Humanity

Not only is this a cool move on Ubisofts part it’s great PR and it almost costs them nothing to allow a game that has long since stopped selling a window of free availability.

Also for all the dumb internet dogpilling this game received, Unity is actually pretty decent and with a solid framerate which was one of the biggest issues it suffered from apart from bugs it should actually be a really fun experience. They introduced a lot of fun elements in Unity that never made it into future AC games when they decided to just make it another bland open world series.

The story is mostly trash even by AC standards but the gameplay was good, the added systems fun and Paris was really spectacular as a playground. You could tell they put a lot of work into recreating that city - and from the moment they announced I thought “man Paris who cares” but it completely won me over.

If you haven’t tried it and like AC I would definitely give it a shot. This isn’t an AC3 situation where it was a pretty bad game with some redeeming elements. Unity is overall a good game if you like AC albeit with a few blemishes here and there.

60 FPS games.

This is something that consoles have struggled with and the PS4/XB1 generation especially had poor performing titles when the PC has been pulling so far ahead. Back when console games generally stayed on consoles and if they came out on PC they were awful ports this was acceptable. These days when you have console games releasing on PC without significant delay, running at a rock solid 60 FPS, with better graphics, faster load times and often times lower price points thanks to deal for Steam codes it can make a 24-45 variable framerate with long load times a rough pill to swallow.

Not only is this cool but they also donated a ton of money to the reconstruction fund and according to a GameSpot article the original scans and models of Norte Dame they made for the game might end up as very useful resource material.

It is funny to see Microsoft, who had to do damage control for ages because people fought so hard against a console that needed an internet connection to years later releasing a version of the Xbox that quite literally requires one.

The price point is kinda steep and it’s weird that from what I saw they’re bundling Forza Horizon 3 with it (among other titles) instead of Horizon 4, which makes it seem like a real weird bargain bin package.

Also no matter how often and how large they will write “no disc drive” on this thing, I’m certain plenty of parents that have no idea about games and no time to look it up will just grab it off the shelf not knowing what it is. Microsoft has come a long way but man their messaging and branding is still confusing as hell. You have a PS4, PS4 Slim and a PS4 Pro - those all are somewhat self explanatory. Then you have an Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X and now this thing which I forgot the designation but it’s another weird letter combo.

I can't really think of anything but I did want to say Syndicate was a pretty amazing game. While everyone always talks about the Nemesis system, I always thought more games would catch on to the way Syndicate evolved first person shooting in letting you hack on the fly and do all these active abilities while still shooting and remaining mobile. The co-op was also a TON of fun. One of those games that definitely deserved a sequel that will never get made.

It really feels soon but it has been a while now. It feels like this generation of consoles really struggled to get off the finish line and they're only now warming up.

I had a similar impression. Overall I like the show even when it's hit or miss because it hits more than it misses - but was really hoping they would get the ball rolling and still we have all those dragon shots where the CG isn't at it's best, marching, slow exposition and setup or a situation we already know exists. The white walkers are coming, they sure are marching, won't get her this episode but they are coming.

@theht: I think the main difference is that you only find out if a game is for you or isn't through interaction whereas a movie or a song will unfold before you without any input. The input itself can determine a lot about the game whereas a song has only one vector of approach. You can pause a song, but the moment you hit play it will just keep moving forward while games do not. The difficulty curve of a game is nuanced and can be adjusted to allow a broader window of interpretation without necessarily changing the core conceit. Playing a song twice as fast or a movie in black and white would drastically alter the original vision of the artist. Having to hit the Corrupted Monk 15 times to kill him as opposed to 30 is not a dramatic change to the game as a whole, you still have to dodge and evade and show a certain amount of skill in the combat system to survive the encounter, but those 15 hits can mean a world of difference from one player to the next. And that world of difference between challenging and "I'm not playing this anymore" comes directly from the consumer interacting with the product.

@sweep: The artistic intent argument comes up a lot in this thread and it's one that I partially agree with. First and foremost, I don't think something is essentially lost through the process of choice. If they released a dumbed down version of Proust as you cite, it would not erase the original. If anything people might buy it, understand it on a simpler level and decide to try the original with this new background and understanding. Similarly a Souls game with an easier difficulty would let a lot of people get their toes wet and potentially lead them to try play the game "as it was intended". Either way, there is no loss of culture because those who wanted the original experience still have it readily available for them, and those that were never going to try now have an avenue opened up to them.

Then again I do think there is an argument to be made against a strict artistic intent approach. Games unlike other static forms of art like painting, music or cinema, are commercial products that the end consumer interacts with. There is a back and forth here. In my opinion it is a lot harder to use the defense for video games because you do actually play them which is not the case for most other art mediums. A movie or a song is for you or it isn't - you simply turn it off or you don't. A game is dependent on the consumer experiencing it through interaction. You can't experience Uncharted simply by standing in place when the game starts. It's like if a painting was only revealed to you in tiny sections upon fully comprehending the one before it. Games aren't static pieces of art merely there to be passively consumed, which is why I think despite all the creative freedom a developer does have to account for this, and better yet they have an option to do so. The great thing about video games is that unlike Proust or the Mona Lisa, the developer actually has the ability to account for different levels of interaction. So it's strange to me that within this medium there exists this extremely unique ability to have your art become accessible on many levels, but you would rebel against it. It just seems like a waste.

At the end of the day though I do agree that each artist can do whatever they want. I simply thought your statement was incredibly "harsh" I guess is the best way to put it. A game with gradation to it isn't automatically designed by accountants, it shouldn't be that black and white.

@sweep: would you wear uncomfortable one size shoes by artists rather than have individual sizes dictated by “accountants” ? Difficulty options don’t inhibit artistic expression it just gives more people more options to experience the art.