Order Fallen Jedi

My titles are just so creative, I know.

I don't know what it is about this title that keeps pulling me back. Okay that's not true, I know it's the impending hype for the Mandalorian that has sling shot this game into my eyeline. Perhaps I should just make an exception and decide to take an in-depth look at The Mandalorian instead, but that would open myself up to the world of TV blog content and I'm just not ready to open the floodgate right now. (Or ever.) So instead of taking an extensive gander at the incredibly exciting-looking Dave Filoni live action Star Wars series, I'm settling for a generic-looking action game from a publisher I hate and a studio that's getting there. (Is this masochism?)

With that being said, I will admit that even in their heyday, a majority of Star Wars games were hum drum outings who's only selling point was providing players a 'in' to the 'galaxy far far away'. Heck, some of these games were even plain bad and I still harbour found memories of them. Star Wars Republic Commando was a simple 'tactical' FPS, 'Star Wars: The Clone Wars- Republic Heroes' was... a chore, 'Star Wars: Super Bombad Racing' was a dull kart racer clone with the 'big heads' cheat permanently enabled. All of these titles would have crashed and burned if it wasn't for that 'Star Wars' connection, so could the same happen for 'Jedi: Fallen Order'? Likely, I'd say. Almost certainly. But that doesn't mean the necessarily game deserves it.

Today I will be looking through the launch trailer for this title and taking a look at what there is to be excited for in this game from a story perspective, if not a gameplay one. Oh and just a head's up, I'm actually not all that up-to-date on Dave Filoni's contribution to the Star Wars lore (Which this game seems to be drawing heavily from) so I may miss a few things that would be obvious to the casual superfan. (It's been a LONG time since I've considered myself a Star Wars superfan.) Also, this trailer appears to have fashioned itself as an 'accolades trailer', which I find slightly hilarious given that I don't believe review copies have even been shipped yet. (Gotta play that game as soon as you can, I guess.)

The trailer opens with a shot of another main villain who will be hunting the protagonist, Cal Kestis, throughout the majority of his story. We have another Sith inquisitor (That is, a Sith-trained force user who has attained the rank of Imperial inquisitor rather than those who have the rank of Sith Inquisitor. Because those are two completely different things. Star Wars lore, everybody!) although this is one who's name I can't quite pin down. All we know for now is that is he will be joining the Seventh Sister in the hunt, and this has lead me to develop a new speculation regarding how I expect this game to play out. We have been introduced to the existence of two main saber-wielding villains to hunt the protagonist, and that seems rather odd to my observing eye. Afterall, in storytelling isn't the magic number 3? Now of course, I have no concrete information to back up my hunch here, but the fact that we have been extensively shown off two badguys for this game could be indicative of the fact that there is a bigger threat behind the shadows. This is further backed up by a fact that I totally forgot in my last blog, when I commended the team for reintroducing the Seventh Sister because she was a threat that Cal could theoretically defeat. Namely, that the Seventh Sister is actually (spoilers) killed by Darth Maul in 'Star Wars: Rebels'.

Does that mean Respawn intend to pit us against a main villain who the protagonist will merely reach a stalemate with instead of killing? No, I can't imagine that being the case, it just wouldn't match the 'becoming a knight' angle that the team appear to be heading for with this story. Judging from the presented footage from these last two trailers, it is clear that they want to set up Cal's seclusive hideaway being interrupted by a Sith house call; one made by the Seventh Sister herself. Cal then goes to learn the arts and ways of the force and probably ends up joining the Rebellion in some small capacity, but how will the adventure be capped off by the end? I can't see EA going out of their way to fund a sequel before this first game is out, this game is very much an experiment on their part to see if traditional games can still be profitable, so the Respawn writers will be constructing a self contained story with this game. With that in mind, there must be foe for Cal to best in order to symbolize his reaching of mastery over the force. If it cannot be the Seventh Sister, and this other Inquisitor looks to be more of a throwaway lackey, then who could the big bad be? I dunno.

From there the trailer goes into the usual spiel, with narration setting up the world in which this game is set. For those who forgot, this game takes place after Order 66 has wiped out the majority of the Jedi and sent the rest into hiding. Cal Kestis was still just a Padawan when all this went into effect, and so he was able to stay under the radar and escape to a small outer rim planet in the middle of no where. Seeing as how this game takes place in the 'dark period' of time between the Prequel trilogy and the original trilogy, Respawn practically have free reign to say whatever they want about the state of the universe as long as it flies with Disney. However, instead of using this freedom to show as a spate of new and interesting worlds that we've never seen before, instead we run the gambit of familiar Star Wars locales. You have the middle-of-nowhere world which looks like a scrap heap (Just like Tatooine and Jakku), The icy planet with snow everywhere (Just like Hoth), and a jungle world full of hulking furry monsters (Just like... wait, no. This one is actually just Kashyyyk).

Now the trailer gives us a good look of Cal's journey as his ex-Jedi mentor, Cere, guides him through some old abandoned Jedi Temples. (You know, at this point I'm starting to wonder if the Jedi temples were ever actually manned. I mean, the only one's we've ever seen operational have been the ones on Coursant and Dantooine. Maybe the Jedi were just huge architectural nuts who kept building more bases then they could feasibly fill.) The stand out moment here for me was when Cal came face to face with a Mirialan. (Which was a hologram, I presume.) It stuck out as the Seventh Sister is famously also a Mirialan, which implies to me that Cal may end up digging into the past of his enemy and finding out that she used to be a Jedi. (Such a practise was common in The Old Republic, hence why they used the term Sith and Dark Jedi almost interchangeably back then.) Perhaps Vader saw fit to enlist traitor Jedi to hunt down their former compatriots. It would certainly support the real-world parallels that the Empire already draws to a certain movement whom I'm sure I don't need to explicitly introduce to the reader.

The last thing that I want to bring up in this trailer is something that is showcased throughout and which genuinely does excite me; the exploration. Previously we have seen a worldmap that the player can access within their ship that seems to allow for you to take-off and fly anywhere you want to. (Not sure if such an ability might rob some situations of their urgency, but I like the freedom nonetheless.) This subtle suggestion implies to me that we may be getting a game with a decently sized play spaces (maybe akin to the hub areas in the Crystal Dynamic Tomb Raider games) or even just a steady spate of side quests. If my hunch is true then this could be an interesting path that Respawn intend to walk by creating an action adventure game with areas that one is intended to plough thoroughly for secrets. Such a model would place them up against the likes of the Arkham Series. (A comparison that is given even more weight when considering the similarities in combat.) Could Respawn learn from these other games when forming their world to ensure that it is just as explorable? Sure. Will they? Once again, I haven't the foggiest.

When I say that this game doesn't excite me, it's not with the same trepidation that I claimed the same about 'The Outer Worlds'. (Still enjoying that game, by the by.) I'm not torn about whether or not the game will be quality, in fact I'm fairly convinced that this be a solidly average game, I'm more disappointed with a story that appears to be very 'paint by numbers'. Visually, the product looks great, audio-wise, it sounds like Star Wars, but everything else about the game screams 'one and done', and I feel like a Star Wars game could be much more. Admittedly, these concerns are more of a gut feeling, but I don't think that the first single player Star Wars game of the late 2010's is going to 'wow' the gaming world, when it really should and needs to. I suppose at the end of the day my biggest take away is; The Mandalorian sure looks fantastic, huh!

Ubisoft Breakpointing it down.

I've heard about you and your honeyed words!

You know I enjoy these moments. I really do. Those times when a company has done something so bad that they feel the need to address it with a public statement and outline their plans to do better. In one way, it highlights the determination of the development team to not give up, heck, sometimes these posts can be really encouraging to read through. But let's be honest, most of the time they're just PR crap full of misdirections and mis-assumptions as to what they've done wrong. Just look at that 'Apex Legends' debacle earlier this year. (A situation that was eerily similar to Activision's recent controversy with COD Mobile's fixed rate loot boxes.) Expecting a corporate entity to learn from their mistakes and improve is like praying for Christmas snow in England. It already happened once this decade, you ain't getting it again.

I'd like to remind myself for a moment that I do hope for good things to come out of disasters like these. (At least I think I do.) The last thing anyone wants is for the companies in question to go into liquidation and fire all their talented staff and this is especially true in the gaming world. Everytime there is a colossal screw up in gaming, you'll find droves of people detailing exactly how these Devs can go about fixing their issues. Sure, messages tend to be at odd with one another every now and then, but that's why you hire a good Social Media manager to sort out the common points of contention and detail a battle plan for the team. (Huh, looks like I'm doing it now.) But, more often then not, the community's free advice gets wasted and companies are forced to scratch their heads and wonder why people aren't giving them money anymore. (What a mystery.)

With that in mind, let's talk about 'Ghost Recon: Breakpoint'. If you read my last blog on this game, you might remember how this game was a failure in almost every respect. The gameplay was neutered in order to serve a levelling system, the thing was riddled with bugs and every little item that one could find in the game could be purchased at a premium in the 'time savers store'. Due to a mistake from Ubisoft, the team accidentally shipped the review and launch copies of the games with all of the aggressive monetisation tactics that they had intended to ambush players with after launch, and as a result the game was met with considerable backlash from reviewers and enthusiast press. (Although in gaming those two groups tend to be one and the same.) Breakpoint did abysmally in the review department and folks like me now know that it's only a matter of weeks before the game is sub £20 on the shelves. (Although at this point I'm wondering if even that is too much.)

Now, usually this wouldn't be information worthy of a follow up. So the game reviewed badly, big whoop. It's still a AAA game made and published by a company who demands respect from the wider gaming community, (inexplicably) so it's probably not going to be too huge of a flop. Right? Wrong, apparently, as Breakpoint is probably going to go down in the books as Ubisoft's worst financial decision of 2019, costing the company in respect, sales and that all important revenue. In a recent financial report, the big man himself, ol' Yves Guillemot, revealed that "The critical reception and sales during the game's first weeks were disappointing." Now, there are no specific numbers there, but you can bet that things are looking rough for Ubisoft right now, especially with other ancillary news that has come out.

Perhaps you've heard of a little title known as Division 2. It is Ubisoft's follow up to their rough first foray in live services and now exists as their flagship representation of the model they want all their franchises to emulate. Assassin's Creed capitulated to this standard in Origins and even more so with Odyssey, and Breakpoint's biggest letdown was that it too fell to the lures of the live service model. (Those lures being the promise of heavy concurrency and a potentially unlimited revenue source.) So it's safe to say that Division 2 is currently Ubisoft's flagship game. But does that relate to strong sales? Well, it's hard to say definitively as Ubisoft seem unsure themselves. In May they complained that the game had not met sales expectations whilst in July they claimed that it was best selling game of the year. (So just what were your sales expectations, Ubisoft?) Now we have reason to believe that this disappointingly successful title was not enough to save Ubisoft from major markdowns to their annual fiscal expectations.

Originally, the fiscal year of 2019-20 was looking decent for Ubisoft with predicted operating profits reaching to 480 millions euros. Now predictions have been amended to somewhere within the range of 20-50 million euros; which is still more money than Sony Pictures made for the first half of this year, but still 'brown trousers' time for the budgeting team. Things didn't look any brighter when, following this report, Ubisoft's stock price fell 20%. (It has since risen back another 10%) Obviously, these are not the sorts of numbers that anyone wants to be seeing, least of all Investors, so the question on everyone's lips right now is; what went wrong? Well quite simply, everything. Breakpoint's failure of a launch actually translated into poor sales, every major Ubisoft release got delayed until the next fiscal year and public brand trust has taken a noticeable nose dive. So where does this leave Ubisoft? In a position where they need to make amends and start bringing players (And wallets) to Breakpoint whilst they wait for their next slate of AAA products to release. (Providing there are no more surprise delays.)

That brings us to Ubisoft's recent blog post entitled "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint: moving forward". (Hmm, invoking the spirit of 'Anthem' with that blog title probably isn't the best first touch there, Ubi.) In this post Ubisoft sought to reassure the community that they have a plan of action and shouldn't abandon the game in droves for better offers. (Like 'The Outer Worlds'. Which is great, by the by.) Thankfully, the team saw fit to divide the game into sections so it's easy for me to disseminate. (Oh will the wonders of coherent formatting never cease?)

Firstly, the team addressed the one issue that can be freely discussed without admitting to any corrupt influences on their end; technical difficulties. There isn't a great deal here to read into besides the fact that their scheduled title updates appear to be tackling issues in small chunks in order to get out sooner. A decent tactic in reassuring the players that the game is still alive, although it does make it appear like these fixes will be going on for the next few months before the game is decently playable for anyone without a super computer wrapped in ladybugs. (I made that reference off the cuff and now that I've realized why I said it, I'm too tickled to remove it. I pray to god you don't get it and if you do, don't judge me!)

Secondly the team spoke on post launch content, a very interesting topic of contention. When 'Anthem' was undergoing similar growing pains, the post launch was the first thing to get gutted as the team completely reprioritized to bug fixing and rebalancing. Ubisoft have confirmed that they are still right on track with their Raid and 'Terminator: The Dark Fate' cross-over event, so it seems they don't want to fall into the trap of appearing lackadaisical to the player base, however dwindling they may be. Although the quality and appeal of said content will be questionable since many of people's key concerns have been the way that the franchise was bastardized in order to accommodate for things like Raids and timed events.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the blog addressed the In-game economy. And, rather predictably, it is the shortest section here. All the team would commit to saying is that they have "Heard the criticism regarding the in-game economy." Oh, have you guys? Well, congratulations! Someone in the team posses the ability to access Reddit, what an accomplishment! The team explained that they are planning to make 'adjustments' in the next few weeks and then moved swiftly on before anyone could ask anything pertinent like: "What adjustments?" More likely than not the team will just shift some prices down and call it a day, actual change would require the team to admit their initial wrongdoings and have the integrity to try and do better. But gods knows nobody in the AAA landscape cares that much about their games. (At least, nobody with any actual power.)

The rest of the blog is mostly unimportant stuff about their delayed plans to introduce AI teammates (Which should never have been cut out from the game to start with) and their comments on people's reaction to the game design. Now you may think that latter point is of some significant relevance as they discuss the limitations of their current design and a desire in introduce a 'radical and immersive' version of the main game in the coming months. But I've seen enough of Ubisoft's machinations that I recognize them like I would an old friend. (If I actually had any friends, that is) So trust me when I say, nothing that Ubisoft plan to do with this game will fix the fundamental issues with it. It's just too lucrative not to rely on the store. Even if they do rework everything and remove those annoying pointless levels, it'll be in a tacked-on extra mode with enough severe restrictions slapped on that you are forced to return to the main game grind. (My predictions are that they will bar you from Online content and raids in such a mode.)

As dismissive as I have been, and am being, to Ubisoft and their words, I do appreciate that the team took the effort to talk to the community. A lot of other companies in similar positions would simply shut down and ignore any and all criticism, (See: Bethesda.) but at least Ubisoft had the courage to acknowledge and respond. Of course, being a progeny from a long line of career cynics, I don't believe these words will translate to substantial action (That is to say: action that will achieve positive change to the game) but I'll never turn my nose to an opportunity for some inoffensive lip service. I'm not sure if any of this will be enough to bring people back to Ubisoft as they slug it out through this difficult financial time, but I know that the company will still find a way to manage even if it doesn't. That Yves is a fighter, afterall, he wouldn't let the company sink on his watch. (Would he?)

P.s. Of course he wouldn't. Heck, I don't even think the monetary situation is that dire, truth be told. But it makes for fun reading. wait, did I just say that the potential financial downturn of a company is "fun"? Poor choice of words. 'Interesting'? Nah. 'Facinating'? Hmm...

In defence of: Checklist open worlds

One down, half a million to go.

You've just loaded up your brand new open world game and you're busy breathing in the air of a new alien world to explore. You look upon this great vast mystery and begin to mourn, mourn for the time when this land has no more secrets, when you know every hill before you approach, and you've delved into every cave. Soon you'll plunge the land of all it's stories and begin to make your own, but until then you have the work of an adventurer to do. There is only one problem. This isn't the kind of world that you will come to know intimately, is it. And that's because it's not just an open world; it's a checklist open world.

The term 'checklist open world' was coined to describe the type of open world experience that is lacking that innate desire to see and be part of everything. I'm talking about the kinds of worlds were you don't feel the careful thought that went behind every rock placement, wherein there isn't a story in every environment and in which you'll likely put down the game long before you start memorizing road names. These are kinds of 'open worlds' that flooded the AAA gaming market back in the early 2010's when the 'open world' trend started to hit it's zenith. Everyone wanted to copy the kind of numbers that games like 'Fallout: New Vegas' and GTA V were pulling in, but most completely underestimated the amount of work and care that the developers need to devote to bring such worlds to life.

I have mentioned my disdain for this kind of practice before, albeit in passing. This is the main reason why I find myself initially repulsed whenever I hear of a new Ubisoft game, because they have been the biggest distributors of Checklist open worlds. And yet, despite my obvious hatred, I still find myself playing through these games from time to time and occasionally enjoying the experience. (Othertimes I end up disgusted in myself for having wasted the hours of my life to play through that junk. Assassin's Creed Rogue owes me at least 8 hours.) So in comes the question; just exactly what is it that distinguishes a bad checklist open world from a good one?

One could see this topic as attempting to distinguish between a dump and a turd, but this series is called 'In defence of' and not 'In condemnation of' (Although working on this blog has seriously made me consider creating the latter) so I'll try to wring out as many positives as possible. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but I have no self respect so that's hardly a concern for me. Oh, and do note, this still doesn't mean I like it when game's companies excrete these sorry excuses for games. Nothing could endear me to the development team less, in fact. (That being said there are some of these open worlds the excel in certain areas that are certainly worth mentioning.)

Firstly when addressing a topic like this, it is practically my fiduciary duty to bring up the folk at Ubisoft. When the 'Open world' fad began to hit Ubisoft weren't just early adopters, they were practically the estranged parents of the movement. Before there were even whiffs of the industry heading this direction, Ubisoft made the decision to scrap their linear action adventure series, Prince of Persia, and turn it into a more profitable and creatively freeing game; Assassin's Creed. Most at the time found the game to be a revolution to 3rd person action games and were completely enamoured by the 'free form' story style. In the years to come there has been an Assassin's Creed release almost every year and the series' trends have become industry cliches, so this series is really the place to start when considering the topic at hand.

I must precede my oncoming ribbing by asserting one immutable fact, the world designers for Ubisoft are, in my opinion, second to none. When tasked with realizing an ancient city from another culture, these folk spare no expense in their digital reconstructions and manage to capture the glory and majesty of cultural architecture with undeniable flair. The things they manage to accomplish are frankly amazing and certainly praise worthy. However, I suspect, the plain fact that this team is separate from those that populate the world is perhaps Ubisoft's first misstep.

Activities are one of the most important aspects of creating an open world that feels immersive. It is a way for the player to interact with the world in a way that doesn't break from the flow of gameplay and can even be fun. Early Ubisoft games kinda half understood this dynamic as they implemented what could be charitably called 'activites' but are actually more akin to 'tasks'. (This is where the 'checklist' part of the name comes in.) Whenever you look at the map for a Ubisoft world, you'll often immediately notice how it is cluttered with little icons shoved into every single corner of the world. Initially, this might make you think there is a lot to do, but in reality that just means there is a lot of filler to wade through.

For an example, I'll take a gander at that 'Assassin's Creed: Rogue' game that I mentioned. This is a game that boasts the Pacific Ocean as it's playground with plenty of uncharted islands to see, small eastern colonies to visit and even the budding city of New York to set down in. Once you go to these locations however, you'll notice that there is only a handful of things to do. Either you go around and loot all the map's chests, pick up the floating 'Animus fragments' or, if you're lucky, chase around a floating page with a sea shanty printed on the side. (As if you're crew can read...) There is no intrinsic value attributed to any of these activities and you'll quickly realize that the only reason you are partaking is to complete the collectible tally at the bottom of the screen. (An act which becomes pretty mind numbing by hour 5.)

Games like The Witcher 3 handle such locations in a completely different, and more enjoyable, way. Those games contextualize the character as a Witcher and thus all of his activities are attributed the value of 'Witcher work'. This is a game that'll have you delving ruins in search of treasures but they'll be locations haunted by ghosts and ghouls, hence places where a Witcher is meant to be. Plus, the things you find in these troves are actually valuable, making the journey feel more worthwhile. Now, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone call the Witcher games 'checklist open worlds', but that doesn't mean that game can't teach some things to games like Assassin's Creed.

I will admit, however, that there does come a certain comfort from these kinds of open worlds that focus less on making each area meaningful and instead ensuring they have a practical purpose to exist. I'm sure that I'm not the only person in the world who enjoys multitasking whilst gaming, which is something that can difficult to do in narrative driven games. Sometimes I have other tasks to do and find myself unable to keep up with my favourite narrative driven adventure the way I want to. (That's part of the reason why I've had trouble picking up Xenoblade Chronicles 2.) Games like these can make for suitable background fodder whilst I do other things.

That sounds like a backhanded compliment, but I'm being genuine about my applause here. The more busy we make ourselves the less time we have to do the things that we love to do, and people like me need to keep busy for the sake of our own mental health. Although to pursue that at the cost of my favourite hobby would feel like losing a part of myself that I'll never recover from. (Maybe that's my childishness speaking, but it tends to speak louder then my dissent so I'll listen.) Having a mindless game to keep my hands busy whilst I 'work' (Or whatever it is that I do when I'm not writing these) helps just enough to keep me happy.

Additionally, the ludicrous amount of pointless collectibles in these game offers another interesting bump to the old endorphins. Everyone loves collecting things. It's the sole reason why the Crackdown series was ever popular. (Those little green orbs might as well be full of crack.) Therefore a game in which you endless pursue a seemingly endless stream of collectibles can be fulfilling to the mind on a base level. (If not an intellectual one.) I can speak from experience in how content I've been in spending hours hunting chests around Egypt in Assassin's Creed Origins. I can go through the process of killing time whilst fooling myself into thinking I'm actually achieving something. (That's a positive, I think.)

There is also one of the big problems of these types of games to consider. Their tendency to be too large. That isn't to say that the map is too large for the player to traverse, most developers have the good sense to stay away from Day-Z size maps, but rather that it is too big to fill with worthwhile and intelligent content. However, there is a hidden benefit in this, for maps of these sizes do wonders for feeding the inner adventurous spirit within some gamers. There are those who love uncovering what lay behind the next hill, even when the answer isn't that interesting, and oversized 'checklist open worlds' can provide to that sensation in spades.

Games like Mad Max and Days Gone shaped themselves around the premise of a 'road trip' with having the character cover great distances in pursuit of their ultimate goal. That can be hard to represent for developers who are concerned with creating a fully immersive and believable world, but when they are merely creating chunks of playspace or a pretty facade, it's easier to ramp up these huge distances and have the player truly experience that elongated journey. Perhaps that's enough to establish some emotional resonance with the plight of the protagonist if handled correctly.

Ultimately, there isn't much to love about 'Checklist open worlds', but that doesn't mean I think the practise is worthless and should be eradicated from the industry. It is an unfortunate fact that some Devs are straddled with making an Open world when they honestly don't have the resources or know how to pull it off, but the 'checklist formula' allows for such games to be formed into something that isn't a total mess. It may not be particularly inspired, but it sure is functional.

Walking Simulator

I walked across an empty land

Perhaps you've heard the term uttered before and thought "Oh, it must be another one of those weird asset swap genres that populate unregulated store fronts" (I.e. Steam.) But no in actuality, for this term is as much an insult as it is a descriptor. Today I want to take a look at those games that fall under the label of 'Walking simulator' and assess whether or not the term is worthy of merit. Oh and a brief disclaimer, I have actually played through a scant few of these types of games (They're just not for me) however I am a sad lonely shut in of a human being so you can bet that I've watched significant hours of content on them. Does that achieve the same effect as playing through them? Kinda.

Firstly, let me establish that the term 'Walking simultor' was coined as a pejorative to refer to a game who's main gameplay feature is the act of walking. Not just games that offer an abundance of walking functionality within and around the game. (I.e. The game I'm currently playing as I write this, the original Dragon Quest, wouldn't qualify as although there is an absurd amount of walking, the crux of the game is the RPG combat.) Through the years there have been a increasing number of these 'Walking Simulator' experiences made almost exclusively by passionate indie studios driven by a desire to tell a story rather then stage an adventure. Or at least, I assume it's mostly indie studios. I can't imagine an pitch meeting about a game revolving around walking around your parent's house going down well with the investors. (Unless the Devs could tie in some lootboxes and a battlepass, of course.)

Personally, I am not entirely adverse to the idea and do always enjoy when a video game makes use of what it is to tell you an interesting story that isn't driven by your character's ability to stop every heart in a 5 mile radius. (Although I have no issues with those kinds of games either. 'Wolfenstein' is my jam.) However, I will specify that such experiences should; A. have a story worth following and B. actually use it's medium in a way that couldn't be achieved on any other platform. I'll always defend the early Telltale games from those who claim that they're just glorified DVD games by pointing out that your choices have genuine consequence on the progression of the story. That is something that neither film nor TV could replicate. (Books have the choose-your-own-adventure style but I never enjoyed those. Too many dead ends.) Tell me a story in a way I didn't expect and I'll have time for you, no matter how much walking I have to do to uncover that story.

That being said, I do understand and partially sympathise with those that cannot stand such games and label them 'Walking simulators'. Some people come to games looking for action and tut impatiently whenever a cutscene gets between them and the guns. Now there is nothing wrong with this, it's a little 'neanderthal-ian' but I understand, Sometimes you just want to kick a demon's head into a wall. There are even some who are willing to give games like these a chance but give up claiming that such games are too slow and/or lack any pacing whatsoever. This outlook I can sympathise heavily with. (That has literally been me before.) But I always find it is important to regard games like these within their own context and dispel your preconceived notions of what a game, or even a story, actually is. In order to explain what I mean by this, I'm going to dive into some examples of 'Walking simulators' that I am familiar with. (Good thing Steam has a section of them ready for me to cherry pick through!)

Firstly I thought we might start with one of newest entries into this genre. Partially because it's fresh in my mind and partially because it's based on a property that I'm willing to bet that you know. That's right, I'm talking about 'Blair Witch'. This was game that came out of nowhere during this year's E3. There was just a brief trailer showcasing someone prowling through the woods with a video camera and people just naturally assumed that Outlast had slunk out of the naughty corner for entry 3. When everyone saw the 'Blair Witch' title alongside the iconic stick man, no one quite knew what to expect. And why would they? The films themselves have varied wildly. The original spawned the found-footage genre and focused around spooky happenings that only seem supernatural within a certain context. The sequel took a more traditional movie approach and joined some supremely annoying teens as they undergo a series of events that could charitably be called 'phycological'. And the latest movie dabbled in time manipulation. So what the heck could we expect from a game? Well, a lot of walking it would seem.

Bloober Team's bread and butter have been creating these 'Walking Simulator'-esque games, although tilted more towards the horror angle of this sub-genre. That being said, to call 'Blair Witch' a horror game would be, once again, charitable. It is mostly an adventure through a series of mildly disconcerting visuals intercut with copious amounts of walking and basic dog maintenance. (You've got to let Bullet know that he's a good boy, afterall.) Some critics have laid into the game and the way it seems to dance around the mythology of the Witch to instead deliver a personal story of a war Vet's PTSD, although I will argue that the series itself has avoided focusing on the Witch up until now so I don't understand why the game should break that trend. (That being said, a PTSD riddled Vet is literally the most cliched 'broken' protagonist they could have gone with. I could have written a more intriguing protagonist. And I'm just an arse.)  At the end of the day, the game's 'gameplay' sections are rather weak and not really worth experiencing for yourself in the way that games like 'Outlast' are. Although, the game does just enough with the way it handles the interactivity to earn it's right to be a video game. This isn't a case of a 'walk-through movie' like some games.

That dubious honor would go more to games like The Chinese Room's 'Everybody's gone to the Rapture'. This game would be the next game from The Chinese Room, since they released 'Amensia: A Machine for pigs' and managed to make every horror fan go "huh, I guess there are no new idea's in the Amnesia series, afterall." Perhaps that is the reason why the team decided to step away from the 'horror game' stigma and launch into the budding 'interactive story' genre with this new game. I had a friend who wouldn't let me rest with how much he kept bending my ear about how exciting this game would be and how it would revolutionize video game storytelling. Then it came out and suddenly gave prime ammunition to those 'Walking Simulator' coiners.

When I look at a game like 'Everybody's gone to the Rapture', I can't help but think that this is the kind of game that isn't sure of what is wanted to be. (Certainly not the laughing stock that is sort of became when it released.) Set in a lovingly rendered English town (It's actually uncanny how accurate the whole place is) this game set the player in the role of an observer through a deserted former habitat. You are tasked with... well nothing really. But the only thing to do in the game is wonder about and try to piece together what happened, so that'll likely be what you end up doing. Gameplay consists of wondering about at a literal snail's pace and interacting with nodes across the map. These nodes imbue you with some audio of the people who used to live there and will take you across the story of a few of the residents as the Event begins to happen. That is the whole game. There is little to no interactivity with your environment and the individuals that you are eavesdropping on are so mindnumbingly ordinary that you feel like you're listening to the world's slowest soap opera at times. Maybe this idea might have made for an alright radio show or podcast series, but in it's current form the game just feels like a waste to it's medium. Nothing about being able to walk around this town adds to the story on display here beyond giving you the ability to walk exceedingly slowly. This game is the prime example of what a 'Walking Simulator' is, in it's worst incarnation.

One thing that I have made note of during my brief time browsing the 'Walking Simulator' section of Steam is that no-one is married to a definitive definition. (Or the fact that Steam just has no idea what the term means.) Their list is comprised of games like 'Life is Strange 2', (Which is a choice based narrative game) Viscera Cleanup detail, (Which is a hilariously satirical game about playing the cleaning crew after a massacre. What? That exciting mopping gameplay just doesn't count?) And The Stanley Parable. This does go to show just how flimsy of a term that 'Walking Simulator' really is with the term being as broad as the describer needs it to me. (Which does not make for a good descriptor. And no, you're not allowed to apply that logic to the way I use adjectives. This is not a democracy.) However, I do find that last game I mentioned to be particularly interesting in this discussion for reasons that I hope to adequately convey.

For those unaware, 'The Stanley Parable' is a game about... well a lot of things really, but I'll just call it a parody game for now. For the game, the player is placed in the shoes of the titular Stanley and lumped with an narrator who's job it is to guide Stanley through a peculiar day at work. The intended narrative should follow Stanley discovering that his office is abandoned, finding a hidden mind control lair underneath his boss' office and escaping into the outside world of endless green fields, 'Portal' style. However, the kicker comes from the fact that it is oh-so easy for the player to subvert the Narrator's wishes and go off on their own. 'The Stanley Parable' takes a more on-the-nose approach to supplanting the expectations of the video game protagonist than, say Bioshock does, but it does it with such natural flair that it doesn't come across as boorish or pretentious. In fact, I'd go so far as to call 'The Stanley Parable' a supremely funny and clever game.

That is all despite the fact that the core gameplay of 'The Stanley Parable' is the act of walking. Yeah, you get the chance to hit the odd button every now and then,(and even jump!) but your key tool for defiance against the Narrator is the ability to walk the opposite direction from the one he wants to go in. (Unless, that's the direction that he really wants to go in. Ever thought about that?) As the protagonist defies his script, players will begin to unravel the world in a variety of smart ways that are so varied and surprising that I absolutely refuse to reveal any in this little overview. All of that is achieved and unlocked by relying on the player's capacity for curiosity and their willingness to explore. Sure, if the player is feeling compliant they could follow along their fixed path and reach the 'end', but there is so much more that the player could and should see, but it'll take an active effort on their part to experience it. I think that is what separates a game like this from the likes of 'Everybody's gone to the Rapture' and the 'Walking Simulator' label. Everything about this game is reliant on the player having interactivity with the world, choice of destination and, most-importantly, free will. There is no other medium on which this experience could exist and it makes the most out of it's existence as a 'game' to lead players for a loop. (Sometimes literally.)

There are a lot more games in Steam's list that I do not know well enough to comment on, so I decided to instead default to a couple that I know rather well that fall under the 'Walking Simulator' banner. Firstly there is the classic well-known mystery game "What remains of Edith Finch'. If you want to get a good idea for what narrative focused storytelling looks like in a video game environment, this is place to start. Although, chances are you've already heard of this game given the fact that it won a BAFTA. There is so much to this experience that goes beyond the simple 'walk along and listen to things' definition that it is rather hard to explain it all concisely, although I'll try.

'What Remains of Edith Finch' places the player in the shoes of Edith as she is placed in the woods outside of the Finch family home. From there you are expected to explore the surrounding area, uncover the stories of the former residents and uncover the reason why she's the last member in her family left alive. Now, you may thinking "That's just the Steam description", and you'd be right. There is so much to cover about the way this game handles story telling, puzzle solving and even mildly spooky scenes that is all honestly deserves a fully dedicated review which I intend to get around to at some point. More to the point, this game does not fit the disparaging confines of the 'Walking Simulator' label due to two factors. A. the exploration of the game in an interactive way is key to the 'discovery' angle that the narrative in being told in, justifying this game's existence; and B. The game has puzzles, so it's not all just walking and reading/listening.

Another such game which is often heralded as the progenitor for 'Walking Simulators' would be the oft unsung classic 'Gone Home'. Fullbrights' 'Gone home' is as close as anyone can get to a 'ground zero' for this sub-genre and it's almost cliche premise is indicative of that. You arrive back home after having been abroad for a year and discover the family home completely empty. This is another game that tasks you with nothing but instead places into an incredibly believable world space and expects you to put together the story piece by piece. The world space of 'Gone Home' is honestly the best example of such that this genre has to offer, it is so true-to-life that you honestly feel like you're rifling through a real room full of real belongings. The story is scattered amongst all this clutter so naturally that players will find themselves picking up on it instinctively and being drawn along.

Once again, 'Gone Home' is an experience which revolves primarily around the act of walking around the house and reading things, but those that dismissed this game as 'empty and boring' are doing themselves a supreme disservice in passing up this genuinely unmatched experience. The game taps into the inner voyeur inside us all and invites us to unfettered access into the lives of a family that you will become intimately familiar with in no time without ever having even met them. Also, this game transcends the 'Walking Simulator' label in my eyes by being an experience that is impossible to recreate on any other medium save for, perhaps, a real-life investigation. (Although who wants to dig through real people's possessions? That's just gross.)

Finally, I decided to dig up another well-known genre-game from a developer who have something of a tarnished reputation for me. But whatever I think or don't think about Camp Santo, their game 'Firewatch' is a noteworthy narrative adventure. Different to every other game that I've mentioned on this list, 'Firewatch' is a highly linear and story driven game that follows a newly stated fire lookout called Henry who escapes his frantic life to the desolate isolation of the Wyoming wilderness. Throughout the game your only communication with other life is your Supervisor Delilah with whom you speak exclusively over the radio. What follows is a magnetic tale about isolation, paranoia and connection that honestly must be experienced.

Firewatch is one of those games that has the potential to stay with you long after you leave the adventure. In fact, a lot of the games that I've mentioned today have that boon, it's a side effect of this sub-genre and the way it tells stories. That is partially the reason that I'm so quick to dispel the label of 'Walking Simulator' whenever I see it as I feel those two words are so reductive to the experience actually at play here. In Firewatch's case, much of the impact of the story and it's themes require the player to be as immersed with the character of Henry as humanely possible, or else the emotion resonance may fall flat. Could this be told in movie form? Sure. But it would take a damn good cast and crew to do it justice, just as it took Camp Santo to pull of this game in the first place.

Once more, I do understand the philosophy and arguments presented by the 'Walking Simultor' crowd, but I do feel that they sorely undersell a genre that has such interesting and different stories to tell. Perhaps these aren't the kind of games for everyone out there, granted, but it would be foolish to discount the value of what's there and call it nothing, when it can prove to be a special, sometimes eye-opening, experience for those willing to donate their time. It's the gaming equivalent of when Martin Scorsese labels Marvel movies as 'not cinema', or when Francis Ford Coppola expands on these claims and calls them 'despicable'. These are by no means foolish men, just two people who are a bit closed minded to a new type of Cinema that isn't to their tastes. It's perfectly okay to dislike something that doesn't speak to you, but the second you try to wave it away and assume it's trash the only person you're discrediting is yourself. (Of course, the only exception to this rule are modern sports games. They're always trash and you can quote me on that.) 

Inner look at The Outer Worlds

Remember; whatever happens out here, it's your fault.

I created this punny title months ago with the intention of doing an in-depth analysis of the, then newly released, Outer Worlds trailer. Yet for whatever reason, apathy or lethargy, I never got around to covering it. I just couldn't justify the reviewing of a trailer for a title that I just couldn't get myself excited for. Now I don't need to, as the game is out and I have been playing it practically non stop since release. As such this blog has evolved from a analysis to an early impressions. So let's impress. (Wait...)

Firstly, you might be wondering; "What would bring you to pre-order and binge a game that you have stated, multiple times in fact, does not interest you?" Well a couple of factors have played into that, one of which being the realization that I had been treating the game unfairly and judging it for what it wasn't instead of what it was. (An easy mistake to make as an amateur pundit.) More influential to my decision, however, were the actions of their closet competitor. I know that the folks at Obsidian would be the first one's to talk about their positive working relationship with Bethesda, but that doesn't shake the fact that an immersion-specific 50's-esque action RPG automatically sets itself in direct competition with Bethesda's Fallout. With that in mind, it should hardly be surprising to read that Bethesda's blunderous decisions of late have driven me, not just to keep my money far away from them, but to redirect that money to Obsidian's pockets. Call it my little form of protest.

On the bright side, this means that I have been able to jump into The Outer Worlds fresh faced and ready. With that unlaboured perspective, I could become concerned about the versatility of combat without becoming clouded my uninformed preconceptions. To be clear, I played the game on the highest difficulty below Supernova (For reasons I'll explain later) and what I found was that the beginning areas were actually incredibly easy to breeze through. Luckily, my experiences with the later game has proved that things can start to escalate, I even had to start employing rudimentary tactics against these darn Mantiqueens. So perhaps that particular concern is unfounded, I suppose I'll find out as I continue through.

Besides from my concerns with combat, The Outer Worlds has significantly surprised me as being an action RPG game that takes it's RPG routes to heart more than any other example of the genre. What I mean by this, is often you'll find that 'Action RPG's' tend to ditch a lot of traditional RPG mechanics in order to streamline the gameplay. Your player character may be susceptible to a few negative status effects, but the bulk load is meant for enemies. You may have put all of your points into offensive stats, but you still posses the ability to perform a basic set of rolls and dodges. As you can likely deduce from be bringing this up in the first place, The Outer Worlds dances to it's own tune in this regard. You will find your self juggling with status effects, threating over which limb you need to cripple on what enemy to make it through this fight, or just discovering how basic gameplay features need to be unlocked to be enjoyed. (It took until hour 10 for me to realize that companion abilities are locked behind you having 20 points in leadership.)

They take this to the extreme with Supernova difficulty, which is meant to be a stand in for a 'survival mode'. And before you moan, I would like to remind you that Obsidian were the one's responsible for implementing New Vegas' survival mode, which is the industry gold standard for such modes. In Supernova, you are much more susceptible to debuffs and must maintain your food and sleep in order to shake some of them. However, sleep is limited to only being possible on your own ship, meaning one has to be tactical with their mission choices. Likewise, you can only manually save the game on your ship and are beholden to limited autosaves whilst off your ship, making the prospect of dying all the more tense. Honestly, I would have jumped into this mode off-the-bat if it wasn't for the saving restriction. I needed to ensure that I knew the game inside and out before I committed to something like that.

I do owe this game, and the Devs, an apology for one conclusion that I came to during the promotional period of this game. Namely, that this seemed like a cheap imitation of Borderlands in it's humor and setting. Admittedly, I don't think the game put it's best foot forward with that first trailer, but it's hard to convey the dry wit that the writing champions without explicit context, so I'll forgive them for that. As to the setting of the game, this was one assumption that I was completely off-base on. Borderlands' world is defined by chaos, and even though they joke about the ruling hand of the corporations over people's lives, it never feels like a concept driven to it's extreme. The Outer Worlds' one the otherhand, absolutely does drive that concept to it's extreme, by having the entire Halcyon colony be literally ruled by the different companies who bought the system. In this world, every aspect of your life is corporate mandated or shaped through targeted commercialism, making life there a bureaucratic nightmare. It is a fascinating concept that could so easily be squandered if the writing team lacked the talent of Obsidian's. Everytime you come across a terminal entry with cooperate spiel that you feel tempted to skim through (As you would in a Fallout game) you always give it a look through and get a wry smile out of the subtle jokes here and there.

All of these aspects come together to form a game that was quite unlike what I was expecting. In the beginning, I though we would be getting a Fallout-esque game. Indeed, many of the impressions that you scroll past on the Internet right now will, rather lazily, title themselves 'Fallout in Space.' (The Dark Souls of review titles, one might say.) What I found, however, was something more akin to Firefly in tone and a traditional Bioware game in content. The slight tactical edge to combat, the communication/quest based friendships with your companions, the heavy 'RPG' edge, all of this makes me think that this is what Bioware could have been if they hadn't sold their creative soul to EA.

That is all I have to say about The Outer Worlds presently, I intend to only start a full review once I've beasted through on Supernova, so don't expect anything soon. I am enjoying the game a lot right now, and believe that it has the potential to become a favourite depending on how the story and gameplay plays out as I get further on. I will say, however, that I'm concerned as to how much legs this concept has. I know Obsidian have talked about The Outer Worlds potentially starting a new franchise, but the whole 'space cowboys versus the cooperations' thing doesn't really feel like it invites a slew of new stories. I'm just not sure that the game's universe is large enough to support a franchise. Then again, one could have said the same for the first Fallout game, and that series went on for twenty years before Bethesda murdered it. I suppose we shall see how things play out for Obsidian in the future, and if this game is successful enough to warrant a sequel.

Ruminations on video game atrophy.

Insert funny line/obscure reference here

I had another blog lined up for today. It had bells and whistles and everything. But after some unfortunate circumstances it all got wiped and now I feeling weak and useless and can't even work up the creative energy to re-enter the paragraphs that I lost. (I suppose I underestimated how much I needed the stability of this blog in my life.) However, I am sad. Really freakin' sad. So I thought I could replace my fallen content with something that fits my morose mood. (Don't expect many zany jokes and punchlines with this one.)

So what do I mean by a video game atrophy? It's a fairly vague term with many different possible meanings or connotations, but which drove me to write this blog? Well, I was thinking about the general wasting away of gaming in the industry sense. (Maybe I'll cover personal atrophy the next time I feel like hurling myself off a roof.) You see, gaming has evolved incredibly rapidly in the past few decades from a niche activity to the most profitable in the world, and that sped-up growth could be met with a hastened demise considering how things appear to be panning out from here. (FYI, the rest of this blog is going to be an off-the-cuff personal dirge of an article, so don't expect heavy research, mirth, or a happy conclusion.)

There have been a few individuals who have taken a look at the progression of gaming and remarked how it resembles the ebb and flow of other art forms, yet in fast-motion. So it is my no means an original idea when I point out how gaming trends fall out of grace in a matter of years as opposed to generations. Remember when breaking the fourth wall was the height of intelligent storytelling? (Well, maybe not in the mainstream. Everyone seemed to roll their eyes in Assassin's Creed 2 when Juno spoke to the player.) That trend seemed to be wholly axed off with the cumulative and creative; Doki Doki Literature Club. To try that again would be old hat and uncreative. How can you top the type of manipulation that Dan Salvato pulled off? Simple, you can't. People's tastes moved on and so did video game storytelling. All in the space of one game.

Of course, that isn't to say that there aren't trends that don't overstay their welcome. When Kojima delivered one of the greatest horror teasers of all time in PT, many indie Devs tried to copy the ideas and concepts that were introduced here. If I had a penny for every looping hallway horror indie project that I have come across since, I would have enough to pay off my debts and become a functioning member of society. (Thank god that's not the case and I'm resigned to this purgatory, huh?) Not that I blame anyone for borrowing an idea here and there, what Kojima and his team presented was truly inspired. In horror video games there are usually those few spaces in which the player is safe, these are areas that you get to know exceedingly well and take comfort from that familiarity. These help to pad out the time between terror sequences and prevent the player from becoming desensitized too quickly. Kojima turned this concept on it's head slightly by familiarizing the player with this hallway location and having them loop through it again and again, then he changed it up by subtly adding small detail to the map and throwing in horror ques to deeply unnerve you. He played on so many levels of horror that other games hadn't manage to reach yet that it was inevitable that someone would try to emulate his game. That being said, Polish Itch.io horror project 'Estacao Liberdade' is literally just PT on a subway. I mean, they literally stole the creepy radio script and re-worded it for their game. (Good artists borrow, great artists steal, I guess.)

So where am I going with this? Just that I think that the rapid adoption rate of video game trends could have an adverse effect on the future of gaming. Heck, I don't like being an alarmist, but I think that if things carry on the way they are it's only a matter of time before we hit a second Video game crash. Let me explain. Recently I was playing 'The Outer Worlds' (Today's blog was supposed to be on that game, but you know...) That is a game that is feature complete with every bit of desired content finished and shipped with the product. That is to say, this isn't an a work-in-progress game that is going to try and persist itself for years and bum a few pity bucks off you in order to keep up with expenses. 'The Outer Worlds' is a very "what you see is what you get", kind of game. And that strangely makes it something of an abnormally in today's gaming landscape.

I have spoken in length about the steady rise of live services in our gaming sphere, but I find it really is important not to understate just how prevalent these types of games are becoming. Every release window we seem to get at least two live service releases, attempting to compete for your money and attention through recurrency incentives. Ubisoft famously claimed that traditional games were gone and everything was about 'live services' now. They even demonstrated so with a hilarious amateurish flow chart featuring a .Jpeg of Bayek (from Assassin's Creed Origins) in the middle. (You guys need to start paying your graphic designers more. Or at all.) So that is one huge company that has committed to bowing out of making traditional video games in favour of ones that are more 'lucrative'.

The problem is that when such a trend starts to catch on, you start to run afoul of Syndrome's razor; "When everyone's a super, no one is". All these games want to be different and advertise their games as a journey for their players to go on. 'Join us and you can see this game start from humble beginnings to become the next WoW or FFXIV!' The problem is, this usually doesn't work out. When we live with a work ethic of "It's not where yo start, it's where you end up." (Thanks Todd Howard.) we start to see games that finish unpolished, unfinished, or straight up broken. (Or all 3 if we're talking Fallout 76.) From there these developers are expecting fans to latch onto these messes-of-a-game until the thing becomes worthwhile, dedicating their time and money along the way. The industry has essentially found a way to mix crowdfunding and early access in the worst way possible.

Even when things work out and the game isn't total trash, Devs still need the community to be playing and paying constantly in order to justify the game's servers being kept up. This leads to situations where players will find themselves with literally no more freetime left to split between their games as they have to do a daily in this game, before completing a dungeon here, and then the weekly boss in that game before finishing with the monthly contract. All of these 'recurrency incetives' are slapped with a timer in order to promote their exclusivity and encourage impulse buying. Essentially, this means that every live service game is competing each other for your screen time oblivious of the fact there is only so much to go around.

So, as the quality of games is slowly starting to become worse, people are starting to buy less of them and instead stick to the games that they know to be good, or are already a shoe in. Battlefield, Call of Duty, and Sports games are all going to hit their sales quotas, that's a given, but every other game has to struggle for recognition and sales. It's slowly starting to create a bubble where only a handful of games are getting the lion share of the industry profits, and bubbles are known to be susceptible to bursting. Wasn't the last video game crash caused by an influx of low quality products that cost too much to produce and nobody wanted to buy them? (I may be wrong on the particulars there, but I think I caught the gist.)

So what do we do about all of this? As consumers, we have to let these companies know that it's time to change tactics into something that it more sustainable and healthy for the industry. And that means we'll have to play hardball with the only bargaining chip that matters, their money. Of course, this is implying that people have enough social responsibility to even act in the greater good. Heck, the other day I saw a Reddit post of someone complaining about how they were getting rude messages over Xbox live because they purchased Fallout 76's subscription service and were running around in the exclusive ranger armour. "I don't agree with it either" He wrote "Blame Bethesda, not me.". If that is any hint as to the intelligence of the average consumer, then it's safe to say that gaming is doomed. (Have a happy Halloween!)

Well, Well, Well...

Look what the storm of controversy dragged in...

Things have been really tough for this year's Call of Duty, and I mean beyond the general public disdain that this series amasses from anyone who's not a die hard convert. For years pundits have been blaming Call of Duty for everything wrong with the industry, first with the lack of creative ingenuity and lately with the propagation of avaricious and predatory business practises. They've even caught a ribbing due to the fact that they seem to have run out of names to call their games. (In all honesty, Modern Warfare is a pretty dull title to recycle.) At times it can almost feel like Activision's darling series is the whipping boy of the gaming community, but they still make stupid amounts of money each and every year so nobody can call them the underdog.

That being said, this year has been something wholly special for the Call of Duty haters out there. Firstly there was the huge issue of exclusivity that Infinity tried to sneak past it's consumers during a trailer. You know, the one in which they wrote in the smallest of fonts about how Spec Ops Survival mode would be an exclusive feature to PlayStation consumers for a whole year? I covered this in my blog last month, as well as the fervour it caused. People flooded the official CoD subreddit and Twitter account, demanding to know what exactly it was that made their money less valuable than PlayStation owner's money. Some made the sound argument that other consoles should be charged less for the game, considering they are getting less of the game at launch. And it seems no one was soothed by the official response of 'That's only 1% of the game, calm down!'. (It would seem that the general public is capable of basic math, Infinity Ward. You've gotta be more careful with your assertations!)

With all that nonsense having come, and mostly blown over, Infinity Ward and Activision must have thought that they had weathered the brunt of the storm. (And mass pre-order cancellations that were heralded by, said storm.) Then the Hearthstone catastrophe happened with Blitzchung and everything blew up once again. This time, Call of Duty wasn't the instigator of Activision's public relations woes, but was an unfortunate bystander in the chaos. Now that it had been established that Blizzard, and through them Activision, were happy to dump their morales in order to make some that sweet Chinese Yuan, everyone thought it only fitting that they dump Activision whilst telling them to get a room with their Tencent sweethearts. Once again, this led to a string of cancelled pre-orders.

Obviously I covered the majority of these topics on my blog, however there was incident between these two that I ignored, simply because it didn't seem like anything out of the ordinary for an Activision title. Namely, the way in which Call of Duty seemed to be primed for the implementation of Lootboxes. Big shock, right? A greedy company succumbing to greedy tactics that sacrifices the integrity of the game mechanics and balancing in order to supplement their revenue? Absolutely unheard of! But even die hard CoD fans had been voicing their displeasure over this development, so maybe this was an issue worth covering afterall. Apparently, last year's Black Ops 4 (The game that was stripped of it's campaign after development mishap after development mishap) was completely gutted by it's microtransactions, and people were scared of it happening here with 'Modern Warfare'. I remember hearing horror stories of individual red dot lights costing upwards of 3$ and just ended up dismissing it as 'peak CoD'. But I guess last year's systems were the straw that broke the camels back, because we may be getting actual change from this year's CoD.

Of course, I would hesitate to call this a direct response to the 'lootbox issue' and more a concession on Activision's part in answer to all their mounting controversy, but hey, might as well take the little victory while you can. We got wind of some potential action being taking a while back when a popular, and often accurate, leaker claimed that Activision had held meetings to address their steadily dropping pre-order levels. (Hear that people? You were depriving the vampires of their life blood, how cruel of you!) Infinity Ward's response to their initial backlash did got out of it's way to throw shade on this leaker, labelling his or her's information as 'rumor' (A legendary moronic move seeing how these leaks were painting the studio in a socially aware and considerate light.) but most people just ignored the PR babble, as they usually do, and choose to trust the voice that had lied to them less. (Ugh, the state of developer/consumer communication these days...)

But how exactly has Activision responded to the lootbox issue, you may be wondering. What could they have done that is even remotely worthy of praise? Well, in a recent blog post 'The Call of Duty Team' detailed all the ways in which they wanted to prove themselves to the community and adopt a positive player-first approach. (Que the "Trust me, I've changed!" monologue.) This post including such 'revolutionary ideas' as; introducing crossplay. Because I've always wanted to get destroyed by PC players. Okay, to be fair a decent amount of thought did appear to go into this system to ensure that control schemes had to be similar to facilitate this type of crossplay, but I wonder about the framerate advantage of superior rigs. (Or will everyone get artificially throttled to keep things fair?) Then they boasted about their removal of season passes and DLC map packs to keep everyone on the same level. Something that the rest of the gaming industry learnt after 2012 with the community splintering effect of Gears of War 3's map packs. (But better late then never I guess.) They also mentioned how they are delivering free maps and post-launch content going forward, which is just an expansion of the above statement but the team needed another bullet point. Finally they vowed to ensure that all post launch maps and modes hit everyone simultaneously. Which is a tad laughable considering the cluster that the Survival mode incident incurred for the very merit of ignoring this release model.

Throwing all the rest of the blog away, the one headlining announcement that will have caught everyone's attention would be the fact that the game will now be featuring a Battlepass system, not lootboxes. I feel it important to note that this message went out of it's way to say "Not a loot box system", as if to throw shade on the leaker who claimed that was their original intent. However, we did see some bugs in the Beta mode for the game which gave away the Loot box system too, so you can kindly get the heck off that high-horse Activision, no one's falling for your crap. Additionally, I am so tired of these developers using the "everything's always changing" excuse to keep consumers guessing about monetisation until a week before launch. (Heck, sometimes it's the day of launch.) Just to be clear, everyone already knows that the studios are dead-set on their monetisation system months before launch, and Call of Duty would have most certainly had a Loot box system if Activision didn't have so many fires to put out.

The cherry on the top of it all, however, is the way how CoD are switching to a Battlepass system and calling it a day. Don't get me wrong, I generally do prefer a Battlepass system over lootboxes, it is certainly leagues more fair on the player's bank account, but that just makes CoD another one of those games desperately vying for player's eternal attention through recurrency ensuring tactics. How long until the gaming industry realizes that there are only so many hours in the week that people can realistically divide between games? At this point, Activision are actively poaching recurrency away from their other games, like their own Apex Legends. Although, given Respawn's tone deaf and draconic approach towards monetisation and public relations I would be hard pressed to say that the game didn't deserve it. Yet it does seem like history is repeating itself and no one learnt their lesson. (I'm referring to the time that Respawn's great shooter, Titanfall 2, was killed by Activision because they released it in a window sandwiched between their own Battlefield game and Call of Duty.)

Maybe this is the first sign of Activision turning a new leaf. Maybe we can expect a player first approach from the studio going forward and every proceeding endeavour will prioritize the quality of the game over securing a profit. Maybe we'll all live in flying castles in the sky with talking pigs serving as our butlers. Who knows what the future will bring. But I find it infinitely more enlightening to look at the actions of a company before the walls start closing in on them, and back then they appeared to be just as avaricious as always. So I wouldn't expect much change from the Call of Duty franchise once the brand finishes licking it's wounds and comes back swinging next year. You could argue that this was the right choice on Activision's part and that I'm discounting that in order to feed into my superstitions, but I always like to remember the adage; Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

76 Problems with subcription services

Oh shut up, Todd.

Has it even been a week? Honestly, I'm too scared to look back and find out. Already those- people at Bethesda feel it's right to test the patience of it's loyal fandom once again and I'm not sure I, personally, can take it anymore. It's tugging at my heartstings to read about these stories time and time again and wonder what happened to the studio that was once my favourite game developer. If we weren't a breath away from the release of The Outer Worlds I don't know what I would do. At least Obsidian can provide us action-RPG fans with some vague semblance of hope now that our heroes have died and been rebuilt as a sacrilegious parodies of themselves. (It just sickens me.)

If you hadn't heard or were just plain lucky enough to avoid Bethesda news altogether, Fallout 76 has found a way to get on everybody's lips once again for all the wrong reasons. Not a week after we hear news about Bethesda's attempt to squeeze the last drops of blood out of their rapidly diminishing fanbase, another blog post drops on Bethesda.Net with a chilling ultimatum. Fallout 76 will be receiving one of it's most requested (and promised) features after all this time, private servers. (with mod support at a later date.)  What's the catch? A 100$ a year subscription service, obviously. (Someone pinch me. I hope I'm dreaming.)

There is so much wrong with this announcement and what it means for the future of Fallout 76, that to attempt to cover it all without any mind bleach might just prove fatal, so I'll use this blog to compare other subscription offers with this one. (I need some positivity today, else I might just explode.) Don't get me wrong, I'm not doing this on the off-chance that some Bethesda employee happens across this post by some nobody and takes inspiration, this is purely for my own catharsis. This is the way I intend to process this tragedy and I'd appreciate you sticking around and bearing with me through this one. (It's going to get rant-ey.)

First of all, let me start of by saying that I do not like subscription services. I understand why they exist and hold nothing against those who partake (which is a lot more than I can say for Lootbox consumers) but my inherent stinginess physically repulses at the idea of opting into a monthly fee. On a more practical note, I'm a huge nostalgia nut who likes to find his way back to stories that I love years down the line; Therefore I'd rather own something definitively rather than rent it for the moment only to realize that I've lost it due to having dropped my subscription years ago. (It literally took me a decade to rediscover 'Devil May Cry 2' after renting it for a week. I don't want to go through that headache again.) Yet even with that inherent distaste on my part, I can recognize when a subscription deal is too good to pass up. A good deal is a good deal no matter what the asking price is; Fallout 76's Fallout 1st program is not a good deal.

The launch period of Fallout 76 has already gone down in the books as one of the most disastrous of all times, and it wasn't just because of connection woes. (Although we did have a lot of them.) There were problems with rampant glitches, lack of progression incentives, no endgame, unbalanced world bosses, unbalanced perk cards, and a sorely empty and forgettable world space. All of this should have signalled red flags for Bethesda but they all subscribed to the belief that the game would get better, sentiments that Todd Howard shared in a candid interview. (For which he was relentlessly blasted online.) So it wasn't the end of the world that the game launched as a hollow mess, for it was a platform that would start to improve.

Fast forward one year later and many of those problems that I've mentioned still persist. In fact, some of the stability issues were relived only to be re-introduced during the Raids update. Another, just as unbalanced, world boss was added and progression has been relegated entirely to the marketplace. Higher levels are just for show at this point. All this was supposed to fixed by now due to the Wastelanders update that was recently delayed, and instead the community who have stuck by this game have been sidelined and told that future incremental updates to player's quality of life will be exclusive to either the in-game store or an embarrassingly overpriced subscription service.

I'm sure that Bethesda 'diehards' (see: sunk cost fallacy) will march to Bethesda's defence and claim that none of the items on offer are necessities, but, once again, Bethesda are playing a game of attrition. The more small nicks of annoyance that they poke you with, the weaker you become to their attempts to sell the big items to you. This is simple marketing strategy, you don't need to be genius to see it. This time, Bethesda are offering an ingame camp system as an exclusive subscription item (Which allows players to create a fast-travel beacon without moving their entire base) and a free Desert Ranger outfit. Which makes no sense canonically as that organization was born on the West coast and were famously exclusive to the area of the Mojave until they encountered the NCR (Which wouldn't be formed yet for a good hundred years.), but it's nice to see that Bethesda are profiteering off of Obsidian's work on New Vegas. Real classy, guys.

The paltry offering isn't even the biggest rub here, nor is the fact that Bethesda want to attach another paywall to their sinking ship. For me, it's that ludicrous price tag. $11.99 a month? Will Todd Howard personally come around my house to give me a foot massage? If not then I expect a damn good explanation as to why I should fork out three times the cost of one month of Xbox game pass in order to play the worst Fallout game ever made. (And I'm including 'Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel' in that comparison) Game pass, may I remind you, is a service that allows buyers to play over 100 high-quality games for a paltry monthly sum, sometimes on the day of release! (And I'm not even paid to say that. I just hate Fallout 1st so much that I'll sing the praises of a serial killer if he offered a subscription for his crimes.)

But Microsoft aren't the only ones who offer a superior 'paid subscription'. Perhaps the closest direct comparison I can make off the top of my head is that of WoW Classic. (Seeing as how Bethesda fancy this game as their very own MMO) WoW was the game the defined the MMO genre and spawned a thousand failure copy cats. (Ranks that Bethesda seem eager to join.) I'm not sure how subscription works today, but back in it's prime WoW operated on a nominal fee that could be purchased directly or earnt through playing the game religiously, meaning that you theoretically only had to buy a subscription once. (Wait... is this how Battlepasses were born too? This game really was ahead of it's time!)

How about Nintendo's online service that they offer with the Switch. Initially it seemed like something of a raw deal. (Especially with the way they robbed previously online games of their connectivity.) But the deal has become a whole of a lot sweeter since the 'virtual' consoles were introduced. Just like with game pass, you can play through Nintendo's legendary library of classic games (albeit, drip fed from the big N) for no extra charge then the purchase of the online itself. "How much does it cost?" you ask? £15 for a year. (Bethesda best be taking some serious notes right now.)

If you're looking for a more traditional one-on-one comparison with a modern MMO, look no further than the best MMO on the market right now; Final Fantasy XIV. This is a game that nails every aspect of it's required agenda as an MMO and does so with absolute style. There are countless activities, events, vocations, end-game grinds, and top-tier raids to take part in. Not only that, but many of the DLC story add ons have been hailed as some of the best Final Fantasy stories ever told. (And that's coming from the franchise that practically wrote the book on epic storytelling.) How much is this game's subscription? Well for the first 35 levels it's free, after that you are hit with a $12 monthly fee. (That's kinda deceptive, honestly.) So this is a price that is closer to Fallout 76's proposition, but what's the difference? Hmm, how about the fact that you are paying for the best MMO on the market right now that is renowned for inundating it's player base with premium quality content. Not exactly a one-to-one comparison to Bethesda's game, and yet they seem to think their worth it. (Some folk are easily deluded.)

I didn't think I'd have to write another blog about abject stupidity on Bethesda's front. I hoped I wouldn't have to. But when you are met by a studio that are so adamant on throttling their loyal consumer base to their last penny, it's hard not to point and stare. At this point, I can't imagine anyone taking this game seriously unless they do a 'Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn' style overhaul, but honestly, I doubt modern Bethesda have enough passion and ingenuity to pull something like that off. Well, the blog has done the trick. I'm no longer seething with rage and have settled into my natural state of despair. So I guess I'm going to end this here. See you the next time Bethesda do something dumb, I guess.