I can't help but want The Order: 1886's sequel, a lot right now. Unfortunately, it appears that even though Ready at Dawn has an engine built and ideas for a sequel, we may not even get one. Of course, The Order: 1886 has sold a minimum of 0.75 million right now and despite people calling it a moderate success, something with sales that high is a success no matter the prefix. Yes, it's received middling reviews and in my own review of that (just scroll below, I think), you'll find that even though I enjoyed the game thoroughly and gave it a much higher score than others: that criticism is well deserved. I can't help but feeling that maybe The Order: 1886 would've been better as Telltale's The Walking Dead game was stylized and be released in episodes.
I mean, The Order: 1886 is the only game that's ever really compelled me to try and get all of the trophies. I'm at 48 % after one playthrough and in my second playthrough, I not only want to record more footage for YouTube, but also get that to 100 %. In comparison, I have 37 % trophies, 58 % and 39% trophies for Mass Effect 3, 2 & 1 respectively and that is more trophies than people usually get when they don't try. I've never tried for trophies before, but getting them for The Order makes me feel better about the game. Well, I mean, it might as well given that I want to milk everything I can out of the game given the lack of replayability value...
The problem with replaying the game is, that the cutscenes are so damn long and unskippable because of the perfect way they transition into the action. Now, like I've said, the gameplay system is so good that part of the reason people were hating on it was because they barely got to experience it. I'd suggest a good way to get around cutscenes is kind of like what Mass Effect did. When a characters talking, just push X and go to the next bit of dialogue, it's fast and effective. Or go the Uncharted route, click X and get an option to skip.
One universal good thing The Order: 1886 has done, however, is given us a universal standard. We want games with it's production value and amazing gameplay, but we want more of that money to go to gameplay than graphics. What game better than to show these new standards than The Order: 1887? I mean, Ready at Dawn's made great graphics that they don't need to improve, they have an engine ready for a sequel and have already stated a desire to emphasize gameplay. How to do this however? How get a sequel greenlight? DLC! Either make a cheap but story based DLC that acts as either a prequel, in-between-quel (thank you X-Men: Days of Future Past) or sequel that resolves the story a bit. This DLC is gameplay heavy, little focus on cinematics and basically is a middle finger to all the haters... but I want The Order: 1887 and I think it should happen because Ready at Dawn has provided us with a great world that should somehow be expanded.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Friday, April 3, 2015
Remembering Hook
I love Disney. I really love Disney. Down to their worst movies, I still find one scene I can love in it. You know what, though? One of my favorites was Peter Pan and as a child, I just loved that. A kid who can fly to another planet where he doesn't need to grow up. It wasn't until I played Uncharted 3 that I realized sailors used stars to map their island routes and that Never Neverland is actually just an undiscovered island. The entire story of Peter Pan is fascinating and the fact that the novel acted as a pseudo-sequel to Treasure Island, with Captain Hook having had killed Long John Silver, makes it even better. I love the movie and so many people do as well.
That's why Steven Spielberg's Hook was critically panned or on the worse end of mixed reviews when it came out. It ranks among the worst of Spielberg's movies, and that's surprising because he really doesn't have any bad movies. The Terminal is a good movie to watch if your sick and can't go to work one day and even Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has it's defenders and moments. Hook, however, was panned because it made Peter Pan grow up. That is honestly why, read the reviews and such and you'll see. Nobody hates the movie, they just can't fathom why Spielberg would do this. Spielberg once professed that he suffered from Peter Pan syndrome and read the interviews he made leading up to this film, he had a passion for Pan that is irreplaceable. Now ask him about Hook and he himself will say that he hates it.
Why? The reviewers of the film forced Spielberg to "grow up" and "get out" of his syndrome in a sense and see the film as they, the "grown ups" wanted him to see it. Hook only made a profit of $50 million even though it grossed $300 million. That problem is in the marketing because even for today's standards, $300 million is a lot of money. What is Spielberg's worst film, probably 1941 because it tried to be a comedy and ended up being great for the unintended reasons. Always is a close second but that's honestly because it's just odd. I mean seriously, those two movies and The Terminal are really the only bad movies that Spielberg's made. Yet why does Hook get so much hate?
As I've previously mentioned, it's because of people clinging on to this vision that Peter Pan will not grow up. Spielberg simply wondered, what if he did? Is there really that much harm in wondering? The movie is beautifully shot and one of the best examples of elaborate set pieces and displays of articulate background designs that are nowadays being found in CGI. I'll liken this film to Man of Steel, something people only hated because of their fetish with Christopher Reeve's Superman: The Movie. Despite there being a gap of decades between both Supermen and both Peter Pan, the love held for the first one soured the experience of the second one. Yet I love Hook and now I'll explain why I do.
Where to begin? Let's start at the beginning. We're introduced to Peter and Moira Banning, a successful All American couple who suffer from the syndrome we experience in almost any feel good movie. Yet it feels so different for some reason because Peter is such a stiff. He's against anything fun, he's against anything dangerous yet he wants to drive an owl to extinction and take over Sierra Madre clubs. He's an 80s pirate, this was before 2000s computer pirate and the 2010 Somalian pirates, mind you. An 80s pirate is essentially a corporate stooge who apprenticed under Donald Trump and operates a Ted Turner subsidiary and has only one goal in life: MAKE MOTHAFUCKING MONEY, regardless of the personal cost. No matter how much Peter tries to connect with his son, he just cannot. When they go to the orphanage where Peter grew up, operated by a Granny Wendy who used to live by J.M. Barrie (fuck off Depp), we have an incredible scene. It's just so beautiful, yet ironically I can only relate it to one lyric by Pharrell Williams: "I know niggas who run from their shadows like Peter Pan". The scene I'm referring to I cannot find a video clip, but it's Peter Banning on the phone. His children are behind him agitating him but we see his shadow rise up and try and embrace him but he rejects it and yells at his children, furious. Such a poignant scene.
Let's not forget, the film is called Hook, so the titular character is another reason why this film is good. Played by Dustin Hoffman, we get a sense of dread from Captain James Hook and down to when the children talk about the window wiper and when we return to the orphanage to see claw marks all over the house walls. Hoffman dominates the screen by playing the dreadful captain, the only man "Barbecue ever feared" and the fact of the matter is. He's one of the reasons why this film is good. It's also one of few times the villain's name is the name of the movie and for this, it works. The story of Peter Pan isn't actually his, it's Captain Hook's. It's the story of how a mad pirate's obsession shows a child how dreadful growing up can be. Hook is a representation of everything wrong with adults and when the mad Captain is becoming a paternal figure to Jack Banning, we see that the title is actually referring to Peter. He himself has become a pirate and Hook to his children, so when he finally embraces his old self, it's magical.
One of the most magical scenes Steven Spielberg has ever shot, however, is after the madness at the Lost Boys' resort. We see all of the Lost Boys reject Banning as Pan except one and this one says "There you are Peter". It is a beautifully shot scene and, well, watch it for yourself:
It is honestly, just great. The main reason why I wrote this article, however, was because I read this article by Travis Vogt. I'm not going to go and bash Vogt like Yafisz on Leadbeater, because Vogt places his opinion in a very clear and justifiable way. It's just that I need to show why Vogt's wrong about all of his pieces (except Julia Roberts, she was fucking terrible in the film). So, if you still want to, read on as I address Vogt's points.
1) It's Ugly - He says that it's not ugly because the set pieces are bad, but because of the excess used by Spielberg that he just "wears himself thin" or something to that accord. It's hard to argue against that point because that is just pure opinion. The Never Neverland that Peter is thrust into is different and seems to be an attraction in front of Pirates of the Caribbean at DisneyLand Paris rather than be in a Peter Pan flick. That's why it works. It's symbolic value to the film is great and add the fact that it does what no filmmaker, even Spielberg himself does nowaday, pay value to the actual set and design just makes me appreciate it even more.
2) Bad Acting - He says Robin Williams was bad as Peter Pan, which he would have been... but as Peter Banning, he was terrific. I agree on the Julia Roberts part, there's no getting past that... but it's ironic because the scene I used above to show how beautiful this film is, Vogt uses to show how bad Robin Williams is. Except, Vogt doesn't spend a lot of time explaining why he thinks Williams is bad. I mean Williams is good because of the expressions and subtle hints of disbelief and shock you see in him throughout the film. Vogt just says he's bad and spends three paragraphs talking about child actors.
3) Lawyer Jokes - He's angry because lawyers are the exact opposite of Peter Pan. True, but Peter Pan was good natured; Peter Banning is a pirate who represents Hook more than the pirate himself. This is just a pet peeve of his, it seems, so no point in pressing this further.
4) Annoying Kids - The kids in this film are annoying, but their annoying in every film and in this one it feels justifiable. Look, yes Banning is working to put food on the table for his children... but that doesn't excuse making false promises and claiming your "word to be your bond". It just adds to the symbolic value of Peter the Pirate, Hook the Second and it seems Vogt feels personally about this one, so perhaps it has something else to do with rather than his hate for the film...
5) Spielberg's thoughts - I've addressed this above.
6) Fuck Peter Pan - Again, this is a personal analysis of his and he addresses Barrie's dark undertones and secret facts that everybody knows, but nobody talks about. Look, he calls Spielberg out on once claiming to have Peter Pan syndrome. Great, I don't really know what point this guy is trying to make here but this bashes Peter Pan as a whole rather than Hook as a film. Why is Peter Pan relevant, though? Because he doesn't grow up. He gets to do what we all want to do and yes, a part of us resents him for it, but a larger part of us love shim for it. He makes these points on how Spielberg's a megalomaniac and Michael Jackson wouldn't like Never Neverland if he worked at a steel mill. First of all megalomania is a mental illness called Narcissistic Personality Disorder so fuck you and maybe the Jackson point is justified... but still... I have a feeling that this guy feels a lot more personally about this guy than some people. So he falls in the resents Pan for not growing up category. I'm not going to argue against his opinion, but I will justify mine.
7) Paige interview - He gets a friend of his to explain why people have warm feelings towards the film. I didn't see the movie until after it came out, at least ten years after if not more. Look, I could go on and on but...
This is a guy trying to impose his personal belief as fact. Fact trumps opinion. Opinion can never be fact unless opinion agrees with fact. Fact is, Hook is a gorgeous good film that has it's well deserved haters. His opinion is, Hook is a pile of shit. To him that is true, but in fact, it is not. Thanks for reading this long post, but I needed to talk about it.
That's why Steven Spielberg's Hook was critically panned or on the worse end of mixed reviews when it came out. It ranks among the worst of Spielberg's movies, and that's surprising because he really doesn't have any bad movies. The Terminal is a good movie to watch if your sick and can't go to work one day and even Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has it's defenders and moments. Hook, however, was panned because it made Peter Pan grow up. That is honestly why, read the reviews and such and you'll see. Nobody hates the movie, they just can't fathom why Spielberg would do this. Spielberg once professed that he suffered from Peter Pan syndrome and read the interviews he made leading up to this film, he had a passion for Pan that is irreplaceable. Now ask him about Hook and he himself will say that he hates it.
Why? The reviewers of the film forced Spielberg to "grow up" and "get out" of his syndrome in a sense and see the film as they, the "grown ups" wanted him to see it. Hook only made a profit of $50 million even though it grossed $300 million. That problem is in the marketing because even for today's standards, $300 million is a lot of money. What is Spielberg's worst film, probably 1941 because it tried to be a comedy and ended up being great for the unintended reasons. Always is a close second but that's honestly because it's just odd. I mean seriously, those two movies and The Terminal are really the only bad movies that Spielberg's made. Yet why does Hook get so much hate?
As I've previously mentioned, it's because of people clinging on to this vision that Peter Pan will not grow up. Spielberg simply wondered, what if he did? Is there really that much harm in wondering? The movie is beautifully shot and one of the best examples of elaborate set pieces and displays of articulate background designs that are nowadays being found in CGI. I'll liken this film to Man of Steel, something people only hated because of their fetish with Christopher Reeve's Superman: The Movie. Despite there being a gap of decades between both Supermen and both Peter Pan, the love held for the first one soured the experience of the second one. Yet I love Hook and now I'll explain why I do.
 |
| - MYK |
Where to begin? Let's start at the beginning. We're introduced to Peter and Moira Banning, a successful All American couple who suffer from the syndrome we experience in almost any feel good movie. Yet it feels so different for some reason because Peter is such a stiff. He's against anything fun, he's against anything dangerous yet he wants to drive an owl to extinction and take over Sierra Madre clubs. He's an 80s pirate, this was before 2000s computer pirate and the 2010 Somalian pirates, mind you. An 80s pirate is essentially a corporate stooge who apprenticed under Donald Trump and operates a Ted Turner subsidiary and has only one goal in life: MAKE MOTHAFUCKING MONEY, regardless of the personal cost. No matter how much Peter tries to connect with his son, he just cannot. When they go to the orphanage where Peter grew up, operated by a Granny Wendy who used to live by J.M. Barrie (fuck off Depp), we have an incredible scene. It's just so beautiful, yet ironically I can only relate it to one lyric by Pharrell Williams: "I know niggas who run from their shadows like Peter Pan". The scene I'm referring to I cannot find a video clip, but it's Peter Banning on the phone. His children are behind him agitating him but we see his shadow rise up and try and embrace him but he rejects it and yells at his children, furious. Such a poignant scene.
Let's not forget, the film is called Hook, so the titular character is another reason why this film is good. Played by Dustin Hoffman, we get a sense of dread from Captain James Hook and down to when the children talk about the window wiper and when we return to the orphanage to see claw marks all over the house walls. Hoffman dominates the screen by playing the dreadful captain, the only man "Barbecue ever feared" and the fact of the matter is. He's one of the reasons why this film is good. It's also one of few times the villain's name is the name of the movie and for this, it works. The story of Peter Pan isn't actually his, it's Captain Hook's. It's the story of how a mad pirate's obsession shows a child how dreadful growing up can be. Hook is a representation of everything wrong with adults and when the mad Captain is becoming a paternal figure to Jack Banning, we see that the title is actually referring to Peter. He himself has become a pirate and Hook to his children, so when he finally embraces his old self, it's magical.
One of the most magical scenes Steven Spielberg has ever shot, however, is after the madness at the Lost Boys' resort. We see all of the Lost Boys reject Banning as Pan except one and this one says "There you are Peter". It is a beautifully shot scene and, well, watch it for yourself:
1) It's Ugly - He says that it's not ugly because the set pieces are bad, but because of the excess used by Spielberg that he just "wears himself thin" or something to that accord. It's hard to argue against that point because that is just pure opinion. The Never Neverland that Peter is thrust into is different and seems to be an attraction in front of Pirates of the Caribbean at DisneyLand Paris rather than be in a Peter Pan flick. That's why it works. It's symbolic value to the film is great and add the fact that it does what no filmmaker, even Spielberg himself does nowaday, pay value to the actual set and design just makes me appreciate it even more.
2) Bad Acting - He says Robin Williams was bad as Peter Pan, which he would have been... but as Peter Banning, he was terrific. I agree on the Julia Roberts part, there's no getting past that... but it's ironic because the scene I used above to show how beautiful this film is, Vogt uses to show how bad Robin Williams is. Except, Vogt doesn't spend a lot of time explaining why he thinks Williams is bad. I mean Williams is good because of the expressions and subtle hints of disbelief and shock you see in him throughout the film. Vogt just says he's bad and spends three paragraphs talking about child actors.
3) Lawyer Jokes - He's angry because lawyers are the exact opposite of Peter Pan. True, but Peter Pan was good natured; Peter Banning is a pirate who represents Hook more than the pirate himself. This is just a pet peeve of his, it seems, so no point in pressing this further.
4) Annoying Kids - The kids in this film are annoying, but their annoying in every film and in this one it feels justifiable. Look, yes Banning is working to put food on the table for his children... but that doesn't excuse making false promises and claiming your "word to be your bond". It just adds to the symbolic value of Peter the Pirate, Hook the Second and it seems Vogt feels personally about this one, so perhaps it has something else to do with rather than his hate for the film...
5) Spielberg's thoughts - I've addressed this above.
6) Fuck Peter Pan - Again, this is a personal analysis of his and he addresses Barrie's dark undertones and secret facts that everybody knows, but nobody talks about. Look, he calls Spielberg out on once claiming to have Peter Pan syndrome. Great, I don't really know what point this guy is trying to make here but this bashes Peter Pan as a whole rather than Hook as a film. Why is Peter Pan relevant, though? Because he doesn't grow up. He gets to do what we all want to do and yes, a part of us resents him for it, but a larger part of us love shim for it. He makes these points on how Spielberg's a megalomaniac and Michael Jackson wouldn't like Never Neverland if he worked at a steel mill. First of all megalomania is a mental illness called Narcissistic Personality Disorder so fuck you and maybe the Jackson point is justified... but still... I have a feeling that this guy feels a lot more personally about this guy than some people. So he falls in the resents Pan for not growing up category. I'm not going to argue against his opinion, but I will justify mine.
7) Paige interview - He gets a friend of his to explain why people have warm feelings towards the film. I didn't see the movie until after it came out, at least ten years after if not more. Look, I could go on and on but...
This is a guy trying to impose his personal belief as fact. Fact trumps opinion. Opinion can never be fact unless opinion agrees with fact. Fact is, Hook is a gorgeous good film that has it's well deserved haters. His opinion is, Hook is a pile of shit. To him that is true, but in fact, it is not. Thanks for reading this long post, but I needed to talk about it.
Monday, March 30, 2015
He's At It Again
Goddamn it Alex Leadbeater, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is going to be a great, no a fucking amazing movie. Just because you don't want it to be because you were one of those bitches who complained about Man of Steel for some nonsensical reason doesn't mean that you should continue your dumb rant. Yes, we get it, you don't have faith in the movie. Now shut the fuck up. Here's his latest "article". He's judging the character portraits.
I'd assess his dumbass judgment of Aquaman, but I already did it here.
So let's go to Wonder Woman after that. Okay, so he says it looks like it's made out of plastic and he wonders why Amazonians would wear skimpy clothing? Read the comics you obsess over so much Leadbeater. As for plastic, that's a matter of opinion, I think it looks chromatic and rustic.
This moron's biggest problem seems to be the lighting, the fact that this movie seems to have a different tone from the MCU, the fact that the tone isn't what he wants it to be. So Superman can't do dark, or shouldn't do dark? He's trying to say Superman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman shouldn't do dark and that Aquaman should either not be in a movie or look like a dumbshit. I'm getting tired of this shit Leadbeater.
-
MYK
 |
| This is Alex Leadbeater. He needs to fucking get a haircut instead of complaining. |
I'd assess his dumbass judgment of Aquaman, but I already did it here.
 |
| I'll deal with him. |
So let's go to Wonder Woman after that. Okay, so he says it looks like it's made out of plastic and he wonders why Amazonians would wear skimpy clothing? Read the comics you obsess over so much Leadbeater. As for plastic, that's a matter of opinion, I think it looks chromatic and rustic.
 |
| YOU LEADBEATER! |
This moron's biggest problem seems to be the lighting, the fact that this movie seems to have a different tone from the MCU, the fact that the tone isn't what he wants it to be. So Superman can't do dark, or shouldn't do dark? He's trying to say Superman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman shouldn't do dark and that Aquaman should either not be in a movie or look like a dumbshit. I'm getting tired of this shit Leadbeater.
 |
| I love this. |
-
MYK
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Mesozoica
Like I said yesterday in my post, a review of The Order: 1886, I am working with an extremely talented team as the screenwriter on the upcoming indie game Mesozoica. Created in the style of Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis, Mesozoica is not just a tycoon simulator, it is a Grand Tycoon Simulation. What do I mean by this? Well, let me start off by introducing Mesozoica.
Mesozoica: An upcoming indie game where users are invited to create their own park in the vein of Jurassic Park or create a Site B where dinosaurs roam. We have several prehistoric animals in both the leathery reptilian style that people have come to expect or the more recent scientific feathered versions that my generation is accustomed to. With a unique breeding system, dinosaur personalities and many different kinds of dinosaurs, Mesozoica alone on that concept is just a tycoon simulator. However, Mesozoica features several more unique ideas, but only two which I am at liberty to talk about, the quest system that I created. The quest system is differentiated into two formats: Specifics and Paths. In the beginning, the player will have to choose which company to sign with and Specifics are small choice related quests that will show up here and there that differ per company. Paths are quests that are more general and are linked to the dinosaur instead of company and are longer and more arching quests that will take more time and have more consequences. Unlike Specifics, each Path will have a specific name, such as the Carnotaurus' Path being called Dinosauria.
There, that is Mesozoica, an upcoming Grand Tycoon Simulation. Now, many of you may be wondering, what makes your game so great? Well, gameplay is tried and true and proven over a long time. Graphics, just take a look at this video and tell me they aren't great and realistic looking. Also, after looking at that video I want you guys to realize that we have come thus far out of our own pockets. We will have a Kickstarter soon that I will include a link to once it's up and I just want to say, our goal is attainable and once we attain it, imagine the heights we will go.
Now some of you more invested in this genre may say, "Look Knight, there are a lot of dinosaur themed indie games coming out this year, how is yours unique?" Let me list these games and tell you how our game differs from them.
Prehistoric Kingdom: I'm going to talk about Prehistoric Kingdom first because of all the other games, it is the most similar to Mesozoica. At the root or zero, it is the same game. A prehistoric park tycoon simulator. However, down to the tonal value, Prehistoric Kingdom is a completely different game. I mean look at our Spinosaurus model and then look at theirs. You can tell that they are approaching this project from a completely different angle and the point is this: we are not crafting the same game. I wish Prehistoric Kingdom's developers good luck on their project because it is very clear that they are crafting a wonderful adventure that I too hope to enjoy, but aside from similar base concepts, our games are nothing alike.
Saurian: I actually found out about this game during our livestream yesterday and from what I can tell, it seems to be the most different in this list. As such, from what I can tell, you play the life cycle out of an available dinosaur and you do it in a recreated simulation. The game will be similar to our Site B mode but different in that the focus is on the dinosaur rather than on the human.
Primal Carnage: This game is the only one of the list that is actually already out. Essentially you can either play as a host of dinosaurs or humans in what is shown to be great combat. Yes there will be dinosaurs in our game and they will fight each other and humans, but it is not the focus of our game. Primal Carnage is a game with a heavy following and a great online component, but aside from being tangentially connected to us, it isn't something we are trying to emulate. What I'm trying to say is, Primal Carnage is like Call of Duty, but with dinosaurs and that is very unique and refreshing.
Dinosaur Battlegrounds: Out of all the aforementioned games, Dinosaur Battlegrounds is actually the one I am most excited for. It has a similar structure to Primal Carnage, but instead of putting more of an emphasis on the Multiplayer aspects that Primal Carnage has mastered, it highlights RPG instead. That's why I'm most excited for this game, because it combines elements of Saurian and Primal Carnage. Again, though, if we're turning right, these guys are going straight.
There you have it. All of those games are great and obviously I hope that you all get a chance to buy and enjoy all of them, but if you have only one choice, remember guys, go with Mesozoica.
Mesozoica: An upcoming indie game where users are invited to create their own park in the vein of Jurassic Park or create a Site B where dinosaurs roam. We have several prehistoric animals in both the leathery reptilian style that people have come to expect or the more recent scientific feathered versions that my generation is accustomed to. With a unique breeding system, dinosaur personalities and many different kinds of dinosaurs, Mesozoica alone on that concept is just a tycoon simulator. However, Mesozoica features several more unique ideas, but only two which I am at liberty to talk about, the quest system that I created. The quest system is differentiated into two formats: Specifics and Paths. In the beginning, the player will have to choose which company to sign with and Specifics are small choice related quests that will show up here and there that differ per company. Paths are quests that are more general and are linked to the dinosaur instead of company and are longer and more arching quests that will take more time and have more consequences. Unlike Specifics, each Path will have a specific name, such as the Carnotaurus' Path being called Dinosauria.
There, that is Mesozoica, an upcoming Grand Tycoon Simulation. Now, many of you may be wondering, what makes your game so great? Well, gameplay is tried and true and proven over a long time. Graphics, just take a look at this video and tell me they aren't great and realistic looking. Also, after looking at that video I want you guys to realize that we have come thus far out of our own pockets. We will have a Kickstarter soon that I will include a link to once it's up and I just want to say, our goal is attainable and once we attain it, imagine the heights we will go.
Now some of you more invested in this genre may say, "Look Knight, there are a lot of dinosaur themed indie games coming out this year, how is yours unique?" Let me list these games and tell you how our game differs from them.
Prehistoric Kingdom: I'm going to talk about Prehistoric Kingdom first because of all the other games, it is the most similar to Mesozoica. At the root or zero, it is the same game. A prehistoric park tycoon simulator. However, down to the tonal value, Prehistoric Kingdom is a completely different game. I mean look at our Spinosaurus model and then look at theirs. You can tell that they are approaching this project from a completely different angle and the point is this: we are not crafting the same game. I wish Prehistoric Kingdom's developers good luck on their project because it is very clear that they are crafting a wonderful adventure that I too hope to enjoy, but aside from similar base concepts, our games are nothing alike.
Saurian: I actually found out about this game during our livestream yesterday and from what I can tell, it seems to be the most different in this list. As such, from what I can tell, you play the life cycle out of an available dinosaur and you do it in a recreated simulation. The game will be similar to our Site B mode but different in that the focus is on the dinosaur rather than on the human.
Primal Carnage: This game is the only one of the list that is actually already out. Essentially you can either play as a host of dinosaurs or humans in what is shown to be great combat. Yes there will be dinosaurs in our game and they will fight each other and humans, but it is not the focus of our game. Primal Carnage is a game with a heavy following and a great online component, but aside from being tangentially connected to us, it isn't something we are trying to emulate. What I'm trying to say is, Primal Carnage is like Call of Duty, but with dinosaurs and that is very unique and refreshing.
Dinosaur Battlegrounds: Out of all the aforementioned games, Dinosaur Battlegrounds is actually the one I am most excited for. It has a similar structure to Primal Carnage, but instead of putting more of an emphasis on the Multiplayer aspects that Primal Carnage has mastered, it highlights RPG instead. That's why I'm most excited for this game, because it combines elements of Saurian and Primal Carnage. Again, though, if we're turning right, these guys are going straight.
There you have it. All of those games are great and obviously I hope that you all get a chance to buy and enjoy all of them, but if you have only one choice, remember guys, go with Mesozoica.
Friday, March 20, 2015
The Order: 1886 Review
Wow, it has been a long time. Never mind that, though. I have a bunch of things to talk about. The first of which are my Destiny videos! I have so much recorded but I've just been so lazy! Never mind that, though. I'm going to put it all on a USB and edit the footage and then put it up. After that, who knows, I might put the inFamous: Second Son footage up and all. I have some Shadow of Mordor and WWE 2K15 footage, but that all depends for now.
There has been a bunch of stuff that I want to post about. The first I'll talk about right now: Mesozoica. I'll include more information later, but I'll talk about this right now and give some insight. First some pretext, for those of you who've been following the blog for a while, you would know that Yafisz and I have been trying to break into the gaming industry for a while now and my screenwriting expertise has finally paid off for us. I, P. Randhawa, am the lead screenwriter and Story Head on the upcoming game Mesozoica. You guys can check it out on Facebook or catch our weekly livestreams on Twitch. Essentially, Mesozoica is a Grand Tycoon Simulation that is stylized after Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis. Now, I've never played Operation Genesis but what I have done is played a lot of Roller Coaster Tycoon, Roller Coaster Tycoon II and Roller Coaster Tycoon III. I've also played a whole lot of Crusader Kings II. What's similar between Crusader Kings and Roller Coaster Tycoon, not much actually, but one thing about Tycoon games that is fascinating is the fact that we control our entire world. I've created a quest system inspired by that from Crusaser Kings, so yes, not just a Tycoon Game, but a Grand Tycoon Simulation. I'll talk about the two quest systems in my next post, but they are called Specifics and Paths.
Have you all been keeping up on the Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice news? Well, I have and does that Aquaman poster not look amazing? Yeah! It looks freaking fantastic! What I don't get, though, is why Zack Snyder would unveil the poster, I mean, Aquaman is only going to be in the movie for less than a minute, or in a pre-film short film, right? Anyways, don't believe rumours that a trailer got leaked on Twitch. I'll admit once again, Man of Steel had faults, but it was a great film and I have no doubt that DC's upcoming cinematic universe will rival Marvel's. Speaking of the MCU, has anybody been watching Agents of SHIELD recently? I didn't watch Agent Carter, but for the sake of it, I hope it gets a second season. Agents, however, is the third best superhero show on behind Arrow and The Flash but that is merely a testament to how good it is! Why has it been so good, the character of Calvin Zabo, that's why! His latest episode when created the team, well, I hope that this team resurfaces and aren't only used as a one off bad guy episode and that they go up against Coulson again. Even if they're without Zabo, it'll still be great to further explore these characters. It's funny, though, half of them: Angar, Faye Gideon and Zabo are all Daredevil villains. Oh yeah, the Daredevil show, that looks very, very, very good.
Now to get on to the main part of the post, a game so good, I had to blog once more for it. The Order: 1886 is a wonderful game that I recommend that everybody who reads this blog with a PS4 get. Now, I'm going to start this review by saying this, many people have been hating parts of this game and devaluing the product as a whole. These criticisms are often varied but piled up together, they make a valid argument. Let me list them: not enough gameplay variety, repetitive gameplay and lack of interactivity. Now, let me address all of these concerns like this, as stated, The Order: 1886 does not provide "the level interactivity that we've come to expect from a game". I'm quoting IGN there and in that quote is the essence of the problems with The Order: 1886. You see, Ready at Dawn put such an emphasis at crafting a beautiful game that had such amazing cutscenes and perfecting graphics for the PS4 that they limited themselves. These problems arose from the fact that the game was already delayed by a year and whenever a game is delayed, either hype for it dissipates like it did for Conduit 2 or in the case of The Order: 1886, rises to unattainable levels. These graphics are amazing, the cutscenes great and the story wonderful. The problem though is, that the story is not complete, one would think that with an extra year of development Ready at Dawn would give us a more complete story, right? No, though, they perfected the seven hour story that they had and therein you see the lack of interactivity. It's hard to do this right this right now and my teeth are feeling weird because I know I'm only beating around the bush. Okay, let's go talk about lack of interactivity a bit more. When people talk about video game interactivity, they refer to there being a lot of weapons in a game, open non-linear ways to complete a level, several trophies that accompany a campaign, an emphasis on gameplay and a good length to accompany it. The problem is not that The Order: 1886 was seven hours, the problem was the levels that were given in those seven hours. If Uncharted 4 was seven hours, nobody would mind for one reason, the majority of those seven hours would have been gameplay. Were the majority of The Order's seven hours gameplay? Yes, but how much of it were the great fights against the lycanthropes and how much it was a fight against rebels? How much of it was going from one place to another clearing enemies and how much of it was Heavy Rain stylized gameplay? You see, in those seven hours, Ready at Dawn provided intense gameplay, but gave it in short bursts which were too similar and rarely ever gave the fight against the mythological beasts that people wanted to kill. The problem was that after going through all that and killing Sir Lucan, players believed they were going to have to go through an epic volley of lycanthropes and then fight Lord Hastings and save the day. It didn't happen and The Order ended on a bad note. If The Order had that little quest I just had, people wouldn't complain because we are given these amazing weapons and like other games are forced to waste them on human enemies instead of what we want to face.
Now what were the original points I listed? Not enough gameplay variety. Not true, The Order: 1886 gives gameplay that is like a mix of Gears of War, Uncharted and Heavy Rain. Repetitive gameplay. The gameplay as I've said has great variety and in levels, we experience so much variety in these fights. The problem is that all the variety that we see in one level is transplanted in another level. Lack of Interactivity. See that big paragraph above, I tried to hit the bush in the stomach but couldn't so let me try and put it at a different perspective. Ready at Dawn gave great graphics, wonderful gameplay, a great story and all. It's just that once the game started to get good, it ended abruptly and rather shortly. As a result, looking back, all levels seemed to be quite similar to one another and players were felt feeling like they got shortchanged. There I think I got it. All in all, The Order: 1886 is a wonderful game that I recommend you all get, just be aware that the ending will likely disappoint you because it is a disappointment.
The Order: 1886 is an 8/10 game, that is 4/5 if you will.
There has been a bunch of stuff that I want to post about. The first I'll talk about right now: Mesozoica. I'll include more information later, but I'll talk about this right now and give some insight. First some pretext, for those of you who've been following the blog for a while, you would know that Yafisz and I have been trying to break into the gaming industry for a while now and my screenwriting expertise has finally paid off for us. I, P. Randhawa, am the lead screenwriter and Story Head on the upcoming game Mesozoica. You guys can check it out on Facebook or catch our weekly livestreams on Twitch. Essentially, Mesozoica is a Grand Tycoon Simulation that is stylized after Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis. Now, I've never played Operation Genesis but what I have done is played a lot of Roller Coaster Tycoon, Roller Coaster Tycoon II and Roller Coaster Tycoon III. I've also played a whole lot of Crusader Kings II. What's similar between Crusader Kings and Roller Coaster Tycoon, not much actually, but one thing about Tycoon games that is fascinating is the fact that we control our entire world. I've created a quest system inspired by that from Crusaser Kings, so yes, not just a Tycoon Game, but a Grand Tycoon Simulation. I'll talk about the two quest systems in my next post, but they are called Specifics and Paths.
Have you all been keeping up on the Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice news? Well, I have and does that Aquaman poster not look amazing? Yeah! It looks freaking fantastic! What I don't get, though, is why Zack Snyder would unveil the poster, I mean, Aquaman is only going to be in the movie for less than a minute, or in a pre-film short film, right? Anyways, don't believe rumours that a trailer got leaked on Twitch. I'll admit once again, Man of Steel had faults, but it was a great film and I have no doubt that DC's upcoming cinematic universe will rival Marvel's. Speaking of the MCU, has anybody been watching Agents of SHIELD recently? I didn't watch Agent Carter, but for the sake of it, I hope it gets a second season. Agents, however, is the third best superhero show on behind Arrow and The Flash but that is merely a testament to how good it is! Why has it been so good, the character of Calvin Zabo, that's why! His latest episode when created the team, well, I hope that this team resurfaces and aren't only used as a one off bad guy episode and that they go up against Coulson again. Even if they're without Zabo, it'll still be great to further explore these characters. It's funny, though, half of them: Angar, Faye Gideon and Zabo are all Daredevil villains. Oh yeah, the Daredevil show, that looks very, very, very good.
Now to get on to the main part of the post, a game so good, I had to blog once more for it. The Order: 1886 is a wonderful game that I recommend that everybody who reads this blog with a PS4 get. Now, I'm going to start this review by saying this, many people have been hating parts of this game and devaluing the product as a whole. These criticisms are often varied but piled up together, they make a valid argument. Let me list them: not enough gameplay variety, repetitive gameplay and lack of interactivity. Now, let me address all of these concerns like this, as stated, The Order: 1886 does not provide "the level interactivity that we've come to expect from a game". I'm quoting IGN there and in that quote is the essence of the problems with The Order: 1886. You see, Ready at Dawn put such an emphasis at crafting a beautiful game that had such amazing cutscenes and perfecting graphics for the PS4 that they limited themselves. These problems arose from the fact that the game was already delayed by a year and whenever a game is delayed, either hype for it dissipates like it did for Conduit 2 or in the case of The Order: 1886, rises to unattainable levels. These graphics are amazing, the cutscenes great and the story wonderful. The problem though is, that the story is not complete, one would think that with an extra year of development Ready at Dawn would give us a more complete story, right? No, though, they perfected the seven hour story that they had and therein you see the lack of interactivity. It's hard to do this right this right now and my teeth are feeling weird because I know I'm only beating around the bush. Okay, let's go talk about lack of interactivity a bit more. When people talk about video game interactivity, they refer to there being a lot of weapons in a game, open non-linear ways to complete a level, several trophies that accompany a campaign, an emphasis on gameplay and a good length to accompany it. The problem is not that The Order: 1886 was seven hours, the problem was the levels that were given in those seven hours. If Uncharted 4 was seven hours, nobody would mind for one reason, the majority of those seven hours would have been gameplay. Were the majority of The Order's seven hours gameplay? Yes, but how much of it were the great fights against the lycanthropes and how much it was a fight against rebels? How much of it was going from one place to another clearing enemies and how much of it was Heavy Rain stylized gameplay? You see, in those seven hours, Ready at Dawn provided intense gameplay, but gave it in short bursts which were too similar and rarely ever gave the fight against the mythological beasts that people wanted to kill. The problem was that after going through all that and killing Sir Lucan, players believed they were going to have to go through an epic volley of lycanthropes and then fight Lord Hastings and save the day. It didn't happen and The Order ended on a bad note. If The Order had that little quest I just had, people wouldn't complain because we are given these amazing weapons and like other games are forced to waste them on human enemies instead of what we want to face.
Now what were the original points I listed? Not enough gameplay variety. Not true, The Order: 1886 gives gameplay that is like a mix of Gears of War, Uncharted and Heavy Rain. Repetitive gameplay. The gameplay as I've said has great variety and in levels, we experience so much variety in these fights. The problem is that all the variety that we see in one level is transplanted in another level. Lack of Interactivity. See that big paragraph above, I tried to hit the bush in the stomach but couldn't so let me try and put it at a different perspective. Ready at Dawn gave great graphics, wonderful gameplay, a great story and all. It's just that once the game started to get good, it ended abruptly and rather shortly. As a result, looking back, all levels seemed to be quite similar to one another and players were felt feeling like they got shortchanged. There I think I got it. All in all, The Order: 1886 is a wonderful game that I recommend you all get, just be aware that the ending will likely disappoint you because it is a disappointment.
The Order: 1886 is an 8/10 game, that is 4/5 if you will.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Jupiter Ascending
Remember when I said that Jupiter Ascending would be a terrible film? Well, look right here. Honestly, I believe there has not been such beautifully shot footage so far this year. The problem lay all in the execution. I mean, that beginning is great, but why the Mila Kunis narration? Honestly, I would've just started with Kunis and Tatum driving to Sean Bean and some exposition explaining the situation. Not only does it cut the run time, but the parts of the film that do flow smoothly don't feel like a piece of shit. I'm not going to talk too much about it because of Alex Leadbeater, he too similarly disliked the film but fuck him.
Hell, I wasn't even going to post about this until fucking Leadbeater posted this article. Pretext, Zack Snyder released an image of Jason Momoa as Aquaman for his cameo in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. His first point of negativity, the fact that it says "Unite The Seven". Okay, how does that devalue the picture anyhow? Sure you could argue bad marketing on part of the movie, but if it is only tangentially related to your article, and you explain the secant rather than the tangent, you are going off topic. This is Advanced Placement English me speaking. He says it looks like a fan edited image, with image in question being fan made concept art. First off, no it doesn't, and second off, so what if it does. Are you the kind of guy who wants comic characters to deviate from their origins or stay true. You could argue Momoa not going blonde is already a partial deviation, so why not go the full way? The point is, you do not argue that and in your next section you say the presentation is wrong and the picture itself is not silly, after paragraphs of explaining why previous images were good? Was there a point to that section? Then he says the trident is what is wrong with the image? The thing that is not the focus of the image and is partially covered by text is what devalues this entire image? Shut the fuck up, if it looks plastic, I ask you, have you ever been to Italy or Greece (before that shit got fucked up) and seen at trident or sword on display? Answer is probably no. Then you call the tattoos bad. If I'm right, those tattoos mesh in with the character in regards to the actor. However, what makes them bad is that they aren't the same style as the armour? Yeah, obviously it's inspired by something aquatic, but the fact of the matter is, that is part of his skin, not something he wears over his skin. Just like before, it's only supposed to be tangentially related and that is his appearance, not his armour's appearance. Then he says where is the orange, something which, didn't he kind of mock for saying the picture looked fan made? It's a picture with a lot of negative light and grey, even if there is orange, you wouldn't be able to see it yet anyways. Then he calls him cross eyed. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? That's not even judging the character of the image, that is straight up discriminating against a man for a part of his body he can't control. As a black man, I can say that and fuck you Leadbeater. Wait, Aqua-Drogo? Has Leadbeater read the script and does he know exactly how Aquaman will act? Is it like Khal Drogo? No, then why the fuck would he say that? Then he says the image is just a poor attempt to try and make Aquaman cool. Okay, so your making a superhero movie and you release the image of a hero and you make it look not cool? Please, tell me the logic in that you dumbass.
-
MYK
 |
| Fuck you deadbeater Leadbeater! |
Hell, I wasn't even going to post about this until fucking Leadbeater posted this article. Pretext, Zack Snyder released an image of Jason Momoa as Aquaman for his cameo in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. His first point of negativity, the fact that it says "Unite The Seven". Okay, how does that devalue the picture anyhow? Sure you could argue bad marketing on part of the movie, but if it is only tangentially related to your article, and you explain the secant rather than the tangent, you are going off topic. This is Advanced Placement English me speaking. He says it looks like a fan edited image, with image in question being fan made concept art. First off, no it doesn't, and second off, so what if it does. Are you the kind of guy who wants comic characters to deviate from their origins or stay true. You could argue Momoa not going blonde is already a partial deviation, so why not go the full way? The point is, you do not argue that and in your next section you say the presentation is wrong and the picture itself is not silly, after paragraphs of explaining why previous images were good? Was there a point to that section? Then he says the trident is what is wrong with the image? The thing that is not the focus of the image and is partially covered by text is what devalues this entire image? Shut the fuck up, if it looks plastic, I ask you, have you ever been to Italy or Greece (before that shit got fucked up) and seen at trident or sword on display? Answer is probably no. Then you call the tattoos bad. If I'm right, those tattoos mesh in with the character in regards to the actor. However, what makes them bad is that they aren't the same style as the armour? Yeah, obviously it's inspired by something aquatic, but the fact of the matter is, that is part of his skin, not something he wears over his skin. Just like before, it's only supposed to be tangentially related and that is his appearance, not his armour's appearance. Then he says where is the orange, something which, didn't he kind of mock for saying the picture looked fan made? It's a picture with a lot of negative light and grey, even if there is orange, you wouldn't be able to see it yet anyways. Then he calls him cross eyed. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? That's not even judging the character of the image, that is straight up discriminating against a man for a part of his body he can't control. As a black man, I can say that and fuck you Leadbeater. Wait, Aqua-Drogo? Has Leadbeater read the script and does he know exactly how Aquaman will act? Is it like Khal Drogo? No, then why the fuck would he say that? Then he says the image is just a poor attempt to try and make Aquaman cool. Okay, so your making a superhero movie and you release the image of a hero and you make it look not cool? Please, tell me the logic in that you dumbass.
 |
| Fuck you again Leadbeater! |
-
MYK
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Daniel Bryan Sucks
Yeah, I said it. Daniel Bryan sucks and he is not an A-Lister. I started watching WWE again semi-serious in August 2010, relatively, y'know. I'm wondering who the final member of Team Cena is and out comes some pasty faced, brown haired, non-inbred hillbilly called Daniel Bryan. Chris Jericho gets eliminated in a few seconds and this guy gets to show his skills? Talented, no doubt, could talk on a mic, no doubt. Have you seen his World Heavyweight Championship run? That run needed to be put out of it's misery and it's so good it was done in eight seconds at WrestleMania.
Yeah, then that whole business called "YES/NO/MAYBE!" started to take off. I still was not a fan. Honestly, I really only started to mind Daniel Bryan after he beat John Cena for the title at SummerSlam 2013. I liked that match, it was good and anybody could see it, Bryan was skyrocketing while Cena was staying stable. It needed to happen. Then Randy Orton cashed in and that was just bloody amazing. Oh I loved that right there so much. Any time Bryan could get the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, Orton would end him. Yeah, amazing. You like Daniel Bryan, well this is what Vince McMahon thinks of you:
I was thrilled that Batista was coming back, I enjoyed his brief return even though it was a total failure. By total I mean complete and utter failure, It was Hiroshima and the fans were the ape and the Jap in Family Guy. The matches were good, though. Problem was, the story behind Randy Orton vs. Batista was not good, so yeah, it was good they inserted Daniel Bryan into it... but let's go back to Batista. He was in the Royal Rumble and because Daniel Bryan was not in it, he got booed so vehemently that if Roman Reigns won it then, he would have become THE MAN. Yeah, but he didn't, so count that as the first time Daniel Bryan, you screwed Roman Reigns at the Royal Rumble.
I liked Daniel Bryan when he won the title at WrestleMania 30. Great match, great win, Bryan, you finally won me over, I was a fan. Then you come next day, don't sell your injuries and feud with Kane. Fuck you. No seriously, fuck you. Is Kane the rebound bitch everyone faces at Extreme Rules? Where was Orton with his rematch? Oh, well, I mean at least Evolution vs. The Shield was great. Bryan was out of the title picture though and vacated due to injury.
That was tough luck Mr. B -, maybe next time you'll get it. Roman Reigns comes back from injury to a lukewarm response that was slowly getting better each day. Then Daniel Bryan announced his return. What the fuck man? WWE should've known that if they wanted Roman Reigns on top, Daniel Bryan had to come back for Fast Lane, in fact, let's talk Fast Lane first! Yeah, I get it, Elimination Chamber was causing sponsor problems and was kind of a tough thing for German audiences. Fast Lane is a good idea, it's the Fast Lane to WrestleMania, but what do you have lined up for it? If Daniel Bryan came back say this next monday and announced he would wrestle at Fast Lane, oh that PPV would've been a success, instead, it won't be. What about this, imagine it, WWE fans are in despair because it doesn't seem like Bryan'll be coming back. Authority dogs dominate the Royal Rumble, in come Reigns and Ambrose. Ambrose gets taken out, Reigns is left, about to be eliminated leaving Rusev the winner and what's this? Daniel Bryan comes in to save and endorse him? Please tell me WWE, that you didn't think of that.
-
MYK
 |
| Knight said something about Apple in his last post. Read that post. Daniel Bryan is Apple, does one thing significant and gets his dick sucked by the fans forever. |
Yeah, then that whole business called "YES/NO/MAYBE!" started to take off. I still was not a fan. Honestly, I really only started to mind Daniel Bryan after he beat John Cena for the title at SummerSlam 2013. I liked that match, it was good and anybody could see it, Bryan was skyrocketing while Cena was staying stable. It needed to happen. Then Randy Orton cashed in and that was just bloody amazing. Oh I loved that right there so much. Any time Bryan could get the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, Orton would end him. Yeah, amazing. You like Daniel Bryan, well this is what Vince McMahon thinks of you:
 |
| It's not what I think of you, I appreciate your opinion. |
 |
| Roman Reigns > Your Boos |
I liked Daniel Bryan when he won the title at WrestleMania 30. Great match, great win, Bryan, you finally won me over, I was a fan. Then you come next day, don't sell your injuries and feud with Kane. Fuck you. No seriously, fuck you. Is Kane the rebound bitch everyone faces at Extreme Rules? Where was Orton with his rematch? Oh, well, I mean at least Evolution vs. The Shield was great. Bryan was out of the title picture though and vacated due to injury.
 |
| Or Fuck Yourself if you're insistent about things that aren't really true. |
That was tough luck Mr. B -, maybe next time you'll get it. Roman Reigns comes back from injury to a lukewarm response that was slowly getting better each day. Then Daniel Bryan announced his return. What the fuck man? WWE should've known that if they wanted Roman Reigns on top, Daniel Bryan had to come back for Fast Lane, in fact, let's talk Fast Lane first! Yeah, I get it, Elimination Chamber was causing sponsor problems and was kind of a tough thing for German audiences. Fast Lane is a good idea, it's the Fast Lane to WrestleMania, but what do you have lined up for it? If Daniel Bryan came back say this next monday and announced he would wrestle at Fast Lane, oh that PPV would've been a success, instead, it won't be. What about this, imagine it, WWE fans are in despair because it doesn't seem like Bryan'll be coming back. Authority dogs dominate the Royal Rumble, in come Reigns and Ambrose. Ambrose gets taken out, Reigns is left, about to be eliminated leaving Rusev the winner and what's this? Daniel Bryan comes in to save and endorse him? Please tell me WWE, that you didn't think of that.
 |
| Got 2 Luv U, Got 2 Luv U, Got 2 Luv U, Got 2 Luv U |
-
MYK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)