Watch Dogs Twitch Stream Was Insightful

    
Watch live video from Ubisoft on TwitchTV

          Watch Dogs developers appeared on an hour or so long Twitch stream today and gave a ton of info, some old some new. What stood out was the vision, one that encapsulated density and player volition. There was a sense that the world no longer remained a static, unchanged thing.  The ability to traverse with an Assassin's Creed-like parkour while activating hacks in creative, emergent ways, altering the playing field seamlessly in your favor, is refreshing to me. Some may disagree, but the graphics, running on a PS4 at low res, still looked good. The weather effects and the lighting combine to give this digital depiction Chicago an assorted complexion.

  

 ---- Half some fun with it....If you just like blowing [stuff] up, it's cool...

            

          Creative director, Jonathan Morin, and lead game designer, Danny Bélanger gave some interesting insights into the creative/ design process. Chicago was in fact chosen, not solely for its hyper-surveillance, but also for its greater, if theoretical, likely-hood of adopting such a city-wide operating system as ctOS. The multiplayer, then, becomes an extension of the game world's connectivity, thus linking players asynchronously for one-vs-one hacking or in larger, more chaotic four-vs-four matchups, centered on decryption and/or free-roaming.  If you haven't already, take a look at Ubisoft's stream--skipping ahead to around 20-mins in will get you past the rehashed promo videos.

Far Cry 3, Mass Effect and the Importance of Character

 Characters In games, what makes us care?

Mass Effect 2 (EA) and Far Cry 3 (Ubisoft)

Necessary for what, one might ask? Well, for things such as an engaging narrative or the obvious creation of likable characters. Is Nathan Drake, from the Uncharted series of games, a character one roots for because of an earnest empathy or care for his well being? or is he merely likable because of the supposedly everyman player-self-identifiable character design of which he sports? I think we all claim to like characters for the layered, multi-self persona that they sport in games, but is that necessarily what may make me care about my Mass Effect series Commander Shepard, I'm not so sure. In the case of Mass Effect, Commander Shepard can be, at times, schizophrenic; in as far as coming off ultra-paranoid( and strange), to the point of appearing--more accurately sounding--as if Shepard has lost touch with the realities of his/her situation.

For a rough example: the player could possibly choose to utilize the dialogue tree, and with certain choices, portray a Shepard of a calm even keel and reasonable persona. But if that same player deviates from the path of sainthood--in Mass Effects case: Paragon choices--then they show a complete shift in personality, with too great a change in self to be regard as a mere natural shift in either status earned or the role played, by  Shepard in the society of the game. Thus the dichotomy of Paragon and Renegade meters( which simultaneously represent,respectively, "Good morality and Bad morality") creates a dysfunctional, in-coherent split personality character that nonetheless is still beloved by many. Some players have a very engaged relationship with there Commander Shepard, but how is this explained? It is simply a matter of taking the RPG (role playing game) element to its most stripped, simplistic and acrimonious resolution ; namely disregarding modern and classic notions of role-playing. Choosing instead--with complete inhibition and contempt for other standards--to focus on the merging of the player and their avatar/interface to the narrative. Thus, creating an experience where, regardless of the dissociative dialogue trees and choices, it is the player who feels empowered by the dearth of predefined choice sequences and the bevy of-- ambiguous/hidden--predetermined outcomes. The player, thus, gives up some, or all, of the cynicism associated with outside perspectives and inferences that would--in normality--serve to distance the gamer ,farther and farther away, from the heart and mind of the creative works at hand.

The Old Man on the Mountain

On the Assassin's Creed franchise

Sequels can't live with 'em and can't live without 'em! Am I right? It's a tricky situation when it comes to sequels in any creative medium, not to mention the sometimes over inflated, top heavy vehicle that is the video game industry. We see it time and time again; the new hot plot and design hits the streets and--by some publishers voracity--either fails, not always in disaster or succeeds, not always with grace. Yet if it does some how succeed the new love child of someone or some persons, is castrated and pigeonholed into an familiar, rusted ball and chain existence.

Assassin's Creed, a gaming franchise, though creative and expansive; technically impressive and vast, is not immune to the iron grip of industry wide ego inflation. Money! It makes the world go around, right? Well, looking at a franchise that some might argue has lost its initial intrigue and creative enticement, one might be inclined to agree that the ever present restrictive boxes of video game management has produced clones, void of any heart and soul; The equivalent to selling ones down-and-out (or more accurately: grossly ambitious to a fault) soul to the devil, in exchange for more of something addictive. But who can say for sure, without inside consultation with Ubisoft's creative teams and big-wigs, whether or not the AC franchise and its creative teams still have the drive to produce necessary narratives, soaked in the sweat of their devotion or whether the cascade of sequels are nothing more than the over-stimulation of an out of balance publishing strategy, more reminiscent of an over inflated bubble ready to burst than a carefully handled and researched plan of action. I supposed what I'm getting at is that due to the unreal expectations accompanying new I.P.'s, and their sequels to a larger extent, there is no room for proper stable growth of creative properties. Now! Now! Now! We must have more, more, more! The I.P. cannot be shaped through its own natural molding and shedding of new ideas. No. Instead the new creation must get artificially bigger, in order to bring in more money because it was disproportionate in is target audience, and its sales expectations to begin with.