One life mode

You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow.

One of the most appealing features of gaming in general, at least in my eyes, is the distinct lack of consequence that the whole thing incurs. Whereas performing an action, or not doing so, in the real world has very tangible consequences, (most of which are usually negative in my experience) in video games you are free from that struggle by way of metaphysical detachment. Even the most dedicated 'your choices matter' video game doesn't have any bearing on your actual life because at the end of the day you can just scrap everything and go back to the beginning, a boon that we don't share as boring mortals.

There are those games, however, that do not abide by the general wistful rules of gaming and seek to impart the cold permanence of mortality upon our one receptacle of relief. (Gee, thanks guys.) These are the sorts of games that I find myself coming back to time and time again, as they come to tear you up about what could have been. Or, they make death a lot more meaningful by requiring players to restart everything should they die. (I thought we transcend those kinds of games ever since 'The Legend of Zelda' and saving.) Today I want to look at the appeal of these types of games and why it is a gimmick that I don't see dying out anytime soon. (See what I did there? It was unintentional too!)

One of the most famous examples of the 'one life' genre of games would be the 2010 browser based pixel game known as 'One Chance'. Chances are that if you spent anytime consuming Internet culture around this time then you'll have heard of this little indie gem, partially due to the fact that it is readily available for anyone to play on flash hosting sites like 'Newgrounds'. But just to recap, 'One Chance' tells the story of a man who is a month away from the end of the world and has one chance to stop it. It is a highly narrative driven experience showing the breakdown of this individuals life as the world start to crumble and giving the player's a little ounce of choice along the way. Once players reach their conclusion, however, they'll have cottoned onto the fact that the title is double-edged. The protagonist has one chance to save the world and the player only has one chance to play the game. Whatever ending you finish with is yours forever and there is no 'do-overs' or second chances ever. (Unless you clear your cookie history, but let's not break the illusion of permanence.)

Minecraft and Terraria are two games built around an incredibly simple premise, you are alive in a hostile world and must do your best to survive and thrive. Minecraft very much takes this in a direction whereupon players will end up going on great builds and carving themselves out a home and Terraria more has player's amassing weaponry to battle various deadly and terrifying foes. What both these games have going for them is the fact that, despite being very long-form experiences, they both have a 'hardcore' tag when creating the world. What this little option means is that the second your avatar kicks the bucket, their world is immediately deleted and all your progress is wiped. Obviously, this has the effect of making player's a lot more careful in how they play the game, however, in an endless adventure like Minecraft and Terraria, it's more an act of delaying the inevitable. Some fans like the extra layer of tension that this piles on top of the gameplay, but few would suggest this sort of experience for the casual player.

Speaking of 'Hardcore modes', how about we take a look at the franchise that is often credited with coining the phrase, the Diablo games and it's ilk. These endless dungeon crawlers are built around the cyclical gameplay loop of fighting hoards of ever more powerful monsters and amassing ever more powerful loot sets and abilities. This perpetual grind is often intersected by droplets of story and big, climatic boss battles, but the main draw of this genre comes from the balance between the predictable acting in unpredictable ways. In this manner it isn't too often to find oneself being slayed by enemies that you know well because you failed to pay attention when you needed to, and if you turn on the 'hardcore mode' that practically all of these games have, then that will be the end of your journey. For a series as 'dark' as Diablo and it's imitators, this concept actually fits in rather nicely to their world of heresy, violence and death. I suppose then, the only question is whether or not the player is brave enough to put themselves through that trial.

Bethesda have dedicated a portion of their efforts to reviving some of the long dead games of yesteryear, most prominently the 'Wolfenstein' and 'Doom' Games. Both of their titles earned stellar new revivals in the modern age and reintroduced current FPS fans to games back when they were still largely hard as nails. With that it mind, it shouldn't be surprising that both games feature their very own  'one life mode' in 'Mein Leben' and 'Ultra Nightmare' respectively. Both of these difficulties are like the crème de la crème of hardcore challenges, as they encourage people to slog through a heavily narrative-driven story and set pieces both without dying once or even quitting out. That's right, there's not even any checkpoints in either gamemode to exploit, that's real hardcore!

The concept of one life difficulties largely stems from the pursuit of accolades from the gaming habit. It's a covenant with one's self to prove that you posses both the tenacity and skill to overcome everything in a modern game. Some look upon this as bringing back some of the habits and traditions of old-school gaming (before Saving was invented) but honestly, with the lengths to which gaming and game design has evolved since the traditional consoles, these challenges are often much more brutal. But by overcoming odds that are honestly insurmountable for a great many, like playing through a 20 hour FPS campaign without dying or taking breaks, one can bask in the glory of having achieved something honestly commendable. (Or something easily ridiculed. Depends on the eyes of the beholder, I guess.)

As a life long glutton you'd think that a concept like this would be right up my street, but honestly 'hardcore modes' might just be that bit too much even for me. I really do cherish the ability to go back and fix a mistake, depriving me of that opportunity does have the knock on effect of sucking a lot of fun out of games as they just become tense stressful nightmares. Even modes which overly restrict gaming, like Fallout 4's survival mode, grates at my fragile sensibilities. That being said, I do understand the appeal, as much as any outsider can, and hope more big name games accommodate for those sorts of playstyles in the future.

Cyberpunk multi-transactions

You were the chosen one!

Okay everyone the news is in, Christmas is cancelled and everything good has left the server. All those little hopes and dreams you had for 2020, dash them to the winds because chaos and evil are all that reigns here today. What could possible have me expositing such doom and gloom, you ask? Did I run out of sugar for my morning bowl of sugar? No and I will enjoy my cholesterol, thank you very much. Gaming communities were shocked today to hear that their saviours, CD Projekt Red, would be succumbing to the dark forces of Microtransactions when it comes to their Online outing for Cyberpunk. (I guess there really are; No More Heroes.)

Usually I would delight in the destruction of a paragon of the community, for I always expect the worse from everyone and hardly sneeze whenever I am proved right, However, this time is different. This is the third time that we, I'm referring to the RPG community as well myself, have been burned by another trusted developer. First Bioware went the way of corporate with the rushed Andromeda and the gutted Anthem, then Bethesda turned their backs on RPG with the soulless Fallout 4 and, whatever the heck Fallout 76 is; and now Cyberpunk's VP and CEO have confirmed monetisation making its way to their next full price title, truly this is the darkest timeline. Except, as with every attention grabbing 'headline', that is not the full story.

First of all, I've heard a damn lot about the potential of microtransactions making it's way into Cyberpunk Online (or whatever this incredibly unclear project ends up being called) even though the sound bit in question features literally no mention of MTX. In a financial teleconference held by CDPR's VP of finance, Piotr Nielubowitz and CDPR CEO, Adam Kicinski (so glad this is a written blog) they address this issue in very uncertain terms. Allow me to transcribe: "As far as the monetisation on the multiplayer for Cyberpunk is concerned, we believe right now it is definitely too early to share any details on that or (deep?) guidance. The project is ... in the early stage. We keep experimenting, it's our first multiplayer game and we've checked different options and possibilities and it's definitely not the time to point you to a certain specific direction on that. But you can expect that we won't change our general policy toward (deals?) with gamers, so expect wise monetisation and always value for money." Now that transcript may not be exactly one-to-one, they may have been kind enough to be speaking English but that audio quality plus their accents can be difficult to hear, but what I've picked out from it straight away is the fact that no one has anything planned yet.

Now usually whenever I hear statements to this avail I call it out for the lying bull that it usually is. That absolute drivel we typically get when Devs come out and claim that they don't know what monetisation will look like until the day of launch, drives me crazy with how stupid it is as a statement. (Oh really? You guys have no idea what monetisation will look like! Is that how you got the funding to make the damn thing, by going "I dunno" in the pitch meeting? You lying sacks of-) But this is a situation in which I am legitimately more inclined to trust the word of management when they that they have literally no clue, for several reasons.

Firstly, this is another CDPR game that is self published, meaning that they have no overseers to make grand promises to and can make sweeping changes to the structure of the game without having to worry about pushback from another entity. This means that it is entirely possible, and likely, that they are working on developing game before they even bring up microtransactions. Secondly, this game is really, really early in development. If you remember, despite the idea having floated around for several years right now, it was only a month or so back that the project was publicly confirmed. This was accompanied alongside a casting call for developers to sign up and help them make the thing, something they did for Cyberpunk during the planning stages of pre-production. And if that alone doesn't sell you on the fact that this game isn't even a fetus yet, how about the fact that CDPR still have no idea what the game will end up being. Maybe it will be a DLC, maybe a standalone product, no one has any idea because they're so early in development they likely haven't even finished setting up a file directory for future assets. Thirdly, and my least favourite point, because they said so. CDPR have been the most 'real' AAA developers in the industry for a good many years right now, and their brand has been built on establishing trust between the consumers and the developers. Such a harmony has been broken before by other developers, granted, but I'm willing to give the team the benefit of the doubt here. They'll probably hold a public press announcement once they settle on a monetisation model, and I'll appreciate their candidness when they do.

One important factor that we must account for in this situation is whether or not the concept of monetisation is, inherently, bad. Of course, you'll get those morons out there that will label you a 'cheapskate' if you don't shell out for additional content, (see: the idiots who signed up to Fallout 1st)
but there is a valid argument to be made for the fact that monetisation helps fuel perpetual development. Of course, most people tend not to realize exactly what it means to 'feul development', and labour under the erroneous presumption that microtransaction profits make it directly into developers pockets (it doesn't) or that a studio needs microtransactions in order to survive. (99 out of 100 times, things are no where near that dire.) Although, that doesn't mean that a steady source of income doesn't go a long way to reassuring publishers and investors that this project is worth keeping around and that players are really gelling with the direction of things. (Which is why it is irredeemably short-sighted to support Bethesda's Fallout 76 under the assumption that they'll work harder on the game. You're literally rewarding them for doing next to nothing and telling them that you'll continue to fund their lethargy for the foreseeable future.)

The problem I have with monetisation is the way it starts as a pebble and becomes a landslide, almost always. It's always something small and inconsequential 'here's a cosmetic. Don't worry, you can buy it with in-game money too!' and within no time flat it morphs into something vile and predatory wherein players are forced to dish out extra cash in order to have a good time. Presumably this is what CDPR want to avoid when they talk about 'wise monetisation'. They want to strike some sort of balance between what players get by buying the game and what others get by buying even more. That's still a recipe for disaster in my book, but I've already committed to give the team a pass for now so I'll relent.

Monetisation is truly one of the trickiest issues to circumnavigate as a developer, as the concept is so synonymous with overbearing greed. It's hard to operate on a moral high ground when you're attempting to twist player's arms into dropping extra cash and misimplementation can have the knock on effect of devaluing the initial work that you put together for the game. I think that CDPR have put themselves on a very slippery road with this latest, unintentional, announcement, and all of the gaming world will be on lookout to see how they handle it. Fingers crossed they manage with half the amount on grace with which they put their single player games together. I'm sure that the conversation will continue to ramp up for the next couple of months, but I'll do my best to lay-off until we get more concrete information on what this Online component of Cyberpunk even is. (I'll ignore the whispers, which I wish would go away.)

In defence of: Skyrim

What's his problem, huh?

With all the negativity that has been courted by the fine folk over at Bethesda, I feel it necessary to get one thing straight; Skyrim is a good game. Heck, it's a fantastic game, in some people's opinion (Like mine) it's one of the best ever made. This shouldn't be something I need to establish but I have read post after post of people gas lighting themselves into forgetting how much this game achieved with what it did. People who exacerbate the issues and disregard all the positives. And I understand, I've done it too with Bethesda stories, but when Skyrim is dragged in front of the crosshairs it does make me feel a little personally affronted. And so I intend to launch myself in front of those crosshairs and defend my baby for the world today.

Today it's hard to defend anything with Bethesda's name and branding on it and honestly that is their own doing. The twin launches of Fallout 76 and 'Wolfestein: Young Blood' did murder upon their reputation and the lukewarm reception to the gutted Fallout 4 didn't leave anyone feeling hopeful for the future of this company. Then there are the studio departures, no where near as bad as what Bioware's facing but still disheartening to read about, and the fact that the team are committed to reusing the same tired engine once again on the upcoming Elder Scrolls 6. (Just put the thing to rest, it's painful at this point.) Folk are wondering if there is any point supporting a studio that seems intent on self sabotage to the point of obscurity, but I have never wavered in my loyalty to one of their products.

I remember my relationship with Skyrim so vividly because it was the first time that I had ever given the fantasy genre a chance. Before it always felt like the same stories being retold with the same characters and no heart in any of it. There were always the 'colonised Elves' who served as a thinly veiled metaphor for the Native Americans, the 'Stalwart Dwares' who toiled underground with their big beards and Napoleon complexes and the dull 'standard humans' who existed as little more than placeholders for the audience to stick their face in. With this tried and tested formula being the norm I saw little of the scope for imagination that the fantasy genre promised and I would never have done so if I didn't give a chance to a little game with a man wearing a horned helmet.

The Elder Scrolls served as my entry point into fantasy (which is now one of my favourite genres), my introduction into YouTube (Which is easily my most visited website), and helped feed my love of world building. (Which is a adoration that birthed my obsession with writing.) Nowadays I'm able to give a chance to almost any Fantasy property, even those that look generic from the outset (like the Witcher) only to prove one of the most interesting stories that I've ever committed myself to. (Like the Witcher.) I'm even slowly starting to trust other platform's depiction of fantasy with the new Dafne Keen led 'His Dark Materials' Series out now and the Henry Cavil 'The Witcher' series coming out the same day as Star Wars Episode 9. (That'll be an interesting ratings battle to see in hindsight.) Even recent storytelling tragedies (Like Game of Thrones Season 8) have not managed to put out my reigning passion for fantasy, so you can see how deep the roots of love for Skyrim are set.

One of the most common sources of criticism that I often hear to regards to Skyrim is the way that it presents it's Intro sequence. Just look online and you'll find plenty of videos of folk who highlight that Intro specifically as how not to start a game. Issues generally revolve around the length of time it takes to get into the open world as well as the fact that the intro is linear. (Shocked noises!) But I've always found both arguments to be incessantly asinine and have never been able to understand people's widespread issues with this practice. Firstly that carriage sequence only lasts for 3 minutes, hardly as unbearable as people like to make out, and the following 20 minute dungeon is a breeze through which all you are subjected to is a rough test of skill and a situation for you to settle into a playstyle. Compare that to Oblivion's slog of a dungeon or Daggerfall's nightmare first dungeon and I really don't see why Skyrim gets the full weight of the hatred. As for the 'linear' argument; it's the intro, of course you won't be making any narrative changing decisions. (Plus there's nothing wrong with linearity, lay off once in a while will ya?)

The second most common criticism I hear is one with a bit more legs, namely the fact that the protagonist is the Dragonborn. Now this isn't some deeply racist tirade against those with dragon heritage, (or at least I think not) people just feel that it stunts some of the roleplay potential of your character when they are already naturally an incredibly powerful, even fated, individual. I understand this problem and it is one that has followed all narratives that follow the 'chosen one' formula, but Bethesda did handle this game in a clever way that folk tend to forget. One can play Skyrim without ever being identified as the Dragonborn provided that they ignore the main quest. There is a point wherein the Greybeards summon you at which you become alerted to you Dragonborn status, and before then you are every bit the blank slate nobody that an RPG nut could hope for. They even go out of the way to ensure the reason you are arrested for the intro is a complete case of 'wrong place, wrong time', to ensure you don't start the game with any pre-conceived notions as to your character's disposition.

This next issue, however, is one that I cannot defend when it comes to Skyrim; The gutting of the faction system. In previous Elder Scrolls games, the player would join a faction (In Morrowind this often required you to meet some skillful perquisites) and then prove yourself in order to level up through that faction. Each rank would be identified and some milestones would come alongside unique rank benefits for your character to enjoy. Quests wouldn't necessarily be feeding into a larger narrative, and you had a chance to rise through the ranks by proving yourself an invaluable member of your respective. In Skyrim this whole system was replaced with a quest thread in which players would find themselves falling into the 'leader' position by the end, with little idea of what that rank entails. Now don't get me wrong, the older versions of the faction system were far from perfect, quests could often seem tedious and irrelevant in some cases, but Skyrim seemed to go backwards with it in a way that took all the special-ness out of the idea of factions.

This last point does tickle me quite a bit, namely the way that people complain how Skyrim has less NPCs to interact with than Oblivion and Morrowind. This is absolutely true, Skyrim does have a minuscule amount of people inhabiting towns compared to those other two games. In fact, sometimes cities are so sparse that one can wonder how society function throughout Skyrim. (I suppose imagination is a must.) However, what we have here is a clear-cut-case of quality over quantity. Don't believe me? Name all the inhabitants of the market district in Oblivion's Imperial City. You can't, because 90% of those NPC's are personality-less drones who only exist to be bodies to up that city's count. Everyone in Skyrim has a personality, a story, a home and a life. Off the top of my head I could name half the residents of Whiterun, because they are just more interesting people to get to know.

Of course, there are countless more arguments in this camp but none more that I feel are worth refuting. Some say that the RPG elements are neutered, but that's more a matter of opinion; I see them as remolded in a shape that fits into a modern action RPG, either way it doesn't 'ruin the game' in any fashion. Of course, you could understand all of this and still dislike Skyrim, and that's completely your prerogative, but to lump Skyrim alongside such travesties as Fallout 76 just to prove that Bethesda have never had talent is just plain petty and dumb. Once upon a time, Bethesda made a fantastic RPG that significantly changed videogame world building, and let's not forget that as we hope they'll do it again come 2024. (My projected release window for TES 6. If I'm right ya'll owe me a coke.) 

Stadia Stumbles

And the Crowd roars! (In frustration, mostly.)

You know, I almost feel bad picking on Google's Stadia Project. Maybe it's just because of that reveal event which was hosted by someone I actually respect, but I can't help but think of the human cost at risk if Stadia-  when Stadia goes the way of the dodo. The more dirt that I pull up on this project, the more I find myself thinking 'Am I on the right side of this issue?'. The simple promise of high quality gaming without having to rely on consoles is an ideal worth pursuing, and sometimes I feel like I'm the one fighting windmills when I trash on it. But then I think about my genuine excitement for X-cloud and PlayStation's inevitable cloud gaming system, and I realize that this all stems from my fundamental mistrust of Google.

And why shouldn't I mistrust a company who have proven themselves time and time again to be unwilling to go the distance. I've spoken before about the graveyard of Google projects and services that lie in that company's past, all of which paint a poor picture for what one can expect when it comes to the longevity of Stadia. None of that is to mention the heavy strain this will put on data plans, (Still waiting for those universal price drops that Google promised us would happen.) nor how much that will clog local bandwidth. Then there is the miscommunication regarding the supplication of games, Stadia requires games to be purchased at full price rather than the 'Netflix'-esque deal that people expected from a streaming service. (And what happens to all those games when Stadia inevitably disappears? Without a console or any data client-side, everything vanishes.) I may be a curmudgeon when it comes to Google Stadia, but all the above should convince you that I've built my doubts on solid foundations.

But that is all in the past, as of now, because Stadia is finally out and we can all stop judging the tech on it's presumed merits and get to looking at what the systems(?) actual merits are. Or at least, the merits that they were ready to show at launch. Despite grand promises and impressive demos, it seems that Stadia wasn't quite ready to meet it's launch (shocker) and now there are a decent bevy of exciting features that the founder edition of Stadia has launched without.

Straightaway the PC Chrome will not support 4k, HDR or 5.1 surround sound. (Features which, at this point, aren't even difficult asks.) The 'Stream Connect' feature, in which people can join online streams, will not be available to any and all games (like implied) but a select few, none of which are titles that are launching this year. State Share, which is the big feature that google touted wherein which you could pick up from someone's game on a YouTube video and play that exact instance, is MIA with no clear idea on when it will all be up. Family sharing is a no go, requiring games to be purchased full price several times over. There are no achievements, however the system is keeping track of progress and will award such when achievements launch next year, which makes literally no sense. (What? You guys couldn't be bothered to fit in a UI?) ChromeCast Ultra units that shipped with Stadia are the only ones that can inherently use the service, others will be remotely updated at some point. "Buddy pass", allowing you to refer someone else to the service for a full 3 months, isn't here yet. (Which is the kind of promotion literally designed for the launch period.) The phone is needed to set up the system, buying games through ChromeCast or the web is not supported. (Okay, this is getting embarrassing now.)  Expanding on that, phone support is still online available on those expensive google Pixel phones and ChromeOS tablets. The Controller only works with ChromeCast, which in turn only works if it arrived with the controller, which in turn only works if you have a compatible phone. And yet somehow, it gets worse.

As if all those blaring red flags weren't enough to put you off, Google has another F-you up their sleeve as this service has debuted with only 12 games, and only one of them is new. (An indie title called Gylt.) They offered Assassin's Creed Odyssey, (Which is a year old) Destiny 2, (Which is now free-to-play) Just Dance 2020, (yay) a small title called Kine, (Which is only a month old but launched on literally everything. Take your pick.) Mortal Kombat 11, (Launched at the beginning of this year.) Rise of the Tomb Raider, (Which is 4 years old.) Red Dead Redemption 2, (which just launched on traditional PC. With mods.) Samurai Shodown, (launched in June) Shadow of the Tomb Raider, (1 year old) Thumper (3 Years old) and Tomb Raider. (6 years old.) I hate to harp on about release dates, but the entire original selling point of Stadia was to circumvent the way that modern games forever push past the capabilities of modern public systems requiring for expensive updates. But any gamer who is active today is capable of playing all the games on the list (Except maybe the PC version of RDR2. It is pretty recent.)

This was a product that was clearly pushed to launch early when the team realized that the big gaming giants were ready to debut their own products in direct competition. Even google acknowledged their weak line up as they scrambled together to rush 10 more games onto the service for launch day. (surprise, I guess.) Attack on Titan: Final Battle 2, (Launched in July) Farming Simulator 2019, (1 year old. Also, this game was renowned for being one of the early adopters of Console mods, a system for which we have no idea how it will work over Stadia) Final Fantasy XV (3 years old. My how time flies...) Football Manager 2020, (Talk about a niche audience) Grid 2019, (A month old) Metro Exodus, (Another early year game.) NBA 2K20, (a game that is considered extraordinary for how terrible it is.) Rage 2, (God that was a game that launched this year, wasn't it!) Trials Rising, (A year old and on everything.)  And 'Wolfenstien: Youngblood.' (Which is in the same proverbial camp as NBA 2K20.) None of these titles are promising and/or exclusive enough to demand gamers jump over to them and the fact that all these games are retailing at full price (even the old ones) makes this service prohibitively expensive to the casual gaming audience that Google were aiming at. Oh sure, if you purchase 'Stadia Pro' you get access to 2 of these games for free, Samurai Shodown and Destiny 2, but one of those games is a niche fighter game (Not everyone's cup of tea) and the other just freakin' went free-to-play! WHO IS THIS SERVICE FOR THEN, IDIOTS?

All of these drawbacks, alongside the poor marketing job, has apparently had a blow back on sales numbers if early rumors are to be believed. Kotaku Editor, Jason Schrier, has relayed on Twitter that his sources have seen sales numbers and they look disappointing. Apparently Stadia's preorders were lower than expected and this launch has already been labelled a flop internally. (I wonder why?) Although Jason is adamant that Google won't give up on the system this early. To which I must agree, even Google plus had a few years of fight in it before it withered away into nothingness. At least the service is out there and has some games for people to play, that way people can play with the services available (what little there is) and spread the word of Stadia. They can build up their reputation one good review at a time, grass-routes style, afterall, those are the kinds of communities that tend to last the longest.

Except that's unlikely to pan out for them either considering how early impressions are going. We've seen the tech correspondent from the Washington Post (Stadia dies in Darkness) post footage of second-long input lag in Destiny and even heard circumstantial evidence of European reviewers facing up to 4 seconds of input lag. (Although, amazing, they apparently managed to clear the introductory level of Destiny 2. What absolute troopers!) Forbes called the service a 'technological disaster' reporting periodic stuttering, frame drops and resolution drops, just about all the things that Google promised us would not happen with this new tech. Needless to say, all this pretty much makes Stadia unplayable right now and will undoubtedly forever taint the service in the months to come, even after the team manage to get their act together and fix these issues. (Which they better if they want to make it to Christmas 2020.)

Of course, there are some positives to the system. One being that the game has significantly reduced load times over it's console peers, and the other being the ability to instantly play games without having to download or install them. (Like the good old days.) And that's it. Those are the only positives that anyone has been able to scrounge up for this system. Forbes reviewer even recounted how, even when everything was going well and input was manageable, there was just that slight feeling of off-ness which made Stadia an inferior experience compared to other platforms. He said that it was hardly noticeable on Tomb Raider or Mortal Kombat, but for a game with impeccable tight controls, like Destiny, it really does start to grate. And these are the kind of experiences recounted from people with the internet speeds to really make a service like this work, with 10 times the data speeds that is recommended for the highest tier of play. Just imagine how all this'll work in the hands of the everyday gamer.

Stadia, like many predicted, appears to be dead on arrival. Some outlets are offering favourable coverage with wonder-filled eyes, like IGN, (Because everyone respects the opinions of IGN, right?) but the bad experiences are what is sticking out right now. Everyone is capable of dreaming about what this kind of tech could achieve if properly implemented, but it's the depressing truth that everyone wants to find out about. Right now that truth is that Stadia has been rushed to launch, is too expensive, and has nothing worth drawing the eyes of gamers right now. The only question going forward is whether or not Google have the tenacity to stick through this service, as it burns money for the next year at least, to chisel it into something worthwhile, or will they falter before the launch of Project Scarlett and the PS5 as many, including me, predict. Seems Google might have bit off more than they can chew, this time...

GhostRunner

Live, die repeat

Part of this blog is about coming across cool things that I want to share with the ether, and sometimes that the sort of stuff that doesn't get the main stream attention that it perhaps deserves, so in that vein, I've came across a pretty cool looking upcoming game. 3D Realms' 'GhostRunner'. Details are pretty sparse thusfar, with the game having only been announced a few months back, but I feel the need to give this game a lookie lou purely due to the fact that it threatens to cover a genre which I'm always happy to pursue; Cyberpunk.

Somehow, despite the fame of the company in question and how cool the game itself looks, this project has yet to pick up mainstream attraction. I mean, you'll find the odd article covering it don't get me wrong, but the trailer posted by the official YouTube channel only has about 15,000 views. (And YouTube seems to automatically mislabel the game as being Cyberpunk 2077. Whoops.) It is for that reason that I was initially shocked when I first discovered the game and then realized that I'd somehow gone several months in ignorance of it's existence despite how promising it all looked. What is wrong with me? How were my eyes so firmly closed? Well they're open now and I'm starting my hype train by going over all we've seen so far regarding this game who's title and subject matter seems dangerously close to receiving a lawsuit from Ridley Scott.

First, some history. Anyone who knows their gaming has heard of 3D Realms. Chances are that even if you are just passing the video game scene you will have heard of them in passing and are just trying to put your finger on it, so let me refresh your memory. 3D Realms are the pioneers behind such influential and legendary shooters like 'Wolfenstien 3D',  the 'Duke Nukem' games, 'Rise of the Triad', both 'Shadow Warrior' games, and they even helped with the original 'Prey'. With all that in mind, you can imagine how legendary these guys are. Most of those games that I just mentioned are considered direct influences for many tried and true FPS tropes of today, with Wolfenstein 3D often considered the grandfather of the genre. Recently, however, they have not been quite at the forefront of the industry anymore and you won't find their label plastered on the front of every best seller like you used to. However they haven't stopped making games, and exciting looking ones at that; point in case, GhostRunner.

On Nov 18th the official 3D realms YouTube channel put out the Reveal trailer for a brand new game that pundits are already calling a mix between 'Dishonored' and 'Mirror's Edge'. (Not the most imaginative comparison in the world but give these guys some slack, it's not like they write about video games for a living...) From what we have been presented with so far, it would seem that this game intends to bring to life the gritty, dirty edge of the Cyberpunk genre that people usually expect when they think of the genre. We've seen heavily industrial areas, faded out colour palettes and the oh-so-indicative mixture of Asian culture and characters in the environment. This lends well with the gameplay from the trailer (which is what inspires those aforementioned comparisons) in which we see the player wielding a futuristic-ally minimalist katana and parkouring over heavily vast spaces and wall running over chasms. (Every basement dwellers dream, right?)

This first look at the game was very vague and understated, with little given in the way of story or themes and everything seemingly thrown into invoking the correct visual flair that this genre demands, similar to Cyberpunk 2077's first trailer. (Although in that CDPR were trying to prove that the genre's palette could withstand a lot more variety then is typically depicted. An exact contrast to this trailer.) But we can pick out the way in which this game seems to focus around movement and assassination, based on the way we see an abundance of both in the gameplay sections. Dropping down on enemies and skewing them with you blade seems to indicate that your character is perhaps not the 'shoot'em up' powerhouse that we usually expect in 3D Realms games, as his moves seem tailored to avoid bullets rather than withstand them. In this way, I suppose that 'Dishonored' and 'Mirror's Edge' are apt comparisons as the same could be said for both titles.

If the assumption I, and others, have made is true then that could mean this game will end up being a stealth action game. (And if you've read any of my previous posts on similar games, you'll know how much of a nut I am for stealth action games.) Although the plethora of movement options that I have seen available (dashing, bullet blocking, and using a whip to pull yourself around) seem to hint at a more 'trail and error' gameplay that you would see in games like 'Ruiner', 'Hyper Light Drifter', 'Hotline Miami' and 'Enter the Gungeon'. All those games feature a fragile, but agile, protagonist flying their way through bullet-rich environments. These games are built around the concept of forcing the player to use their skills to avoid projectiles and expecting them to die often, throughout your playthrough you are expected to learn the quirks to all your movement powers and enemy attacks and use them against increasingly insane odds. A genre that is very 'skill based' in contrast to stealth games which are more 'patience-based'.

That trailer is not, however, the only piece of content that we have to view regarding this game. As I hinted at earlier, there has existed some gameplay for this game as far back as August, (which is odd considering the 'Reveal trailer' was this month) through which we can get a greater idea of what to expect from the full release. In this gameplay we see that the gameplay, at the time of that video, was much more in the wheelhouse of the 'fragile protagonist' with alert but stationary enemies, slow firing energy weapons, instant deaths and instant respawns. Once can also hear the droning techie beat accompanying everything bringing a sense of continuity to gameplay similar to how those other games that I mention do.

GhostRunner proposes a fun Cyberpunk take on the first person shooter that I find myself curious to check out for myself at some point. The gameplay doesn't feel like it'll go up against 2077, making the '2020' prospective release date fine, and the rhythmic bounce of the movement and music makes me feel like this will become one of those staple 'relaxation games' that people come back to time and time again. (Albeit, with considerably more blood than 'Clustertruck'.) I'm eager to put this one on my 'must watch' list and slowly transform next year into my personal 'year of technological dystopias'. All I need now is another ShadowRun game and I'll be set!

Third Half-Life confirmed.

Couldn't resist.

Here's one of those long running gaming memes that you forgot about; "Half life 3 confirmed". For the longest time the Internet joked about the possibility of Valve overcoming their fear of the number 3 and finally finishing the story that they left unfinished with 'Half Life 2: Episode 2' back in 2007. It was a little inside joke between fans who tried to draw light from the throbbing pain that inflicts anyone who's presented with a story that has no ending. Everytime Valve so much as sneezed people would report about an imminent release, all the while knowing that the game would never come to fruition.

And how could it? In the beginning, Valve were very much credited as a game developer. Much in the style of the gaming companies that came before it, Valve knew that the best way to make money was to produce and sell quality games, and so they did that to great success. During their time as an active developer, Valve established a reputation for the development of cutting edge tech and software that pushed gaming tech leaps and bounds beyond where it was at. It is with the utmost sincerity that I assert that, without Valve, gaming would not be where it is today. However, I use the past tense appropriately as at some point Valve became aware of a much more profitable way to make their fortunes; by becoming a supplier.

Actually, that's a misnomer, they didn't just become a supplier, they were the supplier. Before Valve, PC games were almost all acquired as disks and downloaded onto a computer, similar to how consoles operate today, but that wouldn't be the case forever. After releasing their first dedicated online video game, 'Counter Strike: Global Offensive', Valve realized that they had an issue with updating the game for all users, and so they began development on a platform that would house all of their online products and unite them online, similar to how Battle.net worked with Diablo. This would allow for Valve to update their games regularly and quickly, allowing them to stay on top of anti-cheat measures and bugfixing. They called their baby; Steam.

During this time, Valve realized that they had a player base worth of individuals with high-speed Internet (around 75%, according to their own polls) and that number would only increase as broadband coverage began expanding worldwide. (An initiative that was being spearheaded by those early Internet providers who would become the titans they are today. I guess it pays to get in on the ground floor.) This showed them that their service had the potential to deliver game content directly to consumers without having to worry about traditional retail channels. As time went by Valve began requiring games to install the Steam client in order to play them, even with retail copies; a practice which, married with the high adoption rate of their quality games, meant that Steam was rapidly becoming a staple on all gamers computers. This was potential that would not go to waste as in 2005, Valve realized that they could retool Steam as a online retailer (Which was a novel concept back then) and started negotiating contracts to sell third party titles on their storefront. Steam began offering small titles from lesser known studios, but their success soon drew in the big boys like Id, Eidos and Capcom.

Throughout the long years of Valve's lifetime, many pretenders have tried to start up their own platform in competition, but until the Epic Store launched last year there were no serious competitors. (Yes, I know Origin and Uplay existed before then, but none served as replacements for Steam. And 'Microsoft Store' still kinda sucks.) This gave Valve the sort of market dominance that is typically illegal by most trade laws, but I guess they found a loophole around that. (Or trade laws are so lethargic that they still haven't caught up to Internet retailers yet, I dunno I ain't a lawyer.) And so for the last 15 years or so Steam has been making Valve money hand-over-fist, giving the former developer no further need to donate resources and talent towards making games, the money just rolled up to their door anyway.

Of course, the consequence of this was that Valve steadily began relenting on their video game development board until they stopped making games altogether. Development talent either shifted focus or moved onto other jobs and the beloved Valve franchises of yester-year (I.e. Half Life, Portal, Left 4 dead) were left by the wayside to gather dust. And yet, Valve were always adamant that this not the end for them. Never once did Valve officially announcement their departure from game development, despite it being bleeding obvious, and they never graciously licensed out any of their IP's to company's who would happily work on them. No, these were their babies and Valve would stick with them. Admittedly, Valve never could relay exactly what it would take to make the conditions 'just right' for them to create a new game, but they always kept the door open for themselves.

One thing that everyone always ensured to make abundantly clear about the future of Valve development, was that they were determined to put their Half-life development efforts behind some sort of brand new tech. (Just as Half-life 2 did with their groundbreaking inhouse physics engine) They didn't want Half-life to become another yearly franchise, chock-full of half baked releases. (Looking at you; Assassin's of Duty) Thier franchise stood for the name of innovation and that was a legacy they would not tarnish. With that in mind, most folk were certain that we would get some sort of Half-Life content in these late 2010's now with the advent of VR, but Valve sure did take their time. Even once commercial VR first started hitting shelves, eyes looked towards Valve for their grand resurgence, but we got nothing for so long that eventually we stopped paying attention. And that, apparently, was our own inattentive faults.

For you see, we exist in an auspicious age of wonder and magic, for that is the only possible excuse for the fact that Valve announced their return to game development and thier next Half-life game in the space of a couple days. (What a ride!) What we now have to look forward to is a VR exclusive Half-Life outing called 'Half-Life: Alyx' which looks to take place between the first and second game with series heroine Alyx Vance taking the lead for the first time. Of course, some folk are going to grumble about how this is both technically not Half-Life 3 (or Half-Life 2: Episode 3, to be precise) and the fact that this game will not resolve the decade long cliff hanger that fans have been waiting on; but it's a start, okay?

Not content with a mere announcement, Valve went out of their way to put together a brief trailer showing fans what they've been working on, presumably ever since VR Dev kits started being sent out. And the results are... incredibly impressive, honestly. 'Half-Life: Alyx' appears to be transcending the 'fixed movement' restriction that a lot of VR games have and allowing players freedom of movement in an environment that looks both loving rendered and particularly high poly for a VR title. The trailer even began with a little bit of active object physics to tease how the company hasn't forgotten their routes. Truth be told, if the final product turns out as polished as this trailer implies, we could be looking at a genuine VR system seller. (Never thought I'd say that.)

Everything about this trailer positively exudes 'quality' from the tight and fluid animation, clear textures and actual grand scale that appears to have gone into it. The amount of intricacy that goes into the loading of the weapons is impressive enough on it's own. Valve may have finally created the very first fully realized VR game that isn't a adaption of an existing title or is forced to take some sort of compromise in terms of gameplay. This is a game that promises to modernize Half-life, finally give G-man a new skin and push VR gaming into that place that everyone has been waiting for it to get to.

Valve haven't forgotten about their patented 'player first' approach either, with their early information on the title revealing how their game is designed to work for every kind of VR player. That means player's will be able to move using the traditional teleport functionality, the recently-popular shift mode, or the classic traditional movement through an analog's direction. This also bleeds into the room set-up which can be sitting down, standing up and in an open space and the controller style, which can be trigger based or utilize the finger tracking tech exclusive to Valve's own VR system; The Index. (Plus if you've already shelled out for the particularly expensive 'Index', you get 'Half-Life: Alyx for free, which is certainly nice.)

I've been a huge doubter for the VR movement ever since it's inception. There were always a few cool titles that I kept my eye on, but for the most part everything seemed to be little more then tech demos and showcases that weren't worth anyone's attention. (I even wrote an entire blog on that exact subject.) But some otherworldly force must have switched my consciousness in the night because I find myself uncharacteristically excited for this new VR future spearheaded by Valve. I know that seems a bit premature to say seeing as how we've only seen a single trailer, but this is clearly a project that Valve have taken great care in creating and, acknowledging their history for consistently creating high quality games, I believe in this project. I'll be watching this as it pans out like a hawk, but I must admit that a VR headset is looking like my next big purchase... (Not the Valve Index, though. Have you seen how much that thing costs? £1000 for a headset? Pfft! Who'd you think you're fooling? I'll just get the Quest or something...)

Video Game jobs

Workung 9 to 5, what a way to make a living!

In the world of fictional story telling, we are all ruled by our desires to be something extraordinary. Whether that be a particularly skillful individual or particularly lucky one, a great many of wish to shirk our more mundane daily duties and embark on some epic, life-changing adventure. In particular, one thing that none of us want to deal with is the responsibility and effort that comes with a soul-crushing nowhere job. (Unless you're one of the lucky ones doing what they love. In which case, god speed to you good sir.) With that in mind, isn't it a little bit funny when those power-fantasy driven video games that we play enforce some dull job upon us?

I'm not talking about being tricked into doing various repetitive task, or rather not just that, I mean the times in which the developers thought it apropos to simulate a real-life job within their world and have players slog through it. Of course, some games are built around such a premise and those I take no issue with. Classic video game 'Paper Boy', for example, has players simulate the life of a bicycle-bound newspaper delivery boy who has the worrying tendency to smash the front windows of everyone too cheap to subscribe to his service. (Sounds like this kid has a future in the Mafia.) Other games, however, are clearly focused around other endeavours and yet take time out of their 'save the world' schedule to have you waste time in exchange for chump change.

One set of games which made an absolute habit out of this practice throughout it's entire main-lineup is the Fable series. These games are based around the well-worn concept of a born hero struggling to save the, very English, kingdom of Albion from the baddie of the week. Of course, such campaigns are hardly cheap for an aspiring hero. One needs to keep themselves flush with a stead supply of healing potions, new armours and weapons, and the latest fashionable haircut (and I'm just listing the essentials) none of which is handed to the player for free. Thus, in every game there comes a time wherein the hero must take to the streets and perform 'jobs' in order to fund their adventures, at least until they can get into more profitable endeavours. (Like real estate. I'm serious.) In Fable 3 your Hero is given the choice of being a blacksmith (fitting enough), Lute player (okay...), and Pie Maker. (How many pies does this society realistically need?) Not only is this the best way to raise income in the early game, but it is the most direct source of capital for the late game too, meaning that even once the Hero raises to the highest office of the land, (as they do in every game) the citizens of Albion can still enjoy the presence of their reigning monarch at the local pie stand.

Another title that approaches the concept of 'jobs' in a manner that is a little more fitting, would be American highschool simulator; Bully. Just as with most Rockstar games, Bully is full of side activities for the player to embark on to various ends; some confer respect with particular factions, most award some sort of collectible upon their completion and a few give cold hard cash. But unlike other Rockstar games, In Bully the protagonist is a highschool kid, meaning that the side jobs available to him are suitably- part time. In Bully, players are given the choice to join a paper route in order to make some extra pocket money, or take to mowing lawns to get what they need. Both tasks are as tedious as they sound but offer enough consistent cash to make them worthwhile pass-times. Plus, unlike in real life, you rarely have to wait for new cash-in-hand opportunities as the grass seems to magically grow the second before you go to cut it. Bully is kind enough to award money for completing quests too, meaning that one isn't forced to subject Jimmy Hopkins to such vivid glimpses of his future careers if they don't want to. (Choice is nice.)

Looking towards other Rockstar games, The Grand Theft Auto franchise is full of side jobs throughout their titles. (Especially in the 3D era) In 3, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories and both Vice cities, you can assume the role of a taxi driver in a makeshift version of 'Crazy Taxi'; San Andreas and Vice City both have prominent meta game threads whereupon you run a chop shop in order to be rewarded with unique vehicles and one can even find a rare job in Los Santos wherein you become a part-time pimp. (Okay, that might just be exact clone of the Taxi mini-game in a different vehicle but I'll count it.) In the same vein, the Saints Row series also had a decent number of jobs for the player to partake in, although the tended to get more outlandish as the games did. In Saints Row 2 you could become a reality TV cop or a Demolition derby driver, whilst in Saint Row 4 you ended up trafficking weapons and starring in a murderous version of Takeshi's Castle.

Seeing as how things are threatening to get a little too exciting, let's tone things down to the most sedate level possible; namely, the jobs of Skyrim. As this is a title that take place in a fictionalized version of the dark ages, it is only fitting for the daily life of Tamriel to reflect that- simpler time. And, as this franchise is a lot more poe-faced than Fable, that means you won't be getting any 'guitar hero' style lute mini games. (Maybe in TES6.) In Skyrim, one can make an honest living by partaking in three peaceful job opportunities, lumberjack, miner and farm hand. All of these activities are mostly automated and just require the player to have the right tool for the job, (Except for farming, in which there is no requirement) and they are all excessively boring for a player to partake in. Whatsmore, the 'living' you make from these jobs is hardly enough to keep fed all day, let alone support you throughout the game. This is a key example of a video game job that literally exists for nothing more than role play potential.

Okay, this next topic may not have a one-to-one comparison to a real job, but it's still a game concept formed around the work of manual labour, so I'd be remiss to disclude Death Stranding from my list. In Kojima's latest art-house thriller,(?) the protagonist is thrown into a post-apocalyptic sci-fi world in which his assigned task is the transporting of key materials all across America. (Think U-haul, only without the trucks.) This mean that aside from all of the weird supernatural goings on and bigger than life characters, the meat of the gameplay is essentially just the act of walking from one point to another for hours on end. In that way, Death Stranding does truly capture the tedium of cross-country courier work. (I assume Couriers have to fight off bandits and other worldly ink monsters too.)

There is one game out there that is notable for the way how it features 'going to work' as one of the key game play features. It simulates finding a job, keeping a job, and trying to keep your sanity in the moments in between. And no, it's not some psychological horror game, (Although that description I just made up did sound like a cool indie title)I'm talking about 'The Sims'. As a game that attempts to simulate the going-ons of everyday life, to varying levels of success, it only makes sense that the working life is represented within the gameplay. Throughout the years Maxis have adapted the way that they've presented jobs, but since Sims 3 they seemed to have hit a sweet spot between having players act out some jobs and having them plain disappear for 8 hours for others. (That's how you tell the difference between boring jobs and jobs so boring that game developers can't even figure how to pretend it's fun.)

At the end of the day the inclusion of real life jobs in video games can seem perfunctory, but I like to see the situation as one of perspective. In these adventures wherein the lionshare of time is spent robbing banks or fighting dragons, it's nice to take a step back now and then and appreciate the slower moments. (Even if your appreciation is marred by the fact that your character is currently partaking in back breaking labour.) At that point is because a question of pacing, which I think is a discussion that is very unique within the world of games compared to other forms of creative media. Although I will say, at least one of the jobs I mentioned today does very little to calm my nerves and instead invokes vivid spikes of hypertension akin to PTSD. But that's just me.

Game Awards and ethics: the super-amazing discussion of a lifetime! Woo-wee!

If you promise not to fall asleep immediately after reading the title, I'll promise not to pass out writing it.

The Video Game Awards are almost upon us, rejoice all ye faithful! Once again I found myself a little in awe at what Geoff Keighley has managed to put together with this event and honestly a little bit jealous. Through tenacity and years of building connections, (I'm really bad at one of those things) Geoff managed to assemble a coalition of trusted gaming critics all over the world to recognize his gaming awards as the one true official Game Award event; his baby managed to overcome rampant ridicule and meme-age in order to become a truly respected yearly spectacle; and some Devs have even agreed to forgo other gaming events in order to debut their projects here. (Makes sense. This is probably the second most viewed gaming event of the year behind E3) I think it's fair to say that Keighley's game awards are, at this point, our version of the Oscars; only, you know, without as much pageantry, history and general respect. Ah who am I kidding, no one outside of Hollywood respects the Oscars. We're on equal footing there.

Last year we saw a brilliant showing from the inhouse orchestra, (although the previous year's medley will forever hold a special place in this gamer's heart) surprising big game announcements, (Mortal Kombat 11, really!) and guest presenting by truly respectable individuals from outside the gaming spheres. (Still can't believe the Russo brothers showed up.) The awards also didn't neglect to secure their, oh so coveted, sound bits; you know, to ensure that the event would remain in the hearts of memers for the next few months. (Although, despite my snide, I will admit that I yelped a little bit when Christopher Judge said "read it, boi!" Which is especially weird, in hindsight, seeing as how I've never played 'God of War'.) I have no doubt that Keighley will attempt to surpass all that with next month's awards, (December 13th. save the date.) which may be more then possible if rumors are to believed. I mean, Capcom are still sitting on that 'Resident Evil 3 Remake' announcement that we know is coming and I'd be shocked if CD Projekt Red don't take advantage of the last big gaming show before the release of 'Cyperpunk 2077'.

Full disclaimer, I'm in full geek mode right now. I just finished watching the third episode of 'The Mandalorian' (If you haven't: You Need To Change That Immediately!) and right now I would love nothing more then to go on a fandom jaunt down all the prospective award winners and make my predictions on who should win and why. (Maybe I will, closer to the event.) But as you can tell from my title, I have a much more sobering topic to discuss today as I delve into some of the rising controversy surrounding the Awards as well a general discussion about ethics. (Sigh.) A discussion which targets two men that I hold in incredibly high regard as individuals, one of which is an inspiration and the other is a man to whom I owe by passion for storytelling. (So this is going to be a bitter blog for me to pen. Type. Whatever.)

Let me precede the critiques and tough-talk with a little disclaimer, which should be obvious but there's never any harm in stating things in obvious terms. Firstly, yes, I am bias. Incredibly so. I am a life-long loner who has failed to establish a sense of community and belonging with anything outside of gaming. (Does that come across as sad? It's not supposed to be.) I positively adore this medium of storytelling and that puppy-eyed, rose-tinted, obsessiveness often gets in my way to be objective about matters which demand such, like ethics. So as much as I'll attempt to be level headed and sensible, don't just take me view on this matter, read up and form your own opinions. (Plus 'level headiness' doesn't exactly make for an entertaining writing or, I'd imagine, reading experience. So screw that noise, am I right?)

One of the budding complaints that I've seen drifting around the community is one that actually transcends the Gaming Awards and actually travels around to all award shows; the being the irregular cut-off date. As with most all Awards ceremonies, the Gaming Awards is a annual event, meaning that the award titles often feature the suffix 'of the year'. This can shape up as a bit of a misnomer, however, when events transpire to ensure that the award in question is being presented to a game that is not, in fact, of that year but of the previous year. This is, of course, due to the 'cut-off date' issue that results in products that are released too close to the gaming awards being discluded from the proceedings. This is, of course, meant to ensure that each game is given it's due to shine (and not devolve into a microtransaction-strewn mess) and prevent any title from being overlooked due to rushed coverage. However this situation is not perfect.

Due to the timing of the Game Awards, (being a December show) you'd think that they would be perfectly situated to succinctly round up all the games of the year, however, due to the quirks of the games market, that is not always the case. Anyone who works in sales knows that the holiday season is the time to push units, however, for gaming a rule has emerged regarding when is the best time to capitalize on that season. Given the cycle of reviewing, punditry and, most importantly, financial book keeping, October is the target month for all high-profile system seller games to hit in order to rake in that Christmas dough and still look neat on the balance sheets. But that's still okay, right? October is within the acceptable release window for Game Awards entry, so no harm no foul. Except that there is another dimension to this matter to consider.

You see, whilst it is true that October is the ideal month to push out your game, that very fact ensures that month is absolutely packed with high profile competition every year. This October alone saw the release of 'The Outer Worlds', 'Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Breakpoint', 'Destiny 2: Shadowkeep', 'WWE 2K20', 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare' (Mk. 2) and 'Grid'. All massive titles in their own right, regardless what you think of their quality. (Oh, and the new 'Yooka-Laylee' game came out this October, for anyone who cares. Only me? Okay.) Hollywood has been taught the lesson time and time again that when you overcrowd your releases you are doomed to financial failure, so sensible publishers who know that when their game doesn't pack the weight to go toe to toe against the big leagues, it's alright to push their game to the fallback month of November. Maybe not so clean within the books but at least you get there in time for the Christmas shelves. Problem solved, right? Except, November is the cutoff month for featuring in the Games Awards. (Whoops.)

This is a topic that has been inflamed particularly this year with the release of the critically lauded, 'Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order'. This is a game that has been discounted from the running for titles that many believe it could win such as 'Action Game of the Year'. All this is made particularly frustrating with fans, as one game which has been nominated for every category under the sun is 'Super Smash Bros. Ultimate' which released in December last year. Heck, that game is even in the running to win 'Ultimate game of the year'. (no pun intended.) Now, don't get me wrong, Smash Bros. Ultimate is a brilliant game which I've personally sunk at least 100 hours into; but if that game ends up winning 'Game of the Year 2019' then someone's going to be left scratching their head.

Okay, so 'Jedi Fallen Order' gets pushed back to next year, so what? Well, 2020 is lining up to be one of the most juggernaut, overblown years of gaming in a very long time. We're getting 'Doom Eternal', 'Final Fantasy 7 Remake', 'Halo: Infinite', 'Sqaure Enix's Avengers','Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodline 2','Oddworld Soulstorm', the new 'Destroy All Humans', 'Wasteland 3', 'No More Heroes 3', probably 'Resident Evil 3 Remake', 'Half-Life: Alyx', 'The Last of Us: Part II', 'Bayonetta 3' and, of course, 'Cyberpunk 2077'. (Ouch to my future wallet.) Bearing all those unbelievably exciting upcoming releases in mind, it's probably safe to assume that little old 'Jedi Fallen Order' will get lost in the crowd. Which is such a shame considering that this was EA's first dedicated single player game since their leadership made the asinine comment that "Single player games are dead." (Maybe they planned this release strategically to ensure the snub. Big if true!) So how do we solve this issue? Well the event could be pushed back into next year, but that often has the effect of making the proceedings feel irrelevant. (Just look at the BAFTAs or the Oscars.) Plus, that 'end of year' hype is what advertisers pay through the nose in order to capitalize on, Geoff would be putting that in peril by moving the air date of the show. So, I guess, there is no solution to this issue. The industry will just have to learn to strategize their releases better if they want that... what's our version of 'Oscar gold'? Video game silver? (Geoff should probably workshop that.)

This next issue is a bit of a silly one but definitely still worth bringing up. Geoff Keighley spent so much time trying to establish these Game Awards as a serious endeavour, firstly to the myriad of publications that he ended up pulling under it's banner, and secondly to the fickle gaming public who's initial reaction was to simply point and laugh. This was achieved by ensuring that the process and games in question were respectable and based upon games that reviewed well and received positive reception fan-wide, rather than just sales figures. (Although one could equate the two.) However that can be put in jeopardy due to the show's bizarre instance of requiring a certain number of applicants for each category. Because trust me, that is the only possible excuse for 'Jump Force' getting a spot in the show.

Part of me does feel for the show runners here, including Geoff. Fighting games aren't exactly as 'dime a dozen' as they once were and it must have been difficult to find games to bounce off of the likes of 'Dead or Alive 6', 'Mortal Kombat 11', and 'Super Smash Bros. Ultimate', but is the solution 'Jump Force'? Seriously? Can't they throw in 'Samurai Shodown' or something? (Wait, that's already there.) Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot? (Ugh, that's next January.) Wait, wasn't there a 'Blazblue' this year? (Darn, it was a re-release.) Then just have four contenders. Honestly, any other course of action is preferable to including a game as functionally, narratively, and visually terrible as 'Jump Force.'

It sends an absolutely awful message across the industry that it doesn't matter how terrible you game is, as long you have limited competition we'll let you slap 'Game Awards nominee' in you 'Accolaides' trailer. Additionally, it reflects badly on the whole show by making every other game there look like an absolute joke for sharing a stage with that oil-spill of a product. Does this mean that their organizers are going to spend money and working hours on putting together a highlight reel for that game's introduction? (Ah, the whole thing just makes me sick to think about.) Yes, I know that there is absolutely no way in heck that this game will win, 'Smash Bros.' practically has it in the bag (which is still a 2018 game getting a 2019 award.) but the damage has already been done to everyone's respectability by this title's mere presence. (I've got to move on. This subject is seriously giving me a migraine.)

This last one is going to be a bit more dull, but a lot more important. (This is the reason why I tagged 'Ethics' in the title.) Allow me steal from the 'lazy-speech-writing handbook' by starting with; Merriam-Webster defines 'A conflict of Interest' as; "A conflict between private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust". Contextualized quite simply, this means that when someone is given the role to provide an objective stance on a subject, it is imperative that they do not, themselves, have a vested interest on the resulting outcome. It is the same code-of-conduct rules that applies to traditional journalism, which is part of a set of rules and standards that we call 'Ethics'. News reporters and journalists are expected to take a neutral stance in their gathering of the news as they are in a position of power, as distributors of knowledge, and their personal slant could influence the readers. (Which is the reason why Journalists do not "make the news"; as Editor Perry White insisted in the 1978's 'Superman')  The same is true with Police investigations and Jury duty. It is a standard law of ethics that is carried across all different mediums and situations for it's succinct nature and adherence to values that we consider: responsible.

With that firmly established: The Game Awards has a conflict of interest on it's hands regarding the latest product from visionary game director: Hideo Kojima. (A man to whom I literally owe my direction as an artist. So this isn't easy for me to talk about.) 'Death Stranding' is a game that is incredibly divisive in it's bold, art-house break from the norms of video game design. (A topic I could, and likely will, write an entire blog upon.) This has led to a bevy of mixed responses from all over the industry as some hate it, some love and hate it, and others have no idea what to think about the title whatsoever. Ultimately, this has led to the game receiving a 83% on Metacritic amongst respected critics and around about 60% with the audience. Not terrible numbers by any means, but not a general consensus of being 'great' that one would expect from a game that was nominated for... oh, I don't know- how about 'Ultimate game of the Year'? That's right, alongside powerhouses like 'Resident Evil 2' (89-93% on Metacritic) and 'Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice' (88-91% on Metacritic) stands a game that people are still struggling to decide whether they like or not. Am I doubting that the game will end up becoming a cult classic that is beloved in the years to come? Of course not. But this sort of off-kilter, arguably unearned, recognition, reeks of the kind of 'back door' politics that makes the Oscars such a laughable event in this day and age.

Hideo Kojima is, for those of you who didn't know, a huge fan of Geoff Keighley and that love is, very much, reciprocated. We all remember the shade that Geoff threw at Konami when they refused to let Hideo come to receive his reward, (which, even now, was kind of unprofessional from a host who prided himself on bridging the gap across gaming communities.) and memes have been made about the emotional highlight-tape that Keighley put together once Kojima did get the chance to attended. (Truly, their love was written in the stars!) Now, of course, their friendship is entirely ancillary to this issue. The whole point of Keighley assembling the Game Awards was to bring together various gaming outlets and important industry figures to pick out the nominees to ensure that personal bias was minimized. Geoff doesn't have some overarching ability to shoe-horn in his own candidate, that would completely undermine the whole show. What this relationship has done, however, is drawn the eyes of the people to look closer as the odd nomination of a game that feels (forgive me, Kojima.) undeserving.

As it just so happens, Kojima himself is one of those 'industry professional icons' who is on the board for the Game Awards. He helped to start this whole affair alongside Keighley, which explains the reason why those two are so enamoured with each other. (Not to downplay the founding of the Awards show. Good on them, and I can only wish that I get the chance to contribute so substantially to the gaming industry one day.) Kojima is also a legendary figure in the industry who's mere name commands respect from many of the other outlets on the official board, and just as I am biased on this subject matter, so too are the board bias for a person to whom they all hold respect and reverence. (Once again, deservingly so.) However, if we allow such, frankly, irrelevant factors to influence the decision process, then we risk marring the integrity of the entire institution that Keighley worked so hard to build. No one wants the Game Award's committee to become a mirror to the out-of-touch squabbling and insider politics that makes the Oscars look like a joke, but that seems like what is happening with Death Stranding's nomination.

I am not, and would never, doubt the quality of Death Stranding or any single one of Kojima's games, (Although 1986's 'Penguin Adventure' does look a tad ropey) but nominees for the Games Awards should be based on objective quality as much as humanely possible. (As much as that very concept borders on being an oxymoron.) The clearest possible way we have of quantifying that, inherently qualitative, value is through aggregate reviews, and Metacritic shows us that there existed games which were better received then 'Death Stranding' this year. 'Devil May Cry 5', for example, scored 87-89% on Metacritic, the new 'The Legend of Zelda: Links Awakening' scored 87%, and even indie-darling 'The Outer Wilds' scoured 82-85%. Every one of these games were lauded for their quality and have just as legitimate a claim to the coveted 'Game of the Year' nominee slot. What they don't have is a legendary and respected director who just so happens to be an industry superstar and on the board. We could argue about the specifics of eligibility for each game all day, but at the end of the matter we are left with a nominee that is a clear violation of the 'Conflict of Interest' subsection of common award show ethics. I love Kojima and, once I get a chance to play it, I'll probably love Death Stranding too; but for the good of the Game Awards as a show, process and institution, it is best for Death Stranding to be withdrawn from the 'Game of the Year' nominee slot. It just didn't receive the required universal objective praise for someone like me to overlook the potential for personal bias, and I'm sure that you can see it too.

Phew, that last point really sucked to make but it did have to be said. Out of all the weird and ugly sides of the gaming industry, (a few of which have become grotesquely apparent in the past couple of years) The Gaming Awards is one that I have genuinely grown to respect and am fiercely protective of. It is one of the few bright spots that separates the gaming culture from the festering pettiness that infects other entertainment mediums and I would hate to see that sundered for something a silly as personal biases, or any of the other issues that I mentioned today. I love having this one part of the gaming world that I can point to and say "look at that. We did a good thing there." Whenever the media scapegoats gaming again for another ludicrously unsubstantiated accusation, we can proudly ignore that noise in the knowledge that gaming is respectable, and that is emblematic in us having one of the greatest Award shows of the year. If I were Mister Keighley, (and some nights I wish I were) I wouldn't risk that kind of legacy for anyone or anything.

Surrealism

Strawberry hills forever

I've said it before but the topic does bare repeating; one of the greatest things about the video game medium is the ability to shirk the coils of what's possible and reach into the unfathomable limits of what's imaginable. The consequence of this freedom can inflate a dream into majestic reality and allow us to share the abstract and insane with those around us. To transcend beyond what we acknowledge to be 'real' and reach a state of 'surreal.' Obviously, the same could be said about any and all forms of none physical media, but seeing as how this is gaming blog, that's were I'm going to focus my gaze for this article.

There is a significant degree of danger when it comes to exploring the surreal in the pursuit of storytelling, it can seem alienating to the audience in a way that can put them off and even be a bit too exposing for the author. However, when you reach an audience that really resonate with your message it can create a strong bond/ connection. Just look at the, now cult classic, 1993 movie 'The Thief and the Cobbler'. That was a wondrous and often abstract movie that is often erroneously labelled as an Aladdin-clone. (The movie was in development for well over a decade. Although one could argue that the success of Aladdin pushed the responsible studios to get it finished) At the time many found it to be boring or too obtuse to understand or enjoy, but in the years since a new audience of people have clung to it and given the project a new life in home media. (Just a pity that the original director never lived to see it.)

Surrealism need not go to the extremes of abstract imagery and an entire storyline paved in lunacy in order to justify it's existence, merely subvert the expectations of it's audience to a fundamental degree. That is really the type of game that I honed in on for this blog, for no other reason then the fact that the truly abstract games are often hard to talk about to any sensible degree. (That being said, there is one game I selected which certainly fits into that category; but you'll have to wait until the end for that one.)

I doubt anyone would look at 'Ruiner' and immediately label it as 'Surreal'. The game itself is a top-down skill based shoot-em-up based heavily on powerups and varnished with a neon Cyberpunk gleam. But for me, the surrealism comes with the game's peculiar stylisation that inflates much of the tropes of it's themes and genres in a bright, punky, surrealist way. For example, the game starts with the player being thrust into several gun fights with very little explanation for what you are doing apart from the occasionally block-font prompt accompanied by the droning command "Kill Boss". Soon you'll meet the character 'HER' who guides you through the narrative with her odd vocalizations and inconsistent dialogue cues.You'll notice the primary colour cues accompanying each individual area that seem to throb with the hum of neon.Ultimately, you'll be swept in an overbearing Cyberpunk onslaught of a world that scream 'kitsch' in all the weirdest (and best) ways.

It is easy to look at any game with monochromatic colours and a lack of guided narrative and call it 'Surreal', but when looking at Playdead's 'Inside' there really isn't a better way to describe the whole experience. (Aside from 'beautifully horrifying', I guess.) Borrowing the style of their other iconic title 'Limbo', 'Inside' is a story told entirely through visuals with enough vagueness to it's events that the majority of the story must be deciphered by it's confused players. With such a stark presentation to it all, themes start to stand out of 'Control' and 'Compliance' but the overall package can remain still very elusive even after you reach that final screen. I don't want to spoil anything for those that haven't given this wild ride a go, but I'll bet that the ending will leave you feeling some kind of disturbed by the time the credits roll around. (Even if I can't tell you what it ultimately symbolizes. If anything.)

It is hard talking about a game that you haven't personally played, especially in excessive detail, but a list like this is too ripe for a Death Stranding entry for me to ignore. Hideo Kojima's first game outside of the influence of Konami's money men turned out to be the perfect example of surrealist storytelling from it's almost impenetrable story to it's incredibly divisive content. I've heard people hail it as one of the worst and best games ever made, and many more conclude that they have no idea what any of it meant at all. For my part, I've followed enough about the game to know that it, in some fashion, depicts the unravelling of reality as space, time and even existence twists in upon itself. A more surreal setup I could not come up with, that's for sure.

Once again, Super Mario Bros. 2 isn't a game that screams 'surreal' in retrospect, but one must simply apply some context to see what a break from the norm that this game was. The original Super Mario Bros. was a very weird and confusing game to come to terms with anway. We may all know the story now of an Italian plumber on the warpath to save Princess Toadstool whilst stomping on sentient mushrooms and dropping dragons in lava, but at the time it was quite the pill to swallow conceptually. Of course, the game still ended up being a hit and spawning one of the longest running franchises in gaming history. Super Mario Bros. 2, however, probably marks the biggest mainline departure from the formula that the games have ever gone through. Everything changed, from the enemies you were facing, the way you attacked them, and even the worlds through which you were traversing. Things became unexpected as the player was dragged up against sentient cacti, three headed snakes and a royal toad who can only be defeated by forcing him to eat vegetables. Of course, the reason for this would be that Nintendo retooled another upcoming game (Doki Doki Panic) into a Mario game for the masses, leaving in a lot of the weirdness from that entirely separate game in the process. So it all turned out well in the end, but it was certainly unbearably weird for a time.

Speaking of Doki Doki, how about that game about the Literature club? Ostensibly a traditional anime dating Sim, Doki Doki Literature Club lures it's victims in under a false sense of security by having them sail through a VN chock full of charming stereotypes and work on writing poetry to woo their girl of choice. Simple and mundane enough, right? But things quickly spiral out of control when the player starts to become aware that this game was never supposed to be a dating Sim, but was actually retooled from something much darker. As I mentioned in my other blog, it isn't long before characters start breaking the fourth wall, with one in particular making it very clear that she knows that you are playing the game and she wants everything to play out to her benefit. Once again, I won't go into specifics regarding how twisted everything gets, but trust me when I say that calling it 'Surreal' is definitely an understatement.

Finally, as promised, comes the one game which is the culmination of everything you instinctively imagine when you hear the word 'Surreal'; LSD Dream Emulator. This game, if you can call it that, takes players through a tour of absolute visual nonsense as you traverse a twisted dreamscape wherein every surface that you touch sends you spiralling into another world. Funnily enough, this game wasn't the result of an LSD trip (allegedly) but rather the work of a Japanese 'multimedia artist' called Osamu Sato. As far as the Wikipedia page states (saved you a Google) Osamu, like many artist of his time, rejected the idea of Video games and wanted to use the Sony PlayStation as an outlet for his art. This game came about due to his dislike for playing racing games, as he found them difficult and boring. He dreamed of crashing his car through the walls of the tracks and travelling into different worlds, and so that was the premise of the game that he went to make. This, dear reader, is surreal experimentalism at it's most raw.

With the level of complexity that one can achieve with modern video gaming software tools, it's a shame that Surrealism isn't more prevalent in the industry as of yet. But looking at the various visceral responses to games like Death Stranding, I suppose it makes sense that the money men want to take much safer approaches when it comes to bringing their games to life. Perhaps once things start opening up to streaming and we shirk the 'big money financed' console cycles (not yet I fear, Google.) we'll start to see more weird and wild concepts start to rule the roost.