ChatBox

Sabtu, 24 November 2012

"Is this really the end the trilogy deserves or just a disappointment?"



Strapping yourself back on the Animus to relive the memories is one way to spend your time, but if you're expecting the ride to be one wholly good then you might be in for a disappointment. Assassin's Creed III keeps the story of our modern-day Assassin, Desmond Miles, going forward to the inevitable conclusion that players will reach at the game's end. This final stretch, however, brings along many technical problems, pacing issues, and a lack of focus leaving the game unpolished. Even so, the game is ultimately an enjoyable experience overall with a few gems that truly shine bright.

As Desmond et al finally arrive at the site where Those Who Came Before have been guiding him ever since Assassin's Creed II they come to the realization a key is needed in order to activate the mysterious complex which will save the human race from a solar flare. Juno, who inhabits the walls of said complex, forces Desmond to visit the memories of another ancestor in order to find the key. What starts out as a simple problem that must be overcome quickly escalates into a web of conspiracy during the times of the American Revolution. The idea is fairly solid and while a simple revelation of where the key would suffice, Desmond must unravel the mysterious tale of his ancestors Connor and Haytham Kenway.

In addition to ACIII's narrative pacing problem, the game has an extremely lackluster protagonist. While Haytham is charming, charismatic, and cool Connor is completely devoid of personality. Simply put, he's idealism manifested in human form. Connor's naivete knows no bounds and throughout the entirety of the game he fails to have any distinct characteristics that stands out. Often times he's so busy being someone's lapdog it's hard to find out why you're even playing as him. The way Connor speaks is just as disappointing as it hardly feels like there's anything passionate or emotional in his dialogues leaving him feeling like a robot at times.

However, that's not the only problem that Connor has. While Connor does have the abilities to back up his Assassin pedigree, he fails to intelligently analyze situations. He constantly does things as he pleases without heeding the words of his master, Achilles. This places Connor in a variety of tight situations forcing the game's story to take a certain direction, although it could be avoided entirely. In the end, you end up partaking in missions that have no importance at all to the grand scheme of things. Speaking of no importance, many of the crucial events during the American Revolution make appearances in the game but none of them feel like they matter. It's almost as if the developers threw darts at a wall full of events from the Revolution and decided to stick Connor in them. The game fails to keep the historical and fiction aspect of the story in a cohesive manner.

The overall story also takes a hit as AC3 tries to juggle many plot threads but does so poorly. The focus of the game's narrative leaves you scratching your head wondering what exactly you're fighting for. Is it to kill the Templars? To protect your village? Assist the British? The colonists? It's hard to know where exactly the game wanted to go and it clearly shows. The jumbled mess simply feels like a means to an end - getting Desmond the key.

While the story is poorly executed and not thought out, the gameplay delivers for the most part. Combat, being one of the pinnacle aspects of the series, has undergone a major revamp changing how one executes his moves on a poor soul. Rather than having an offensive and defensive stance the previous games utilized, AC3 combines the two streamlining it. The defensive actions are all relegated to one button allowing you to counter and parry attacks while the remaining face buttons act as your offensive or tactical assets. It's an interesting setup one that tries to keep things simple while maintaining the fun of fighting enemies. If you're familiar with the Batman: Arkham series then you will be right at home. Countering takes only a simple button press and the animation that follows is a joy to watch, and trust me there are a ton of kill animations to enjoy.

Sadly the trade off in the new combat system is the relative ease in skirmishes. Rather than going on the offensive it's extremely easy to just wait until your opponents attack and simply counter them to death followed by a series of combo kills. It's disappointing that fights can boil down to a matter of mechanical abuse, and while this is mostly up to the player, you can't help but feel that it was poorly designed from the get go. The abuse doesn't end just there as you can throw enemies at each other until they fall down. Then you can subsequently kill them at your leisure.

Roaming through town streets, jumping from rooftop to rooftop, and just traversing a variety of levels is a trademark to the franchise. AC3 is no different in this aspect considering it forces Connor to move a ton whether it be by foot or on a horse. Oddly enough you'll find yourself on a horse as much as you would traveling around on foot. Myriads of problems make it easier to maneuver Connor around in cities using a horse. One such problem is the janky controls when running around. Instead of using a combination of two buttons to jump, run, and perform other acrobatic feats AC3 uses a simple touch of the shoulder buttons. This allows Connor to do everything pervious Assassins could in the past games. While this may seem like a good change it isn't the case at all. Often times Connor will end up climbing things that you don't want to or jump on top of things that should be ignored. Due to the running and climbing feature all being tasked to one button and the way Connor will interact with any object he is in range of, there are a lot of frustrating situations where you wish you could control him differently.

Another problem that arises from traveling on foot is due to the layout of the town and the overall level design of various areas in the game. The buildings in both Boston and New York are so far apart from each other that it feels very inefficient getting around town using rooftops. As a result running around through streets and pushing people out of the way or using a horse is the best way to get from place to place. The buildings also pose a problem as many of them are laid out in a way that it's annoying to run away from pursuing foes. The layout just isn't as clever or as useful as the previous games making it feel like the game is often times working against you.

Lastly, there are a ton of technical problems such as clipping, framerate drops, and other bugs that makes travelling around town a detrimental experience. While it doesn't occur often there were numerous instances where I phased through an entire building, got stuck on the ground, and had invisible walls blocking my way. It was both annoying and put me in situations where I had to fight though I desired to run away. The framerate seems to drop consistently where there are a lot of objects and details that draws on the console's power. It's understandable considering the game's graphical prowess. However, it's annoying when a solid 30 FPS dips to an erratic back and forth of 15 to 25 FPS. While I don't have motion sickness, it did make my head a tad doozy.

The missions that Connor partakes in is arguably the best and worst part of the game. Most of them have simple main objectives but have optional ones that ramp up the challenge a bit. It's a nice touch and I'm glad that it's one of the few features that transitioned over from the previous titles. Whether it be an assassination missions, freeing hostages, or stalking a contact they all stand out to be quite the joy. Almost frustratingly so, some missions have aspects that are absolutely criminal. Stealth isn't handled extremely well in the game at all and it'll take clever positioning to silence enemies or follow someone.

Welcome to the Frontier! It's an extremely huge zone abundant with wildlife, trees, and other mysteries hidden in its green - or white depending on what season you're in. This zone serves as a primary hub for traveling to major locations but also a way to distract yourself. While traveling in the wild there are a variety of quests you can undertake whether it be hunting animals, navigating through various trees to find stunning vistas, or just checking off the things on your list of extras to do. It's no exaggeration when I say that there truly is a multitude of things to do and while the extras may seem repetitive at times, the types that you'll encounter mix things up quite a bit never leaving you bored.

Hunting is one of the newest features in AC3 and let me tell you that it is no easy feat. Every once in a while you'll find some clue that'll lead you to where a game is at. By tracking these games you can collect the material from killing them which in turn leads to a lot of money. While tracking them is relatively easy, actually catching/killing one is another beast in and of itself. By cleverly positioning yourself in bushes or raining death from treetops, you'll find success - patience is also needed. This is mostly for the larger animals though and the little ones will take a measly arrow or a gunshot to do the job. Hunting is a cool idea in concept but sadly fails to be anything more than just doing the motions to earn money. There isn't any real reward from killing animals and the steps becomes old quite quickly. Although the magic of hunting does wear off, it's an interesting system built to keep players busy in the Frontier.

The Frontier is huge as I mentioned but feels unnecessarily so. While there are many things to do in it, a smaller sandbox would've sufficed. It would allow ease of navigation, a focus on intricate traveling methods using treetops, and more monumental landmarks. Even so, the Frontier is by no means a horrible place. It's quite a marvel and the amount of lush greenery around you is absolutely baffling. Combo this in with the great graphical presentation and you have a recipe for something amazing.

Speaking of amazing, AC3 features ships that you can control and take out to combat. It sounds horrible at first but once you give it a go it's truly quite a marvel. While the system isn't intricate considering you only have three designated speeds to maneuver your hunk of wood, the game manages to make best of what's there. Moving around in water is extremely fun with the various wind speed and directions affecting your ship keeping you always on your toes since you can't afford to hit any obstacles such as rocks. Try to manage moving your ship then with enemies that are firing upon you. Positioning is key when winning a naval battle and AC3 takes this to heart. By controlling the speed of your ship to put yourself in an optimal position you're able to blast enemy ships with a single volley of cannon balls. It's extremely thrilling and it disappoints me that there isn't a race or a deathmatch of naval combat for multiplayer.

Of course, when not being a badass Assassin from the past, Desmond dons his hoodie to become a modern-day badass. In between certain sequences, Desmond will have to retrieve power sources that will keep the complex in working condition. While these segments are extremely short they offer some fresh breath of air. Rather than being bogged down to a location from the olden days, you're exploring more modern architecture and experiencing the modern-day threat of the Templars. Although the gameplay segments feel no different from something that Desmond's ancestors did, the new coat of paint is nice and gives a fresh take on how an Assassin in the present would go about handling missions.

In an effort to also flesh out Abstergo and the conflict between the Templars and Assassins, the Desmond missions act as a catalyst of sorts to wrap up pre-existing conflicts while introducing new ones. Unfortunately, just like the rest of the game, the execution isn't there. The new character Daniel Cross appears out of nowhere, gets a negligible amount of exposition, and is simply left out in the dust. Also it appears that the conflict between the two groups is trivialized by the conversations with Those Who Came Before essentially making the entire narrative of the franchise pointless. The narrative elements of the modern-day world certainly had some charm and mystery in the previous games but how it unravels in the trilogy's conclusion is a major disappointment.

Multiplayer makes a triumphant return and while there isn't anything new that will completely reshape the formula, it still remains to be entertaining. There are numerous modes to be had but they all essentially adhere to the core idea of identifying the enemy and assassinating him. It's simple but actually assassinating someone is rather difficult because often times you're a target of an assassination as well. This means you must blend yourself in a crowd of NPCs in a map so that you aren't noticed while maintaining a lookout for your target. This game of a circular cat and mouse is something unique to the franchise and for an industry ridden with first-person shooters, it's refreshing. The modes will change up how you approach your assassinations or add new mechanics - or remove them. For instance you might have a compass that will help you to find your targets rather easily in Wanted but have it removed in Quick Deathmatch. All in all, the modes are all fun and will keep you busy for a long while.

Assassin's Creed III is ultimately a good game bogged down by the failure to execute great ideas properly. While the need for change in order to improve gameplay is understandable, changes that fail to address the problems it has had keeps the game from reaching greatness. This doesn't mean that the game doesn't deliver in what it attempts to do, however. If you're looking for the same formula found in the previous games then you'll find it here but for something revolutionary, or even evolutionary, look elsewhere.

"Pokemon Black 2, a surprising success"


To call Pokemon a runaway success would be a slight understatement. To call it an absolute titan in the gaming world, and an absolute showpiece of what the gaming world can accomplish over the space of fifteen years would be more realistic, but still would miss the overall picture. What Pokemon is, in fact, is a generation. If you were to ask any child or teenager of the past fifteen years what video game he or she has played and consistently enjoyed and grown up with throughout the course of their life, the answer would most likely be one or multiple of the installments in the franchise. Pokemon is much more a household product than a gaming experience these days, and in 2012 said product returned with its latest installment, Pokemon Black and White Version 2.

Pokemon Black And White 2 have been released in Japan and are currently awaiting an October release date in the UK and USA, and has enjoyed good sales since release, and great reviews.

In an unprecedented move, Game Freak decided to release a direct sequel to Pokemon Black and White, which has already revolutionized the series, and proved that Pokemon is still the number one gaming franchise out there, no matter how many Call Of Duty or Diablo games are released. Everyone played the first two, and many people thoroughly enjoyed them. But the first question that must be answered is this- was a sequel really necessary? What could realistically be added to the games to keep it feeling fresh despite the fact that the Unova region has already been explored to death in the first installments.

The answer would be a resounding yes, it is necessary, and Pokemon Black and White prove exactly how a sequel should be done. Sequels should build upon and improve their predecessor, and this is exactly what Pokemon Black 2 and White 2 accomplish. Though the plot is nothing entirely new, it remains fun and very much enjoyable, and builds on that of the first games. Team Plasma is divided, but from the ashes new characters arrive, such as the mysterious Akuroma. To thoroughly enjoy and understand the plot of the sequels, one must first experience the originals, but the game ensures that any new comers will not be disappointed either, by keeping the story simple, so that the new comer need not worry about missing plot details.

The sound for this game truly is a step up, and brings the sound in Pokemon games into their own category full stop within the gaming world, topping even the elite sound tracks such as Final Fantasy. Pokemon Black 2 contains some truly incredible pieces of music, and much of it is completely fresh. There are even some songs on here with actual words to them, although very simple and not very detailed. This really would be one of the finer points of Black And White 2, as the sound has always been a problem with the Pokemon games that has finally been remedied. It is a shame it took Game Freak so long to catch on, but they have corrected one of the major errors with the Pokemon games.

The graphics on this game are the Holy Grail of all DS games. There is not a Nintendo DS game out there that can hope to top Pokemon Black and White 2 in the graphical department, with detailed sprites, killer 3D cut scenes, and some ingeniously painted created environments, that ensure the game world the player travels through is as enjoyable and immersive as can be found in a gaming experience. This was another issue that had needed an address, and was partially responded to with the shift in view point on Black And White 1, but has finally been fully corrected.

Game Play wise, this is pure gold. There is neither as addictive nor as thrilling a game on a handheld console that has been released today. This is perfection incarnate, where every progression throughout the game brings new elements and ensures the game feels as enjoyable as the first Pokemon games did more than a decade and a half ago now. This is how a handheld game should be made, with real care and time put into it. The formula of the game is completely unchanged, you capture monsters and use them to battle one another, but it is done even better than before, with nice new elements added.

The Gym Leaders are even more interesting than before, with the usual rock, paper, scissors elements found in every Pokemon game present here and in perfect working order. If a formula isn't broke, then there is no need to fix it, and Pokemon may as well be the poster child for this phrase. Pokemon has always had a fun but shallow battle system, and here it is found better than ever, with the usual host of attacks to use on your opponents Pokemon. This is the most fun I can honestly think of having in any game made in a long, long time, and straight away warrants an immediate purchase.

The most notable thing I could find from this game was how the ante had been upped in terms of triple and rotational battles, two new battle styles that were introduced in the games previous to these. Throughout Pokemon Black and White 1, there was around 5 triple and rotational battles to engage in, and I honestly felt that this was really undermining the new game mechanics. However, this has been fixed in the new versions, where the player can engage in triple and rotational battles fairly regularly, which was nice to see.

The multiplayer on this game is, as usual, flawless. Pokemon has always had a fun, deep multiplayer experience that just adds to the plethora of fun, interesting things to do inside the game, and Pokemon Black and White 1 managed to hone this to perfection. Black and White 2 use much the same mechanics, and they really do work to the point where the player wonders whether this game truly could be made any better. This is where the real replay ability has always been found in a Pokemon game, and it is no different in Black and White 2.

The actual style of the game is much the same as found before. It is still an adventure RPG, where the player travels on a journey with creatures known as Pokemon to challenge the Gym Leader in each town, fight off an evil faction (in this case, Team Plasma), and then do battle with the Elite Four, the best trainers in the world. Throughout your journey there are countless Pokemon to encounter and add to your ever growing roster, and then decide a team of 6 from them all, and raise that party, gaining experience points through battles and raising your level, thereby increasing the statistics of each Pokemon. This really could not be built upon, and remains the most solid example of an RPG ever made.

Pokemon Black 2 proves that a game series almost 20 years old can still kick it, and really is a worthy addition to any game players collection. Perfection comes very rarely to the gaming world, but in the case of Pokemon Black and White 2, Game Freak proves once again why they are on top of the gaming pile.

Physics: Make nanotechnology research open-source


PEIDONG YANG/UNIV. CALIFORNIA BERKELEY/SPL
Artificially grown zinc oxide nanowires, as seen under a scanning electron microscope, measure only a few nanometres in diameter.
Any innovator wishing to work on or sell products based on single-walled carbon nanotubes in the United States must wade through more than 1,600 US patents that mention them1. He or she must obtain a fistful of licences just to use this tubular form of naturally occurring graphite rolled from a one-atom-thick sheet. This is because many patents lay broad claims: one nanotube example covers “a composition of matter comprising at least about 99% by weight of single-wall carbon molecules”. Tens of others make overlapping claims.
This thicket of patents, including entire classes of nanotechnologies, basic methods and science, is hindering nanotechnology. Excessive patenting is increasing costs, slowing technical development and removing from the public domain fundamental knowledge about the understanding and control of matter on the atomic or molecular scale (1–100 nanometres).
Patent thickets occur in other high-tech fields, but the consequences for nanotechnology are dire because of the potential power and immaturity of the field. Advances are being stifled at birth because downstream innovation almost always infringes some early broad patents. By contrast, computing, lasers and software grew up without overzealous patenting at the outset2.
Nanotechnology offers the promise of enabling matter to be manipulated as easily as software. I believe that those working with it should adopt the open-source approach3 that has proved so successful for software development. All publicly funded nanotechnology research and innovation should be made available to everyone for free. A moratorium should be placed on patenting fundamental nanotechnologies and basic quantum-science applications, from which most developments stem.

Intellectual-property shackles

Nanotechnology is big business. According to a 2011 report by technology consultants Cientifica, governments around the world have invested more than US$65 billion in nanotechnology in the past 11 years. The sector contributed more than $250 billion to the global economy in 2009 and is expected to reach $2.4 trillion a year by 2015, according to business analysts Lux Research. Since 2001, the United States has invested $18 billion in the National Nanotechnology Initiative; the 2013 US federal budget will add $1.8 billion more.
This investment is spurring intense patent filing by industry and academia. The number of nanotechnology patent applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is rising each year and is projected to exceed 4,000 in 2012. Anyone who discovers a new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent that prevents others from using that development unless they have the patent owner's permission.
With universities increasingly operating like corporations, faculty members are pressured into locking away their results as intellectual property (IP), even though their research is largely funded by taxpayers. In the United States, the passage of the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act enabled US universities to retain ownership of the products of federally funded research that had previously been non-exclusively licensed to anyone on request4.
Broad patents covering the 'building blocks' of nanotechnology — such as quantum dots, nanowires and fullerenes, carbon nanotubes and methods for making them — hamper conscientious innovators, who must spend time and money to acquire all the necessary licences to avoid lawsuits5.
Examples of patents that cover basic components include one owned by the multinational chip manufacturer Intel, which covers a method for making almost any nanostructure with a diameter less than 50 nm; another, held by nanotechnology company NanoSys of Palo Alto, California, covers composites consisting of a matrix and any form of nanostructure. And Rice University in Houston, Texas, has a patent covering “composition of matter comprising at least about 99% by weight of fullerene nanotubes”.
The vast majority of publicly announced IP licence agreements are now exclusive, meaning that only a single person or entity may use the technology or any other technology dependent on it6. This cripples competition and technological development, because all other would-be innovators are shut out of the market. Exclusive licence agreements for building-block patents can restrict entire swathes of future innovation.
An evaluation of the carbon-nanotube patent thicket in 2006 found that of 446 carbon-nanotube patents issued in the United States, in which 8,557 claims were made, 420 of those claims were of a building-block type7. Imagine how equivalent patenting of the idea of a semiconductor or basic programming would have stifled electronics and computing.
These dense webs of overlapping rights are created partly as a result of the complex nature of the underlying science. Beating into this patent thicket is made difficult for innovators and patent examiners alike because of the field's interdisciplinary nature and its span across a range of industries. Nanoscience uses a rich and fast-evolving lexicon of technical language — carbon nanotubes can, for example, be described as nanofibres, fibrils, shells, nanocylinders, buckytubes or nanowires. For nanotechnology patent examiners at the USPTO, incomplete availability of information and inadequate training are recognized problems8.
Licences can be costly, but the potential expense of litigation for not acquiring them is often much greater. Multimillion-dollar legal fees have overwhelmed nanotechnology companies such as Evident Technologies (legal fees of $1 million compared with $4 million in assets) and Luna Innovations (ordered by a jury to pay $36 million despite assets of $20 million). Such risks dissuade other companies from working in the nanotechnology field.

The open-source alternative

This IP rush assumes that a financial incentive is necessary to innovate, and that without the market exclusivity (monopoly) offered by a patent, development of commercially viable products will be hampered. But there is another way, as decades of innovation for free and open-source software show. Large Internet-based companies such as Google and Facebook use this type of software. Others, such as Red Hat, make more than $1 billion a year from selling services for products that they give away for free, like Red Hat's version of the computer operating system Linux.
An open-source model would leave nanotechnology companies free to use the best tools, materials and devices available. Costs would be cut because most licence fees would no longer be necessary. Without the shelter of an IP monopoly, innovation would be a necessity for a company to survive. Openness reduces the barrier for small, nimble entities entering the market.
The field of nanotechnology is a combination of information (such as chemical formulae), software (for example, modelling tools) and hardware (such as atomic force microscopes). All three areas can adopt open-source principles, and some steps have already been taken towards this.
The nanoHUB.org website — established in 2002 by the Network for Computational Nanotechnology with funding from the US National Science Foundation (NSF) — shares simulation programs based on open-source software for nanotechnology research as well as educational materials. Its content is used by hundreds of universities worldwide. Other types of free and open-source software, from microscope-control programs to molecular modelling tools, are proliferating.
Also following an open-source approach are programmes to share construction plans for large and expensive proprietary items of scientific equipment. For example, the SXM team at the University of Münster, Germany, provides free instructions for building a scanning tunnelling microscope. The team has reserved the right to sell the machine, but the list of materials, circuit diagrams and full instructions are posted online (sxm4.uni-muenster.de) so that anyone can build one. The university hosts a spin-off company that makes money by providing add-on services including analytics and workshops.
Critics might counter that the hardware and materials on which most nanotechnology companies base their products are fundamentally different from software, so an open nanotechnology industry would have difficulty attracting the capital needed to scale up. They argue that leading open-source hardware companies — Adafruit, BeagleBoard, Chumby, Liquidware, Seeed Studio and SparkFun Electronics — are small, new firms testing unproven business models.
JOE RAEDLE/GETTY
A nanotechnology researcher at a diffusion furnace handles silicon wafers used in integrated circuits.
Yet these and dozens of other companies, including Arduino, MakerShed and Solarbotics, earn millions of dollars in revenue each year through providing and supporting open-source hardware in other technological areas. Arduino's open-source microcontroller, for example, has been adopted by thousands of projects, including three-dimensional printing and additive layer manufacturing. These printers are in turn used to fabricate research tools in nanotechnology and other disciplines9, spearheading a cascade of innovation that The Economist has identified as leading to the “third industrial revolution”.

Drug-pollution law all washed up



Europe is set to quash a precedent-setting initiative designed to tackle a disturbing side effect of common drugs — their impact on aquatic life.Landmark regulations intended to clean Europe’s waterways of pharmaceuticals are likely to be dead on arrival when they reach a key vote in the European Parliament next week.
The proposal by the European Commission, which would limit the concentrations in water of a widely used contraceptive and an anti-inflammatory drug, have sparked intense lobbying by the water and pharmaceutical industries, which say that the science is uncertain and the costs too high. European Union (EU) member states, alarmed by cost estimates of tens of billions of euros, seem to agree. Researchers and environmentalists question those estimates, and argue that the proposal should be judged principally on what they say is strong scientific evidence, rather than on financial concerns.