Stadia: The future of gaming?

Up in the cloud.

If you have been keeping up with buzz emanating from gaming studios at any point in the last couple of years, you might have heard how every large publisher wants to move towards streaming in the near future. They want to make sure they are ahead of the trend when it comes to the way people want to experience their interactive entertainment and not get left behind like so many others are. The wake of NETFLIX has resonated with many arbiters of traditional media by lighting a fire under their  collective behinds. All it takes is one upstart to overturn the balance that the entertainment cartel works so hard to keep, therefore it is within their best interest to be ahead of the curve and to lead the next evolution of their industry. But while Xbox and Sony are hard at work establishing their own game streaming infrastructure, a new challenger has entered the ring, and it's Google.

Google is no stranger to beating out the competition, currently owning both the most visited sight on the Internet and the most viewed video sharing platform on the Internet. They like to be the best at the services they offer, even if it means starving potential competition through completely legitimate marketing and business strategy. (No allegations here, Google. Please don't sue me.) However, one market they have never come up against in all their years is the video game industry, oddly. Sort of a missed opportunity considering Reuters reported that, as of May 2018, gaming was the most popular and profitable form of entertainment with a revenue of approximately $116 Billion USD. If Google didn't even attempt to get in on that action then they'd only be shooting themselves in the foot for the future. Lucky for them, they were working on something and in March of this year at GDC, Google announced their foray into the world of Video games with their brand new project: Google Stadia.

Now I may a stubborn curmudgeon who still hasn't taken the time to sit down and watch that GDC reveal for fear of the future, but I am an active watcher of MatPat, (The YouTuber who Google hired to introduce the Stadia.) so I was lucky enough to hear him describe his view on the Stadia and what it has to offer the gaming landscape. Stadia is a service that seeks to revolutionize the availability of high quality gaming by forgoing the expensive barrier-to-entry of purchasing a platform, be it console or a high performance rig. With Stadia, games will be run with Google's processing capabilities and be streamed directly to your compatible devices through the cloud. The actual process is a little more complicated then that but the end result is not requiring a high end console to play a high end video game, opening up the world of gaming to the casual audience, in theory.

During the conference, the Stadia team demonstrated the range of opportunities that this technology opens up for the consumer. First they showed off shared game states; with this feature you could be playing a game on your computer and then instantly switch to your phone and carry on playing from the same spot. Ring any bells? I'd imagine that the success of Nintendo's Switch was a huge encouragement for the team; if people flocked to the console/handheld gimmick for then, who knows how crazy they'll go for the gimmick integrated into Google's cloud. Speaking of integration, another big point that Stadia wanted to drive home was platform integration, namely integrating between gaming services and YouTube. Say that you're watching your favourite YouTuber playing through a brand new release and think 'Oh, that looks cool!', you can scroll down into the description, click on the game and be playing in seconds. No need to get the game, check system requirements, download the game, wait for loading or any of that jazz. Click and play at it's purest form. (At least that's what google would have you believe.)

Clearly Google are attempting to position themselves as the NETFLIX of gaming, shaking up the infrastructure with the convenience of the consumer at the forefront of their mind. No longer would the consumer be having to keep up with these endless console generations to stay on the forefront of gaming and developers would no longer be beholden to limiting system requirements in order to realise their products. Playing a game would be just as easy as sitting down for the night to browse your online streaming service and we'll all live in the castles in the clouds and fart rainbows. Only no, things aren't quiet that black and white when it comes to the trials and tribulations of steaming games on the go.

The reason that NETFLIX has managed to achieve the level of success and proliferation only in recent years, despite being founded in 1997, is not just due to their evolving model but also do to the evolution of infrastructure. Internet infrastructure is such an obvious fundamental that people forget to take it into account when developing their grand visions for the future, ironic as that is the fundamental that most commonly ends up biting projects like these in the bud. Who remembers when the Xbox One was originally marketed as an online only console, requiring constant access to the Internet in order to function. It was an ambitious idea, too ambitious as a matter of fact. Internet coverage was no where near as universal as it is today nor was it reliable enough to maintain a perfect connection indefinitely. Even today the concept of 'always online' is a laughable proposition that screams of a fundamental disconnect between corporate board room speak and the actual issues of everyday people. And yet that is exactly what Google Stadia demands. Constant connection to the Internet in order to stream your games, and we can only assume that a poor connection may also result in input lag. The bane of every gamer. But these issues are nothing compared to the two huge cost based issues that Google have yet to address.

The first issue is the basic cost of Internet. When video streaming was starting to become a possibility, package Internet deals were a big barrier to entry for a lot of people. Since then, packages have become more reasonable to accommodate for the burgeoning new service that Internet providers needed to cater for. However, streaming a video game versus streaming a movie is a whole other can of worms. An average modern AAA video game can take roughly up to 20 hours to complete, assuming it is a traditional single player video game that you only play through once and never again. That is the equivalent of watching roughly 10 movies straight through a streaming service. The brunt of this is felt when it comes to paying for that Internet usage. It's hard to determine specifics, but if you just look at the plan you are using and imagine inflating that with the hours you would be gaming, then you can imagine the bill that you would rack up. On the other hand, most people prefer unlimited plans, or paying for what they actually spend. In that case I point you towards the Final Fantasy 7 remake or Outer Worlds or Cyberpunk 2077 or any of the other upcoming hundred hour RPGs that would decimate your data plan if you were paying for every single second you spent in that world.

Another more direct cost of Google Stadia is for the service itself. It is hard to find any data on this, as though Google itself are embarrassed to share the specifics. What we do know is that 'Stadia Pro' will cost $9.99 a month. Standard fare for a streaming service and not too much to ask for in exchange for access to a huge library of games. Except that isn't what google is offering. Instead you'll have to buy games full price and then have to pay Google for the privilege to play the game you bought off them. Couple that with the strain that you Internet plan will suffer for running the games, and unless you start actively monitoring your playtime and strategically cutting down, you'll find that the funds you saved on buying a console is quickly being swallowed up by simply maintaining your subscription and trying to get the most out of it. Google have tried to downplay the fact that games will cost full price for them, but with the cost of convince being offset by whole other, Internet provider-based, inconveniences; it leaves the average consumer wondering: what is the point of Stadia?

That is ultimately where we find ourselves with Stadia, wondering who this service is for. On terms of brand recognition, Google already have enough proliferation to ensure that Stadia will likely be a success when it launches but in terms of staying power, Google may not have the killer app they think they do. Gamers are some of the most discerning customers that you'll find of any product, it comes from the territory of engaging in a market that is always priced at a premium. When we make a mistake it is a costly one, and so many of us like to look before we jump. Google Stadia looks like a huge gamble that will only work if everyone; consumer, Internet providers and game developers alike, all blindly jump aboard to help keep this boat aloft. If not, Google already has a veritable graveyard full of programs and hardware that they've scuttled the second the going gets tough. Does a similar fate await Stadia? I doubt it. But I also doubt that Stadia will be the game changer it sorely wants to be.

I really do hate to say it, but I think the world isn't yet ready for a gaming streaming service. I mean fundamentally we lack the infrastructure and foundations to support an endeavour like this in any meaningful way. Other gaming companies have understood the restrictions of the current climate and are seeking streaming in a much more sensible way. Xbox are trying to implement streaming from the Xbox one console, Playstation are reportedly working on something similar. Stadia are trying to supplant them first with a service that ostensibly looks the same as NETFLIX but lacks much of the casual convenience that NETFLIX boasts. If Google decide to stick with Stadia then I think it won't be long until they are forced to scale back their promises of 4k streaming and 60 fps gaming for favour of something a lot more reasonable. In the end it is a huge matter of wait-and-see, but I know that I won't be jumping in bed with Stadia until they fix the awful offer they have available, the question is: will you be?

A post-mortem of Morality Systems

Halo or Horns?

One of the most enduring traits of video gaming that is not shared by other entertainment forms is the gift to choice. I mean actual choice, not like those terrible interactive adventures that DVD's tried to lure us in with in the early 2000's. Choice to go where we want, converse with who we want and make the decisions we want to. It's one of the ways in which this medium can transcend from being a passive experience into something truly engaging and immersive. However, designing a story around the idea of consumer choice and input is an incredibly demanding undertaking and despite nearly two decades of choice-based gameplay, the industry is still reiterating on the core concepts. I want to explore one of the earliest ways that video games implemented choices in gaming: Through morality systems.

Morality systems are rather self explanatory. They are a process in which the actions of the player are given a value dependant on how moral that action is perceived to be in order to determine how virtuous or evil that character is. This is often coupled with consequences both small and big, so that the player feels the impact of their moral choices. Think, the Karma system from Fallout or the Renegade/Paragon choices in Mass Effect. It is a simple way of inserting choice into the a script without overhauling every scene to reflect any number of small choices you made along the way, through limiting the effect of your actions to one variable; was it good or was it bad. In the early days of modern RPGs, developers adopted morality mechanics readily, as makes sense for a 'role-playing game', and the industry standard for choice-based gameplay has been set time and time again by the examples of the RPG market.

One such game to pioneer this concept was the classic Xbox adventure game; Fable. When it released, one of Fable's most touted features was the Alignment System. As you went along your journey and interacted with the people, the morality of your actions was added up and displayed to you in your Alignment bar. Fable tried to figure out how Good/Evil you were as well as how Pure/corrupt you are, with the goal of pinpointing down your personality and rewarding/punishing you accordingly. Throughout all the Fable games, however, this didn't amounted to any more than changing your visual appearance. (Oh, and your attractiveness points. Musn't forget about those!) A saintly person would emanate blue, heavenly light whereas an evil wretch would sprout horns, a goatee and just generally start to resemble a cheap Satan cosplayer.

Key story beats were less influenced by your choice of morality and more acted as contributing factors to your morality. In some ways this was disappointing, as many elements of Fable were, because the story refused to reflect how much of a scoundrel you were. The hero of Albion could whore around and kill puppies in their spare time and, barring snide remarks from the townsfolk, no one really got on to you about it. From another point of view, this can be seen as somewhat liberating. By divorcing morality to the story, the game allowed you to play the game how you wanted without locking you down 'the good path' or blocking you off from 'the true ending'; heck, in Fable III you even got a sick pair of wings for being evil. But then, when morality is meaningless like that is there any there any real reason for having a morality system at all? At the end of the day it really comes down to how immersed you are within the world of Albion to decide whether or not you care about the way you lean towards good or evil. Lionhead Studios wanted to make a game wherein morality wasn't baked into the world, it was just a garnishing for that world.

For other properties, however, morality is very much baked into its fiber. Just look at the world of Star Wars. When it comes to Star Wars games, the vast majority revolve around joining the ranks of the iconic space wizards: The Jedi. It makes sense, anyone who has every seen a lightsaber is afflicted with the incurable desire to wield one; so here comes gaming to save the day and feed our utmost desires. However, with the territory of becoming a Jedi comes the moral issues presented by the force, represented by the Light side and the Dark side. So you can bet video games took advantage of that. One of my favourite 'jedi-simulators' would be the Jedi Knight series starting from 'Dark Forces' in 1994 and concluding with 2003's 'Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy' (Great name, not redundant at all.) Although, not every game in this series had Light side/Dark Side choices. (The first one didn't even have a lightsaber.) But as gaming evolved, so did the series to provide a loving, original Star Wars tale with a little bit of choice and consequence thrown in.

'Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II' (Again, these names.) recognised the potential of combining morality and gameplay in a way only possible in a Star Wars setting. Lucasarts knew that fans would want to use force powers as much as they wanted to use lightsabers, and so they included a simple RPG system whereupon the player could level up their Jedi: Kyle Katarn, and teach him new Force techniques. Of course, the coolest powers in the Star Wars lore are exclusive to the Dark side; but 'Dark Forces II' didn't discriminate, allowing you to learn techniques from the light and dark side of the force with impunity. Apart from when there was punity. As you learned more Sith techniques and killed friendly NPC's, (Completely accidentally, of course.) the game kept track of you travelling further and further down the path of the Dark Side. By the end, the finale you see is dependant on your alignment to good or evil; lending actual weight to your actions during the game.

That is not the only Star Wars game with morality paths, however, and I would be remiss to not mention my third favourite game of all time in this blog; 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic'. Bioware used to be the gold standard when it came to choice and consequence in games and they were far ahead of the curve when it came to accounting for branching narrative too. The backbone of morality in KOTOR is the Light/Dark side system, like one would expect, however this also co exists alongside genuine moments when choices you make directly impact events of the narrative.
This time, the game allows you to customise your force powers with actual impunity and tallies up your points based on quest choices you make. As a result, the player navigates through one of the best Star Wars tales ever told whilst feeling like they are leaving a tangible impact in that story. Like I said, the gold standard of choice and consequence.

That isn't the only time when Bioware flexed their morality system muscles. Indeed, early Bioware seemed to have built their entire brand around choice based gameplay in one way or another. A great example of this is within the world of Mass Effect; through the prime example of moral alignment represented in games: The Paragon/Renegade system. On paper, the system is leaned less towards something as black and white as 'Good guys are Paragons, bad guy are Renegades', and more towards the concepts of being a role model or an anti-hero. In game, it is kind of still about good versus evil but to a far lesser degree than Fable, like just being a dick or just being nice. Choices in missions and cutscene-interjections can range from pushing someone out of a window to their death to just making a snide remark. Afterall, Mass Effect is unwaveringly a story about a space hero; You just get to decide how nice that space hero is.

Not to say that Mass Effect is devoid of meaningful choice. Far from it, Bioware set the bar once again with the compelling way in which the narrative morphs itself to fit the choices you make. Off hand things you did in the first game, like letting that pirate go in order to save those hostages, end up circling around again to greet you in the third game. No game before or since has marketed itself so heavily on the premise that player choice matters. Andromeda even removed the Paragon/ Renegade option entirely in order to focus on the nuance of choice. Now, if only Bioware could nail nuance in their dialogue choice we'd really be cooking with gas.

One last series that has been fairly influential when it comes to the development of video game morality is, of course, the Fallout franchise. Since 1997, Fallout has been presenting players with moral quandaries about the ethical ways one can go about surviving in a surreal, post-apocalyptic hell scape. When Bethesda took over for Fallout 3, they made the moral choices a lot more comprehensive with the Karma system. Much the same with other games we've discussed, Karma is influenced by story decisions and player actions, and influences story outcomes and some dialogue paths. Where Fallout 3 and New Vegas innovated, was in the quality of the moral choices offered to you.

Fallout would offer you choices with consequences that reach far beyond what the player character will ever live to see. Such as poisoning the Project Purity's water purifier in order to slowly kill off the mutant population of the wasteland. Or deciding which of the factions battling over New Vegas should ultimately run all of the Mojave Wasteland. At the time the player is given a Karma bump to make them feel good or rebuke them in the moment, but these are the kind of choices that can wrack a mind hours after you put the game down. At this point the question of morality transcends the game world and is placed in the hands of the player. Where the decision really belongs.

Often games are blamed for over-simplifying moral choices with simple karma systems like the ones I've described. Breaking down a complex issue into 'do I get plus points or negative points'. But the way I see it, Karma systems were just a way for the RPG experiences of the day to translate the reaction of the world into a manner that the consumer can understand. When creating an RPG it is imperative to be aware that, if the player does not believe in the world in which they inhabit, they will not care about the actions they perform. The building of worlds relies on the ability of the consumer to give themselves to the fiction and fully immerse themselves in that fiction. Morality systems were merely how the gaming world helped it's playerer achieve that back when gaming was not as main stream as it is now, when people did not take these games as seriously as they do now.

In today's day and age, I can agree that morality systems are and should remain dead. Both Fallout and Mass Effect have shed theirs in their latest entries and newer projects are just ignoring them all altogether. Outer Worlds and Cyberpunk 2077, are both two big upcoming games featuring choice-based narratives that have forgone traditional morality bars in favour of more tangible consequences. This allows stories to focus on the nuance of a scenario without distracting the player with meaningless status updates. As the gaming world matures, the way games present morality should also mature.

Morality is a hugely subjective concept and the best stories will lean into that angle and show a story within which no side represents ultimate good; just like 'Fallout: New Vegas' did or 'The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt'. My definition of 'moral good' vastly differs from yours and I'd imagine that yours differ from others you know. When you apply that personal touch to your decision making it can evolve a simple good/evil choice into a duel of fundamental values. When I'm presented with the option of kidnapping a baby in Fallout 3: The Pitt; more factors are in play then the immediate actions. The people who want the baby need to test it's blood to synthesize a cure to a viscous plague; but the parents can synthesize the same cure, it will just take a lot longer and a lot more people will die in the mean time. The people who want the baby are strangers and a little bit too terse for prospective foster parents; but the baby's actual parents are slavers who own said prospective foster parents and treats them like cattle. The back and forth nature of a tough ethical quandary is the lifeblood of great stories and the future of video game story telling. I will always have a little nostalgia for the old moral progress bars we use to have but I am confident that from their sacrifice comes a brighter future for video game RPGs. Or should I say, a greyer future.

Pokemon: Sword and Shield

Remember to pack an umbrella.

Hang on, is this another video game set in England? Has there ever been another point in history where we've been looking at 3 big releases set in the British isles? I don't think so. Forget those hacking simulators set is dystopian London or that terror attack in Piccadilly Circus, (Thanks again, Modern Warfare) this is the game that will truly capture the majesty of England. If by majesty I refer to torrential downpours and fields of evil roaming sheep. (In fairness I cannot confirm whether real English sheep try to attack you upon making eye contact, personally I try not to look at them.) Will the switch's first proper Pokemon title live up to the high bar that Game Freak repeatedly set themselves? Well it's on my home turf, so it better!

Unsurprisingly, I have a history with Pokemon. As, I assume, does everyone who was a child during the syndication of the Ash Ketchum show. Though it may look silly now, back then Pokemon was the highlight of my post-school day in addition to Yugioh, Beyblade, Sonic X and- oh my god, I'm a Weeb, aren't I. But can you really blame kid-me when that original show kicked off with one of most rocking theme tunes ever put to children's TV? Easily the most memorable and best part of the show was Jason Paige's oddly sincere vocals from that guitar-strewn introduction. He made me want to be the very best, like no one ever was. Shame the show was a poorly written mess that insulted my intelligence even back then. I'm not even kidding, I would sit down for the theme tune and then wander off or change the channel; all because the accompanying show was that bad.

When it came to the game, however, I stuck by it a little bit more. Pokemon Yellow was the first handheld game I ever owned for my Game Boy Color and was honestly the last one I'd ever need. Due to the portability of the console, I played that game everywhere and for as long as possible. I remember days when I would play the game from the light of my window in the morning and keep going until it was too dark outside to see the screen anymore. I was enamoured by the collect-athon gameplay, the training of my Pokemon and exploring of the world. I would have days hunting in the safari zone to fill up the blank spots on my Pokedex or training my Pikachu and Nidoran combo team on low level mobs. (In hindsight, an extremely inefficient way to farm EXP.) I was the prototypical Pokemon nut.

But that wasn't the height of my Pokemon addiction, not by a long shot. Later I would get my Game Boy Advance and my favourite entry of the entire Pokemon franchise, (so far) Pokemon Emerald. Emerald seemed to solve every issue I had with the dual releases of the Pokemon generations. (Yeah, that's right! Even as I kid I saw through that cheap gimmick for the cynical marketing ploy is really is.) Emerald wasn't sharing half it's content with another, practically identical product, No, Emerald was uniting the very best elements of Pokemon Ruby and Pokemon Sapphire into one feature compete game! I'm fairly certain that you still couldn't fully complete your Pokedex without utilising the trade feature, which required having real human friends; (What's up with that, Nintendo?) but you could get both of those games legendaries: Groudon and Kyogre; as well as my favourite Pokemon of all time: Rayquaza. And let's be honest, getting the legendaries is all that really matters in the end isn't it? So, with all that to offer would be safe to say the Pokemon Emerald was my dream game, at least for a while? Why yes, yes it would. Why else would I have played that game until by Game Boy Advance broke and then emulated it on every emulator capable device I have owned since? I have that sucker on my phone right now I love it so much.

Pokemon Emerald boasted a vibrancy in its presentation that non of the previous entries had. The Hoenn region was colourful and vast; spanning land and ocean, from subterranean caverns to a burning volcano and allowing you to tread the ocean floor and trudge through fields of ash. It was the first time I truly felt like I was going on an adventure in a video game, and the first time I found out that I loved going on adventures. I even resonated with the delightful simple and easy to comprehend story. Themed around Ruby and Sapphire's villains in a silly plot about eco-extremism that gets out of hand and needs to be resolved by a ten year old. Even now, Emerald remains my favourite of Pokemon's plot lines.

Since then I haven't remained as close to the Pokemon franchise as I would have liked. Not just from growing out of the proposed age demographic (I mean I already told you how I still play Emerald to this day) but more because it moved out of the range of accessibility to me. While I progressed onto console gaming, Pokemon went down the road less travelled; and it made all the difference. In the relationship. Between myself and the franchise.(Forced Scott Peck reference is forced.) The deal was really sealed when Pokemon released on the Nintendo DS; A system, I hesitate to admit, that I have never owned in any form. As such it would be years until I ended up owning a system with a mainstream Pokemon planned for it. 13 years in fact. Because it is now, in 2019, that we have finally crossed paths again and I couldn't be more excited. Like the days before reconnecting with the one who got away, I cannot contain my nerves and anticipation.

Will Sword and Shield Deliver. If what I have seen so far is any indicator: yes. The game looks every bit as pretty and simple as one would expect from a Game Freak creation. Characters are anime-esque 3d sprites that lean heavily off of the visual style established in Sun and Moon, but they are still designed in a way to highlight the world in which they now inhabit. The Male and Female PC's have touches of English and Scottish designs in their garb and both now sport stylish longcoats, prepared for the inevitable downpours we all expect in England. (Though I must say the fact that Nessa wears a bikini seems a little off brand for Britain. It's never the right climate for swimwear over here. Ever.) Galar is realised as hills worth of countryside interspersed with small towns and one bustling capital. I've also noticed touches of steampunk in the building aesthetic too which seems fitting seeing as how the steampunk genre is heavily inspired by England's industrial age.

The meat of the game is, of course, the Pokemon collecting and the battle systems; and these systems have had a few new additions. The one everyone is talking about right now is 'Dynamax'. A mode which is designed to boost the spectacle of Gym fights and raid battles. Both Pokemon are given the chance to balloon to a huge version of themselves and fight with specific powered moves that impart secondary effects. Crowds cheer as hits land and neon lights glitter in the massive stadiums. Game Freak really wanted to bring the epic nature of the Gym battles to life in a way previous games just didn't. (Without several boxes worth of pre-amble.) In a way, I suppose this is Pokemon's version of a 'set peice' moment. Big, loud and memorable. Smaller touches include the way in how trainers can now throw a little bit of dialogue in the middle of a fight, similar to the mid-battle taunting mechanic of Star Wars: The Clone Wars only hopefully a little less awful. The result is a dynamic (See what I did there?) twist upon the time honoured turn based systems Pokemon was founded on.

Okay, so maybe Pokemon Sword and Shield isn't poised to rewrite the way we see Pokemon games going forward, but it is showing small improvements that the diehard will appreciate. That's more then you can say about some yearly sports titles. Of course there will always be touches that I don't necessarily like that others will; such as the way how random encounters have been replaced with in-world sprites letting you know exactly where your enemy is. But in the end, none of these changes are big enough to break the experience or make it, really. Fans of Pokemon will likely love Sword and Shield and those who dislike it probably won't have their minds changed. I think I've made my stance clear, I'm ready to jump back into my favourite collect-athon franchise once again.

The Outer Borderworlds.

Cowboys in space... Kinda

It bothers me to say, but The Outer Worlds just doesn't pop for me. That bothers me because Obsidian's latest RPG looks like everything I want out of my gaming experience, so why can't I get excited? I will get the game eventually, and I'm sure it'll change my mind, but I can't help but feel worried for its success if there are others who feel the way I do. After watching oodles of content regarding the game, I think I may have come across the key reason why this has failed to 'blow-up-my-skirt', so to speak. It looks too familiar.

Similarities are to be expected, it's important to note, from a game that co-game director, Leonard Boyarsky describes as 'kind of a spiritual successor' to Fallout: New Vegas. But that should, in no way, be a bad thing. Fallout: New Vegas was the entry in the Fallout franchise that many, including myself, hail as being the best. It had the best narrative, the most authentic world, the most relatable companions and the most amount of freedom for being who you want to be in the post-apocalyptia. This was achieved because the team who made it, Obsidian Games coincidentally, were comprised of many of the same people who designed the original two Fallouts, thus they could marry the quirky tone and provoking themes of the original games (Mostly from Fallout 2) and imbue them with the liberating open world advancements of Fallout 3. New Vegas was wild, challenging and memorable. (And also one of my favourite games of all time.)

With all that in mind, surely a spiritual successor from the same developers would be right up my alley. Heck, more then that; I should be ranting and raving about The Outer Worlds to anyone who'll listen. Yet from that very first trailer I found myself cool towards the project and a little bit underwhelmed. Since then I have warmed a bit, (through sheer force of will), but this title has never entered my thoughts when I pontificate on 'The most promising titles of 2019'. My approach has remained, 'Oh, I'll probably pick that up a year or two down the line.' instead of 'My lifeblood will cease to flow if I'm not playing this as soon as humanly possible!' (I may take games a little too seriously...) Put plainly, I just don't care. And I should care, darn it! I should care a whole lot.

My first disappointment came in the reveal trailer when I heard the first two jokes fall flat. I've watched the trailer again since and they whilst weren't as bad as they seemed during last E3, they still weren't exactly zingers. Two, almost non-sequitur, jokes that don't really sing to the style of prime Obsidian script writing. I know what you're thinking, 'What are you, a joke critic?' I shouldn't have gotten so hung up over lame jokes but it just reflects badly on the whole product that this is the foot they choose to lead with. First impression matter and if my first impression is "Huh, Borderlands 3's jokes were a bit punchier", Then I'm already not focused on your game. Speaking of-

Another big issue I have with the core concept of The Outer Worlds is the way in how the world seems like a less vibrant version of Borderlands' Pandora. Just look at the similarities; They both take place on the outskirts of civilized galactic society on backwater planets that no one cares about; Said worlds are valued only by the slew of corporate entities trying to carve the place up for its resources, rolling over the inhabitants as they go; and the player takes the role of an unaffiliated mercenary shunted onto this backwater planet and set on a chaotic collision course with that planet's elite. From the basic setup these two games could almost be twins. The problem is, from that reveal trailer all that was established for us was the basics. So then, naturally, I began comparing The Outer Worlds and Borderlands 3; Graphically, The Outer Worlds looks a bit dated and Borderlands looks stylistic and colourful; In terms of gameplay The Outer Worlds looks... satisfactory, and Borderlands looks fast-paced and competitive; and when it comes down to simple brand recognition, Borderlands was every bit the adventure I'd come to love from Gearbox and Outer Worlds- Well, I wasn't sure what to make of it. I didn't exhibit any of the soul I expected from Obsidian and so I didn't 'recognise' that trailer, for want of a better word. And so, through fault of the trailer and my own, I had hyped myself for Borderlands 3 and promptly forgot about The Outer Worlds, in no time flat.

Had this been any other game, that would have been the end of the story. They failed to impress me the first time, now I can shift my attentions onto Cyberpunk 2077 or Final Fantasy 7. But this was an Obsidian game, so every now and then I would see some gameplay pop up and think 'I really ought to give that game a second chance.' Afterall, this is a brand new IP from a talented developer and so it is unfair to compare it with another well established brand on its third mainline entry. (Despite how similar they look from the outset.) And so in the spirit of loving games, I tried to love this one. Honestly, I'm still not sure if I'm there yet.

The marketing for 'The Outer Worlds' has been very candid in the time since the reveal. Almost as though Obsidian knew how this game would have a difficult time standing out unless they made an effort to establish exactly what it was about for the public. Whatever the reason, it means we have a slew of content to look through and a, seemingly, solid basis of what the game entails. As I understand it, The Outer Worlds is a science fiction game set in the Wild West of space. Players take the roll of a blank slate landing in a solar system run by corporate entities and must navigate the game world interacting with revolutionaries, companies, everyday people and all manner of duelling interests, as they try to carve out a place for themselves in the space frontier.

Watching some of the gameplay videos have alleviated my budding concerns for one aspect of  the game: The writing. One of the playthroughs took us through the beautiful city of Byzantium, to a live reading rehearsal for a movie role. As the player travelled through the colourful facade to their destination, we see glimmers of the humorous Obsidian charm that always seems to land, like their collection of silly, futurama-esque sci-fi movie posters that seem to hark back to the days of Plan 9 and over melodramas. After that, we actually get to see the rehearsal; a heroic standoff between the hero and villain. (With live ammunition in play in order to stay 'authentic' for the scene.) What follows is a great back and forth between a lead actor who struggles to get his lines straight and the player's team who mockingly play along, cognizant of the fact that they are about to blow him away. It's all snappy, funny and likeable. Just like I remember from the 'New Vegas' days.

Another important highlight would be way that the combat is handled in The Outer Worlds. Seeing as the moment-to-moment gunplay doesn't seem all that special, Obsidian have decided to work on some of the systems at play during gunfights to help flesh it out. Most notably, with the tactical time dilation system which, much like it sounds, allows the player to slow down time in order to take precision shots. (Like a more fluid version of Fallout's V.A.T.S.) The team have explained that time dilation was established in order to bridge the gap between tactical players and action-game players, allowing people to slow down time and take combat at their own pace if they so choose. Similar to how and why Square Enix established their tactical system for Final Fantasy 7's remake. Of course, then there needs to be a reason to shoot specific body parts, and that is where the hitboxes come in. The Outer Worlds allows you to focus on certain parts of your enemy in order to weaken them in specific ways; Shoot them in the head to blind them, The legs to cripple them, the crotch to... weaken them? (Sounds accurate.) These elements all add up to create a different take on gunplay that may not feel the freshest of anything on the market but carries enough depth to look, and perhaps feel, distinct.

Lastly, I've decided that some of the core design features that The Outer Worlds boasts are worth checking out. Note, I do not mean the aesthetic design; I actually really dislike all of the visual designs I've seen so far: guns, armour, tech, nothing looks striking or memorable to me. Rather I mean the game design choices. Like the Flaw's system, for example. As you play through the game, it keeps track on the things that happen to you and your team and once you cross a threshold the game will present you with a Flaw. Flaw's are a totally optional mechanic whereupon you accept a permanent debuff stringent to a flaw-specific situation in return for a free perk point you can use to improve your character. It's a nice balancing act to allow your character to get stronger as the progress whilst ensuring that the game itself gets tougher in kind. And it's optional, allowing players to opt in or out as they please. This concept of player choice is key to The Outer Worlds and, indeed, Obsidian as a whole. Of course we've seen the branching paths built into level design and the multiple quest branches at key mission moments; but Obsidian are adamant to assure us that every step of the way we can play as by-the-book as we want or balls-to-the-walls insane as we want. The claim was even made that you can go through the game killing everyone you meet before they even have the chance to speak to you, bar one NPC, and still reach the end. And that one NPC has to survive in order to give you some incentive to reach the end, I assume. It's the kind of player choice that the team have to move heaven and earth to accommodate for, but the kind that can really pay off for the player if well executed.

You have probably figured out by now that I am very much torn on this game. On one hand I love Obsidian's work and am genuinely excited for a lot of the cool things this game has to offer, on the other hand the game looks drab and, in some places, uninspired. I do owe the creators of one of my favourite games of all time, Obsidian, the benefit of the doubt; but I can't promise I'll be there contributing to those, all important, week 1 sales. I just don't need to be. My planet-hopping mercenary fix is being met by the better realised, Borderlands 3; and my choice based RPG fix is going to be be fulfilled by the more promising, Cyberpunk 2077. I  just don't need The Outer Worlds and I really hope enough people disagree with me, that The Outer Worlds doesn't need me.

Borderlands is back.

After all this time.

When the original Borderlands hit shelves back in 2009, I was one of the flocking masses that rushed to pick it up. I didn't really have a choice, discourse of the time told that Borderlands was the quintessential cooperative multiplayer game. If you didn't have it, you'd be missing out. Borderlands had it all, great gameplay, millions of guns, cool class themed powers and more bosses than you could fit into a strategy guide. Every gamer I knew was absolutely crazy for it; it was loud, brash, crude, violent, vast and funny in all the right ways. I got my copy on the promise of the amazing cooperative experiences that people were raving about; briefly forgetting about my lack of friends. Yeah, I didn't really ever play with others. But luckily the game itself was a good enough in single player game to keep me hooked on it's vices for about a week before I got bored, put it down, and didn't pick it up again for years. Kids, am I right?

Since then, I've started to realise how hard of a sell a game like Borderlands was at the time. A game with no real narrative incentive, no real stakes for failure, without any real diversity regarding it's gameplay; You just shoot stuff. The end. Back then terms like 'Looter shooter' didn't exist and the concept of basing an entire gameplay loop around the economy of weapon stats seemed a little bit hollow. A lot of people I know, including myself, dropped off the game rather quickly after the honeymoon period. We concluded it was just another shallow product that shut us up for a bit before we went back to Modern Warfare 2. Because that was the real game. (On an unrelated note, MW2 is another game I never played online. I know. Heretic!). But Borderlands didn't just go away. Some people came back to it years down the line with a whole new appreciation. Perhaps it was the timeless, cell-shaded aesthetic or the meaty, well balanced gunplay; or maybe it was the gun-collecting gameplay loop that we initially chastised. Something about that game drew people back. And when they got back, they were hooked. That's the thing about Borderlands, then and now; You either 'get it' or you don't. If you don't, no number of retrospective articles or trusted recommendations can win you over; you will not enjoy the game at that place in your life. When you 'get it'; when you fall for the silly, irreverence that Borderlands emanates; you fall hard.

When Borderlands 2 rolled out in 2012, I was a bit more cautious. I remembered how the first game had seemed fun at first but ended seeming like a repetitive grind after not too long. Reviews, however, were glowing; everyone wanted to sing this game's praises. Apparently every flawed aspect from the original was fixed; the game's visuals were no longer monotone but now they were beautiful and diverse, Guns were no longer samey and boring but distinct and exciting, and the story no longer distracted from the gameplay but reinforced and transformed it. I didn't remember having any of these gripes with the previous game; but then, I didn't remember what it was exactly that I didn't like about the first game. I found it boring, I thought, and repetitive; but I wasn't sure why and in what ways. Maybe these were the reasons why, I decided. Maybe I'll jump into this next game and finally love it like the other kids do. But not at launch, I was never that rich.

Next year, I picked up two very different games at a second hand shop; Borderlands 2 and Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen. Two games which could be seen as a little polar opposite to each another. Probably why the games ended up fighting for my time. On one hand, there was Borderlands 2; a sequel that exhibited whole heaps of improvements from the last game, A huge step forward in every aspect from the original. On the other, Dragon's Dogma; A brand new fantasy adventure that wowed me with it's meaningful day/night cycle, innovative grasping mechanics that transformed the combat and a cast of faithfully captured mythological creatures that all felt challenging to face. In the end the inevitable choice I made between the two was a no brainier. In my defence great fantasy games are hard to find! So I dropped off on Borderlands, once again.

So did I ever 'get it'? Sure. When I picked up 2015's The Handsome collection. (Aren't I Mr. 'Late adopter'.) Maybe it was because of my brief, fiery liaison with a little game know as Destiny. Destiny was perhaps the first game to popularize the 'Looter shooter' branding, wearing the tag as a badge of honour defining their playstyle. Destiny rocked the gaming world when it came out and introduced everyone to the basics of the Loot-shoot genre, under the pretense that they had pioneered the system. At the time I did fall for Destiny and her season pass before she broke my heart with The Taken King. (But that's a whole other, much more bitter, story.) In my rebound I ended up with the game I had discarded so long ago, The original Borderlands.

This time I 'got it'. I felt the urge to keep collecting that loot, to keep building my DPS, to keep honing by build to its zenith. I blasted through the campaign and onto the, much superior, DLC. I ground my head against the Underdome, searched for Cyans in Knoxx's armoury (unsuccessfully) and soloed Crawmerax the Invincible. I saw everything and did everything. Except get a freaking Cyan. I had keyed into that 'je ne sais quoi' that Borderlands fans had been trying to tell me about for years and I was hooked. Needless to say, I moved onto the Handsome collection and fully appreciated Borderlands 2 for the first time. It became my mission to go as far as I could on my own, collect as many rare weapons and slay as many raid bosses as my stubborn self could handle. I can't explain to you why all this mattered to me so much, just that it did. If you don't understand, then you won't unless you feel it for yourself.

Due to my late coming to the franchise I haven't had to endure the agonizing 7 year wait for the sequel. Heck, with Ultimate Vault Hunter mode, Overcharge levels and the surprise release of 'Commander Lilith and the fight for Sancutary', I'm still not done with Borderlands 2. With that said, I can still get excited to see the franchise return and innovate for a new console generation. Or rather, for the current console generation, as it has taken them this long to get a game out for us.What have we got in this one? Vaulting and sliding? Game changers!

Observing the gameplay and trailer reveals that dropped before and during this E3 has been incredibly interesting, still being an active player of the last title. Whilst some have complained about how the game looks identical to its predecessors and how Gearbox hasn't even touched upon the basics, I can clearly see how that is the passage of time clouding folk's recollection. Visually, Borderlands 3 looks stunning compared to the others; textures and colours pop in a manner they've never done on Pandora before. Shooting has also been improved upon with weightiness to movement and recoil making the guns seem more powerful than they ever did in BL2.

Those looking for fundamental changes, however, may be disappointed. Borderlands 3 shares a lot of DNA with the last two games, sometimes looking like a 'New Vegas'-style inbetween title rather than a full blown sequel. Of course that couldn't be the case because they already did that with the Pre-Sequel. (A game I cannot get into and I have no idea why...) I suppose the question that fans need to ask themselves, is whether or not they are okay with more of the same. Borderlands 2 holds up so well today, and the slew of post launch content that game ended up with makes the bundle package of 'The Handsome Collection' an absolute steal. If Gearbox want to just do that again with a little bigger scope and some reworked systems then it isn't really the worst possible thing that could happen for a sequel, is it?

At least we'll finally be getting off of Pandora. (Oh, and screw Elpis. I hated the 'moon walk' crap from that game.) Borderlands 3 will finally allow us to take off into space and go to 5 different planets, one of which being the long talked about Promethea. Finally, an urban setting in Borderlands! Maybe this time we'll finally feel like we are travelling to whole new places. Borderlands 2's icy intro was nice and all, but by the end of the game Gearbox literally made us walk over the same plots of land from the first game, kind of defeating the point of 'switching it up'. Now, with variety in mind for the creation of every planet, no two skylines should look the same, ideally.

One element I'm really excited for, personally, is the change to how characters play. Previously, your choice of player character was decided by the passives they would get and the play style you wanted to lean towards. Ultimate skills were fun, but the focus was on the moment-to-moment gameplay and thus flashy class powers easily went underutilized and under appreciated. This game, however, Gearbox have decided to change things up by giving the player 3 unique powers for each Vault Hunter. The effect is very reminiscent of 'hero shooters' like Overwatch; giving cooldown dependant small powers that change up the way you handle each and every encounter, meaning that you instantly know who you're playing as without having to wait for a voice line. For my money, this will have the most impact in multiplayer. (Which, of course, I'll never play.) With these distinctive powers thrown into play, team play is going to feel alot more complementary rather than cooperatively competitive.

But all those character-unique combat improvements all just build upon the combat system rather then define it. At the end of the day the meat of a 'Looter Shooter' is the diversity of the loot you shoot with. This appears to be the department wherein Gearbox have made the most steps forward. Whilst it's true that Borderlands 2 had a ton of really unique weapons, most of those were found in tiers Rare and above. The bulk majority of BL2's loot were mostly diversified by manufacturer quirks rather than individual quirks. This time Gearbox has aimed to expand the gun pool once again by ending crazy modifiers to their quirky modifiers. Like a Teidore gun that is discarded once empty but also bounces about with an explosion on every landing or the walking gun turret from the reveal trailer. Borderlands 3 will provide one of most unique feeling arsenals that gaming has to offer, reinforcing the addictive collectability of loot and comedic stylings of the developer's creativity.

Speaking of, comedy is another core aspect of the Borderlands formula. One that is largely subjective. Since the release of Borderlands 2, Gearbox has really established the comedic style of their cell-shaded IP. The games are obnoxious, childish and a little bit puerile at times but they bring it all together with an oddly authentic charm. Whilst these elements should clash and burn, they instead compliment each other to create the unique world of Pandora. (Or at least they did for BL2 and TellTale's 'Tales from the Borderlands'.) Of course, as with any form of humor, not everyone gels with this brand of comedy. Some find it grating and will likely find Borderlands 3 slightly unbearable because of it. But I have maintained a soft spot for the wacky crew of Vault Hunters and their manic, neurotic CL4P-TP unit. Perhaps it comes from watching the series grow from the occasionally funny first entry to the genuinely hilarious 'Tales from the Borderlands'. Whatever the reason, I resonate with Borderlands humor and from the trailers and gameplay I've seen, I can feel that same Borderlands essence here from the last game. (Excluding the pre sequel.)

Like I said, Borderlands 3 offers more of the same but in the style and attitude that only Borderlands can muster. The jump from the second game to this may not be as revolutionary as from the original to 2, but it doesn't need to be in order for Borderlands 3 to compete against the market. Borderlands easily surpass it's competitors in the core defining components of the 'Looter shooter' genre and now it's finally starting to catch up in terms of raw gameplay too. Providing that Gearbox stick to the example they set themselves with Borderlands 2, Borderlands 3 will easily become another high value classic experience. Word of mouth will spread, more people will come to the franchise and maybe, if their lucky, they might just 'Get it' too. 

Greedfall. The Nature strikes back.

Bet you weren't expecting me to have this game on the docket.

Heck, I don't even where this game came from, but it looks like it'll scratch an itch and so I'll talk about it. Which itch is that? That would be my ever irritable itch for RPG's. You see, Role Playing Games were the first genre of games whose traits I learned to recognise; That is because for a very long time RPG's were my favourite genre of games. Looking back now I realise what a broad selection that actually covers. But back then when I was eager to play any role other than myself, the height of entertainment was stepping into another's shoes, no matter how involved the end experience ended up truly being.

RPG's are a safe bet for games. After all, gamers have been playing RPG's forever, years before video games ever started becoming popular and decades before any mainstream buzz picked up. Go back to the tabletop days of Dungeons and Dragons and you'll see that gamers have been seeking to immerse themselves in fantastical worlds of wonder and surprise since gaming began. Although, for my part  I've never had enough like-minded friends to dive into DnD, It only solidifies how much I need me a good RPG.

That brings me around to the indie development studio, 'Spiders' and their upcoming RPG adventure Greedfall. Being one of the smaller development studios in the RPG landscape, Spiders understands the importance of single player experiences where bigger entities, who shall go unnamed, struggle to get it down; hence why Greedfall rings with me straight away. This isn't 'Spiders' first rodeo, either, they made the fantasy adventure 'Bound by Flame' and the sci-fi RPG 'Technomancer'. So they are used to working on these smaller RPG's that are imbued with personal passion.


For me I've started to wonder if the RPG genre even belongs to big budget companies, of late. I mean, it seems like a simple mathematical equation, more money and resources allow you to devote more on the project that should lead to a better final result. So if that is indeed the case, then why do these big RPG's keep getting it wrong time and time again. Final Fantasy XIII lost all narrative flow too early to get invested, Fallout 4 lacked the series' heart and soul and Mass Effect Andromeda was missing so much, a solid story, great design, likable characters, etc. So many of these big budget RPGs crash and burn, whether due to development issues or too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen syndrome, the results are the same. A substandard product.

Of course not every high budget RPG is a mess, nor is publisher backing a death sentence, just look at The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt or Skyrim. But in terms of games that make me care in the manner a great RPG does, success for these projects are staring to seem like the exception rather than the rule. Just look at Deltarune, Octopath Traveller and I am Setsuna; All relatively recent indie titles that all offered much more condensed experiences than those, 'hundred hour RPG' titles that are touted today. And yet those three titles have elicited more emotional response from me, and others, than those bigger games managed in all their days of playtime. Am I sounding like a downer? I don't mean to. I just mean to hail the impact that independent titles can have. The precision focus and mastery that smaller projects can hone in on can be so much more powerful than the 'catch-all umbrella' that modern AAA titles are always built under.

That brings me to Greedfall. I certainly did big this one up didn't I? To start off, no; from what I have seen this doesn't look like one those emotional roller coasters like the titles I just mentioned. However, it does look like the kind of quirky, cool little RPG romp that the bigger studios just aren't making anymore.

Greedfall is a historical-fantasy RPG set in a distorted version of 17th century Europe. You are placed at the height of the explorer boom, a time wherein the untraveled world stretched out for ever and forever, to intentionally misconstrue a line from Tennyson. Greedfall follows the colonisation of the new world as represented in the island: Teer Fradee; if that new world itself didn't want to be colonised, that is. Everything seems to be out to kill you for your imperialistic ways from the natives all the up to horrific, monstrous abominations of nature and bark.
Wait, what was that last part?
Well, you see that's where the 'Fantasy' comes into play. Greedfall pits the players against, what appear to be manifestations of Teer Fradee's will to F you up. And, like any good RPG, Greedfall expects you to make hard choices about your allegiances as the consequences of your actions start to have tangible effects on the world and the people who inhabit it.

Artistically, Greedfall developer 'Spiders' are attempting to capture the style of the 17th century rather than the its accurate details. They describe their influence as a mix between Baroque art and Flemish painting. Being an expert of neither, I can merely attest to the almost sepia-like tinge to the colour palette that does invoke the paintings of the time in every freeze frame I've seen. The design elements that really stood out to me, however, were the monsters. From what little they've shown it seems as though the team were influenced by a certain Capcom title; and they are certainly a fine muse to have. The creatures we've seen either embody this shamanistic aesthetic of bark and leaves or this incredibly well-realised, faux zoological approach that invents fantastical beasts that look like they could acutally exist. Making the world seem so real is going to make it harder to burn it all down for raw resources when the time comes.

Like FernGully meets Monster Hunter, Greedfall seems to be asking you whether or not you have an ethical quandary with unchecked expansionism and if you can stomach to look its victims in the eyes afterwards. Of course, things aren't so cut-and-dry as that; folk back are home are being ravaged by the Malichor plague and the fact that this Teer Fradee appears to be untouched by the malady seems to indicate the key to a cure might be there. Does that mean we will have moments of deciding whether to choose between our family back home or our new friends on the island? Probably. And I look forward to getting torn up over those choices when the time comes.

Combat looks like the weakest aspect, as it tends to be with these 'Spiders' RPGs. It might be judging a book by its cover a little bit, but the gameplay shown makes the hack and slash fighting look like Dark Souls-lite. And know that I loathe to make the 'Dark Souls' comparison. But what the heck else am I going to think when the UI is literally laid out the same? Movement looks stiff and contact looks floaty. But hey, I played through Morrowind so I can double down on the fact that; bad combat does not a bad game make.

I find myself anticipating this understated little gem in the same why I anticipated Divinity 2 back in the day. As a small game that encompasses a large adventure. Something that many of the big titles seem to have forgotten how to do, lately. Where Square Enix looks to be trying to retelling the, originally one game story, of Final Fantasy 7 over a ten year period (like it's freakin' Ben Hur); Spiders will be delivering what is likely going to be a 10-20 hour game that is much more to the point but just as effective when it gets there.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Sequel!

Oh, What's that? You don't think I can write extensively about a 1 and a half minute teaser? How little you know me...

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild was one of the best games of 2017 and easily one the greatest open world video games ever. It is masterclass in game design in so many aspects, the meaningful architecture of the world, the seeding of worthwhile exploration and the integration of a slew of mechanics that fit together like clockwork. Like an exercise in abundance and restraint, Breath of the Wild gives its players a world teeming with things to see and places to go without clogging itself down with the useless and the perfunctory.

Since it's inception back in 1986, Zelda has always been a franchise that attempted to capture the essence of adventure and child-like wonder. It's well known now how much the legendary game director Shigeru Miyamoto drew from his own childhood in the forming of the Legend of Zelda. Whilst it is true, since then, that Zelda has adopted many themes and story elements that elevate it from that original simplicity; Breath of the Wild demonstrated that none of it took away from the core, timeless vision that Miyamoto founded the games on.

Those who participated in the saturated marketplace that was open world games in the 2010's, could probably recall how often it was that a high budget title would launch with a lifeless world tacked on pointlessly. It became standard practice in the AAA landscape for a while to cram your gameplay atop tundras of wasted space and time in order to balloon playtime and tick the 'open world' box. That is not to say that there were no worthwhile open world experiences at this time, but rather to say that those games were mostly made by studios who were learned in doing so, because they had being doing making these worlds for years; I'm referring to Bethesda, Rockstar, CD Projekt Red etc.

Breath of the Wild was seemingly the first Zelda game to feature an 'open world' as the concept exists in modern gaming: As an expansive game space built to give room for the player's curiosity to take centre stage. However, in truth, The Legend of Zelda is perhaps the progenitor of the whole open world genre. Even the 1986 original in its simple top-down, pixel-form glory; was built to allow freedom of movement across the game world, as Link travelled in his quest to conquer its 9 dungeons and assemble the Triforce. That game was so expansive for the time that Nintendo had to pioneer the 'data saving' system in order to make the adventure manageable. Therefore whilst I do very much respect Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot, I must disagree with his assertions that Breath of the Wild was the idealised form of their game model. Sure, Ubisoft patented the rinse and repeat approach to open world games but Nintendo very much birthed the curiosity driven open world that defines the Legend of Zelda.

Curiosity was the main tool that the Breath of the Wild developers exploited for the purpose of making exploration worthwhile without resorting to filling the world up with collectibles and side quests. When making the world, the team used terrain in order to manipulate perspective and ensure that there was no one point from which the player could make out all the that lies before them. If you wanted to discover what the other side of this valley looks like, you have to trek around this mountain or through this river. The Sheikah Slate was another useful tool to guide adventurers, giving players a rough hint on the location of secrets whilst expecting them to use the tools and skills at their disposal to find their prize. These ideas were even built into the combat system, which utilised breakable equipment in order to encourage players to either search around for backup weaponry or figure out which system they can exploit to either find another way to deal with the enemy or some way to avoid them altogether.

In its very foundations Breath of the Wild is both simple and ingenious. It is arguably as close to perfection as a multi-faceted multimillion doller production can get. Perfectly balanced gameplay, world and mechanics all cement the legendary status that the game is destined to hold. Although, I will admit I would have preferred a more hands-on approach to the story telling, (I've never been a fan of the distance that the story-told-through-flashbacks approach, fosters between protagonists and key story elements.) I cannot judge the game for what it isn't over what it is. For my money, Breath of the Wild is an easy 10/10, if I were the score giving type.

Yet despite my adoration (or perhaps because of it), I find myself approaching news of a potential Sequel with mixed feelings. On one hand, Breath of the Wild has become my favourite Zelda title seconded by my former favourite: Majora's Mask. On the other hand, Breath of the Wild was so good because it didn't overstay its welcome and become boring. It offered as much game as you were willing to handle and no more. Will a sequel throw that into jeopardy? At this point I suppose only time will tell.

At the moment, sequel details are obviously light. The high ups at Nintendo haven't even deemed as worthy to know the title of the game yet. Perhaps there isn't one. All we have to go on is the aforementioned minute and a half trailer and the information contained within. Luckily, this trailer does provide a fair few details of its own.

Firstly, the most exciting element of this new trailer for me; The tone. Look at reactions online and the first thing everyone points out about the trailer is how creepy it feels. From the dark, dingy cavern that Link and Zelda are travelling through to the backwards sing/chanting that emanates from the darkness. And, of course,  the dessicated corpse of someone that appears to be Ganondorf. There hasn't been a Legend of Zelda game that immediately seemed this unsettling since Majora's Mask, and I just let you know how much I adore that game. The quick turn around of this new Zelda game also seems to echo Majora's Mask from back in the day; at which time the team re purposed a lot of Ocarina of Time's assets in order to piece together that nightmarish reshuffle. (Nightmarish in all the best ways!) Will this new Zelda game follow the same strategy? Likely. Although will it have anything nearly as off putting as Majora's Moon in the game? Well, that is the real question, isn't it?

Another detail that fans have picked up on, is the way that Zelda and Link seem to be adventuring together, almost like equals. For me, this means that we will get a story with a lot more immediate investment then BotW, as key characters will actually be there alongside you. Some have extrapolated on the scene, however, to conclude that it indicates Zelda will be playable in the game, perhaps as a second player. This idea really does intrigue me; wouldn't be amazing if Zelda and Link were finally both playable in the same game? ('Hyrule Warriors' hardly counts and he CDi games definitely don't count!) That being said, I do hope that if Zelda is playable then she is more than just a reskin of Link. Link famously trained night and day for years to become the warrior that he is so the pursuit narrative cohesion would support Zelda's talents manifesting itself in a completely different way. Does that mean she'll be some sort of warlock spellcaster? That may be my fantasy brain getting ahead of itself, but I sure hope so!

The most enduring part of any teaser, however, is the mystery. Here the trailer excels with two big ones that probably won't be solved until the final product comes out. First would be the purpose of, The Hand. When we first see this disembodied hand it is lodged into the chest cavity of a long dead corpse; it appears to seep a swirling trail of green energy that forms itself into strings of strange runes. (Perhaps Hylian? I'm no expert.) Though it seems obvious that The Hand seems to be sealing some entity, with the body itself imbuing torrents of that same dark substance that ruled Hyrule in BotW, the big question is: what exactly is The Hand sealing? That leads me to the second big mystery of the trailer, who is that corpse that snaps to life at the end?

The obvious answer is Ganon, given his plume of crimson hair and necklace featuring the Crest of Gerudo. However, this doesn't really make narrative sense. Out of all the many deaths that the dark lord Ganon has suffered, none were more final than his death in Breath of the Wild. That game saw Ganon abandon reincarnation in order to assume his true form as a being of hatred incarnate. He attempted to lay waste to all of Hyrule before Zelda destroyed his form with a display of her highest potential of power, completing her arch as a character. Ganon didn't just die. He die died. Like Albert Wesker being shot in head with two rocket launchers whilst standing in the middle of an active volcano, some things you don't just walk off.

So then, who is the body that they find in this cave that appears to be underneath Castle Hyrule? Well, I've heard some speculation that this is actually Demise from Skyward Sword. Skyward Sword is the earliest game in the Zelda Canon and tells the tale of the first Link defeating the demon lord Demise. After this victory, Demise curses Link and Zelda telling them that his hatred will be forever reborn and that they too will reincarnate in order to feel his wrath, kicking off the Legend of Zelda series.The rumors go that now, at the end of his spree of carnage, Demise has returned once again. Though whether to finish things once and for all, again, or to kick off a whole new era of Zelda stories is yet to be seen. For my part it does slightly upset me that this story is following Ganon once more. Some of my favourite Zelda games have been the ones in which the games have expanded the world and gone beyond the go-to villain, such as Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess. However, maybe this eery direction will be fresh enough to keep the plot from feeling stale. Afterall, I've never had reason to doubt the Zelda team before.

Ultimately all of this is just guess work, nothing has been confirmed about the title as of yet. All that we know for sure is that Nintendo have some incredibly big boots to fill whenever this game finally comes around. Nintendo do have the reputation for knocking it out the park time and time again, but even so, this is Breath of the Wild we are talking about! This is like trying to redo the Sistine chapel, it's going to take a lot of work. Although if anyone can get it done and surprise the gaming world once again it is Nintendo. Maybe CDPR as well. But mostly only Nintendo.

Fallout: 76th time lucky.

I have a confession to make. I like Fallout 76. Now hold on there with your "Are you crazy?" comments and "Paid shill" accusations. Firstly, I'm not crazy but there is some context you have to hear in order to properly understand me and secondly; I wish, I'm broker than broke, I could use the blood money.

Let me start with context. I was one of those people who was skeptical but optimistic when information about Fallout 76 first started to drop. That teaser sent me to the moon but leaks revealed by Jason Schreier over at Kotaku painted a fuller picture of exactly what it was Bethesda was already selling preorders for. A fully online Fallout experience? Could the legends be true? Is Fallout Seattle finally due? Sadly no. This was a completely different project that Bethesda had cooked up, using the remains of the average Fallout 4 as their skeleton. Where we, hopeful fans we were, expected some sort of amazing 'Fallout: New Vegas' style remix, Bethesda had something brand new in mind for Fallout. And it confused a lot of people.

Bethesda had always been 'the single player company'. They had helped define single player RPGs. Heck, the year before 76's announcement they had pushed the  #saveplayerone campaign to directly counter Blake Jorgensen's assertions that single player games are no longer popular. Yet all this time they were working on a fully multiplayer title of their own? 'Traitors!' many cried, most facetiously but some with real passion. I was less worried about it, I wanted to hear what they had to say. Not that it ended up making things any clearer.

E3 2018 was a weird one for Bethesda. Fan reaction can be summed up by one shot that the in house cameras captured of the moment after Todd Howard announced the thing that everyone in that auditorium already knew; Fallout 76 would be online. Cue the shot of talented modders, Elianora and Fadingsignal (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). The former cheered with some excitement whilst the later did not, seemingly more guarded. I was one of those in the camp that an online Fallout would be awesome. Sharing the wasteland with your friends, going on quests, causing mayhem. If everything worked it would be amazing. 'If everything worked'.

The moment Fallout 76 came out it was clear that the game had problems. Several problems. Core problems as well as bug problems. Fallout 76 hardly ran, stuttering and lagging and crashing at the slightest provocation. God have mercy on your operating system if you actually managed to launch a nuke! Combat hardly even worked, the game looked dated graphically and, most damningly of all, the world felt uncharacteristically empty. You see, somewhere along the way someone had an idea they thought would revolutionise the Fallout series, maybe even the online genre! This person thought that the Fallout 76 may be improved if all the human interaction in the game was limited to player on player interaction, so that every human was another player. This person thought this was a great idea and throughout development no one thought to overrule them. This person almost single handedly killed the game. The rest was done by word of mouth.

'The game barely works and when it works it sucks!' was the general consensus amongst critics and fans alike and the claims did hold some merit. Add that with the general negative PR that Bethesda was garnering with controversies such as the collectors edition 'duffle' bag that turned out to be plastic; or the limited edition Nuka Cola dark bottle mishap, and it isn't hard to see why this game plummeted into the burning ashes like a backwards Phoenix. Not even die hard fans wanted to shell out in support. Not for £60. (With microtransactions.) Even I didn't buy it. And that's not just out of being poor. I didn't want to be part of such a dumpster fire. No one did. And so Fallout 76 died. Unbought and unplayed.

So what happened to change everyone's mind? Nothing. Most people still hate it and refuse to judge the game for how it is now but rather lambaste the game for the train wreck it was at launch. (And for £60 they are fully right to!) But for me it was two factors. Well... really three. Promises, compromises and my damn, stupid optimism.
First came the promises. Months after launch the fire fighters over in the QA department were still wrestling with the blazing inferno that was the servers, yet despite that the Fallout 76 team saw fit to release a video roadmap on their YouTube channel. Most promised features were too far in the future to get really excited over, but a couple of items really stood out to dummy number one over here. Raids? In fallout? Sign me up! Even now as I type this I'm slapping myself in the face for being such a sucker for the R-word. So, that alone is what got me interested enough to look up how the game was faring.
Next were the compromises, for obvious reasons (See: metascore) Fallout 76 could not justify it's original price tag. Games with this kind of reception find themselves in sales pretty quick and on second hand shelves even quicker. So I moseyed on down to one of the last second hand stores still in existence and picked up a copy for a fraction of the original asking price.
And finally was pig-brained optimism. After all, there's no way the game could be as bad as everyone said it was. Could there?

And it wasn't. At least not anymore. Fallout 76's team had made great strides towards making the game as stable as possible both in gameplay and in server reliability. The game still crashed. Oh boy, did it crash. But it would happen once every couple of days instead of twice an hour. Still far less then ideal but hardly momentum killing. Giving the advantage of a functioning product, I was able to judge Fallout 76 for the package on offer, and it wasn't all bad news. Yes, the graphics were dated but the game was far from ugly. Yes, the combat was less tight then Fallout 4 but seemed functional overall. The real problems reared their head in those pesky fundamental design flaws I mentioned earlier.

Lets go back to that whole 'Every character is another player' decision. The thing sets Fallout apart from all the other post apocalyptic titles that dot the gaming landscape is it's fun and quirky moments that juxtapose the horrifying reality of persisting in a world ravaged by nuclear flame with the absurdity of light-hearted satirist commentary. These pangs of dark humor lend Fallout it's off-kilter vibe that leaves the player unsure what they can expect to find from the wasteland. Maybe a Nightkin in Elton John glasses and a wig acting the under appreciated radio host for an army of brainless mutants; or a collection of holotapes that tell the sombre accounts of a hiker who losses everything yet finds peace through the subtle mentorship of  a group of lost children. Fallout has a world that can you make you laugh and make you reflect; that world is given life by the people who live in it.

I understand what the intention was. By ensuring that every human is a genuine human, the interactions are made all the more special. Only no, they aren't. Rather the opposite. Players aren't interested in maintaining the facade of your delicately crafted world. Players are players, they want to play the game. Now that no NPCs inhabit the world, no human ones anyway, you have no firm anchor to that world and thus have a harder time accepting its authenticity.
Another casualty of the 'No NPCs' decision was the main story. People have criticized the story left and right for being terrible and poorly written but for my experience that is not the case at all. I tried harder than the average person to invest myself in the story and found a rather unique Fallout tale; one that played out like a zombie movie only with giant radiation spewing bats instead of brain eaters. The real problem was with the presentation of the story. No NPCs meant the quest designers had to guide the player on where to go through notes and robots, making the main campaign just a huge note quest. ('Note quest' being a mod community term for: Not interesting.)

The key reason this doesn't work is encapsulated by one particular interaction in the story. The player reaches the Mire in search of a weapon to combat the Scorchbeasts. The player then finds themselves enlisted in an operation to install an early warning system in the area to warm about impending Scorchbeasts attacks. So whats the problem? Well, you are made to undergo this rather hefty back and forth at the behest of a series of pre-recorded messages made by "A dead girl." This girl who keeps reminding you that she's dead every time you go back. In this way the story keeps constantly reinforcing how the actions you are making don't matter as the person you are helping has already perished years before you ever showed up. Additionally, the early warning system doesn't work for you (Despite some discourse about it syncing up with Pipboys) so you're essentially wasting your time installing an early warning system for a swamp full of dead people. Think the warning might be a tad moot at that point, don't you?

At the start, the story incentivizes the player by showing them the horrors of the Scorchbeasts and the husks that their breath creates. This momentum evaporates the moment you inject yourself with a vaccine and become immune to huskification. Nearer the endgame they switch gears and tell you that, unless quelled, the Scorchbeasts will breed and spread across the continent causing "An extinction level event." Holy crap, right? That's serious stuff right there! Only no, because this tape was recorded months ago so either it has already happened or these Scorchbeasts are really taking their darn time. Also let's be honest, the entire game world is devoid of life so what is the difference if everyone else on the continent dies too? That is the dissonance between story and game that severs any emotional connection that the player might build. Even if they're really trying to build it, like I was.

Yet still I liked the game. That was because around the game was a world that was absolutely worth exploring. If you ignore the missing NPC's, hard though it is, you find that the Appalachian Wasteland is one of the most interesting and diverse locations in Fallout yet. It has an incredible mix of corporate corruption, political intrigue and roaming Cryptids. Aspects that were touched on sparingly in other Fallouts actually take centre stage in this world and still retain much of their attractive lure. I enjoyed digging up the history of the Hornwrights and their job threatening tech push or the struggles of the surviving Charleston cabinet trying to maintain order and the chaos that came of that. I loved the mystery of the grounded space station in the north and the curiosities of the machine run city in the south. I came back to 76 time and time again for it's hidden stories, the stories that exist purely for building the world space in my head.

In many ways 76 took a lot of Fallout 4's aspects and made them better, excluding the gunplay and main narrative. As I discussed 76's world is more intriguing; The C.A.M.P allows for tons more freedom with a far Superior building menu, and the legendary weapon gameplay loop works much better in an online game then it did in a single player setting. If only they had done something more involved with the story, and fixed the bugs. Fallout 76 might have become something special. If only someone decided to reverse Fallout 76's biggest blunder.

Enough beating around the bush, you've probably heard the news. Fallout 76 announced this E3 that they plan to bring back NPC's this fall alongside a brand new main story, settlements, companions, romance, the whole shebang. Marking the capping-off of what has been a road map of mostly great content for the struggling game. People cheered for a decision they never expected would be reversed, heck I never expected it. They even tout the lack of NPC's on the back of the physical box. They are going against the back of the box! Is that even legal? Even the team seemed amazed to be going this direction, in the trailer they have the Overseer (Now confirmed to still be alive) say "I don't think any of us expected for people to actually come back." No kidding.

Most telling of all for this paradigm shift in direction is the way how the brief E3 trailer took time to tease the dialogue system. It's going to be the Fallout 3/Vegas dialogue tree again! No limiting wheel in order to accommodate the quickly stale gimmick of move and talk. Full dialogue boxes that will allegedly accompany actual choice and consequence. Maybe, when this 'Wastelanders' expansion hits the game will finally start living up to the promise that everyone had for it in that first trailer. Okay, I won't go that far but it is a huge leap in the right direction.

It still isn't ideal that in the modern age of gaming we are comending a game for announcing that it will reach the state it should have been at launch, one year late. It's a terrible reflection on the absoulte state of AAA development, that Fallout 76 made it to market the way it did for the price it did. But it's done. It happened. It's history and Bethesda will be dealing with these ramifications for years. Likely until the succesful release of Starfield. (Fingers crossed on that one.)

I am optimistic about where Fallout 76 is heading. I like the game and I'm starting to think that one day I may even love it. But that day is not today and I doubt it will come this fall either. Until the day when I can sing the games praises, I'll keep dropping in from time to time and building up my base or gearing up for another solo run of the nuke silo. Or trying those raids I was so excited for, and then completely missed due to E3. And whilst I do that I'll keep looking at that roadmap with anticaption and skepticism. Wondering if this country road really will take the Fallout francise back to the place it belongs.