Tag Archives: Creative works

Players Unlock A New Secret Weapon In Assassin’s Creed Valhalla After Hitting A Pile Of Rocks

Screenshot: Ubisoft / Kotaku

Players have discovered a new hidden and powerful bow in Assassin’s Creed Valhalla. All you have to do is find a specific pile of rocks and hit it a few times and reload your save. Though, this isn’t the intended way to get the weapon.

Players have discovered that a small, unremarkable pile of rocks in the northern area of the main Valhalla map holds a strange and powerful secret. If you hit these rocks… nothing happens. Unlike similar rock piles in the game, this pile won’t break. However, if you hit this pile of rocks a few times, save your game, and reload, well nothing happens. But repeat this a few times, for most players, it takes about three reloads, and eventually, you’ll unlock Norden’s Arc.

JorRaptor did a great video showing off the rock method, how players even figured it out and how powerful the bow is. (Spoilers: It’s very deadly.)

This hunter bow is an Isu weapon. The Isu were an ancient civilization of super-powerful beings who enslaved humans and… look, you probably don’t care and I don’t have the time to fully explain it. They were powerful and aren’t around anymore, but their relics and weapons still exist, like this bow. That’s the short version.

My new bow
Screenshot: Ubisoft / Kotaku

I gave this method a try and got lucky. On my very first reload it worked. Though I deleted the save. Because, while this method works reliably, it doesn’t seem like the way Ubisoft would have intended players to unlock this special weapon. It seems like a glitch.

This was confirmed earlier today by Darby McDevitt, the narrative director on Assassin’s Creed Valhalla. McDevitt explained on Twitter, in a reply to a JorRaptor tweet, that this method was a “clever brute force hack” that might be useful for speedrunners.

However, he clarified that there is an actual in-game way to unlock this bow, but didn’t say how. Though when someone pointed out that some player must have solved the secret by now, McDevitt vaguely responded “Someone almost has.

.

Related Stories



Read original article here

Cyberpunk 2077’s Latest Patch Reportedly Added A Game-Breaking Bug

Screenshot: CD Projekt Red / Kotaku

Last night, CD Projekt Red dropped the first major update for its troubled open-world shooter, Cyberpunk 2077. “Major” is a relative term. While larger than previous updates, yesterday’s patch 1.1 focuses more on stability fixes rather than a wide-ranging overhaul. In fact, it may have even made the game worse—by introducing a potentially game-breaking bug.

Patch 1.1 addresses an issue in the mission “Down on the Street” where Takemura would not call, thereby preventing any progress in the mission. He’ll call now, apparently, but then won’t say a word. Some users say that reloading old saves or creating new save files doesn’t fix it either.

There’s at least one apparent workaround. First, try to call Judy before Takemura calls. When he does, hang up the line, then tackle a side job. (The player who reported this workaround tackled a Delamain side-quest.) Wait 24 hours in-game and Takemura should call in—with dialogue and everything—allowing you to progress in “Down on the Street.”

Kotaku has reached out to CD Projekt Red for comment.

I’m playing Cyberpunk 2077 on an Xbox Series X, where it performs better than it appears to on last-gen consoles but not, as one of my roommates likes to so frequently remind me, as well as it does on his high-end rig. Still, I’ve run into some bugs since day one. Usually, they’re garden-variety hiccups: NPCs floating in the air in ways they should not, or a weapon refusing to reload even though I’ve tapped “X,” like, eighteen times. Small potatoes.

I hope the funny bugs (see above) never go away.
Screenshot: CD Projekt Red / Kotaku

The bug that soured me on the game popped up during the “Stadium Love” side-quest, in which you meet up with a bunch of veterans, throw back bad vodka shots like you’re at a bad frat party (“What is this, rubbing alcohol?” V asks), and then engage in a shooting contest. In one attempt, I wasn’t able pull out my gun—pretty much an instant DQ in a shoot-off. In another, I was, but all of the veterans around me also would whip theirs out and then start shooting at me. That sucked too. I decided to shelve the game until it was in a better state.

“Stadium Love” is not listed among the dozen or so quests that were addressed in yesterday’s 1.1 patch. Against my better judgement, after downloading the 16.5GB (!!!) update, I tried the quest again. I was able to shoot my gun without issue. I also still got shot at. So, not perfect.

CDPR says yesterday’s update addresses an issue with the quest “M’ap Tann Pèlen,” where players could run into a roadblock trying to talk to the character Mr. Hands on the phone. I had no issue doing so today, but hadn’t tried the quest at all before downloading the 1.1 patch. Who knows if I would’ve hit a snag, say, three weeks ago.

In general, after spending some time with the game last night, I can say it feels pretty much exactly the same as it did before I put it down. Maybe those on last-gen consoles are seeing more benefits. Right now, social media seems to be loud with news outlets noting the patch exists or players pointing out how thin the notes seem. CDPR says this patch is “focused on various stability improvements and bug fixes” and “lays the groundwork for the upcoming patches.” Next one’s due in February, per a statement from December.

Ten days ago, CDPR released a video stating that January’s big update would release within the following ten days. Yesterday’s 1.1 patch, in the most technical sense, hits that mark. These are indeed updates that indeed address some issues with the game. It also landed at 5:00 p.m. ET (10:00 p.m. Warsaw time) on a Friday. Make of that what you will.

Is Cyberpunk 2077 “good” now, in the way No Man’s Sky clawed its way to greatness? No. Not yet. But this is one small step in the right direction. I’m eager to see what’s next.

Cyberpunk 2077 is in a cyberfunk



Read original article here

Jason Segel stars in a sugarcoated cancer drama

Casey Affleck and Jason Segel in Our Friend
Photo: Gravitas Ventures

The opening scene of Our Friend, a tender indie tearjerker built from the blueprint of a wrenching true story, finds a husband and wife on the precipice of a difficult conversation. It’s time for Nicole (Dakota Johnson) and Matt (Casey Affleck) to talk to their children. Nicole, we’ll soon learn, is sick, and though it’ll be another hour before the film reveals the specific nature of what they’ll disclose, it’s clear that the discussion won’t be an easy one. At least they have one helpful instruction from the doctors: Avoid euphemisms. Give it to them straight. Because there should be no misunderstanding about what’s coming. They have to face reality head on and together.

There’s a certain irony to this in media res prologue—one that will be clear to anyone who’s read the source material, Matthew Teague’s “The Friend: Love Is Not A Big Enough Word.” In his prizewinning essay, published in Esquire in 2015, the journalist recounts the time he spent caring for his wife after she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and also how his best friend, Dane Faucheux, moved in to help out during this impossible crucible for the family. It’s an unflinchingly honest memoir, candidly cataloging every ugly detail—medical and psychological—to the point where a truly faithful adaptation would be more upsetting than any horror movie released last year. Our Friend is not that film. It’s sweet and involving and occasionally even moving, but also, in its selective dramatization, a lot easier. Which is to say, it approaches the story itself rather euphemistically, handling the audience with kid gloves by eliding the most unpleasant truths of the family’s experience.

Directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite, who pulled fewer punches in her documentary Blackfish, Our Friend doesn’t so much deviate from Teague’s account as supply it a new shape and a certain seriocomic Indiewood luster. As the title suggests, the focus is partially on Dane (Jason Segel), a close college friend of the couple who offers to come stay at their Alabama home for a few days after Nicole’s diagnosis—an arrangement that became indefinite, as those days bled into weeks and then months and then more than a year, Dane basically pausing (if not outright abandoning) his life in New Orleans to help look after their two daughters, Molly (Isabella Kai) and Evangeline (Violet McGraw). The script, by Brad Ingelsby, introduces a flashback structure, cutting away from present-day scenes of hospital visits and worsening conditions to fill in the history of a friendship en route to a medical crisis.

In his essay, Teague makes few attempts to crack or explain Dane’s sacrifice: Among other things, it’s an awed, grateful tribute to his friend’s selfless insistence on just being there through the whole gauntlet of heartache and horror. Divorced of a purely first-person perspective, Our Friend strains for understanding it doesn’t always find: One can admire its dramatic theories—the faint suggestion that Dane’s endless supportiveness stemmed partially from a desire to give more meaning to his own life, low on romantic or professional “success”—while still feeling that Segel is playing more saint than man. The flashbacks offer backstory but not a lot of extra dimension.

Our Friend
Photo: Gravitas Ventures

Segel has, of course, spent much of his career exploring the vagaries of male bonding, from the goofy-sweet Apatovian bromance of I Love You, Man to the pricklier quasi-friendship of The End Of The Tour. It’s no surprise, perhaps, that Our Friend hits its stride when centering the relationship between Dane and Matt, finding conflict at its origins (the false alarm of romantic competition) and in its margins. Affleck, too, is in his wheelhouse: Four years after his tremendous, Oscar-winning performance of crystalized guilt and grief in Manchester By The Sea, he’s playing another man numbed by unfathomable hardship. (His voice, which ranges from whisper to mutter, is uniquely suited to characters almost choked silent by their feelings.)

Yet Our Friend keeps us on the outside of that pain, never offering the kind of window into Teague’s heart and mind that his writing intrinsically could. Is this a case of a story perfected in its original format—a personal essay molded imperfectly into cinema? The film fares best when at its most specific, zeroing in on the dismaying inevitability of well-meaning friends disappearing when the going gets tough or moments of casual tragedy, like Matt taking note of what braiding is in anticipation of having to do that for his daughter. Other times, Cowperthwaite’s approach suggests an elegant yada yada: Rather than steep us in the nitty-gritty, the film often flutters through a vaguely Malickian montage of bucket-list excursions and anguished embraces.

One begins to wonder if the achronological structure is just a way to put off everything inconveniently messy in Teague’s essay, like a tough conversation it’s trying to avoid. “We don’t tell each other the truth about dying,” the author writes, early into his article. “It’s grotesque. It’s undignified.” But Our Friend spares us the gory details at almost every turn, cleaning up a story whose power stemmed, heavily, from its willingness to be gruelingly truthful about what cancer can do to the body. Cowperthwaite barely seems willing to even deglamorize Johnson, who never really loses her movie-star glow, even when her character—the most underdeveloped of the film’s trio—becomes unrecognizable to those in her life. At one point, Nicole begins wearing a wig around the house to entertain visitors, doing a performance of good health rather than let anyone see the reality of her condition. It’s as good a metaphor as any for the way Our Friend softens its own blows.

Read original article here