As you�ve probably noticed, there�s been a distinct lack of content recently.

This was a pretty hard decision for me to come to, but it�s one that I need to take. For the next month and a half I�ll be thrown into the hardest academic period of my life and I need to be at peak efficiency. This means I�ll be taking a long break from the internet in general, no more Redditing for me! The fact is, I just don�t have the time to make quality writings right now. I always like to spend time crafting pieces and noting ideas and putting effort, research and myself into these pieces and essays. Unfortunately, it seems I simply can�t afford to even write anymore. This means that I�ll be taking a hiatus for the remainder of this month and all of May. I�ve decided I�ll still be tweeting, answering emails (nathan.hardisty@gmail.com) but I� I was stupid not to stockpile articles and stuff and this will not happen again. Next year, there will be weekly content that I�ll just write months in advance. Or something, we shall see.

This means I�ll have a lot of stuff to do, and I�ve been promising stuff over my Twitter and in my essays over the past few weeks that all needs addressing.

Journey: I have played it, I will essay it as soon as I get back. I promised it for last week but, timing and revision and stuff etc. It'll be on my regular blog and here.

Filmy Essays: The Dollars Trilogy, The Alien Anthology, Prometheus, Pulp Fiction, Titanic, The Weatherman, Empire Strikes Back and so many more films. These will all be essayed. You can read these over on my regular blog or on my Flixist bloggins.

Up, Down, Left, Right � Volume Four: I need to do some heavy planning on this, but it might not be coming this Summer. I�m reworking the premise and philosophy of the piece, and after Volume Three I just want more time to work on these things.

Up, Down, Left, Right Remasters: I promised these months ago. I will get to them this August if it kills me.

Tears In Rain: My book on Blade Runner will be coming out on time. I haven�t finished writing it yet but I will get it completed for the 30th Anniversary if it kills me.

Film Book 2#: We�ll see�

Because I�ve broken your heart (and mine) I�m putting together a Welcome Back package. It�s a lot like what Sony did during the PS3 hacking scandal except without money and scandal involved.

Weekly Essays: Gaming essays (like the good old days) every Saturday, filmy essays every Sunday. All throughout this Summer.

Critique Corners: I can�t get get into the juicy stuff without essaying it, and I prefer the new format anyway.

Blade Runner Week: All throughout the 30th Anniversary week (25th June � 1st July) there will be seven articles. Essays, reviews, scene analysis. All found on my regular blog and Flixist bloggins.

So, there you go. That�s me bidding farewell for a month and a half, wish me luck. As soon as I get back I�ll be chucking out essays every week. Articles, updates and other projects will come at the same time. This will not happen again, this little hiatus, I promise. It�s due to my poor planning really.

Feel free to email, tweet and whatever me over the next few weeks.

I�ll see you soon.

Video in question.

"We can take away several important points from this demonstration. First: all the footage originates in real-time on a PlayStation 3. None of the video is pre-rendered like traditional CG cutscenes. Quantic Dream created this demonstration one year ago with the first version of their newest proprietary engine. Now, the team has already advanced to version three.

After showing Kara to the GDC audience, Cage expanded the discussion with several points. The actress, Valorie Curry, auditioned for the part along with 69 other actresses. She rehearsed for two days before the shooting, and all the motion capture and voice work is her own. The only sections of the film that did not use Curry�s performance are the foreign language sections, which involved the audio from two other actresses animated onto Curry�s character.

Cage concluded his talk by expressing his desire to produce meaningful material suitable not just for young gamers but for adults. Cage and his team believe in the importance of virtual actors, real talent driving those performances, and meaningful content beyond the technological achievements of the industry."

Source�(IGN)

I can honestly say I�ve never been more happy to know that I am quitting video-game journalism. Soon. For a long,�long time. For a long, long while I have been contemplating doing it a lot earlier but, instead, I feel this urge to do something. To make my hours count. As much as I want to examine, analyze and celebrate the glory of video-gamedom there�s always been that bubbling discontent with gamerkind. I have been trying, for nearly four years, to show to the masses that video-games are awesome. That they are artistic, no matter what anyone has to say in objection. They are art, get over it. Except, now, I have realized I have been writing towards the wrong crowd.

Gamerkind is the true force against itself. The real antagonist.

And there�s a part of me which is pained to say that. Literally. I can feel all those keyboards, all those joysticks and all those controllers all raised into the air if there ever was a vote on the existence of video-games. I can feel this raw passion, but it�s hurting us. The response to the �Kara� trailer pretty much epitomises everything I have come to despise about video-gamekind. �Cinematic gameplay� �Story!� �Emotionally engaging!� Empty, empty, empty words after empty, empty, empty words. As much as I harp on about getting our medium �recognized� I think gamerkind themselves have to take a long hard look in the mirror.

Look at what you�re celebrating with this �trailer� for video-game technology. Looking throughout the comments on the actual video your see massive amounts of �amazing story� and �cannot wait to buy this� and all sorts of �this shows games as art�. The fact is that David Cage, the man behind Kara, does not know what a video-game is. In fact, and I say this with as much grace as possible, he is a�fucking asshole. He is�killing�video-games. He�s a pathetic individual who thinks that the film directors and cinematography are more worthwhile of a pursuit than pure interactivity. And he gets�applauded for it.

The starting quote is an excerpt from the IGN report. I don�t like IGN. I did write a book about video-game journalism that, somewhat unfairly, examines closely the likes of IGN and Kotaku. Except this is where Gamerkind gets its guiding light, its beacon and (in short) it�s where the prophets come from to show us the Promised Land. Except, this won�t be the Promised Land. This is a Promised Land that extensively details motion capture of a trailer, a Promised Land that celebrates this man who wants �meaningful material� and a Promised Land that will be exactly that of Heavy Rain. I do not want to talk about�Heavy Rain ever again.

But I can�t help it from happening. I don�t want to call all of gamerkind �sheep� but it seems we�re going the way of lambs to the slaughter. All chewing on popcorn and waiting for our �cinematic experiences� or our �new heights of interactive storytelling� in the form of the same�cut-scene�filmic�pastiche. It�s been a long while since I cared about anything but if there�s anything I care about then it�s preserving our culture. Our only capsule of our own humanity. Full of distractions and philosophies to keep ourselves from realizing our existence is finite and futile.

Video-games!

I�m not trying to be angry. I think I�ve barely been angry. I don�t want to be antagonistic to anyone who wishes to create video-games because, at the end of the day,�video-games are awesome. I have deep respect for anyone who wants to move the medium, but I do not have any respect at all for the likes of David Cage. I have read about his stubborn ignorance to the breathtaking potential of our medium and how he confines himself to repeat the same-styles of film and literature to try and create something �new� in an interactive field. This is not the way to go. This will kill us.

�Kara� represents something scary. I�m not the hero or the true shepard, nor am I any kind of great saviour but I am here to warn you that if you think �Kara� will revolutionize video-games. If you think that, instead of just a graphics tech demo, it will�truly revolutionize interactivity. Then, for you:

"I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout �Save us!�� and I�ll look down and whisper �No.�-�Rorschach,�Watchmen[img]

Note: This is a minute by minute analysis of this video.

0:02 The GUI looks way too intrusive. The selling point of Far Cry 2, above everything else, was utter immersion.

0:03 I really don�t need to comment on the player character�s obnoxious voice. Some game journo interviews point towards it being a heavy element too. Not looking forward to what happens with this one.

0:09 Oh wow stabbing people! Because that�s totally n- wait is that a �+13′. Are they seriously turning this into a �shooter with RPG� elements?

0:14 At least the guns seems to have weight.

0:16 to 0:18 Dubstep! Reminds me: you have no idea how much the �Stranded� trailer pissed me off. Far Cry has gone from non-linear, morality surfing ludonarrative perfection to �cinematic gameplay�.

0:21 Oh look a levelling up system! That�s not intrusive at all ಠ_ಠ

0:24 What in god�s name is that targeting reticule all about? Seriously? You can now see where every single enemy is firing from? What the hell is this, Call of Duty? Notice the massive GUI mess too.

0:26 PRESS X TO NOT DIE. PRESS X TO NOT DIE. That is going to be annoying as hell.

0:28 �Oh shit they�re all over the place.� No shit Sherlock. Player/player character dissonance yay!

0:34 Far Cry is now a game about shooting grunts and not about survival.

0:44 ZIPLINES! PRESS A TO NOT DIE! CALL OF DUTY: FAR CRY 3

0:48 Jam on the screen as a measure of health. Yay.

1:01 �WILLIS YOU BETTER BE RIGHT ABOUT THIS�

1:10 �SUCCESS: THE MEDUSA�S NEST� Not intrusive at all! See this is all, no doubt, to give the player a false feeling of accomplishment and progression. Also hence the constant �levelling up� GUI elements.

1:15 DUBSTEP!

1:16 The minimap is REALLY starting to annoy me. Navigation in Far Cry 2 didn�t feel like you were playing a video-game, it felt like you were reading a map. Immersion. Prettier game does not mean more immersion.

1:22 OH GIANT TURRET SEQUENCE OH I AM SO HAPPY

1:33 Okay the emergent gameplay is kinda there. Swimming is nice.

1:44 DERP PLOT ELEMENTS OVER THE PHONE. Theme of loneliness and isolated morality not prevalent here then? Shame.

2:03 HOLD X TO INTERACT.

2:05 CUTSCENE THROUGH MY EYES WHICH I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER!

2:21 Facial animation much improved but still way too creepy.

2:40 Oh I�m not saying anything when I REALLY WANT TO SAY SOMETHING. But when it�s �OH SHIT THEY�VE EVERYWHERE� my player character is all on it like a car bonnet.

3:11 This game is beautiful.

3:13 HOLD A TO NOT DIE.

3:25 That minimap is really sucking me out of the damn game

3:34 WOW SCRIPTED SEQUENCES. WOW.

3:49 Fungal infection now the new malaria? Me likey.

4:00 I like this nightmareish sequence, but the player character voice is getting on my nerves way too much.

4:21 Example of the best kind of obnoxious player character voicing is �There it is.� I�m supposed to say that aloud, no need to say it for me. Again, built towards giving me a false feeling of accomplishment. Making me feel good, like a laughing track to a bad joke.

4:24 Looting?

4:28 MELEE ANIMATIONS YAY

4:38 I am loving the weight to the guns though, I have to say.

4:45 The �divey-slide� to cover is still in? Me likey.

4:40 � 4:59 Best example for the GUI getting in the way of everything is this firefight. Just look at the amount of information just in your face instead of �feeling� it through interactivity. Shaking of guns, blurry vision (not jammed up), map button instead. And the on-screen target radar thing. Ugh.

4:55 SCRIPTED SEQUENCE! IT�S LIKE A MOVIE! (David Jaffe would be proud).

5:26 I bet I don�t get to play this.

5:34 SHARKS. OKAY GOTY.

Yes I am incredibly disappointed.

I�ve followed Tom Francis��Gunpoint since the humble beginning. I�ve played it from its earliest build up until the latest test version and, quite frankly, I think there�s something magical about it. It�s indie, incredible indie, but it�s a subtle statement to the �mainstream� of video-gamekind. In fact, more precisely, it makes a statement about video-game violence as a whole.�Gunpoint, from its very title, appears as a shooting game. An action game. Shooty shooty bang bang. Except that couldn�t be any further from the truth, Kotaku (wow I�m quoting Kotaku?!) themselves sum it up perfectly: �Deus Ex meets�Canabalt.�

It�s�definitely�a game about process, not about product. The product of any level in any video-game is �completing it�. When you�ve fulfilled all Victory criteria in�Civilisation V, got to the end of the train in�Uncharted 2 or killed every Lambent/creepy crawler/kitten in�Gears of War 3.�Gunpoint is instead about getting there, the journey itself, and that journey is not pre-determined in any way whatsoever. There�s upgrade trees, items of interest and you can�t pass levels without collecting �data� or fulfilling the right objectives. But, still, this is a game about process and not product.

Consider the mechanic of the �Crosslink�, basically turns you into an�electrician, and the ability to manipulate the environment suddenly throws up all kinds of emergent consequences. This is the lifeblood of emergent gameplay, when your interaction has a unique impact on the game world. Stumbling into a cavern in�Minecraft after a TNT explosion, crashing into an airplane in San Andreas and hitting a guard in the face with a goddamn door in Gunpoint. Hilarity ensues. Gunpoint is a game about consequences, and it�s not found any stronger than in the eponymous �Gunpoint�.

Whenever you hold out your gun at a guard, you both freeze. It�s a Wild West showdown with both of you itching the trigger but, if either of you pull the trigger, events will set in place that will transform the player�s world. If the player shoots, he both alerts all nearby guards, triggers an �alarm state� in which the police will arrive after a countdown and� kill a man. If the player releases his gun then the man kills the player the player has to restart from an earlier point.�[b]Consequences.[/b ]It�s clever just how tense all of these �Gunpoint� instances are, yet they�re all going to be stalemates (unless you�re the one to shoot).

There�s a strong discouragement to violence, I feel, but the game obviously isn�t pacifistic. There are bonus objectives for �harm nobody�, the guards don�t pepper-shoot you like Call of Duty (you�re either caught off guard or you put your gun down). The whole game is built towards more of a �thinking� approach. The�Deus Ex half. The verticality of the levels combined with the jumping mechanicblends into the�Canabalt half too.�Gunpoint finds this sweet spot and exploits it to its full potential. It�s a game where shooting people has�consequences.

That hasn�t really� happened in a long time has it? When was the last time you cared when you shot someone? I remember man, hell, I wrote about it. Except that was a long, long time ago. Guns in video-games, ironically, destroy all meaning when (in fact) video-games are entirely built around gunplay. That�s not to generalize; we have our�Meat Boys and our�Motorstorms and our�Portals but video-games still revolved around this repeated thematic hit of �violence�. It�s all epitomised by the gun, and�Gunpoint is one of few games to give it meaning.

I enjoy�Call of Duty, I enjoy�Uncharted 3 but I don�t enjoy them like I enjoy�Gunpoint. Gunpoint has tension in its feel, an almost �state of�dis-empowerment�. For once in my gaming career I finally feel outnumbered and literally outgunned. Those rare instances in which I get to point the gun are filled with this panicky fiddling of movement with Crosslink now out of reach and me start to edge away. I am�retreating. I have never, ever retreated in a game about shooting people before. I�ve run away but to say �retreat� would be hyperbolic, except here, it fits. I retreat into the dark and plan out by steps again.

Gunpoint is a fine, fine wine that really exercises all elements of your tuition and imagination. The combinations in Crosslink allow for, probably, some of the finest emergent gameplay to arise. The consequences carried by all facets of all the mechanics just builds towards a steady revelation that this is a video-game that delivers interactivity in some of its purest of forms. It�s linear in its mission structure, it has dialogue choices and it has a named player character but� still� this has to be probably the most exciting piece of game design in a long, long time.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/10/twisted-metals-david-jaffe-says-putting-story-before-gameplay-is-a-mistake/

High budget titles like Mass Effect and Assassin�s Creed and indies like Bastion and Braid are able to tell effective stories and create characters and plotlines you care about. Not everyone agrees with this recent shift however, and speaking at DICE 2012 in Las Vegas, Twisted Metal�s David Jaffe says that this newfound focus on story is actually hurting games.

He says that games driven by a specific narrative are � a bad idea, waste of resources, of time and money, and worst, I think that it has stuffed the progress of video games, to our own peril.� Rather, he says that gameplay should be able to tell a story by itself and should be � so compelling and engaging that the player by the very nature of playing the game � is the story.� He credits the recent Elder Scrolls: Skyrim for achieving that, and objects to games �with the intent purpose of expressing a story� or giving the player the designer�s narrative.�

Jaffe blames movies for this recent shift. �I think we kind of found ourselves seduced by the language of film�and we started to put the expectations of films on games � we lost a lot of the fundamentals of what makes video games special.��

You expect me to be angry right? To join the rest of the mob mentality currently riding at such angry speeds against Jaffe. Except, you should know who I am. I�m the guy who writes every single week about how �cinematic gameplay� doesn�t exist and how it�s destroying the industry, how player/protagonist dissonance is losing our medium�s unique quality of interactivity and (more importantly) just how the modern �story� in video-games is wiping out gameplay itself. David Jaffe has been my favourite game developer for a long time, and a lot of his D.I.C.E talk is simply re-affirmation, but for once, I believe him to be utterly right in every single right.

This critique corner won�t be about�Twisted Metal, but it will use it as a framework for the argument I�m setting out about the apparent �story versus gameplay� dilemma that faces modern game developers. See, it seems gamerkind as a whole wants better stories and emotional experiences like�Red Dead Redemption� which�apparently revolutionize �interactive storytelling� according to many media outlets. I�m not here to call anyone out but Rockstar Games in particular have gone from the kings of emergent gameplay to the killer of interactivity, thanks in large part to their reduction in interactive elements into a fine point of cinematic pastiche.

See, Jaffe nails it. He�s probably the only mainstream developer I can think of who is reflecting this change, this call for more interactivity. The market right now is aiming itself towards �blockbuster� rather than ludus florentis as it were. Developers have been suckered in and it seems gamerkind themselves are quite� more than happy to have this intake of just the same old stuff.�Red Dead Redemption is a powerful experience, no doubt at all about that, but it is not interactive storytelling. It is not an excellent video-game, and if it�s one our most treasured titles then something is clearly wrong with us as the apparent �leaders� of a new medium.

I have no problem with �cinematic games�.�Uncharted 2 was my game of the year back in 2009, without�Blade Runner influences then�Human Revolution wouldn�t be so fantastic and (quite frankly) I lap up Rockstar Games� materials along with the likes of�Alan Wake. But they�re illusions, veneers masking that lacking feeling inside of us. Whereas we can connect emotionally to the protagonist, we can�t connect emotionally to the situation at hand because it�s not happening to�us. We don�t feel the same compassion Marston has for his family because those are years and years of bonds put together. A game like�Half-Life 2, however, builds the relationships to the player at the same time as Gordon Freeman meets these people. You feel a part of something, you don�t feel like a �participant� but a �player�.

I have a feeling that this dissonance between player/protagonist combined with cinematic influences has been so well liked, so well received and in fact praised upon by journalists and gamerkind alike for one specific reason. We have been so psychologically trained that any new medium elements into our entertainment diet is confusing, scary or otherwise not worth pursuing or fighting for. Video-games are the first non-linear form of entertainment on the planet, and that�s probably the most exciting artistic exploration of the last fifty years. David Jaffe understands this, he gets it, he knows the likes of�Elder Scrolls are building �player-weaved� narratives, and he gets that gameplay should be able to stand on its fight. He gets it because it�s�right.

We have been conditioned as an �audience� to experience video-games in the same way we experience television or movies or a book. We�re not used to �playing� anything, we are merely an audience rather than a player. It�s a psychological underbelly to our very intake of media, but it�s not healthy. I can understand why you�d cry at�Red Dead Redemption but I�d like you to cry even more, know what I mean? I read stories of people being wrapped up in Mass Effect�s characters so much that they cry if their team-mate falls in the�Mass Effect 2 suicide mission. It�s not that uncommon, and�Mass Effect puts you in the role of Shepard rather than the character of Shepard. It�s where your interaction matters, where gameplay is the story.

The article in question mentions the likes of�Assassin�s Creed and�Bastion, both fantastic games (Bastion being leagues ahead though), but they both share the same trait. They�re not weaving their story into the gameplay, their mechanics aren�t an apt reflection of the world and the characters and the emotions and the story.�Bastion actually succeeds to some extent but I believe the likes of�Mass Effect to be leading the herd in this respect.�Team Ico being the leaders on an international scale, though we�ll have to see what they do with�The Last Guardian.

It�s why I can understand why �Jaffegate� has occurred, why everywhere I go there are just hordes and hordes of �flamers� and outright immature angry little men screaming at this proclamation. That no! No! Don�t take away our story! We love our story! Gameplay? Who cares about that! If it�s one thing I disagree with Jaffe on is the whole �story versus gameplay� conflict always existing, I think gameplay equals story and vice versa.�Twisted Metal is a story about blowing cars up, and in the game you� blow cars up. Simple as that. As a video-game, it tells a better story than�Red Dead Redemption does. Obviously, as a whole,�Red Dead Redemption is just the better �story�.

But that�s what �story� in the modern game does, it gives context for our gameplay. I can�t help but feel this is probably one of the worst game design decisions that has been passed through generations. Shouldn�t gameplay, interactivity itself, be a motivation for our gameplay? It�s a video-game at the end of the day. I believe games to be a marriage of interactive and non-interactive elements, but not obtuse amounts of cutscenes and such. I�m not necessarily suggesting �empowerment� being the key focus of interactivity in video-games, but just a �drive� to play rather than watch, be a player rather than an audience member. That sort of thing.

Perhaps I�m waxing too strongly, perhaps Jaffegate really doesn�t matter. I�ve written books on both storytelling in video-games and video-game journalism, which is seriously inflating this bubble of hate way too far. I think Jaffe himself nails absolutely everything wrong with video-games today and, quite frankly, I wish there were more like him. I will never be a Jaffe, I will never be a �great� writer (maybe even not a half-good one) but I just wanted to spill some brainthoughts about this. Game critique corner usually dissects an element about an actual video-game but, today, I just wanted to criticize the industry and community in general.

I haven�t played the game yet though, I hear it�s kinda fun.

I was honestly surprised by Alan Wake. I wasn�t expecting to like the game, hell, on paper I should have despised it. A game about a guy who loses his girlfriend (sigh pre-determ� do I need to go on?), �cinematic� and �episodic� experience, �survival horror� dressed in a third-person action suit (also see Dead Space�2�[1�is also a culprit]). I should despise it. It�s about as far away from �interactivity� you can get and, instead, I fell for it. I was truly sad to find out it didn�t sell too well, but with a PC game and a XBLA spin-off on the horizon I�m still kinda hopeful we�ll get a sequel. With this all said, let�s dig into why Alan Wake�is� still what I said in my first few sentences.

The episodic format squeezes the best out of the pacing, you truly do lap it up. It�s like chapters of a book, but instead, the book�s chapters are cut by travels into incredible music. Everything from Bowie�to Poets of the Fall�makes it into these �breaks� and they really do relax and prepare youfor the next chapter. No other game does this. Half-Life 2�s conversational bits help to ease down the tension and pulp out the pacing, but Alan Wake�is the only game to make you truly feel inside of an �episodic� experience.

But this is not revolutionary, the revolution will not be�televised, video-games are an interactive media. I utterly love the �episodic� format, and it worked incredibly well for the DLC plan they laid out. What I want, however, isn�t some old-age pacing device but instead something fresh. Half-Life 2�made me feel involved, but not a part�of it. I think something like Mass Effect�can truly show how a pacing device can be interactive, literally relying on progressive relationships between player and crew member. Alan Wake�does a great job with its old set of tools, and it�s a good game to study if you�re looking to see how cinematic ways can be applied and still work�quite well.

Except, cut-scenes have worked well haven�t they? Even I admit, Red Dead Redemption�was one hell of an emotional ride. Except, it was all an illusion and I didn�t� really take anything away from it. Once you step back and look at video-games, you don�t see a lot of �game� in most of them. Alan Wake�does this too, and you can see the gaps where an interactive bit can slot in and do it even nicely. Red Dead Redemption�fell into the trap of Alan Wake�with the whole �wife� thing, pre-determined char� yeah, but it went further into destroying all element of player choice. It does something like Alan Wake�too, work loosely within the episodic model, cut its acts into chapters. With music.

The song that plays when you enter Mexico, Far Away, drags you kicking and screaming into this beautiful landscape. Space Oddity�playing at the end of Alan Wake�was probably the most perfect song to end on in the history of mankind. Music as a punctual device has worked in so many games, Shatterand Super Meat Boy �wouldn�t be great without it, I fundamentally believe video-games to be a marriage of interactivity and non-interactivity. But, so far, developers and publishers alike have been pushing the model of �old age� techniques for new age media. Where interactivity could have a potent effect, a cutscene or a pre-determined relationship just gets the job done.

The revolution, for interactive media, will not come from cinematic techniques or swayings of cinematography. It will not be televised. It will come from gamerkind itself, a cry out for interactivity, and it�s happening. Tim Schafer showed recently that people want�that inertia of �point and click�, the most basic of all interactive platforms. Yet, here we are, and I�m still ranting about cinematic influences in video-games. I love Alan Wake, I love Red Dead Redemption�(I say I don�t but� screw that guy!) but I love video-games even more. They�ve changed me into a better person, I owe it to them to make them a better medium.

Alan Wake�is a tremendously well paced experience and it�s more�than worth your time. If you�re jumping on late in the game, do pick up the PC version. The XBLA spin-off thing will probably not make any sense at all if you haven�t played through the main narrative due to what I�ve read up on so far. It has its flaws, it has its sins but it really is a solid experience. I enjoyed it tremendously, but it is an illusion at the end of the day. One big, well put together illusion. Think of these types of games as a magic show, one to be enjoyed and not to pick over and see how the trick was performed.