This will contain spoilers for the Twisted Metal series, but nothing that fans of the series don't already know by now. Plus, it's nothing very significant for Twisted Metal: Head-On, as what I'll mention is in the biography of the characters involved.
Also, Twisted Metal 3 and 4 do not factor into this. It has already been stated that 3 and 4 have been completely erased from the official continuity.
With that said, let us begin. Twisted Metal may not seem like it has an overarching story. Especially not one that ties the "normal" series with Black. But I have a theory that is hinted at throughout the games, but never really tied together.
In Twisted Metal 2, when you win the contest as Roadkill, it is revealed that the competition took place within the coma-induced dreams of Roadkill's driver, Marcus Kane. The idea being that Marcus, along with all the other contestants, were involved in a major car accident. (It should probably be noted that Grasshopper's driver, Krista Sparks, who is also Calypso's daughter, was killed in a car accident. Which may or may not be related.)
In Twisted Metal: Black, when you play as Minion, the loading screens will have "encoded" messages. Basically a "number equals letter" encryption. Nothing too complicated. But these messages reveal that Black takes place within the mind of Sweet Tooth's driver, Needles Kane.
Twisted Metal: Head-On reveals that Needles Kane is actually Marcus Kane's split personality. In fact, Marcus is said to have nightmares about competing in Twisted Metal, but it's implied that the nightmare is when Needles takes over and actually competes. Marcus comes to terms with his dark side, and he and Needles sort of join forces, in a sense. I would say they fuse together, but they're always shown as separate entities, despite being split personalities within the same mind.
My theory is as such. The "normal" Twisted Metal competitions take place in Marcus's mind, while the twisted and demented competitions take place in Needles's mind, while Head-On sees a fusion of the two. It's not entirely noticeable in Head-On, until you take note of Calypso. In Marcus's mind, Calypso has long, red hair and handsome looks. In Needles's mind, Calypso is bald, has a deformed left eye, and looks like a psychopathic murderer. In their combined mind (Head-On), Calypso has long, gray hair in a circle around his head, while the top is completely bald. His face looks much like he does in Marcus's mind, but his left eye is deformed like the Calypso in Needles's mind. It's basically a fusion of the two Calypsos.
In Roadkill's ending in Head-On, Marcus claims that the contest is yet another one of his nightmares, and he wants it to end. Which is essentially the same request as in Twisted Metal 2. Calypso grants his wish, and Marcus wakes up in his bed. Which implies that Head-On was also in his head, although that's not for certain.
So that's really my theory how Twisted Metal 1, 2, and Head-On are related to Black. They all take place in the mind of Marcus Kane, only Needles took over and perverted the contest in Black.
Personally, I'm very interested to see how the story evolves in the first Twisted Metal for the PS3. The hidden message in Head-On: Extra Twisted Edition confirms that it's in development. Now that Marcus and Needles have become one, what will happen?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Artificial Intelligence
I'm going to stretch beyond the realm of gaming, and talk about Artificial Intelligence. Not gaming intelligence, but general intelligence.
Computer scientists claim that one day, possibly in 20 years, AI will be as smart or smarter than humans. I say that's pure science fiction, and will always remain as such.
Now, AI is nothing but computer code. That's it. The limits of a programming language limit how intelligent the AI can be. Yes, there are procedural algorithms that can help a program "learn" more natural behavior, but I don't think that's really going to help AI become as intelligent as humans.
Another road block, which is probably the most significant, is voice recognition. Spoken words, to computers, are nothing more than noise. A series of bits generated by an audio wave. The computer can look at that data as much as it wants, and it can't interpret it. The way voice recognition works is it compares this data pattern from your voice, and compares it to a large database of words. It then decides that the closest matching pattern is what you said. One problem comes in if the person has a speech impediment, or a thick accent. Their deviations from common speech patterns in the program's database can yield vastly different results.
Yet more problems in voice recognition come from the fact that, since the computer has no earthly idea what exactly you said (beyond matching voice patterns), it also has no grasp on the rules of language. Since it doesn't know what you said, this doesn't really matter. But, this becomes an issue due to the large amount of homophones in the English language. The computer can't tell the difference between your and you're, or to, two, and too.
Without the ability of language, it can't be as intelligent as humans.
One last hurdle is that we still don't know how the human brain works. I mean, how it truly works. We can't simulate what we don't know. People have these theories of Artificial Intelligence taking over the world. AI is only as smart as we make it. AI is only computer code. It is limited by both the hardware, the programming language, and the person programming it. Right now, AI is very advanced, but also very focused on a specific purpose. To make a true human analogue, it has to be advanced in every way. And I just don't see this happening anytime soon. As for AI that will take over the world, that would require AI with a sense of self, a need for self preservation, and a conscious desire to dominate over humans. I don't think that will ever be possible.
Computer scientists claim that one day, possibly in 20 years, AI will be as smart or smarter than humans. I say that's pure science fiction, and will always remain as such.
Now, AI is nothing but computer code. That's it. The limits of a programming language limit how intelligent the AI can be. Yes, there are procedural algorithms that can help a program "learn" more natural behavior, but I don't think that's really going to help AI become as intelligent as humans.
Another road block, which is probably the most significant, is voice recognition. Spoken words, to computers, are nothing more than noise. A series of bits generated by an audio wave. The computer can look at that data as much as it wants, and it can't interpret it. The way voice recognition works is it compares this data pattern from your voice, and compares it to a large database of words. It then decides that the closest matching pattern is what you said. One problem comes in if the person has a speech impediment, or a thick accent. Their deviations from common speech patterns in the program's database can yield vastly different results.
Yet more problems in voice recognition come from the fact that, since the computer has no earthly idea what exactly you said (beyond matching voice patterns), it also has no grasp on the rules of language. Since it doesn't know what you said, this doesn't really matter. But, this becomes an issue due to the large amount of homophones in the English language. The computer can't tell the difference between your and you're, or to, two, and too.
Without the ability of language, it can't be as intelligent as humans.
One last hurdle is that we still don't know how the human brain works. I mean, how it truly works. We can't simulate what we don't know. People have these theories of Artificial Intelligence taking over the world. AI is only as smart as we make it. AI is only computer code. It is limited by both the hardware, the programming language, and the person programming it. Right now, AI is very advanced, but also very focused on a specific purpose. To make a true human analogue, it has to be advanced in every way. And I just don't see this happening anytime soon. As for AI that will take over the world, that would require AI with a sense of self, a need for self preservation, and a conscious desire to dominate over humans. I don't think that will ever be possible.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Pokemon
I want to start this blog post off by stating that I'm open for suggestions. Visit my Game Collection on IGN Clubs, and pick something for me to blog about. Post it in the comments, or email me.
Now, the first thing I was requested to blog about was Pokemon. As you can see, I own a few Pokemon games. So I thought I'd go over them.
Now, Pokemon started in 1996. I think that's when the development started, actually. The first two games in Japan were Pocket Monsters Red and Green (Pocket Monsters being the Japanese name of Pokemon). Blue was added later, followed by Yellow a year or two after.
In North America, however, things were different. They were unsure whether or not Pokemon would sell. So, they took the anime, which was made in Japan after the games had become smash hits, and released it in the US before the games were released. The reason being that they wanted to judge interest in this new brand before releasing the games. This has lead to some people believing the games are based off the anime, which is simply untrue.
Green never came out in the US. The first two out in this region were Red and Green, with Yellow following a year later. At its core, Pokemon is a basic RPG game. The catch being that instead of using your own character to battle, you use creatures that you caught. The tag line of the game was "Gotta Catch 'Em All!" Which Nintendo used, along with the fact that not all Pokemon could be caught in a single cartridge. You had to have a friend who had the other version, and trade with them. The final Pokemon, Mew (#151), couldn't be caught in any of the games. In fact, you had to be at an official Nintendo event in order to add Mew to your collection. Meaning you could never truly catch them all, unless you had a cheat device.
The basics are simple. Each Pokemon can only know four moves at a time. The use of moves is limited by a PP number, with the least powerful moves having 20 PP and the most powerful having only 5 PP. You can only carry six Pokemon at a time. HP and PP, along with status ailments, can be cured by items or by visits to a Pokemon Center. Your goal is to battle the Gym Leaders, who are always accompanied by underlings who you have to battle first. The ultimate goal, once you have all the gym badges, is to fight the Elite Four, followed by the Pokemon League Champion.
The Pokemon games have more of a story than just gym battles, though. You are rarely able to fight a gym leader without first completing some task that involves the overall story at some level. In the first two Pokemon series (Red/Blue/Yellow and Gold/Silver/Crystal), the enemy is Team Rocket. In Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald, they shook things up a bit. In Ruby, Team Magma is attempting to awaken a legendary Pokemon, while Team Aqua is trying to stop them. In Sapphire, the roles are reversed, as Aqua are the villains and Magma are the allies. But in Emerald, both teams are villains. It's an interesting story twist that keeps those two games from being too stale.
Overall, though, very little has changed. Granted, I've not played the DS games, but I'm sure they're basically the same. But, Pokemon still sells an extreme amount, so I can't fault Nintendo.
Also on my list is the Pokemon: Trading Card Game for the Game Boy Color. Yes, they made a video game based on the actual TCG. The game only contains cards from the original set (Basic) as well as Jungle and Fossil. There was a Japan-only sequel to this, that included more sets. The game recreates most of the TCG rules, though I seem to recall some things didn't work properly. There is a story, which flows a lot like the regular Pokemon games, but it's a nice change in that it's based on the TCG. It's more strategic than a typical Pokemon, thanks to the TCG rules and such.
I stopped following the actual TCG sometime after the first Team Rocket expansion. It was fun, but I had no one to play with. Despite the fact that I collected over 400 cards. I don't have much to say about that, though.
Finally, there is the anime. I was a fan for the first season or two, but then it got a bit too predictable. Ash would challenge a gym leader, lose, and then through some cheesy bit, discover his flaw and overcome the odds. It's a formula they used way too often. I've started watching again with the Diamond & Pearl series. I'm glad that the focus isn't entirely on Ash anymore. And Dawn going through contests makes for a refreshing change. It's certainly better than the original version of the anime. There are a lot more stories they can do, and it's not always the same old routine. Still, it's as cheesy as ever, sometimes in an "After School Special" sort of way. But it's better than it used to be.
Now, I want to make a comment about the Pokemon themselves. The first generation (1-151) all seemed to be influenced by something in nature, either an animal or plant. And they all had names that looked easy to pronounce. The most difficult name, for me, was Zapdos, which isn't too difficult. Since then, however, things have become a bit wacky. The designs have become more fantastic, and the names have become much worse. When I first saw "Typhlosion," my brain exploded. Though, looking at it now, I can pronounce it. But at the time, I just saw a mess of letters. What happened to simple and easy to pronounce names? But, I guess I'm just nitpicking now.
Now, the first thing I was requested to blog about was Pokemon. As you can see, I own a few Pokemon games. So I thought I'd go over them.
Now, Pokemon started in 1996. I think that's when the development started, actually. The first two games in Japan were Pocket Monsters Red and Green (Pocket Monsters being the Japanese name of Pokemon). Blue was added later, followed by Yellow a year or two after.
In North America, however, things were different. They were unsure whether or not Pokemon would sell. So, they took the anime, which was made in Japan after the games had become smash hits, and released it in the US before the games were released. The reason being that they wanted to judge interest in this new brand before releasing the games. This has lead to some people believing the games are based off the anime, which is simply untrue.
Green never came out in the US. The first two out in this region were Red and Green, with Yellow following a year later. At its core, Pokemon is a basic RPG game. The catch being that instead of using your own character to battle, you use creatures that you caught. The tag line of the game was "Gotta Catch 'Em All!" Which Nintendo used, along with the fact that not all Pokemon could be caught in a single cartridge. You had to have a friend who had the other version, and trade with them. The final Pokemon, Mew (#151), couldn't be caught in any of the games. In fact, you had to be at an official Nintendo event in order to add Mew to your collection. Meaning you could never truly catch them all, unless you had a cheat device.
The basics are simple. Each Pokemon can only know four moves at a time. The use of moves is limited by a PP number, with the least powerful moves having 20 PP and the most powerful having only 5 PP. You can only carry six Pokemon at a time. HP and PP, along with status ailments, can be cured by items or by visits to a Pokemon Center. Your goal is to battle the Gym Leaders, who are always accompanied by underlings who you have to battle first. The ultimate goal, once you have all the gym badges, is to fight the Elite Four, followed by the Pokemon League Champion.
The Pokemon games have more of a story than just gym battles, though. You are rarely able to fight a gym leader without first completing some task that involves the overall story at some level. In the first two Pokemon series (Red/Blue/Yellow and Gold/Silver/Crystal), the enemy is Team Rocket. In Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald, they shook things up a bit. In Ruby, Team Magma is attempting to awaken a legendary Pokemon, while Team Aqua is trying to stop them. In Sapphire, the roles are reversed, as Aqua are the villains and Magma are the allies. But in Emerald, both teams are villains. It's an interesting story twist that keeps those two games from being too stale.
Overall, though, very little has changed. Granted, I've not played the DS games, but I'm sure they're basically the same. But, Pokemon still sells an extreme amount, so I can't fault Nintendo.
Also on my list is the Pokemon: Trading Card Game for the Game Boy Color. Yes, they made a video game based on the actual TCG. The game only contains cards from the original set (Basic) as well as Jungle and Fossil. There was a Japan-only sequel to this, that included more sets. The game recreates most of the TCG rules, though I seem to recall some things didn't work properly. There is a story, which flows a lot like the regular Pokemon games, but it's a nice change in that it's based on the TCG. It's more strategic than a typical Pokemon, thanks to the TCG rules and such.
I stopped following the actual TCG sometime after the first Team Rocket expansion. It was fun, but I had no one to play with. Despite the fact that I collected over 400 cards. I don't have much to say about that, though.
Finally, there is the anime. I was a fan for the first season or two, but then it got a bit too predictable. Ash would challenge a gym leader, lose, and then through some cheesy bit, discover his flaw and overcome the odds. It's a formula they used way too often. I've started watching again with the Diamond & Pearl series. I'm glad that the focus isn't entirely on Ash anymore. And Dawn going through contests makes for a refreshing change. It's certainly better than the original version of the anime. There are a lot more stories they can do, and it's not always the same old routine. Still, it's as cheesy as ever, sometimes in an "After School Special" sort of way. But it's better than it used to be.
Now, I want to make a comment about the Pokemon themselves. The first generation (1-151) all seemed to be influenced by something in nature, either an animal or plant. And they all had names that looked easy to pronounce. The most difficult name, for me, was Zapdos, which isn't too difficult. Since then, however, things have become a bit wacky. The designs have become more fantastic, and the names have become much worse. When I first saw "Typhlosion," my brain exploded. Though, looking at it now, I can pronounce it. But at the time, I just saw a mess of letters. What happened to simple and easy to pronounce names? But, I guess I'm just nitpicking now.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
DMC4 and Conflict: Denied Ops demos
It was a very quiet January. Only a single post in the blog. I apologize for the lack of content.
Anyway, demos of Devil May Cry 4 and Conflict: Denied Ops hit the PlayStation Store recently. I thought I'd give them a shot and see how they do.
Devil May Cry 4 - This demo has two modes, Exterminator and Executioner. I chose Exterminator, which gives you a ten minute time limit. The graphics are great, and it's really nice to look at in most areas. Now, before I go into the gameplay, I should note that I've never played a DMC game before. Yes, I played a demo of the original DMC (or was it DMC2?), but I've never played a full version of it before. But I think the game plays well. The main character, I guess it's Nero, feels a little slow when you're locked on to an enemy. But, as things progress, that tends to be a minor issue. I didn't notice anything glaringly bad, and I'd have to say that fans of the series will be quite satisfied with it.
Conflict: Denied Ops - Having read virtually nothing on this game before playing the demo, I didn't know what to expect. The demo is typical tutorial fare. The graphics, while fairly good, aren't spectacular. Maybe it was just the level being shown, but it didn't impress. The gameplay is good, though. Except that the nature of the demo had the game wanting you to stay as the close-range guy for most of the mission, and there weren't any real opportunities to utilize the sniper. Now, I'm sure some people may prefer that, but I love sniping. I'll take sniping over close combat any day. But, there wasn't anything really bad about the gameplay. It's more or less a standard FPS, but without any ability to jump. Maybe it's just me, but I expect my super powered soldier to be able to jump. It's okay. Nothing too special.
Anyway, demos of Devil May Cry 4 and Conflict: Denied Ops hit the PlayStation Store recently. I thought I'd give them a shot and see how they do.
Devil May Cry 4 - This demo has two modes, Exterminator and Executioner. I chose Exterminator, which gives you a ten minute time limit. The graphics are great, and it's really nice to look at in most areas. Now, before I go into the gameplay, I should note that I've never played a DMC game before. Yes, I played a demo of the original DMC (or was it DMC2?), but I've never played a full version of it before. But I think the game plays well. The main character, I guess it's Nero, feels a little slow when you're locked on to an enemy. But, as things progress, that tends to be a minor issue. I didn't notice anything glaringly bad, and I'd have to say that fans of the series will be quite satisfied with it.
Conflict: Denied Ops - Having read virtually nothing on this game before playing the demo, I didn't know what to expect. The demo is typical tutorial fare. The graphics, while fairly good, aren't spectacular. Maybe it was just the level being shown, but it didn't impress. The gameplay is good, though. Except that the nature of the demo had the game wanting you to stay as the close-range guy for most of the mission, and there weren't any real opportunities to utilize the sniper. Now, I'm sure some people may prefer that, but I love sniping. I'll take sniping over close combat any day. But, there wasn't anything really bad about the gameplay. It's more or less a standard FPS, but without any ability to jump. Maybe it's just me, but I expect my super powered soldier to be able to jump. It's okay. Nothing too special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)