Why TNG season 3 changed to a more militaristic uniform, and how that ties into Yesterday’s Enterprise.

Twitter bod Matthew Garrett (@mjg59) asked for someone to explain the change to “more militaristic” uniforms in Next Gen Season 3, and how that relates to the episode Yesterday’s Enterprise. Always one to take comments entirely at face value, I felt it worth taking up the challenge.

For those who don’t know anything about Star Trek, the “back” button is to the top-left of your browser window. For those who need a refresher on Yesterday’s Enterprise, it involves Picard and Co coming across a space thingy from which emerges the Enterprise-C, thought destroyed over 20 years ago. As soon as this happens, reality changes. Our regular Enterprise-D ship and crew are replaced with a more militant variety… including one Lt Tasha Yar, last seen as a post-mortem hologram back in Season 1. (It’s an amazing episode, by the way, with one of the strengths being how it handles the changed crew in various subtle ways. Yar’s sudden appearance is handled as though she’s been there all along… right up until it becomes important that she hasn’t.)

At the end (and, yes, spoilers for this quarter-century-old episode), the Enterprise-D sacrifices itself so that the Enterprise-C (with Yar going along for the ride) can get back through time, to take its place in the battle it was fated to lose, putting the timeline back on track. With the portal closed, we’re back to the standard crew, who just make a note about the brief reading of a space thingy, and (entirely unaware of what transpired) continue on their way.

Key to understanding this episode, and how it related to uniforms, is to realise that we actually have several alternate timelines. 3 of them, in total:

  • The original timeline (timeline A) is our familiar TNG setting. In this, the Enterprise-C was believed lost in 2344 during a battle with the Romulans; in fact, it had been sucked through a temporal rift, leaving the timeline. The Federation and Romulans are in an uneasy cold war, but there’s little in the way of outright hostilities. This timeline continues until 2366 [2], when a time rift is recorded…
  • Timeline B is the “alternate” timeline we see in this episode. In this one, the Enterprise-C was supposedly destroyed by the Romulans, Setting up an actual war between the two factions. The Federation is on a military footing… and it isn’t enough. In 2366, the Enterprise-C from our first timeline appears, hangs out a bit, picks up Tasha Yar, and is sent…

Well, not to timeline A. A rule of thumb for time travel is that there has to be a reality that existing before all this craziness occurred, from which the original time travel occurred. Otherwise, we’d get in an unstable time loop with no origin, and with the universe flickering between hot and cold wars. Besides, if the uniform changes are to be linked to this, we have to accept that, at some point, something changed. (There’s one more reason that I’ll get to below). So, no; they got pushed into:

  • Timeline C. In this timeline, shortly after their Enterprise-C was sucked into a temporal rift (presumably going on to cause a Timeline D… try not to worry about that…) another Enterprise-C appeared. This is the one from timeline A. This Enterprise-C has had a short time to catch it’s breath, a bit of aid from the Enterprise-D, and the addition of Tasha Yar to its ranks.

Timeline C is the timeline we definitely see from this point on. In this one, thanks to that extra help and Tasha tagging along, the Enterprise-D loses less badly. Some of the crew are taken prisoner rather than killed. We know this because, later, the Enterprise crew would come across her half-Romulan child (Sela) as an antagonist… But that’s another story.

So. Timeline A, the ship is sucked into a portal, we get a cold war. Timeline B, the ship was destroyed, we get a hot war. Timeline C, the ship comes in and out of the portal, is destroyed… and we get a cold war. At first glance, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, but at the heart of this inconsistency is the explanation for the uniforms.

See, its not the destruction of the Enterprise-C alone that prevents the war, despite what the crews think; that’s just the sacrificial lamb. What keeps the Romulans at bay… is the time travel itself. In Timeline A, they’re blasting the federation flagship to pieces, when it suddenly disappears through a weird vortex. The Romulans didn’t lose, but they don’t actually know what happened. Is this some weird federation tech? Best hang back and keep an eye on things. Timeline B shows what would have happened if the rift didn’t open; they’d rip the Enterprise a new one, and follow on by confidently going to war against the whole Federation.Timeline C is a mid-point; the vortex makes them cautious, but they still win the fight. With Tasha and others surviving, we can assume the battle wasn’t as one-sided as Timeline B, though.

Maybe, in timeline C, while the Romulans didn’t go all-out war in the way they did in timeline B, maybe they’re still a little more aggressive. I mean, sure, maybe some of their prisoners claim under interrogation that the rift was just an accident, and Romulan interrogation is pretty effective… But they can’t be too sure. Maybe the Federation has some kind of temporal pocket to let their ships vanish from battle and fix their ships, or something. Even so, they still beat the flagship, even if it was four on one. So maybe the Romulans push a little. And the Federation has to push back. Not a whole lot, not “Our next Enterprise is a warship”, just a little. Enough to take things a little bit seriously. Enough that, when Benjamin Cisco suggests building a new kind of ship purely for fightin’ Borg, they don’t suggest hugs instead. Maybe, just maybe, enough to tweak the wardrobe of their troops.

The outfit change in Season 3? It was because the entire reality changed. For the first two seasons of Next Gen, we were in the touchy-feely timeline A. For Season 3, we were in the ever-so-slightly grimmer Timeline C, and we’d stay in this new timeline for the rest of Next Generation, Deep Space 9, and Voyager. Yesterday’s Enterprise wasn’t a simple “what if” tale that wound up being called back to in a couple of seasons… It’s a core episode explaining the fundamental shift in the reality we’d unknowingly been switched to 14 episodes prior. We’d been watching the post-shenanigans timeline the whole season.

We’ll never know what happened to our original Timeline A crew, going through a slightly simpler universe without Sela. Like the Timeline B crew, at best we can say that perhaps they were there for season 7’s Parallels. But whatever happened, and wherever their journey took them… their outfits were rubbish.

1) Of course, the real explanation is that time travel is just a setup for the plot for this excellent episode, and we’re not meant to worry too much about it. That isn’t going to stop me from hypothesising wildly in an attempt to make it make sense.
2) If you’re wondering why they see the rift in Timeline A; they don’t. We never see Timeline A. Depending on if you read this at the end, or jumped down here as soon as you saw the footnote marker, this may be mindblowing or mundane.

Clinton Trumped by bad press

Welp; here we go again.

The last few UK elections included Nigel Farage, leader of a small party (the UK Independence Party, or UKIP) pushing a right-wing platform based around closed borders, blaming all our problems on people that didn’t fit his image of “British”, and proposing solutions based on eliminating them. The press and social media came out in force against him, calling his rhetoric hateful and misguided.

He was, relative to the party size (in a system dominated by two parties) a relatively huge success. His party reached a height of over 200 elected councillors, and even won control of Thanet council.

2015. The UK is having a referendum on whether to leave the EU. The “Leave” campaign (prominently featuring Farage) centers around statements and implications of financial pressures caused by the EU, including driving a large bus around claiming that £350 million a day was given to the EU, and how that money could be better spent on the UK’s National Health Service (NHS). The “Stay” campaign focused on how wrong the “Leave” campaign was; the claims were wrong, the benefits ignored, the plans none-existent.

Leave won, by a very small margin. Mere hours later, Nigel Farage sat on breakfast television and, when questioned about whether this meant that £350m would be redirected to the NHS, claimed the bus had been a mistake. Over the coming days, the Leave campaign would downplay or retract many of their most prominent claims about the benefits of leaving the EU. Most of the figureheads of the movement turned out to not want to be in charge of actually doing it. David Cameron, a UK Prime Minister who (whilst part of the “Stay” campaign) had also been key in moving the country to the more right-wing standing that the “Leave” movement grew from, resigned. Teresa May stepped up, and has spent the time since fighting to be allowed to start a process that increasingly few people actually want.

2016. Donald Trump is running for President. He’s going to make the Mexicans build a wall between their countries; it’s not clear how. He’s sells himself as a businessman by nature, and has 6 bankrupted businesses under his belt. He was recorded bragging about sexually assaulting a woman and, when this recording was made public, dismissed it as “locker room talk”. He’s going on trial in December, due to allegations of raping a 13 year old girl, one of two cases he’s facing. He is, in many ways, the worst presidential candidate possible, with the combination of the lingering legal matters, the fierce disrespect of women and minorities, a history of over-promising and under-performing.

He built a campaign much as Nigel Farage did, by talking of closed borders and solving problems by removing anyone that doesn’t fit his definition of “American”. It’s 07:52 (GMT) on the 9th of November, 2016. Donald Trump is the President-Elect of the United States of America.

His main opponent in this was Hillary Clinton. I know three things about Hillary Clinton: first, she would have been (and may still one day be) the first female President of the USA. Second, she used a private email server from home; this was alleged to be illegal, but after numerous FBI investigations, no charges were brought. Third, some people don’t like her.

See, when you have half the people talking about how great the person is, and the other half talking about how terrible they are, the problem is everyone’s talking about them, nothing and no-one else. The last UK election, the referendum, and now the US Election have been dominated by stories about how bad one side is, to the point little gets heard about how good the other side is. I’ve heard more about Clinton from Trump supporters than any other source.

This seems to be common across many Western democratic actions recently; One side rises up with claims about making things great again, and how dangerous terrorists are, and how much money we spend on people who don’t work hard, and if only we could just get rid of the immigrants, everything would be better. The other side spends their energy pulling them down, talking about how great things are, how overestimated the terrorists threats are (and how right-wing movements actually help their opponents), how much money is brought into the economy by having wealthfare systems, and how immigration is an important part of what makes our system work, and they never, ever, actually get around to talking about their policies. They let their opponent frame the discussion, shouting into a spotlight that’s forever on someone else.

The left relies on people doing the research. The right relies on people not doing so. The results are unsurprising.

We can’t do much about traditional media. They will always focus on the loudest, most interesting, most controversial candidates, and so (good or bad) they’re who will get stuck in the minds of the readers. Social media is us; we *can* work on that, and our tactics have to change. We have to stop devoting our attention on the low-hanging hateful fruit. It’s easy to point at the Farage’s and Trump’s of the world and say “don’t vote for them, they’re bad”, but it’s still shining the spotlight on them. It doesn’t work. The much harder job is to pull the spotlight over to the people we see as good, and say why. We need to yank that spotlight over, and keep it on the people who can help.

In about 4 years time, we’ll be back on this. It’s possible, even likely, there will be an upswing of left-wing motion, after 4 years of Trump in the US and of May in the UK. When that comes up, find your candidate, and focus on raising them up, not dragging their opponent down. Better policies mean nothing if no-one hears them.



September 3rd

Free day today, wooo! I met up with Jan and Greg and they showed me round; doesn’t look like there’s much to do here. 3 weeks until my phone contract comes up at least, then I can get a new one. I’ve got my eye on this little thing, it’s basically like my old one except it fits in the little satchel pocket on my bag, and it doesn’t have a screen that’s all cracked up.

What else, what else… Oh, someone had set a fire in a bin, looked like it had gotten pretty big. I just took some pictures, I’ll put them up later; they’ve pretty much put it out now though. OK, I know, just a burnt-up bin, but apparently it’s big news around here. Anyway, we need to catch the bus; talk to you later!


September 4th

Hey dad, sorry I didn’t write sooner, it’s been a bit crazy here! I met up with Jan and Dave yesterday, they were going to take me to see the sights, but the bus got stopped going into town. I overheard someone say that gas main burst or something and a fire had started in the middle of town, so they basically locked it all off, and then that meant traffic was messed up coming “home”. What a waste of a day! From what I saw, I bet they’re only just getting it under control.

I was going to send a message then, but I couldn’t get a signal on this busted piece of crap. Hopefully I can have a look for a replacement soon, my contract’s up in a few weeks! Anyway, it’s past midnight and I don’t want you thinking I’m staying up too later. Be safe, talk later!


September 5th

So if you didn’t see on the news, this place is just lame. It was bad enough when I was going to have to move away and be in the sticks, but now I can’t get a signal worth a damn. Probably because, y’know, half blew up! I was finally going to get to see some of this dump, but thanks to this I’ve been stuck at home.

I shouldn’t be so flippant, I guess, apparently a bunch of people got hurt, and they’re only just managing to put it out? I dunno, whatever. It sucks. At least we have cable here? Anyway, talk to you later.


September 6th

I can’t believe I’m finally through. First things, I’m OK, I wasn’t in town when it happened. Do you even know? No-one’s been able to get a signal, but the media have been around way longer the 4G, they must have gotten news out, right? Just in case, here’s what I know; about a week ago, the town blew the eff up, and the whole place has been on fire ever since. The national guard have been dumping gallons of water from a plane trying to get it under control, and it didn’t seem to be helping until today.

Jan’s staying with me at the moment. She’s a wreck. I should probably tell you about it when I see you in person. Listen, call me as soon as you can, I could really do with hearing your voice. Be safe.


September 8th

Oh God, dad. Listen, I’m safe, but…. Fuck. I don’t know where to begin. The whole fucking town is gone. I don’t know what happened, there was just this huge boom, and then fire everywhere. It’s been burning ever since. I hadn’t got much food in yet, and the water was fucked up, but the neighbours have been looking after me. We had to tape up the windows when the wind started blowing our way, because of all the ash. I keep thinking about the people, dad. I can’t stop crying. We don’t know what happened. Please, if you can, come and get me. I just need to leave.


September 10th

Hey dad. Just to let you know, I’ll be home about 4. Hey, did you hear about Merlistone on the news? The fires are almost out now. I can’t believe I was going to move there, talk about a lucky escape! Anyway, see you later, love you!


Nuances in English, volume… 1?

I saw a sign outside Greggs today. It was an invitation to try their sandwiches which, it claims, are “new and improved”. Huh. Really? I’m not sure that’s possible. (Well, kinda, and I’ll get to that… But I think they mean the impossible variant.)

“New” means, well, new. It implies starting from scratch, a beginning point, cessation of continuation. These are not the sandwiches you’re used to, these are new. “Improved”, on the other hand, is a temporal comparative. They are better now than they used to be: these are the same sandwiches you’re used to, but they have improved.

You can’t have both. Doesn’t work that way. You could say they’re “new and better” or something, “our tastiest sandwiches ever!”, but you can’t say you’ve improved something that you’re also saying you only just made!

I said above that there is one possible explanation, and that is that their sandwich range comprises of a mixture of the two… Some of their sandwiches are new, and some are improved. In this case, the sentence is linguistically valid… But also misleading, as the range as a whole is neither entirely new, nor entirely improved.

In conclusion, I think too much about advertising language.


What is digital zoom anyway?

You know, as a tech person, I spend a decent amount of time trying to explain tech concepts to none-tech people. Out of every concept I’ve tried to explain, probably the most complicated are the concepts of resolution, and digital zoom.

Part of the problem, I think, is a general unawareness that the two are related. People get that cameras take pictures using megapixels, and that more megapixels are good. But that’s just a number… they don’t really know what that *is*. Shop for a monitor, and they want to buy something big, no idea what resolution is. And the difference between optical and digital zoom, oh man. It should be simple! It really should! But it isn’t!

But you know, I think I’ve got it. I finally figured out the way to explain all this stuff. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I’m going to use words as a metaphor for pictures. So here we go.

Let’s say you have a picture. Pretend that there is one page of one book that describes that picture. A low megapixel picture might just be something like “Bob goes to the shop”. There just isn’t much detail there. You can move the book closer to your face, read it again more closely, but it’s still only going to say “Bob goes to the shop”. There just isn’t any more detail there.

Taking the same picture in a megapixel, the page may instead read something like this: “Bob left his house to go to the shops. He was wearing his best shoes, and a merry smile, despite the rain pouring onto his unprotected head. He walked down the road, towards his local Tesco”. Now, it’s the same situation as before, you just have more detail, more information. It take up more room, but you’re getting more out of it.

Now, let’s take a picture at the same, high megapixel setting, but using optical zoom. “Bob was wearing his best shoes. Bright red, with thick soles, it was clear from how shiny they were that they were new, but they seem to fit very comfortably, despite the laces being tied just a little too tightly.” See, you’re getting plenty of detail, but now it’s focused on one part of the image. Things you wouldn’t have known with a wide shot you can now see, but you also can’t see the wider pictures. You can see Bob’s shoes, but not his suit.

Let’s try the same thing, but using digital zoom instead of optical. Now, the page will read like this:

“Bob was wearing his best shoes.”

What you’ve done here is cut away most of the image, and made what’s left bigger, but you haven’t added detail to match. The result is that you now have no extra information, but you’ve also lost all the rest of the picture. To put it another way, you now have something with only the detail of that original, low-megapixel picture , but taking up as much as space as the high-megapixel picture, and only showing as much as the optical zoomed image. Digital zoom is, essentially, a combination of the worst parts of all the others we’ve picked so far.

So now we’ve been talking about cameras… But what about monitors? What about resolution in terms of actually seeing things?

Let’s go back to that high-megapixel description above, and say that that is one screen of information on a middle-sized, middle-resolution monitor. “Bob left his house to go to the shops. He was wearing his best shoes, and a merry smile, despite the rain pouring onto his unprotected head. He walked down the road, towards his local Tesco”. You can see a decent amount. It’s fine.

If we switch to a larger monitor, with the same resolution, what do you think we get?

“Bob left his house to go to the shops. He was wearing his best shoes, and a merry smile, despite the rain pouring onto his unprotected head. He walked down the road, towards his local Tesco”.

Yep, it’s that large type again, but this time we haven’t lost any information. This is like having the same information written on a bigger book. You can see it easier, but you’re not actually seeing anything more. The same amount of writing is on each page, it’s just in larger, friendlier letters

Finally, if you increase the resolution, that’s like writing more and more onto the page. <Insert excruciatingly detailed depiction of Bob’s journey to the shop here.> The page hasn’t gotten any bigger, but there’s more writing on it. If you have good eyesight, that’s great, much more efficient! If you haven’t, well, there’s an easy solution… When you buy a monitor that has a higher resolution, make sure it’s also physically larger. The increased resolution lets you fit more on screen… and the larger monitor makes it all bigger and easier to read. Win-win.

Now, just to tie it all together, remember that megapixels are just a way of measuring resolution. In the same way that a high-megapixel camera is taking pictures that have more information in, a monitor with a high resolution is showing more information on screen. And that is my terribly interesting explanation for how cameras and monitors work.


God Chess

This is completely off from my standard type of post (as much as I have one), but as a thought experiment, I’d like to put forward a variant of chess, which I’ll call “God Chess”. (Note that the name is not intended as arrogance on my part, but rather because this variant is inspired by the old image of God and the Devil playing chess with people as pieces). This requires a standard chessboard, a king for each side, and a variable number (up to 31) of each other piece for each side.

Setup for this game is as follows. First, the white player may place as many pieces as they want of whatever kind they want wherever they want on the board (within the standard 8×8 grid, of course), with the exception that there must be one (and only one) king placed for each side. Next, the black player gets to switch any pieces (excepting kings) placed on the board with their opposite-coloured equivalent, as long as it winds up with the white player having at least 50% of the pieces. After this is done, play continues as normal.

The thought experiment therefore becomes this; which player has the advantage, given their respective parts of the setup process? What if we specify that there must be an even number of pieces, so that white can’t have an inherent advantage that way? (For example, it’s clear that a simple setup with 2 kings and one queen will result in the white player being certain to win.) What if we say that the black player can switch kings as well?


Watch Dogs: A different kind of open world.

I’ll say this up front, so there’s no confusion later on: I think Watch Dogs may be one of the most intelligent games I’ve played in some time. This is not a review, I’m not going to be talking about graphical fidelity or anything like that, but I do want to discuss the themes the game puts forward.

As a lot of people who know me would say, I don’t care about story in games. I am all about the mechanics, and view everything else as just a coat of paint. This, actually, isn’t quite true… I just generally feel games either concentrate so much on the story that it gets in the way of the game (coughBiowarecough), or that the gaming media focus so much on story elements they forget to talk about the game itself. (Bioshock series, I’m looking at you). It is very rare to come across the game which manages to meld the story and backdrop so well with the gameplay that they come off as an integral, interesting part of the experience rather than just window dressing. Because of this, I went into Watch Dogs with some trepidation. The game is all about hacking the world, and it’s very easy to put that forward in trailers and discussions ahead of time, but all too often games have lofty ideas and, in the end, only present them in scripted sequences or occasional setpieces. This game will inevitably be held up against the GTA series, and that’s as good a place as any to give an example.

One of the big selling points of the excellent GTA V was the heist missions. Missions would be large, open-ended affairs, where you can assemble your team, plan out your approach, and get the tools you’ll need to put it into action in advance. Aaand, you can do that! Occasionally. Sort of. For example, the mission planning? It’s a binary choice, choose approach A or B. It is not exactly “early Rainbow Six” levels of complexity. And that’s fine, it’s just rather less than what was implied in advance. There are hints of loftier ideas, unfulfilled. For example, as you send people on missions they gain experience, and so you can choose them for later heists to get a better result for the same price, which would be great if there were many opportunities to do so. But there are just 4 plannable heists in the game 4. Just 4. And because you don’t need use every kind of person on every mission, generally you’ll only have 2 opportunities, maximum, to use someone. You won’t ever use a cheaper, lower-grade person as an investment for a later opportunity, you’ll just do it because they’re cheaper and you don’t give a damn. It’s a wasted opportunity. But, I’m getting sidetracked.

I was very pleased to discover that Watch Dogs’ hacking elements are ever present, always relevant, and integrated into every aspect of the game. Seriously. I’ve heard it said that this game is an average GTA clone, and that’s quite correct; as a GTA clone, it’s average. But I don’t think it’s intended to fit in the same space. This is a much smarter game, a slower, more thoughtful one. There are guns, certainly (with a lots of weapons to use and a very robust and engaging combat system), but you’ll use them far less. This game is all about gaining, and using, information. That concept is core to the story, the setting, and the gameplay.

In Watchdogs, you’ll often be asked to infiltrate enemy bases. Find a particular soldier, hack them to get a code, then make your way to a connection point to hack a server. In GTA, this would be a run-and-gun, every time. At best, you’d have to choose if to snipe people from a distance first, try to run people over, or just take cover. In Watchdogs though, you’ll usually start by hacking a camera. Enemies don’t magically appear on the minimap – you need to profile them first, by looking at them directly or through a camera. And that doesn’t just mark them, it tells you information about them, and a whole set of extra options. That guard, carrying explosives? You can hack them to blow them up (although smart guards will sometimes manage to throw it away in time). This guard has a gambling debts, so you can distract them by sending texts implying they’ve had a windfall. That one is the leader, and can call for reinforcements… You’ll want to take them out first (or disable their comms device remotely).

At times, the games feels rather more like a puzzle title that an open-world action game. Hacking has to be done by line-of-sight, so you’ll find yourself virtually jumping from camera to camera in a way that’s slightly reminiscent of the stalking segments of the Arkham games in order to mark everyone and get the right angle to hack them. Some guards can even be carrying portable cameras, so you can hitch a ride to get to new locations. That code you need to hack? You’ll have that before you even walk in the door (which you’ll have hacked open from inside). In fact, if you’re lucky, you’ll be able to use various environmental features to distract, lure, and kill the personnel long before you have to run in, weapon’s drawn, but it never feels like things have been artificially placed to give one “right way” to deal with things. It feels rather more organic than that, which is wonderful. And this kind of gameplay is not a special, rare setpiece, its more common than car chases and shooter segments. That stuff is in there too, of course, and I’d actually say the gunplay here feels more satisfying and polished than in GTA, but it’s not front and centre. The hacking is, and that’s what makes this game special.

But what’s really smart, what absolutely gets me, is the overall theme and message. The game is all about the repercussions of the current trend of companies, and governments, gaining increasing access to private data on the general public. In GTA, performing special tasks and side missions will generally result in gaining new vehicles, weapons, or upgrades. In this game, you get data. Not data as a metaphor for special powers, just… data. This task lets you hack into a building’s surveillance network and get a short glimpse into the life of one of the occupants. This one lets you get an audio log from an employee of the company controlling the network. This time, you get to see recordings that company has been keeping on some private activities. Even walking around, you can look at details about every person you see walking around, every embarrassing detail laid bare. This person is a recovering alcoholic. This one has been removed from the sex offenders’ list. This one is on parole for assault. The game clearly wants you to take a second and imagine what your digital signature might show.

There’s a growing awareness that this is a big issue. I remember seeing a presentation online about metadata which, to paraphrase, stated that “Your phone company can’t see your medical records. But they can see that you called your doctor, then a HIV specialist, then your spouse”. As more companies have more information on us, with more tools available to organisations to combine and centralise it, it’s going to be possible to learn an incredible amount about all of us. This is without even going into sites like Facebook, where we not only give a small amount of information to be used as part of a service, but openly post up large amounts of random personal details for the world to see. The world Watch Dogs show isn’t some far future Sci-Fi settings, it’s our world in 5 years. For some people, and some organisations, it’s here and now.

I’m not sure this game is going to be appreciated as much as it should. There’s going to be a lot of focus on how it doesn’t look quite as good as early demos, or on how the cars handle a little too heavily. I suspect it’s going to get torn apart for not being as good at being GTA as GTA is. But maybe, just maybe, some people will realise that it’s damned good at being Watch Dogs. And it has some data you should look at.

February 2017
« Dec    


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5 other followers