As someone in Colorado, this is cool. Colorado has a lot of diverse scenery and can change drastically in just short distances. I always thought it'd make for a good open world video game location. I also get why some might be bummed it's not somewhere else though. Somehow I started noticing how many games are set in California and was going crazy wondering why they'd keep setting games in the same place. Outside of historical world war games or assassin's creed, you rarely see Europe. It does seem to be getting better though, and devs will keep looking for new ways to distinguish their games.
The one good thing about the Midwest in general, and what I found about Colorado, video game weather actually works. It can be totally steaming hot and bright, have thunderclouds roll in in less than an hour, and dump several inches of rain in minutes. Then go right back to being hot. Now the day/night cycle probably doesn't match, but one step at a time.
I think one of the reasons it's set in/near an American city is that they want to stress the post-post apocalyptic nature of the setting. It'd be harder to recognize if it was set 1000 years in the future in South America, whereas more like are likely to recognize that horse statue from Colorado (I'm not one of those people). Of course, that doesn't mean they couldn't have set it in post-post apocalypse Hong Kong, London, or Mexico City.
I don't think Hong Kong or Tokyo would be very good settings for this game. They don't want it set in a giant urban sprawl. The mountainous wilderness of Colorado fits well with the prehistoric like nature of the setting, with the added benefit of having some fairly major urban centers nearby.
I'm sure they could have chosen somewhere else in the world with a similar mix of mountain wilderness and urban development, but Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Mexico city are not candidates. This isn't like GTA where the city determines the flavor and style and the game but doesn't really mix up the gameplay all that that much. Horizon set somewhere as densely developed as Tokyo would be an entirely different game.
I tend to agree with your thinking, but if we go by geography, CO is about the same size as the main island of Japan. I'd wager the diversity in setting would be no less dramatic what with extinct volcanoes and oceans to run around. And unlike typical American urban sprawl and encroaching suburbia civic planning, urban centers in many other parts of the world actually do end with rural/willderness in between.
I don't think a decayed city will be the focus, so I think CO is a good bet (not least the major sources of fresh water) for an interesting setting.
Kratos literally died, went to Hades (typed Hardees at first), and fought his way back. I don't think his death is a finality whatsoever.
My guess is he moved to Norway after all that to try to hide from the Gods or something, or the Norse gods called him there, maybe saying they would help protect him or something by hiding him. Since most gods in these games are depicted as giant assholes, I bet they're probably trying to get in on that Greek nicolas cage power or something. Maybe the game will be Norse vs. Greek mythology at the end?
I don't know. What am I, a book?
The one thing they got right was the Gods. In the myths when they weren't assholes they were outright monsters. Even level headed Athena, if you see why Medusa (and her sisters) are the way they are. My problem with the series was just that their divine comeuppance was in the form of an even greater asshole that became an even bigger monster. I'll be interested where this goes, but I would have liked Kratos staying dead, if not buried.
I think he'll probably be a reformed man, though. He brought the world back from the brink of destruction by choosing to kill himself over handing the blade to Athena; regardless of whether or not those were his intentions, from a utilitarian viewpoint that's pretty honorable.
As I said in an earlier comment, I hope it's something new and not another bloodbath with the gods. If it's the Ragnarök, some of the most noteworthy Norse gods will have to die, but Kratos doesn't necessarily have to be the only perpetrator. It'd certainly be more interesting to break away from the old formula.
As I said, I'm interested to see where this goes. Though I will say, given Kratos' role in all that destruction, I'm not sure stepping back (especially for debatable reasoning, right thing for the wrong reasons is often still wrong) can be considered that big a plus on the ledger. I don't have much hopes here, since of all the polytheistic pantheons, only maybe Aztec or Hindu has a more built in mythology centered around widescale mythologic death.
Kratos literally died, went to Hades (typed Hardees at first), and fought his way back. I don't think his death is a finality whatsoever.
My guess is he moved to Norway after all that to try to hide from the Gods or something, or the Norse gods called him there, maybe saying they would help protect him or something by hiding him. Since most gods in these games are depicted as giant assholes, I bet they're probably trying to get in on that Greek god power or something. Maybe the game will be Norse vs. Greek mythology at the end?
I don't know. What am I, a book?
The one thing they got right was the Gods. In the myths when they weren't assholes they were outright monsters. Even level headed Athena, if you see why Medusa (and her sisters) are the way they are. My problem with the series was just that their divine comeuppance was in the form of an even greater asshole that became an even bigger monster. I'll be interested where this goes, but I would have liked Kratos staying dead, if not buried.
Yes, but to what end? Would you want it to be Earth but kinda randomized (like say a game of Civilization), or would you want them to incorporate satellite data and weather data to accurately portray the topography and climate of each region of Earth? Terrain and geography aside, procedurally generated games can handle a randomization in physical characteristics, like the terrain and Spore-like creatures of No Man's Sky (and that game is mostly kinda emptyish planets with a bunch of random wildlife), but if you were making this Earth game, would you want it to have procedurally created ecology and evolutionary lines, and cultures and empires, each with centuries or millennia of history? Or would you want them to go The Crew with it and have it be a recreation of existing Earth ecology, weather patterns, nations, culture, cities? Either one is a huge undertaking for present day game developers and it would be difficult to procedurally generate cultures in a way that had any verisimilitude.
Yeah that's the basic tension in the fanbase of most historical games. Is it the endpoint (or any point in history) that matters most or the opportunity to see history unfold along different parameters. Should the player have the ability to do what they want within the confines of gameplay, or should historicity take precedence? I tend to a mixture of both. Historical events happened for reasons out of overriding historical trends, but those are simply conglomerations of individual events that certainly could be altered drastically.
Yes, I kinda would like to start. Because once you look past his character that he plays, he is a person that has incredible drive, that tried really hard to accomplish want he wanted and got a shot in his chosen industry through blind luck. I am college student that could use some of what he has to keep me going and use some of that drive to push me where I know I belong and want to be (a job in media production). So yes I would love to be more like Dan
He has a good work ethic and all, but let's not pretend that Dan is any formula for success. There are thousands of bright young people working at Gamestops, with competent game writing skills, that will have trouble ever breaking into the game industry unless they similarly happen to get wildly lucky and have a shot at getting steady editorial work.
They came THIS close on a Danswers to getting to this point, but I think that was the one with Glaser. So the lesson was don't leave an out or safety net and drive yourself to your goal. On the one hand, it makes a certain amount of sense in a limited resources of time and effort kind of way. On the other hand, O'Dwyer got real close to saying there is probably a pile of people we DON'T hear about who did the same, that didn't work out, and didn't have anything to fall back on.
EDIT - And to answer the OP, not really. As an older person, the life of one Vinny Caravella is something I might find more worthy of emulation. Guy's no less accomplished in the field he seems to love, seems to be doing well outside of work, and doesn't delve into a trollish on screen persona.
Sorry, didn't read your links, but was the naming up to an Internet poll of some sort, or are the researchers a buncha weirdos?
Weirdos. The naming conventions of various cell signaling molecules runs the gamut between Vinny-like dad puns to this one that started as simply a class called Hedgehog for how Drosphila fruit fly larva looked when they had a mutation in this gene (ie stubby and hairy). Indian and Desert are two others, but as the cloning work happened in the early 90's maybe Sonic was inevitable.
Hopefully the jetpack means more open levels again. One of my big issues with 2 and 3 after 1. Not even just Mako sequences, but the Citadel for example was never as big or cool after 1.
No kidding. For a game and more importantly setting where you can be a master hacker, cyber ninja, or literal teleporter, let alone the personality control where you can be a big softy vs mass killer, it seemed very strange the only real path forward to levels was to kill everyone in a room and then go kill everyone in the next room. Hell, even the bad ass space marine would be expected to flank a dug in enemy every once in a while.
Log in to comment