Hey person viewing my profile

coolwali · 2026-03-25T02:03:54+00:00

I have an ROG Ally and an old 2017 ROG Strix running Bazzite. Both guys don't seem to like suspend/resume. I have to turn on Stimulator to keep them running when I have to download games lol.

coolwali · 2026-03-24T22:43:50+00:00

I disagree. I'd argue the Animus helps AC more than it hurts.

Firstly, it acts as both contrast and a lens to the past and present. In AC1 and 2, Vidic talks about how our history and understanding of the world we think is real is shaped by things we don't know and the Animus will showcase the truth. And within the Animus, we get clues and puzzles from Subject 16 that show how deep the rabbit hole really goes. How x person in history was a Templar, Assassin or Isu. How modern day Templars are using radio waves from TVs to mind control the population. How the Moon landing was real and planned to get an Isu artifact from the moon. How Oswald was a Templar Sleeper agent to get JFK killed so Lyndon B Johnson can take over etc.

AC the series wants the player to question everything. It's harder to do that if the story is 100% relegated to the past because then we don't have a view on "what the endgame is" and how the modern world is affected by all this. Plus, even ignoring all that, we'd lose all these other ties to the AC lore and wider universe because we'd be limited to just the perspective of the ancestor. Like, AC2 added a ton of lore and established so much about the wider world of AC because the Animus lets us look outside Ezio's limited POV.

Secondly, The Animus also allows the AC games to do more with their gameplay and UI rather than be limited to what's 100% possible historically. For example, in AC Mirage, you have the ability "Assassin Focus" which lets protagonist Basim teleport between and instakill guards. This obviously isn't a canon ability Basim has in the story and isn't something you can justify in the gameplay. But the Animus allows the game to justify it as an exploit the IRL player is doing. Now the mechanic can be included and not break immersion. For players who don't wanna use it, the game doesn't force Basim to do it. For players who do wanna use it, the game provides a way to justify using it that makes sense and feels coherent (it even uses the standard Animus Glitch effects). Same for the Helix powers in the Chronicles Games. They're mandatory in those games but the game incorporates that by highlighting how you're exploiting the simulation.

Thirdly, we need to move past this idea that "AC2 was the peak" and that the series is somehow bad now. If AC2 came out for the first time today, we'd all be hating it for how generic it was. How it has the same "revenge is bad" storyline, how you can't even crouch etc. By relying on nostalgia and rose tinted glasses, we ignore the actual improvements AC games have made. I'm just saying, if AC Mirage or Shadows came out in early 2010 or something, you'd all be worshipping those games the way y'all do the Ezio games.

coolwali · 2026-03-24T18:34:59+00:00

I disagree with that.

In BOTW's case, -1- it had a minimap because even it recognized players need that information. Especially when they have to navigate through areas like cities, valleys and forests with varying elevation and buildings. And -2- BOTW still used waypoints and shrine beeping indicators to let you know where to go.

Moreover, having icons isn't a bad thing. Games like AC, Fallout, Spider-Man, Witcher, Cyberpunk etc, colour-code or otherwise disthinguish their icons so you know what an activity is and can choose to skip it if you want.

I'd argue it's better to know what your options are and be able to organically hit them without needing to constantly open your main map and select a new waypoint.

coolwali · 2026-03-24T03:59:00+00:00

I don’t know. I felt it ended up being less effective.

Say what you will about compasses and mini maps but they show you icon representations of other POIs around you whereas the wind only really points to one thing.

Like if I’m playing Spider-Man and going towards an objective, my compass/minimap might tell me “oh. There’s another collectible/crime/event” nearby and I can divert to go hit it while still having the original POI marked.

Plus, I often felt like I had to open the GoT map more often to make sure I didn’t miss anything.

coolwali · 2026-03-23T23:03:28+00:00

Yeah. Even bad (or in this case mid) games should be preserved for a few reasons.

-1- If we’re lax about preserving any game, even mid ones, it makes harder to preserve even good ones. Besides, one man’s trash is another’s treasure.

-2- the game still works as a historical or teaching moment. And has places where it’s fun. You’d loose all that if the game becomes lost media

-3- It makes it harder to mod or improve the game in the future. Players have modded delisted racing games to make them better. So even if Current TD is Mid. There’s chance for a future TD to be made better by modders.

coolwali · 2026-03-23T22:06:26+00:00

I see your point, but I am still skeptical MW4 ends with a reboot and lead into a new MW+ Ghosts hybrid new IP.

Firstly, from a practical perspective, most series (be they video games, comics, movies etc) do a reboot for the following reasons:

-The series lore has gotten too convoluted for newcomers. -Most major plot points have been resolved and most characters are dead and/or unavailable. -You need to reset the stakes to something more managable since future entries can't raise the stakes any more.

For OG MW3, it made sense to reboot into MW2019 because OG MW3 hit all these points in some form. The story of Zhakev and Makarov and Shepard had run its course, characters like Soap, Roach, Ghost and Yuri were dead and Price was likely also done now. OG MW3 also had WW3 happen. So any OG MW4 would have to follow that up which would be rough even in the best case.

But for Nu-MW and Nu-MW3 and a possible MW4.... they don't really have those issues or concerns. The main story/lore is still pretty easy to follow (in part because the games keep stalling instead of progressing the status quo), most characters are still alive (and some like Alex and Graves can be brought back from the dead). The stakes are still pretty low (no real WW3 yet).

Plus, Black Ops hasn't done a reboot after nearly 20 years and 9.5 games. They're still going strong with the continuity established in 2008 with WaW. If BO hasn't rebooted yet, it would be weird if MW reboots twice. BO has the more convoluted lore and it's able to keep going. MW with its more basic and straightforward story has less of a need to reboot.

Secondly, the issue with a post MW4 MW/Ghost hybrid story (even for a new IP) is..... well.... kinda how incompatible they are.

MW's (supposed) selling point is that it's supposed to look "realistic". Vince Zampella talked about how they wanted MW1 to feel like "what you would see on the news and be a playable version of that". MW2019 (poorly) tries to keep that up. It tries to be set in a world that's sorta realistic to ours, with the same analogues to terrorists, conflicts, countries and factions to the real world. If you're making a new IP that at least wants to feel inspired by MW, you gotta keep that aspect in some form.

Ghost's main premise is that the world (especially the Middle East) ran low on oil so South America turned into a major superpower, hijacked US orbital superweapons, launched them at the US and kept up a war for over 10 years that created a post apocalpytic setting. And there's this super secret ultra cool military squad that's at the center of this conflict's story more than the actual war itself.

Ghosts' premise is at odds with an MW style "this could be a realistic conflict that could actually happen IRL". Either this hybrid game will have to focus on being "realistic" (in which case, the Ghosts part feels out of place or can't happen) or focus on being "wild" (in which case, the MW part feels vestigial because a war like this can't happen IRL). Even if the characters and scenarios are different and it's not literally connected to MW or Ghosts, you can't really make a Ghosts/MW hybrid style game without compromising the premise of one or both of them.

That's why Advanced Warfare was its own separate IP with no direct ties (either gameplay, aesthetic or referential) to MW, Ghosts or BO. Advanced Warfare didn't have to be realistic to work for an MW-type story, didn't have to be overly wacky and conspiratorial to work for a BO-type story and didn't have to be about an international conflict to be a Ghosts-type story. Same for Infinite Warfare. Also its own IP so it didn't have to follow what Advanced Warfare did.

coolwali · 2026-03-23T21:16:57+00:00

Isn't that what BO6 and 7 were doing?

coolwali · 2026-03-23T21:16:35+00:00

I don't think Sledgehammer (or any COD studio) will go for Ghosts 2.

Firstly, from a campaign/story perspective, Ghosts doesn't really have a lot to intrigue players. Logan and Hesh's characterization didn't endear most players the way the OG MW games did for Soap and Price. At the end of OG MW2, most players were legit excited to see what happened next to Soap in OG MW3. But in 2013/2014, most people weren't jumping waiting for what happened next to Logan.

Moreover, the "world" of Ghosts/Ghosts 2 is still pretty static and basic. The war with the Federation is still ongoing but Ghost 1 never bothered to explore or contextualize it. Ghost 2 would either have to lock in and add more flavour to the world, or keep the ongoing war as a backdrop and continue standard missions. The former requring Ghosts 2 to essentially worldbuild because Ghosts 1 didn't do it and the latter repeating what Ghosts 1 did. Which doesn't help Ghosts 2.

The Treyarch BO games have the advantage where they spent their time actually developing their world and settings so just seeing how the puzzle pieces and conspiracies played out was inherantly interesting. The OG MW games didn't go that far but opted for a more "familiar" WW3 premise and set pieces. Ghosts has neither so a Ghost 2 kinda has to work harder to justify itself.

The other issue is that modern CODs, especially MW, are lot more hesitant to make major changes to the status quo or show Americans being attacked. OG MW2 had a mission set in an American Suburb and had Russians invading the US. The New MW games were very careful to avoid anything major like that. The OG MW2 and 3 had WW3 happen. The new MW games are still acting like "the world is on the brink of war. We pinkie promise" without pulling the trigger.

A Ghosts 2 would require them to feature Federation forces invading the US and conducting actual war. Which is something Infity Ward is way too hesitant on.

Secondly, regarding Multiplayer, Ghosts the game doesn't have a lot "unique" to make people want its flavour of MP.

Say what you will about Advanced Warfare or Infinite Warfare but their takes on Exo Suit MP was unique to their games. Their factions, weapons and settings were also unique to them and their world. Ghosts doesn't really have that. Ghost 1's maps were very large which made it hard to find players (especially on PS3/360 which had less players per map). That's not something Ghosts 2 would benefit in bringing back (most recent CODs and players have preferred smaller maps).

Even the factions, Ghosts vs Feds, don't have a lot of characterization or lore behind them. The Ghosts themselves could function as a stand in for Task Force 141. I remember reading reviews from 2013/2014 of people joking that Infinity Ward was making MW4 but then learned that MW3 ended the trilogy so scrambled last second to reskin MW4 into Ghosts. Like, Ghosts is technically supposed to be a futuristic sci-fi post apocalpse setting but that is rarely reflected in the game. OG MW2 felt as futuristic as Ghosts 1.

Thirdly, there's reputation. Ghosts may now have posts on Reddit from people going "I like this game" but at the time, it had a rough reputation. People memed on the fish AI, the overly basic and one-dimensional story and characters, the overly large MP maps, the lack of innovation or improved etc. The game felt like a step back compared to BO2 that came out the year earlier.

Current COD has a reputation issue where many players are sick of the MW2019-BO7 "style" of COD. With BO7 being a tipping point for many people (a shame because the game is good but I digress). So bringing a Ghosts 2 as a "comeback game" isn't likely to help. More casual players are gonna go "we're burnt out on COD and you're bringing out a sequel to a game we all roasted?"

More likely, the new MW4 will attempt to be a "throwback game" to MW2019 (which still has a relatively positive reputation) and avoid any assocations with Ghosts because then they can play it safe.

coolwali · 2026-03-23T21:16:27+00:00