that allowed them to kill silently like they were ghosts. They even developed their own poisons and smoke powders to convince people into believing they had magical powers. They built their own villages filled with ninja operatives who would go and carry out spy and assassination missions. They were contracted killers and dO YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS???
I feel like Ubisoft is just screwing with me at this point. China. China gets it before Japan does. I'm not saying China isn't great but... I swear if they make Assassin's Creed: Korea next I will literally never play another game in the series. So much potential!

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Watch_Dogs 2's Lofty Goals: Can it actually work?

So... damn. Ya, I'm actually kind of looking forward to Watch_Dogs 2. My brother asked me if I wanted it and I gave him a disgusted "No!" We both played the game and it was... bland. Sure a lot of the ideas there were pretty novel and decent but the game ended up being 'do this, do that' and not much else. It was really evident it was trying to be a Grand Theft Auto killer (which ALWAYS goes well) or at the very least in the vein of GTA with a different spice. The story fell flat, they tried to make a completely boring character the main focal point with his own entire DLC where I latched onto another character who was killed off unceremoniously at the end of the game. Alright, I've gotta keep an open mind on this.
So watching the trailer I saw a lot of things they wanted to do and wondered if it was actually possible. I'm going to say it right off the bat, ya the game isn't going to look like that. Don't even bother. Its less about the game being able to look like that, rather how well the game will run. As a person who still unfortunately has a potato for a PC I have to look into the specs of a game before I buy it or risk having a choppy mess or something that just is straight up unplayable. Xbox One and PS4 are pretty relatively powerful when it comes into comparison with PCs. Of course a hyper modified PC with all the latest specs and tech will absolutely annihilate any console but that's pretty standard. You have a lot of freedom to modify a PC at will, though at great cost to you, and consoles are very set in their specs. Even when they are first released it doesn't take too much to overpass the current capabilities. So that's a scratch on the graphics department. Its not going to look like that. Try thinking GTA 5 and you'd get a pretty good ball park on how the game will end up looking.
Watch_Dogs was very rigid when it came to... most things. The hacking was one note at best, albeit functional, and the driving mechanics left much to be desired in terms of its competition. The places where it really shined was combat. Enemies seemed fluid and, unlike GTA, they didn't immediately know where you were if you engaged in combat. On a personal rant for a moment: What is the purpose of silent weapons and silencers in GTA if they immediately know where you are and react as if they weren't silent??? So stealth is a possibility in that the first game actually had it. I'm not going to get into too much of the specifics but expect the sequel to function similar to the first in terms of combat and movement. Though usually given the rule of sequels they will probably add a few new features that might not be immediately noticeable/enhancing what has already been established.
The one feature I'm actually pretty excited to see is the drones. Now you have a two wheeled hopping RC car with some minor functions and a portable RC helicopter drone. From what they showed you could simply pull these items from seemingly nowhere and they began to function. They also seemed to have some racing mechanic with the helicopter so that's probably going to be a new game mode of some kind.
If I had to say the two biggest iffy things for me were the idea of 3D printing and how the world simply acts without player agency or input. These two were really the reason I wrote this article. 3D printing weapons (and hopefully gadgets) sounds like a really awesome idea and you might even be able to mod them. The problem I have with this is its probably going to be a bit rigid in the sense that you can craft a few things like weapons and possibly gear and that's it. The big problem being that once the game is finished that this tool isn't going to have much functionality other than "You made this and that's it". To give an example it would be like in Skyrim if you could only craft one of each weapon and they didn't get better or worse via player input, they were just static items and there was a clear better versus worse item. You only need one Iron Dagger and that's it. If this is the case that would be terrible and I really hope you can do a bit more. The world reacting is also a big problem in some ways. Speaking of the Elder Scrolls again, Oblivion had this really interesting way of making the world feel alive. The game ran scripts that gave the NPCs their own tasks to do throughout the day which made it seem like they were actually doing things instead of just being there for the player to see and talk to. The problem arose in where a few bugs occurred though that's not really the problem here. The problem would be in the sense that by its very nature a program is somewhat set in stone. What I mean is if you haven't programmed something in the program just won't do it. The idea behind artificial intelligence is that it can learn from experiences and form new ideas from simply learning. Video games, unfortunately, can't do that now. So its really a matter of "Yes this is possible but where will the cracks show up?" Will we see the same interactions being repeated through the game? Will these interactions actually affect anything, say if someone has an argument with someone and attacks them will the other NPCs react in a sensible way or not? I would say the technology is kind of there. Rockstar has proven that GTA 5 can do this to a degree though they spent years and years on their game, though its entirely possible most of that time was spent perfecting the engine.
Really its more of an idea of how great is the scope of the team behind Watch_Dogs 2? All of these can be implemented into the game, though with varying degrees of success. I'd say wait for more info on the game. I'd probably like to pick it up when it comes out though time will tell in the sense of how the development progresses. If I had to guess I'd say the game was in pre-Alpha right now, though definitely not in a playable version, at least to the public. What that basically means is the game isn't completely finished and given that there's about an almost half a month gap till the game (presumably) releases we have some time to learn more.
Thanks for reading and I'm definitely looking to hear more.
There was an error in this gadget