The prices seem outrageous, but Playstation Now was built for backwards compatibility, more or less. You can get PS4 games on the store already, the only differences being that you actually own those games and have to download them.
I think the quality of Friends List improved when they started to put one of the people in the studio, and use that pressing as a host.
So when a cop is framed, his response is to kill hundreds of people? Call me cynical, but Breaking Bad (or really any good good-guy-turned-bad story) made its name on a slow burn, giving a person bad circumstances and a morally questionable way to deal with them, until they go too deep down the rabbit hole and don’t want to come out. You cannot do that when your only game mechanic is to shoot people.
Never mind on my comment, then. I didn’t feel his character fell flat, although I felt several characters fell flat in TDKR, including Bane and Talia
It’s weird that you choose The Dark Knight’s Joker, as opposed to almost every other incarnation of the character. In The Dark Knight, the Joker seems like an anarchist and has an agenda, whereas in every other adaptation he’s given almost no motivation, other than he likes seeing people die and wants to see how Batman reacts. In the Burton film, he says he’s creating “art,” and is later said to have killed Bruce Wayne’s parents in probably one of the worst plot twists ever, years before he even became the Joker. In the Arkham games, there is even less reason to his actions, as it seems all he ever wants to do is play cat and mouse with Batman, with a lot of dead people in between the two.
I thought it was one year…
Okay, never mind then
Play is universal. So is wanting to engage in fantasies and stories. You can argue that different genres of games appeal to certain genders, and that some of that preference is not based in social constructs, but you cannot that games, by definition, are something that males prefer biologically.
That’s kind of my problem with this as well. The debate seems to focus on this false binary of “representation.” By focusing on either having it or not having it, you leave out the fact that representation can be done well, or it can be done to seem like you’re just trying to create boring token characters.
A while ago, I was talking to a friend about Mass Effect, and he said he didn’t like FemShep as a character because he thought she should have been more emotional. I think I dismissed that as being sexist at the time, but he does have a point. Both Shepards should have been more emotional. Any game that allows the player to customize everything about the main character seems to want the player to embody the character. This, in effect, makes it so the writing for the playable character has to become more generic, and an easy way to do that is to not allow the character to react to a situation in a way that the player might not. Essentially, what little of interest about the playable character there previously was has been sanded off to attract the broadest possible audience.
Getting back to the point, some people like to frame gender choice as a solution to the problem. Don’t get me wrong, it works for some games, but if you want an interesting main character, it really doesn’t. This is the problem I have with the outrage at Ubisoft. I think they deserve to be scolded for the way they presented the problem, by implying that the male model was more important and if they’d had more resources, they could have added the less important female model in. But at least to our understanding of the situation, a gender choice in that situation would have made no sense anyways, so they could have said that having a female playable model (or silhouette, whatever it was supposed to be), was not their artistic intention with the game and be done with it.
Another thing I see people doing is taking getting mad at individual games for not being inclusive enough (to be clear I’m only saying inclusiveness as far as a head count goes. If a game is actually sexist or homophobic, then blast it all you want). This happened with GTA 5, I think. When asked why none of the three playable characters were female, Rockstar basically said that that wasn’t the story they wanted to make. I think that’s a perfectly valid excuse. No one wants to create a female or minority character just to create a female or minority character. That’s just another way to create bland characters. We can look at statistics or trends having to do with inclusiveness in games and use them as benchmarks, but I don’t think it’s fair to then throw it back at individual games and say that each one needs to be more inclusive.
To actually solve the problem, I think two things have to be done. One is to make it an issue and spark debate. Pretty much exactly what’s being done here, but on a wider scale. The second is to widen the gaming population and get more people involved in the gaming community. I think that once gaming is seen as not just a niche, but rather something everybody (more-or-less), then we’ll see this change more rapidly.
I thought someone said that they’d be reviewing Divinity during the Overview video.
Non-violence is way more normal than violence will or has ever been. The reason we hear so much about violence in history and the news is because we glorify. The fact of the matter is that less people, and a lot less people have killed or been killed than have lived peacefully
I don’t think that will happen. They’re facing enough crap now that they won’t want to intensify that. Remember when they spent a year trying to make an offline mode for SimCity, despite no one caring or even really playing the game anymore. Same kind of situation here.
Post BF4, EA’s game releases have been solid. That in no way excuses BF4 or SimCity (the post release dev time for the latter of which may very well have affected this situation here), but the real recent EA launches have been fine
Money and strict deadlines
Every single iteration in The Sims franchise has been published under EA. And it’s also industry practice to not include things in expansion packs into the sequel (For a 5 did it recently as well). This statement is truly PR bullshit, but still
Yeah, one of my friends insists that Red is the best Pokemon game. It’s not, and he doesn’t even have the nostalgia excuse as he grew up playing Ruby and Fire Red
Also, they didn’t do it with Origin, because that’s too suspicious, and if they’re going to roll out this new scheme, they need to make sure one will ever notice until we’re all caught under their web. Then they start killing us off, one by one
Video games don’t always need to be fun; they need to be engaging. Fun is a form of engagement, but not the only one. That said, Infinite didn’t engage me nearly enough. The combat was not fun, but rather dull. It also failed on pulling me into the narrative, partly because the violence didn’t feel meaningful and felt like most of it was padding out the game. The best parts, in my opinion, were the times where you were simply exploring and finding Voxophones and such. Nobody is saying violence is bad, just that in a story driven game, violence without meaning, or a compelling reason to be violent can be bad.
With some games I just keep with the default, but with most others, it’s:
Main – Edgar
Party Mambers -