@jazgalaxy: If this had just been a chance to chat with Ken, and didn't offer a chance for hands-on time, I'd have probably just published this as a Q&A. As it is, I hopefully wasn't too spoilerific with my descriptions. Tried to avoid any major twists or story turns, though thankfully the opening few hours aren't heavy with them.
Alex's forum posts
@the_great_skenardo: I know what you mean. It's why I tried to be clear that all I've experienced is the first few hours of the game. Truth be told, I try to avoid being effusive when I preview games, but I also try to avoid writing previews of games that don't leave a genuine impression on me. This one did.
@fawkes: That is perhaps fair. I read into his presentation (and I watched it a few times) that Cage sees old technology as a limitation, and by proxy, using The Great Train Robbery as the example he did meant that he was showing how old technology had limited creative expression. Perhaps I read too much into that, though I still think Cage often has a hard time explaining his visions without blaming previous expressive problems on the technology he had to work with. As if to say, the only way to truly convey emotion is with technology that will support it.
Again, maybe I'm reading too much into that, though I feel like I've heard him say these sorts of things before. And considering plenty of games have offered me plenty of emotional experiences using hardware far more ancient than the PS3, it's not an argument I see a lot of value in.
I've no doubt that he'll find plenty of interesting ways to use the PS4 tech to create realistic, believable expressions of emotion. I just don't think technology should be used as an excuse for why those connections didn't exist previously.
@mellotronrules: I'd agree. I think Teti's piece, as a whole, was the most aggressively negative I'd read. I agreed with certain points of his, which are the ones I highlighted, and I think his criticisms came from a thoughtful place. But I also would consider that one of the pieces that inspired this piece, in terms of me not really understanding the overwhelming negativity from some.
@haggis: Many of us did ask about it. I asked Yoshida about it, and he said "the box isn't finalized." If you honestly think any journalist is going to get Sony to admit to some larger issue (assuming there even is one), I don't think you really understand how this business works.
I'm not covering Sony's ass. I just don't think seeing a box at the very first event matters all that much. Now, if come E3, they still don't have anything to show from the final box, then that's potentially a bigger problem. But this early? It's not really a thing.
Rayman Legends has long existed as one of the few bright, shiny third-party exclusives Nintendo's been trumpeting since the Wii U first had games to show. By all accounts, Ubisoft was fully on board with the idea of Rayman as a Wii U exclusive, talking up all the nifty multiplayer things that could be done only on the Wii U's GamePad as it promoted the game.
So, I guess we're taking all that exclusivity pillow talk back now, because Rayman Legends is no longer a Wii U exclusive. Ubisoft today announced that Legends has been expanded to also include Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions.
"We heard from many Xbox & PlayStation owners and Rayman fans who told us they really wanted to play Rayman Legends on their current system," said Ubisoft's Geoffroy Sardin, in the announcement press release. "We decided to give the fans what they wanted while at the same time broadening the audience exposed to this innovative and memorable game."
All that's well and good, except for the part where the game is also delayed. Originally, Legends was slated to release at the end of this month. Instead, the Wii U version has been pushed to September, where it will launch alongside the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions.
Without reading too much into this announcement, it's hard to picture a version of this scenario that isn't a bit of an indictment of the Wii U's current strength at retail. If Ubisoft really believed Legends would succeed on its own as a Wii U title, it wouldn't be doing this. You don't delay a game six months and add two aging console ports because you're expecting a game to do really well on that originally announced platform.
Regardless, every time I've had my hands on Rayman Legends, it's looked and played fantastically. So if this means more people have the ability to play it, then I can't see much fault with that. Still, I had been planning on grabbing a Wii U prior to Rayman's originally planned launch this month. Now? Uh...I don't know. Maybe when Pikmin 3 comes out, I guess.
Sort of great news for those who loved the idea of a Hitman movie, but weren't exactly thrilled with the Hitman movie that actually came out. According to Deadline, Fox is prepping an all new Hitman film, currently titled Agent 47, and already has a new actor attached to play the role of the titular bald-headed, bar-coded superhuman killer.
That actor? Paul Walker.
Yes, the monotone handsome boy of the Fast & Furious film series is reportedly attached to take over for Timothy Olyphant, whose own spin on the monotone killer didn't necessarily leave many fans satisfied. Well, to be fair, a lot about the original Hitman movie left people deeply unsatisfied for a variety of reasons, but Olyphant's ill-fitting casting didn't do anyone favors.
Still, that movie made in the neighborhood of $100 million in worldwide ticket sales, so it's no surprise Fox would be interested in rebooting the franchise. This time, they'll do it with a script from A Good Day to Die Hard scribes Skip Woods and Michael Finch, and the direction of first-timer Aleksander Bach, a "highly-regarded commercials director."
In case you've forgotten what the original Hitman was like, I've embedded our own Ryan Davis' analysis of the film below. When you're watching the clips, just replace Olyphant's face with Walker's vacant stare, and imagine him saying things like "Remember bro how we used to assassinate bros back in the day, bro?" It's fun!
@Judakel: There's no question it's a more complex issue than just "violent games are fine" or "violent games are terrible." And yes, violent media in general does have its impacts on the human brain, but games have never proven to be any worse really than movies, music, or any other aggressive form of media, and because of that, my reaction is that continuing to single us out not only does a disservice to our industry, but a disservice to the notion of trying to actually solve a problem.
It's not simple. Not by a long shot.
@Baal_Sagoth: When I say cleaned up, I don't mean as in 'getting rid of' the diversity we have in our group. I mean we need to stop letting the negative aspects become our most visible. Maybe my choice of words was poor.