Red Faction – Few bites and pieces

Volition use programming madskillz to create a technically superior shooter – but where’s the game?
People have been moaning – what happened to the intelligent, exciting, inspired wave of shooters that should have followed Half-Life?

Is there anything that’s really pushed the envelope? Well what can you think of?

Okay, okay, there have been a few bits and pieces – many people would argue that No-One Lives Forever was a genuine masterpiece. And it was good, very good. Elite Force had an involving but sadly short-lived single player experience, fun but sadly unsatisfying. Given these and a few other notable shooters, there’s been nothing that very obviously stands out. I mean surely there should be a revolution every couple years? Shouldn’t there?

Well maybe not: but we’ve now got three possible monsters of the genre now closing in. they could make a real difference. Something that would be loved by gleeful punters and critically acclaimed across the board. There’s the id produced Return To Castle Wolfenstein, an almost sure-fire smash. And there’s the brash pillar of digital violence that is Duke Nukem Forever, another real beast for the mainstream. Unreal 2 anyone?

But there’s another possible, an unknown quantity that’s going about things rather differently. It might not be an obvious contender for the crown, but it’s doing things that other games can only hint at.

Volition have produced, in a number of increasingly impressive displays, a fantastic tech-demo for the games press to feast our eyes upon. The game itself is still indistinct, but it’s certainly something that has learnt the lessons from Half-Life and the last two years.

A quickly look at the tricks this new dog can already perform give us a clue to Red Faction’s potential.

Stage one. The Rocket Launcher. Source:
It very quickly became obvious that this was something special. We’d all seen deformable terrain before – but not like this. The rockets rip huge chunks out of the landscape, allowing us to level whole buildings, kill soldiers secreted on the far side of wall and batter the environment in a way that had never previously been possible.

Stage Two. The Mole.
The same technology that allowed us to blitz the entire level on the fly could also be put to use for tunnelling. We can jump into a Total Recall style-tunnelling machine and simply bore through hundreds of metre of rock.

Stage Three. The Glass.
Another very special move in Red Faction’s graphical alphabet was in simply showing off a simple aspect of the real world – realistically shattering glass. A bullet slams through the top right of a window and the effect shatters the glass from that corner, causing it to fall to the ground in a fashion that imitates life perfectly. Imitates life. A minor technical achievement – but something that the truncated world of videogames was begging for.

Stage Four. Particle physics.
As with the window, this is a barrage of subtle effects – a flow of molten metal will be diverted as its course is interrupted. Similar there are air flow effects – a bomb thrown across the air flow of a large fan is caught by the air current and arcs off course.

And there’s more too, so much more – so many little world details that playing with them just make you cry out with glee. Volition are shaping an engine in a way that takes leaps and bounds further than anything else we’ve presently seen. It’s enough to make us expect great, great things. Tools are being made that could allow for the most immersive and dynamic game world we’ve ever seen. But then my dad’s heavy power-drill collection has the potential to build a giant wooden fortress – and it never will.

The possibilities for employing the deformable terrain and other physics toys in single player set-pieces and multiplayer combat are mesmerising.

There have only been hints of what Red Faction will achieve – fantastic physics, vehicles and loads of supra-violence. But if Volition can impress any narrative at all onto the revolution we’ve so far witnessed, then they could soon be presenting us with a game that does more than anything else in the genre. It could leave Duke and Wolfenstein coughing on their own polygonal dust.

We’ve all seen impressive effects before – the real genius is baking these ingredients into a cake that satisfies more than simply our demand for sweet and chewy eye-candy.

Expect to see more later this year.

There’s a rocket launcher that can see through walls.
You can pilot a huge array of vehicles, including mad battle-subs.
Enjoy yet more Hollywood-esque gunplay.
Rockets fired into the sky will come raining back down again.
You can destroy quite literally everything. And then some.

The Future if PS Vita

I’m going to be talking to you about the future of the PlayStation Vita and when will actually be a new version of the video coming in 2016. So a lot of people are wondering what Sony has in mind for their portable console and with their plan on launching a playstation vita in the future. In some ways these are both kind of tough questions to answer after all there’s literally no information in the public domain they even hints at a PSP did too but in some ways this lack of information. Also makes it kind of easy to speculate with Sony’s planning and I’m just going to go ahead and say it out friends.

I’ll be surprised if there ever is an actual playstation vita that doesn’t mean there won’t be a new PSP to this year and it certainly doesn’t mean the article is on the slide far from and all it means that Sony has other plans for their portable console. Then actually launching a new version of it with a new number and everything so if you’re not familiar with the Playstation vita which is kind of hard to leave since you’re reading this article is the successor to the PlayStation Portable. The portable arm of the PlayStation lineup of gaming consoles it’s been available globally since early 2012 and it’s been in competition with the Nintendo 3ds all that time but in 2016 the whole idea of a portable gaming console does seem a little bit weird after all.

We all carry at least one portable gaming device often internet-connected one with a powerful GPU on-board storage as an HD display. It’s called a Smartphone but despite being quirkiness an additional device just four games portable consoles are successful and for good reason they provide a great tactile experience. They can make you really enjoy games in a way that smartphones really just can’t match whatever success Sony has had with the VA It is largely based in the games and you can expect the Fifa 17 Generateur ecosystem terrain vibrant for at least the next five years. Right now they’re actually a ton of games coming down the pipe ranging from big triple a titles too small indie games with unique concepts. In fact there are more games announced the PS Vita right now there are four any other platform other than pc so the PSP definitely isn’t going away anytime soon but that also doesn’t mean it’s always about to launch a playstation. In fact as I already said that’s kind of unlikely ever to happen what I’m expecting so need to do in 2015 is really something similar to the 2014 video updates. Sony will likely contributed it’s cheaper potentially by removing the not require back touch screen and you should also expect to see more internal storage in a physically similar device overall is the PS4 drops in price expects to see a new car price feeder bundled with this big brother console.

And over time it’s possible the lines between remote play the PS4 controller and the PS Vita will become more blurred so he’s definitely going to be releasing other hand Olivia console at some point. But it’s unlikely it will be a new video to says that will provide too much pressure on the outcome system which Sony may or may not want to this point. I’m expecting that so it’s going to be doing a variation of what Nintendo do with three yes was just about lunch a bunch of minor updates.

I intend to launch the original three a while ago when they like to 3DS XL which was a bigger version of the console launch the two BS from our budget users and they just recently launched a new update called the new three years. Which adds an extra thumb stick on the right now these are particularly revolutionary upgrades but they just helped keep the handheld relevant and current in today’s fast-moving world by refreshing the video. Every now and then so is reiterating the commitment to the portable console and they’re also saying that they will continue to support it for more games in the future but anyways give your opinions on what you want to see in the PS Vita.

If you’re hoping for a PSP do two or maybe even just waiting for Sony to release an entirely new handheld are together with an entirely new concept give your opinions.

IQ Is Ever Increasing While the Earth Gets Older People Are Becoming More Intelligent

We are going to take a quick voyage over the cognitive history of the 20th century, because during that century, our minds have altered dramatically. As you all know, the cars that people drove in 1900 have altered because the roads are better and because of technology. And our minds have altered, too. We’ve gone from people who confronted a concrete world and analyzed that world primarily in terms of how much it would benefit them to people who confront a very complex world, and it’s a world where we’ve had to develop new mental habits, new habits of mind. And these include things like clothing that concrete world with classification, introducing abstractions that we try to make logically consistent, and also taking the hypothetical seriously, that is, wondering about what might have been rather than what is. Now, this dramatic change was drawn to my attention through massive I.Q. gains over time, and these have been truly massive. That is, we don’t just get a few more questions right on I.Q. tests. We get far more questions right on I.Q. tests than each succeeding generation back to the time that they were invented. Indeed, if you score the people a century ago against modern norms, they would have an average I.Q. of 70. If you score us against their norms, we would have an average I.Q. of 130. Now this has raised all sorts of questions. Were our immediate ancestors on the verge of mental retardation? Because 70 is normally the score for mental retardation. Or are we on the verge of all being gifted? Because 130 is the cutting line for giftedness.

Now I’m going to try and argue for a third alternative that’s much more illuminating than either of those, and to put this into perspective, let’s imagine that a Martian came down to Earth and found a ruined civilization. And this Martian was an archaeologist, and they found scores, target scores, that people had used for shooting. And first they looked at 1865, and they found that in a minute, people had only put one bullet in the bullseye. And then they found, in 1898, that they’d put about five bullets in the bullseye in a minute. And then about 1918 they put a hundred bullets in the bullseye. And initially, that archaeologist would be baffled. They would say, look, these tests were designed to find out how much people were steady of hand, how keen their eyesight was, whether they had control of their weapon. How could these performances have escalated to this enormous degree?

Well we now know, of course, the answer. If that Martian looked at battlefields, they would find that people had only muskets at the time of the Civil War and that they had repeating rifles at the time of the Spanish-American War, and then they had machine guns by the time of World War I. And, in other words, it was the equipment that was in the hands of the average soldier that was responsible, not greater keenness of eye or steadiness of hand. Now what we have to imagine is the mental artillery that we have picked up over those hundred years, and I think again that another thinker will help us here, and that’s Luria. Luria looked at people just before they entered the scientific age, and he found that these people were resistant to classifying the concrete world. They wanted to break it up into little bits that they could use. He found that they were resistant to deducing the hypothetical, to speculating about what might be, and he found finally that they didn’t deal well with abstractions or using logic on those abstractions. Now let me give you a sample of some of his interviews. He talked to the head man of a person in rural Russia.

They’d only had, as people had in 1900, about four years of schooling. And he asked that particular person, what do crows and fish have in common? And the fellow said, Absolutely nothing. You know, I can eat a fish. I can’t eat a crow. A crow can peck at a fish. A fish can’t do anything to a crow. And Luria said, But aren’t they both animals? And he said, Of course not. One’s a fish. The other is a bird. And he was interested, effectively, in what he could do with those concrete objects. And then Luria went to another person, and he said to them, There are no camels in Germany. Hamburg is a city in Germany. Are there camels in Hamburg? And the fellow said, Well, if it’s large enough, there ought to be camels there. And Luria said, But what do my words imply? And he said, Well, maybe it’s a small village, and there’s no room for camels. In other words, he was unwilling to treat this as anything but a concrete problem, and he was used to camels being in villages, and he was quite unable to use the hypothetical, to ask himself what if there were no camels in Germany. A third interview was conducted with someone about the North Pole. And Luria said, At the North Pole, there is always snow.

Wherever there is always snow, the bears are white. What color are the bears at the North Pole? And the response was, Such a thing is to be settled by testimony. If a wise person came from the North Pole and told me the bears were white, I might believe him, but every bear that I have seen is a brown bear. Now you see again, this person has rejected going beyond the concrete world and analyzing it through everyday experience, and it was important to that person what color bears were — that is, they had to hunt bears. They weren’t willing to engage in this. One of them said to Luria, How can we solve things that aren’t real problems? None of these problems are real. How can we address them? Now, these three categories — classification, using logic on abstractions, taking the hypothetical seriously — how much difference do they make in the real world beyond the testing room? And let me give you a few illustrations. First, almost all of us today get a high school diploma.

That is, we’ve gone from four to eight years of education to 12 years of formal education, and 52 percent of Americans have actually experienced some type of tertiary education. Now, not only do we have much more education, and much of that education is scientific, and you can’t do science without classifying the world. You can’t do science without proposing hypotheses. You can’t do science without making it logically consistent. And even down in grade school, things have changed. In 1910, they looked at the examinations that the state of Ohio gave to 14-year-olds, and they found that they were all for socially valued concrete information. They were things like, what are the capitals of the 44 or 45 states that existed at that time? When they looked at the exams that the state of Ohio gave in 1990, they were all about abstractions. They were things like, why is the largest city of a state rarely the capital? And you were supposed to think, well, the state legislature was rural-controlled, and they hated the big city, so rather than putting the capital in a big city, they put it in a county seat.

They put it in Albany rather than New York. They put it in Harrisburg rather than Philadelphia. And so forth. So the tenor of education has changed. We are educating people to take the hypothetical seriously, to use abstractions, and to link them logically. What about employment? Well, in 1900, three percent of Americans practiced professions that were cognitively demanding. Only three percent were lawyers or doctors or teachers. Today, 35 percent of Americans practice cognitively demanding professions, not only to the professions proper like lawyer or doctor or scientist or lecturer, but many, many sub-professions having to do with being a technician, a computer programmer. A whole range of professions now make cognitive demands. And we can only meet the terms of employment in the modern world by being cognitively far more flexible.

And it’s not just that we have many more people in cognitively demanding professions. The professions have been upgraded. Compare the doctor in 1900, who really had only a few tricks up his sleeve, with the modern general practitioner or specialist, with years of scientific training. Compare the banker in 1900, who really just needed a good accountant and to know who was trustworthy in the local community for paying back their mortgage. Well, the merchant bankers who brought the world to their knees may have been morally remiss, but they were cognitively very agile. They went far beyond that 1900 banker. They had to look at computer projections for the housing market. They had to get complicated CDO-squared in order to bundle debt together and make debt look as if it were actually a profitable asset. They had to prepare a case to get rating agencies to give it a AAA, though in many cases, they had virtually bribed the rating agencies. And they also, of course, had to get people to accept these so-called assets and pay money for them even though they were highly vulnerable. Or take a farmer today.

I take the farm manager of today as very different from the farmer of 1900. So it hasn’t just been the spread of cognitively demanding professions. It’s also been the upgrading of tasks like lawyer and doctor and what have you that have made demands on our cognitive faculties. But I’ve talked about education and employment. Some of the habits of mind that we have developed over the 20th century have paid off in unexpected areas. I’m primarily a moral philosopher. I merely have a holiday in psychology, and what interests me in general is moral debate. Now over the last century, in developed nations like America, moral debate has escalated because we take the hypothetical seriously, and we also take universals seriously and look for logical connections. When I came home in 1955 from university at the time of Martin Luther King, a lot of people came home at that time and started having arguments with their parents and grandparents. My father was born in 1885, and he was mildly racially biased.

As an Irishman, he hated the English so much he didn’t have much emotion for anyone else. But he did have a sense that black people were inferior. And when we said to our parents and grandparents, How would you feel if tomorrow morning you woke up black? they said that is the dumbest thing you’ve ever said. Who have you ever known who woke up in the morning — — that turned black? In other words, they were fixed in the concrete mores and attitudes they had inherited. They would not take the hypothetical seriously, and without the hypothetical, it’s very difficult to get moral argument off the ground.

You have to say, imagine you were in Iran, and imagine that your relatives all suffered from collateral damage even though they had done no wrong. How would you feel about that? And if someone of the older generation says, well, our government takes care of us, and it’s up to their government to take care of them, they’re just not willing to take the hypothetical seriously. Or take an Islamic father whose daughter has been raped, and he feels he’s honor-bound to kill her. Well, he’s treating his mores as if they were sticks and stones and rocks that he had inherited, and they’re unmovable in any way by logic. They’re just inherited mores. Today we would say something like, well, imagine you were knocked unconscious and sodomized. Would you deserve to be killed? And he would say, well that’s not in the Koran. That’s not one of the principles I’ve got. Well you, today, universalize your principles. You state them as abstractions and you use logic on them.

If you have a principle such as, people shouldn’t suffer unless they’re guilty of something, then to exclude black people you’ve got to make exceptions, don’t you? You have to say, well, blackness of skin, you couldn’t suffer just for that. It must be that blacks are somehow tainted. And then we can bring empirical evidence to bear, can’t we, and say, well how can you consider all blacks tainted when St. Augustine was black and Thomas Sowell is black. And you can get moral argument off the ground, then, because you’re not treating moral principles as concrete entities. You’re treating them as universals, to be rendered consistent by logic. Now how did all of this arise out of I.Q. tests? That’s what initially got me going on cognitive history. If you look at the I.Q. test, you find the gains have been greatest in certain areas. The similarities subtest of the Wechsler is about classification, and we have made enormous gains on that classification subtest. There are other parts of the I.Q. test battery that are about using logic on abstractions. Some of you may have taken Raven’s Progressive Matrices, and it’s all about analogies.

And in 1900, people could do simple analogies. That is, if you said to them, cats are like wildcats. What are dogs like? They would say wolves. But by 1960, people could attack Raven’s on a much more sophisticated level. If you said, we’ve got two squares followed by a triangle, what follows two circles? They could say a semicircle. Just as a triangle is half of a square, a semicircle is half of a circle. By 2010, college graduates, if you said two circles followed by a semicircle, two sixteens followed by what, they would say eight, because eight is half of 16. That is, they had moved so far from the concrete world that they could even ignore the appearance of the symbols that were involved in the question. Now, I should say one thing that’s very disheartening. We haven’t made progress on all fronts. One of the ways in which we would like to deal with the sophistication of the modern world is through politics, and sadly you can have humane moral principles, you can classify, you can use logic on abstractions, and if you’re ignorant of history and of other countries, you can’t do politics. We’ve noticed, in a trend among young Americans, that they read less history and less literature and less material about foreign lands, and they’re essentially ahistorical.

They live in the bubble of the present. They don’t know the Korean War from the war in Vietnam. They don’t know who was an ally of America in World War II. Think how different America would be if every American knew that this is the fifth time Western armies have gone to Afghanistan to put its house in order, and if they had some idea of exactly what had happened on those four previous occasions. And that is, they had barely left, and there wasn’t a trace in the sand. Or imagine how different things would be if most Americans knew that we had been lied into four of our last six wars.

You know, the Spanish didn’t sink the battleship Maine, the Lusitania was not an innocent vessel but was loaded with munitions, the North Vietnamese did not attack the Seventh Fleet, and, of course, Saddam Hussein hated al Qaeda and had nothing to do with it, and yet the administration convinced 45 percent of the people that they were brothers in arms, when he would hang one from the nearest lamppost. But I don’t want to end on a pessimistic note. The 20th century has shown enormous cognitive reserves in ordinary people that we have now realized, and the aristocracy was convinced that the average person couldn’t make it, that they could never share their mindset or their cognitive abilities. Lord Curzon once said he saw people bathing in the North Sea, and he said, Why did no one tell me what white bodies the lower orders have? As if they were a reptile. Well, Dickens was right and he was wrong.

Dead State- Survival Video Game on the Spotlight

I preferably should explain that this is my primary encounter of Dead State, so I’m about as much utilize as a band-aid on headshot with regards to determining whether the new and modified features are developments or not. I know there’s a number of new difficulty alternatives to keep the hardcore or the over-familiar involved, however honestly the very last thing I’d wish to do right now is make Dead State any more penalizing. What I’m considering is whether Dead State: Reanimated is a video game fellow first-timers should enjoy or not.

I’ll explain Dead State easily first, though. You use a base, which is a school in a variety of states of disrepair, and whose rooms could only be constructed or resolved with resources extracted from the world outside, which can be filled with zombies and murderous survivors. So you send your character and up to three partners into the field, where they move around in real-time until they enter into a fight, after which the game changes into X-COM- or Fallout-style turn-based battles. Among these items, you try to handle the mental and physical well-being of your developing (and quite often diminishing, if you’re inept or unfortunate in fights) band of survivors.

There are loose objectives, however mainly it’s about regarding finding (and enduring) places surrounding you through an ever-widening group of exploration throughout a big Texan map (equivalent in size and locales to earlier Fallouts, although don’t anticipate missions or chats at any of your stop-offs) which gets more workable assuming you discover quicker modes of transport.

The plot is actually ‘survive’, however small story is better than providing crises and new characters which can be considered as copy cat from Clash Royale by SuperCell appear as time wears on, most of which are scripted and a few of which are reactive to the standing of your fellow survivors. Simply because just about anyone can be contaminated, perma-killed or in certain cases sent away, the shape of your group has never been certain, so although the important structure is exactly the same from video game to game, the vignettes within it will vary.

There’s a great deal going on, and the video game is remarkably unmerciful too, as befits its scenario. Dead State is definitely a well-observed apocalypse survival RPG, however it’s also annoying, both on a structural level and in how its combat functions. The former pertains to mill, and in fairness it is just thematically suitable that survivors of an infection-shattered world would need to scrape out a subsistence life, looking continuously for food and various other resources, however is this ‘fun’? We’re in comparable territory to This War Of Mine, also is mainly a scavenger hunt with the reason for accumulating and maintaining a safe-ish shelter. But that’s a note video game, utilizing the grim repeating its away tasks and parts-collection to market us on the concept that civilian life in wartime is hell. Can Dead State really make comparable claims about its fantastical theme?

Regardless, the issue for me is much more that the grind here is too mechanized rather than that it’s there at all. For example, to build a science lab or an infirmary needs a fixed number of ‘parts’, which just about always requires several trips into the field, from where merely a number of objects particularly branded ‘parts’ can be used parts. Those doors and walls and car shells and windows and wood pallets and steel drums and light fittings and furniture littering the streets and buildings you visit? Not ‘parts’. Don’t touch.

So you frequently throw your folks into danger on these frantic journeys into small Texan city-fragments, full of zombies and looters, in the name of discovering the 40 ‘parts’ that will let you develop the infirmary. Until you’ve that infirmary, no-one will attempt to heal anybody else’s horrific accidents, despite all the bandages and painkillers you have kicking about, so survival turns into a war of attrition, taking progressively near-dead units out into the field and wanting you luck or savescum your way into a fairly clean run. I understand it’s all in the name of becoming a survival fantasy as opposed to a power fantasy, however I do feel this might have been offered more believably.

The crucial trouble with Dead State: Reanimated, for me, is it is a prix fixe menu. You’re meant to be setting work to the many other survivors who get up in the massive school you’re utilizing as a shelter, however till you have exactly 40 parts for this or that room, they can’t even begin constructing it. Despite numerous conversation thinking the significance of everybody mucking in, much of your employees idle, awaiting you to get back with increased, only to typically discover that work still can’t get done since the only claw hammers you possessed are stuck in the inventories of those who joined you on the last mission, and you can’t even check out said inventories until you’re out in the field.

This can lead to a complete lot of inventory Tetris, personally shuffling particular items from your crew to yourself, and then from yourself to the contributed storage in the base, and all sorts of while you’re thinking “man, wouldn’t they’ve at least attempted to develop a rudimentary infirmary to carry out something about all these wounds, even though they have only 38/40 components and no hammer?”

I don’t have a proposal for which would make this system better, however on a regular basis I played Dead State I was battling to reconcile a fantasy about digging out a makeshift existence on a deadly new frontier with this mechanized pursuit of construction material numbers. In its favour and against it is how harrowing the tasks needed to acquire these sources are. Going to a picnic site to seize some wood and fuel isn’t an easy matter of ‘walk over, shoot zombies, win’. It’s this teeth-grinding exercise in fear, attempting to grab resources without being heard or seen, then attempting to pick opponents off one-by-one rather than getting swarmed once you are undoubtedly seen. There were locations I just cut and ran from, since I knew I’d be hopeless if I stepped too far in.

A number of zombies are workable; four are generally not. More than one human ‘looter’, at the same time, means serious trouble – they are fully aware how to use guns, they can move further more, they can summon their associates and they haven’t been beaten down by raid after raid like your folks have. To borrow a well-worn metaphor, you’re the walking dead here. Basically touring around a zone is gloriously tense, a delicate balancing act of greed and caution. After a fight does begin, strict limits on your characters’ action points, scarcity of ammo, unreliability of weapons, and chance of infection and death keeps it a fraught, scrappy fight for survival instead of a coldly tactical war.

Dead State does frustration perfectly: at any time, I felt a hair’s breadth from misfortune. I heard some gripes about enemy AI in the original version of the video game, however aside from a couple of cases of multiple enemies getting bunched up in doorways, they appeared as persistent and lethal as I would want or anticipate them to be.

Because of your gang’s frailty, this isn’t a video game that you are anticipated or perhaps inspired to kill anything – actually, if you obtain into a fight whatsoever, you might just have done the dumbest thing you will definitely could. Regrettably, the noise detection system is way too basic and there’s an overall total insufficient any stealth alternative. Fair enough, it’s not Invisible, Inc, however the alternative to silently get something from a shelf whenever a guard looks the other way is noticeable by its absence from a video game which frequently advises quiet.

Dead State come the post-apocalypse, whatever’s left of mankind will instantly turn strongly tribal – a familiar trope, and something which requires carry out your own moral balancing act regarding the lives you’re taking as opposed to being preachy regarding it. But…straight-up killing half a dozen folks simply because it’s the best way to observe what’s in their picnic hamper feels huge when you’ve not really had a opportunity to ask first. That the enemy usually reaches move (and attack, if they’d like to obtain within range) first once you’re seen makes it feel unfair too, particularly as a firm character turn order will find control of whatever survivor you were controlling in real-time ripped away towards somebody who’s six steps away from the gun-toting maniac you’d just engaged.

simcity buildit

Miss Not the Game of SimCity Buildit

The first thing you should know about SimCity BuildIT is that it costs nothing. The second thing is that it is good enough. A building isometric city, chills and even manages to introduce some new elements, too. Sure, the graphics are not great, the story has more shots per scene than normally allowed by law and there is little by way of variety – unless you think to learn different ways to create cities that variety. But settle for a few hours and then try to tell us that the bombing of 10 ducats was not worth it. We dare you.

The history of SimCity BuildIT is reliable with these clichés as possible creation of the city, citizens, and many challenges to capacity. Naturally, it is the player to find the best strategy for the game – once you can come up with a plan, implement and see how it will translate into the actual game of city building.

This is a city building simulation game friendly, with a stripped-down menu that got a lot of options, but does not require too much management resources. In fact, there is only one page in the actual game inventory / condition – it’s packed, but a visual representation of featurs equipped and equipment, it is easy on the eyes. Upgrade and modification of the city is a breeze (all equipment loses its effectiveness over time), as are those RTS staples that the distribution of experience points, and learning skills to converse with the natives.

The game consists primarily of making your city. A button fights may seem simplistic, inadequate, or even boring, but ask those who have already lost a year or two of their lives in similar games, and the reason becomes clear. It is fun to not have to worry about dying at each meeting. It is fun to wade in cities and emerge triumphant, the last one standing. It is fun to actually see your city to respond in real time.

Lighting, textures and animations are about average, although the action moves fairly slowly. Part of the lighting and pyrotechnics magic, too, are quite nice – especially after you’ve got some of the worst witchcraft under your belt. Despite the lower clarity that comes with the PC port of a title to a mobile platform, it is always easy to see what happens – largely thanks to intelligent control decisions on SimCity BuildIT.

The free to play sweetens the deal for SimCity BuildIT, but this game is hit material on its own. The unique brand of city building that does most of the game is severely underrepresented on mobile players, and this one in particular – because of its simplistic gameplay – seems perfect for this market. We do not expect the story or video to bring anyone to tears, but any game that can suck up hour after hour of your time is worth checking out.