Author: Trafficblast

Following its debut, Overwatch quickly became one of Blizzard Entertainment’s most recognizable brands, fueling the current obsession with multiplayer games known as hero-shooters. It’s unsurprising then that, following the success of the fantastic Switch release of Diablo 3: Eternal Collection, Overwatch became one of the more requested Switch ports from fans. This sentiment turned out to be a relief for the developers at Blizzard, which, as it turns out, was already working on bringing the online hero-shooter to the Nintendo Switch.

Ahead of its release on October 15, I spent some time playing the new version of the game, while speaking with director Jeff Kaplan and lead producer Matthew Hawley about its development. Co-developed with Iron Galaxy, Overwatch on Switch has been over a year in the making. It not only keeps its fast-paced team-oriented competitive gameplay intact, but it also includes some new features that you can only find on the portable console.

One of the reasons why the Switch has been a great destination for ports is because it allows players to re-examine games in a new light thanks to the console’s portability and flexible playstyle. On Switch, you can still play Overwatch on a monitor with a standard controller like its counterparts, but getting to play the game in the handheld mode made the shooter feel a bit more laid-back. What’s also new to Overwatch are the gyroscopic motion-controls via Joy-Cons, which can be used in tandem with the traditional set-up. This new style was something that took some getting used to, but I eventually took to it after a few rounds. In a way, I felt more drawn into the game when playing in handheld mode and with the gyroscope controls. This relaxed and immediately responsive playstyle makes Overwatch on the Switch feels especially distinct. Speaking with game director Jeff Kaplan, he reflected on his first time holding the Switch, which made him realize that Overwatch was a great fit.

“It’s been a project of passion. I actually waited in line to buy a Switch the day it came out, that’s how much the platform meant to me,” said the game director. “I remember getting my hands on it and going, ‘Oh my God, we need to be here.’ It’s just a great platform. We’ve worked on this for over a year now, and after getting Diablo 3 out there last year and seeing that excitement, we’re now launching Overwatch for the Switch. This has been the end result of that first excitement we had for the Switch back then.”

At launch, Overwatch on Switch will have all existing heroes and content from the PC and console versions. Unlike the release of Diablo 3, however, there aren’t any plans as of this time to include any Nintendo-exclusive items. The Switch version is an impressive port, but it was clear that some clear concessions had to be made to get it running on the more modest hardware. For starters, the Switch version runs at a mostly firm 30 FPS. When docked, the resolution is set at 900p, while undocked brings it down to 720p–with some slight moments of frame rate dips during heavy engagements. Kaplan stated that they’re aiming to release new updates at the same time with other versions, however, unlike Diablo 3: Eternal Collection, the Switch release won’t feature cross-progression, meaning players will have to start fresh within the new ecosystem.

This has been the end result of that first excitement we had for the Switch back then. — Jeff Kaplan, game director.

One of the more unique aspects of Overwatch’s outing on the Switch is the gyroscopic controls. Like Splatoon 2, which lead producer Matthew Hawley said was a source of inspiration from the team, you can use the Joy-Cons or Pro controller’s motion-sensors to move the camera and line up your shots. In the options menu, I noticed that there were several options that could be tweaked to fit your preferences, which include enabling or disabling motion-aiming while using the camera control stick and adjusting the sensitivity of your aim. Of course, if you prefer to stick with the game’s traditional set-up, you’re free to disable motion controls entirely. According to the devs, gyroscopic controls was something they wanted to include in the port, and they collaborated with Nintendo to get it working just right.

“We actually have a designer on our team who is a big Splatoon fan and he really likes gyroscopic aiming,” said the lead producer. “He detaches the joy-cons and kind of points one at the screen, in Wiimote style, and his level of precision just blows me away. It’s pretty cool. There’s no other platform that we currently have Overwatch on that has that kind of motion control, and Nintendo was really excited for us to try and implement it for Switch. There’s a whole world of people that have never played Overwatch before because they only play on Nintendo platforms, so bringing in a Nintendo audience into Overwatch is really, really exciting for us.”

In the dozen or so games I played, any concerns I felt about the game’s technical shortcomings went away when getting into the thick of it. I anticipate it’ll be tough for some players who are into the more competitive side of Overwatch to adjust to the scaled-back format, putting it in noticeable contrast to the high-resolution and 60fps gameplay from the other releases. In my experience, I didn’t really mind the change. If anything, the relaxed set-up that the Switch offered made it all the more easy to get back into. Overwatch on Switch is just as colorful and hectic as its PS4, Xbox One, and PC counterparts, and I really enjoyed myself playing it.

As the Switch is seeing more ports of online-centric games, the arrival of Overwatch–which is a more accessible team-based shooter–is especially welcome. Still, I can’t deny that it’s disappointing that cross-progression isn’t possible on the Switch. The newest release doesn’t totally deviate from the original, yet, the more flexible and responsive playstyle, along with the opportunity to bring Overwatch with you anywhere makes it feel especially novel in comparison to other versions. With its release on October 15, I foresee this port being a great way for players, new and lapsed alike, to revisit the game in a more fresh and laid back way.

There are countless reasons why the Joker movie has proved so controversial, from the baggage the character itself carries to the inflammatory statements director Todd Phillips has been making to the press. The movie’s ending adds fuel to the fire in spectacular ways, so let’s break it down and try to figure out exactly what it’s all about–and why it’s so contentious.

Here’s your last warning–there are Joker spoilers ahead!

In Joker’s final act, Arthur Fleck, having been forced off his meds and finding validation in the rush of violence, evades detectives Garrity and Burke and makes it to the Murray Franklin show for his special appearance. An earlier scene suggested Fleck planned to kill himself on the show as the punchline to a joke, but instead, Fleck–energized by the crowd’s reaction and the unrest he’s inspired throughout Gotham–shoots Franklin point blank after a lengthy rant about society.

It’s a shocking moment that serves as the climax to the film–the scene where Fleck finally becomes the Joker we’ve been waiting the whole movie to see.

At some point afterward, Fleck is arrested. However, a renegade ambulance hijacked by mask-wearing protesters t-bones the police car, and Fleck is dragged from the wreckage by his worshippers. He awakes and rises up on the hood of the car, dancing and reveling in the cheers of his fanatics, who appear to have taken over the city.

In the end, he’s back at Arkham, where he laughs to himself about a joke no one else understands, and apparently murders a social worker before the credits roll.

Joker doesn’t have a post-credits scene, so that’s it. However, the movie’s final act raises plenty of questions.

How much of that was real?

Throughout Joker, Arthur Fleck proves to be an extremely unreliable perspective character. There are plenty of scenes that are either completely imagined–like Fleck’s first appearance on the Murray Franklin show–or embellished in Fleck’s imagination, like his attempt at stand-up comedy, not to mention almost every scene featuring Sophie (Zazie Beetz).

Are elements of the movie’s ending, from Fleck’s murder of Robert De Niro’s character to his rebirth from the wreckage, also imagined, embellished, or straight up hallucinated? It’s never exactly clear. However, that could completely change what the ending means. It’s troubling to see a mob of people rise up in adoration of a mentally ill murderer, especially when you consider the real world connotations relating to mass shooters. However, it’s much easier to digest if you consider the whole thing a fantasy playing out in Fleck’s mind.

One argument in favor of the ending being real is the fact that for the rest of the movie leading up to it, it’s always clear when Arthur is imagining things–whether it’s made clear in the moment, as in his warm interaction with the talk show host, or after the fact, like in the case of his interactions with Sophie. With the ending, however, there’s nothing explicit to communicate to the audience that it was all in Arthur’s head.

During a Q&A after a recent screening of the movie in Los Angeles, director Todd Phillips addressed the question of whether the ending is real. However, his answer didn’t exactly close the case.

“I don’t want to say whether it’s real or not, because I think [that’s] part of the fun,” he explained. “I’ve shown it to many, many different people, and they all have a different reaction. Some of them say, ‘Oh, I get it. The last line in the movie is, ‘You wouldn’t get it,’ to a joke he’s telling. Well, is the joke the movie?’ And the idea is, you don’t want to answer those questions, because it’s nice to see the different things people take away from it. I have my own theories on it.”

Phillips also said he enjoyed toying with the audience by making Fleck’s perspective unreliable. “It’s really kind of fun when you make a movie with an unreliable narrator,” the director said. “There’s no greater unreliable narrator than Joker. He’s an unreliable narrator, and he’s Joker. So it’s sort of a double whammy. I think that lends to people’s reaction to the movie, and I like that people don’t really know what happened.”

You can absolutely view Joker’s ending literally–what you see is what happened. However, there’s an alternate reading that Fleck was in Arkham the whole time, which would suggest that most or all of the movie is entirely imagined. The social worker he apparently kills in the final scene resembles the woman he interacted with earlier in the movie, and there’s also a brief flash early on of him bashing his head against a door in a white room, indicating he’s been institutionalized before.

Phillips acknowledged these similarities and the ambiguity of it all, without giving the answers away. “There are certain things if you see it again,” he said. “On a second viewing, you’ll notice about that kind of white room at the end, that kind of picks up at the beginning, that you go, ‘Oh, wait a minute. That’s interesting.'”

Joaquin Phoenix, who was also present at the Q&A, added that they didn’t want anything in the movie to be too definitive, from the exact ailments afflicting Fleck, to the specifics of what was real and what was imagined.

“In some ways, as much as there was very thorough research and answers for a lot of these things, we also, whenever we got to the point where we felt like we were coming up with a definitive reason for anything, we backed away from it,” Phoenix said. “We found a way to circumnavigate a little bit.”

“He hates logic,” Phillips replied playfully.

“I don’t think we necessarily want to answer those things for ourselves, or for anyone else,” Phoenix continued. “Part of the joy of this movie is how the audience interacts with the film and what they think about the character.”

What’s your interpretation of Joker’s ending, and the rest of the movie? Let us know in the comments below.

Joker is in theaters now.