All aboard the rumor train: toot-toot!

The say the force can do terrible things to a mind...

We live in a society high on the drug of instant satisfaction, wherein we collectively cannot stomach the proposition of waiting for answers and confirmation, so we eagerly scoop up rumors instead. Not to criticize the sage wisdom of the great writer Mark Twain, but perhaps we'd adhere to truth and fact more often if it were only a tad quicker on the wake-up. Much of the momentum of the entertainment news cycle is impossible to sustain without the grease of the alleged every now and then, and sometimes it's even a bit more fun to speculate about what could be rather than being told what is. Oftentimes you'll hear it said that folk think they know what they want, but they don't; whilst I vehemently disagree with such statements in most instances, I must admit there may be a little bit of truth to that in this one.

But what has me waxing philosophical about rumor culture, you ask? Well, that would be the popular whisper making the rounds that EA are taking a shot at remaking 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic'. (Which is my second favourite game of all time, if you didn't know.) Now, I haven't looked into the specifics of this rumor, because I don't particularly care about how reliable it all is and if we can 'trust the source', there is a much bigger discussion at hand. (Besides, a lot of the time these studios 'leak' these projects on purpose to gauge audience interest.) I'm torn at my very core as to whether or not this is something that I've always wanted or my absolute worst-case-scenario. And that isn't even taking into account the fact that EA would be the ones heading such a project if it does really exist. (Although it would be through Bioware. Who are currently working on Dragon Age 4, a remodelling of Anthem and the beginnings of a Mass Effect sequel. Talk about 'stretched thin'.)

As a huge fan of Star Wars, I was one of the many people who shook their head at the Sequel trilogy of films reasoning that the franchise should officially move backwards to it's greatest hey-day: the days of the Old Republic. This age, set thousands of years before even the events of 'The Phantom Menace', told of a time where the Jedi weren't an eminent force in the galaxy and were instead locked in a mortal struggle against their natural rivals, The Sith. This concept would reach it's greatest heights at the moments when we saw huge sweeping battles between thousands of lightsaber-wielding Sith and Jedi.Through a fantastic comic series, two grand games and a half-decent MMO, we got to explore this world and nothing that the Star Wars brand has put out since has ever topped it. (Although a few of the 'Star Wars Episode 3.5' stories have come close.) I even remember longing for a sequel to 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic' for so long, so why am I so conflicted about the prospect of a remake?

To be honest, I wasn't always this ambivalent. I think this really hit me when I saw one of the numerous fan projects that attempted to remake the original Kotor. (And was promptly shut-down once EA got wind of things.) I don't recall which one, but I remember peeking in on a showcase video from an excited Star Wars Fan. I remember the demo in question showing off a bit of the lower cities of Taris and some of Tatooine, and hearing the voice geek out over how shiny everything looked and the glare of the neon lights. It was then that it really hit me what was so wrong about this project; everything looked too clean. What I mean to say is, the textures were good and all but it didn't feel like Star Wars. That's when it hit me how Kotor is one of the only Star Wars games that nails the feel of Star Wars without recycling content from the films. It dares to be different, and somehow improves instead of alienates. (How amazing of a feat is that!)

That is the memory which I am bought back to whenever anyone talks about the possibility of a Kotor remake. Now, I'm sure that EA, with their official contract to poke through official Star Wars assets, will make an absolute breeze out of nailing the look of Star Wars, but that doesn't mean they'll replicate the atmosphere of Kotor. Because, you see, it was a lot more than just the look which made Knights so special. Kotor managed to completely rejuvenate a galaxy that we knew so well and make us look at it from different eyes, it brought doubt and shades of grey into the universe without becoming too bleak and gritty, and it introduced fans to a cast of unforgettable characters that were as good as family. (The way I see it, one of Kotor 2's biggest mistakes was supplanting those companions for their weak-sauce variants.)

Then there is the big elephant in the room; the immortal twist that proved so memorable that it did to gamers what "I am your Father" did to a room full of 1980's movie goers. It completely turned our world on our heads and made us look back on everything that had happened up until now, it's part of the reason why Kotor's protagonist is one of the most liked character in the Star Wars Legends library. That twist is completely out-of-the-bag now, practically everyone knows about it. (Although I won't saw what it is on the offchance that you don't. Seriously, play Kotor.) I'm not saying that a remake would therefore be totally pointless, but a lot of the appeal will have sagged.

Of course, at the end of the day the reason why I don't want EA touching Kotor again is because I don't think anyone in that organization could do the game justice. Yes, I know that the development duties would most likely go to Bioware, but Bioware is no longer the famed studio who put together Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect, Jade Empire and Dragon Age. (Heck, that much is obvious from the fact that 'Wizards of the Coast' passed their studio up for 'Baldur's Gate 3', giving it to Larian instead.) We've seen this studio bleed key talent over the past few years and struggle to put out a finished product or even finish one they started on. (They cancelled DLC plans for Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect Andromeda at the behest of EA.) I don't trust them to revive this classic.

Yes, I know that 'Star Wars: Knights of the old republic' is an ageing game with lamentable graphics and some poor voice performances at times, but it brings it own charm and that is something I doubt Bioware know how to instill today. EA may be riding the high off of their 'surprise' single player game hit in 'Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order', but I would implore them not trample upon the strong legacy of their best games. I realize that some of my zeal against this rumor comes from that strange possessive greed that us gamers sometimes have, but I'm trying to channel that into a desire to preserve, rather than one to hoard and keep for myself. At the end of the day, I have no say in this and the cautionary, but ultimately positive, reception that this 'news' is getting likely means that if EA hadn't already optioned this remake, they will do now. I just hope that any incurred damages upon the legacy of the original are paid for with the deliverance of a completed Kotor 3. Don't let us down, EA. (Like you always do anyway...)

Humankind

When Alexander looked upon the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more resource nodes to exploit.

It must really suck for a studio to run out and put together a cool idea, form it into a game, agonize over an apt but succinct name that will immortalize it and spearhead all marketing efforts, settling finally for 'Humankind', only for Ubisoft to release some pretentious 'evolution' game called 'Ancestors: The Humankind Oddessey'. (No offence to the creators of 'Ancestors', I'm just not entirely sure why thier game needed a mile long subtitle.) It's a real shame because when I look at AMPLITUDE Studios I see a real earnest developer trying to make something special, something I don't quite understand yet, but something special nonetheless. They don't really have the name-recognition to go up against Ubisoft and most people have already attached the label 'Humankind' with Panache Digital's Ape-simulator.

In fact, it wasn't until the VGAs when I first discovered that the world was getting a Civilization successor, and I LOVE Civ. Don't get me wrong, I'm not good at Civ, but I positively adore it all the same. Perhaps it comes from that incredibly satisfying feeling you get once everything you've built begins working in flawless harmony and progress practically rushes you by; or maybe it's the moments when everything is falling apart, and you're forced to make tough sacrifices just to survive long enough to pull through; or maybe it's just that inevitable moment when you get sick of being stonewalled out of World Congress and start conducting Mech-wars on civilizations so underdeveloped that they only got airplanes last decade, happy in the knowledge that if any of the bigger civilizations get testy they'll find themselves unwilling guinea pigs for that Atomic Bomb I built all those decades back as a 'deterant'. (God I'm a psychopath, aren't I...) Whatever the allure of this genre, the consequence is that I'm positively enamoured with all 'civilisation builder' games and literally did a double take when I realized a new one had managed to pass me by until now.

But I use the past-tense appropriately because it is in my headlights now, and I fully intend to spend my time answering that one question that seemed to grip everyone during the VGA trailer. "What the heck is this game?"  Humankind is an upcoming brand new 4X strategy game (With the term '4X' standing for: Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate; to denote the key gameplay loop of games from this genre) being put together by a studio made up of ex-Ubisoft Devs. (Okay, that's weird. Kinda makes it look like Ancestor's similar name might not be so 'coicendental' after all... I'm joking- just to be clear.) These are the guys behind 'Endless Space' as well, so they ain't no greenhorns to this genre, which should be promising to hear for anyone else with my particular bug. Humankind is a title that plans to take all that expertise that the studio has gathered through their work on space 4x games and use it on a terrestrial level that should, in theory, supplant the long standing kings of this genre like 'Anno' and 'Civilisation'.

The first thing to note about this game is while it may look like Civ, wear it's clothes, eat it's food and share it's bed, this game is, crucially, not Civ. The best manner in which I can illustrate this is through explaining the key feature of Humankind: How civilizations work- argh, damn these 4X games and their one-word titles. (This is going to get a little complicated) So in Civilization, (the game, not the concept.) players are asked to take on the identity of one 'real life' society (ancient or modern) and guide them through the ages from a band of wandering settlers into a nuke toting world superpower. (If you're me.) The slight problem with this, from a 'realism' standpoint, is that you'll be taking control of societies from all across the history of the world and starting them at square one, even though no modern society actually started from square one.

This is the problem that Humankind intends to fix by having players play, not as a society, but as an immortal ruler who just happens to shape this civilization through it's 6 ages. In gameplay, this means that the player will be initially asked to choose between a selection of period appropriate ancient civilizations and build them up before having the opportunity to pick a successor society through which to pass the torch. This mirrors how civilization evolves in our real world, with societies like Modern America having been birthed from England and borrowing aspects of Roman Culture who in turn gained their routes from Egyptian and ancient Greek cultures. This approach to telling a 4X story should appropriately represent the melting pot that is modern society and, on a more tactile note, will make competitive play much more unpredictable.

It is quite the dream to imagine a Civ like game wherein you craft a civilization of your own by picking it's ancestors, but AMPLITUDE are determined to realize this in a title that they are prematurely naming their Magum Opus. (Guess that's why they gave it a name as flat as 'Humankind'.) In gameplay, what little we've seen at least, we can observe this mechanic in action as we see modern civilizations that look to have taken design ques from the player's earlier acquaintances, as well as combat units that mirror those design elements. Of course, this means that balancing must be an absolute nightmare to figure out, but that's some of the fun of 4X games, you're not always on the same level playing field.

Of course, having watched the VGA trailer revealed precisely none of this, and I've had to build up my hype for this title all on my own, and I've seen several pundits who immediately waved this off as a Civ clone because of that trailer. I feel like this speaks to an inherent weakness on the behalf of their marketing, and that could get in the way of this titles popularity in the long run. Now, it's entirely possible that, given this studios history with 4X games, the audience who would flock to this game already know well about it. It's been doing the rounds for a while now and the strategy game community does have a reputation of being a tight-knit, in-the-loop bunch. But that leaves a whole lot of non die-hard strategy fans, like myself, who could completely miss out on what could be one of the most ambitious 4X games ever made. Or an impending flop of disastrous proportions. (Either way, it doesn't make sense for folk to just miss out.)

4X titles manage to confer that oh-so-sought-after power fantasy wish that I actually actively shun in other genres. Is it a shooter? Make it as hard as possible, I want to fight for my kills. It is a action adventure platformer? Turn off auto-checkpoints, I want every jump to make my heart leap into my throat. But when it comes to running a sprawling empire, I want to be that almighty dictator with lands so vast that the sun never sets on them. (And through the course of this blog, I think I've made it abundantly clear how that dream is one that should stay firmly in the videogame world.) 'Humankind' promises to feed on that dream and add an almost unprecedented flair of personality into it, and that just makes me excited about the future of this genre. Perhaps next there'll be a 4X game that follows a civilization straight from the birth of society into a vast stellar empire. (Kinda like Stellaris.) Of course balancing for that would be literally impossible and single games would last for actual months, but it still sounds cool in my head. Just as long as I still get to build my Metal Gear mechs. (Oh, space mechs! OH, Zone of Enders!) See, 'Humankind' already has me dreaming big, and what more can one ask of a game than that?

Stadia teeters on the edge of the abyss...

Is this a Stadia I see before me, Chromecast towards my hand?

Hark, be that an angel I hear harping her sweet way to my ear? Nay, tis but the latest official word from the Internet's favourite whipping bo- one of the Internet's favourite whipping boys: Google Stadia. You remember Google Stadia, don't you? The promises, the lies, some foolishness about a future in- wait, have I done that bit before? I've been covering the insanity of Google's 'breathrough' into the gaming market for so long that everything just seems to blur into one. From the getgo I was dubious about the prospect of moving gaming entirely into the cloud, and every lie that Google told to allay my fears served only to make me more suspicious. Seems I wasn't alone in my trepidation because Stadia's eventual launch was modest by every expectation. Just around 550,000 units isn't exactly an abject failure, but it isn't the healthiest launch either. For comparison, the Nintendo Switch (A console which followed the disastrous Wii U) reigned in 1.5 million units in it's launch month. (So Stadia has a little bit of catching up to do.)

But not to worry, our Google overlords say, for the official Stadia website released a 'comforting' blog post to let everyone know that everything is going according to plan and not to worry. (Or something like that, I don't know.) This post starts off by making the excessively bold announcement that "in November, we delivered a great gaming experience for players." Strong words, I guess, but shouldn't those players be the judge of that? Just like any post that is supposed to be telling everyone what they should look forward to in the next year, Stadia's blog then went onto remind everyone about the things that happened in the past 3 months. (Almost as if to say "See! It ain't all bad, you guys got this stuff!") They spoke of all the great titles that were added to the Stadia library, (Which is now up to a whopping 26 games!) their recent acquisition of Typhoon Studios, (A studio who have made one game that is yet to release. Still, a moment of silence please.) the addition of achievements to the Stadia ecosystem (That puts them one up on Nintendo, I guess) and the surprise release of a second 'buddy pass' for Stadia founders. That last one really does make me smile, they're attempting to gather praise for desperately attempting to get more people to play their platform. (Come on, guys, show a little decorum!)

But team Stadia didn't just spend this entire new-years blog patting themselves on the back, (just half of it) the rest was dedicated to a whole list of promises that Stadia assures everyone will arrive at some point within the next 12 months. (So mark your calenders, Stadia owners.) Their first bullet point was a real doozy, "Support for 4k gaming on the web". Yeah, you know that thing that Stadia advertises in all of their adverts? It's not available yet, at least on the browser form of Stadia. (And then there's the fact that Stadia's games don't even run at 4k 60fps on platforms for which 4k is supported, but that's a whole other blog in itself.) Secondly, they want to bring Stadia to other Android phones other than their Pixel products, and they want to release that wireless functionality for their controllers which was promised all the way back at their launch event.

The one bit of news that's really going to win Stadia some fans, however, is the 120 new games that Stadia already have slated to launch in 2020. (I wonder how many of them were even made in the last 2 years?) Best of all? For the first half of the year Stadia are looking at 10 games which will be timed exclusives for Stadia. (Because everyone just loved it when Epic Games started doing that, right?) To be honest, the real victim in all this are the poor studios that Google managed to rope into this deal. I hope that the money they received was worth chucking all their hard work down the drain for a year, I really do. (Knowing google, it probably was.) They ended their post by promising more new games for Stadia Pro come February. But that reminds me of something- February seems like a significant date for some reason...

Ah, that's right. February is the date when folks who bought the founders addition of Stadia, and thus received a complimentary 3 months of Stadia Pro, will be hit with the first $9.99 monthly charge. Seems kinda dirty to think about, doesn't it? Especially when you consider the catalogue of features which Stadia promised to launch with and just plain didn't. This is the truth that is starting to hit the wave of fans who initially supported Stadia like a ice bath full of buyers remorse. Gaming journalist outlets are being even lazier than me, of late, by linking directly to the official Google Stadia Sub-Reddit (The central hub for all Stadia sympathizers) and noting how folk seem disquiet about their potential future with the service.

Now, normally I would link a few juicy threads, but there's honestly too many of them going on right now so I thought I'd just impart the general vibe from over there. Basically, folk are wondering whether or not it makes sense to start dishing out on a subscription for Stadia when the bill hits or to just cut their $120 losses and be done with the whole thing. There's a whole load of overly long threads of folk who feel the need to share their entire families life stories before revealing that they feel betrayed by Google, and one more succinct post of someone rounding up Stadia supporters with Stadia leavers and finding that the latter seems to win out. (For now.) We'll see if that sentiment shifts once Stadia start announcing their coming exclusives. (Which they should really get to long before E3. No one is going to want to hear their crap by then.) 

But the evidence of Stadia's impending downfall isn't just anecdotal, I'm afraid, it's statistical too. PocketGamer.biz recently managed to track a decently reliable number of Stadia users despite Google refusing to share that info. (This is due to an Android app that is needed to set-up Stadia and buy games for it. These guys got the figures for how many folk downloaded that app, therefore showcasing roughly how many people had Stadia. I suppose multiple purchases wouldn't count in that.) It's with data that I could relay earlier how Stadia is sitting at around 550,000 units, and how we know that 383,000 of those downloads came in the launch month. Since then the number of downloads has only increased by 43.6% in the space of 2 months, (going on 3) which would usually be a sign of dropping interest.

I may be a curmudgeon, but I don't delight in seeing Stadia fail. (Well, at least not entirely. I don't like being lied to either.) A lot of folk put their heart, and several years of their lives, into bringing this service together, and it must suck for them to create something so ill-conceived. I just fundamentally disagree with Stadia's approach to completely supplant physical gaming as I, and most anyone with half a brain cell, can see what a terrible idea that would be for the future of gaming. That being said, I like the idea, which is why I find myself gradually growing more interested in Microsoft's Project X-Cloud and hope that grows into something decent. Until then, however, the world does not appear to be quite ready for a cloud gaming platform, and already we can start to hear the ringing bell signalling the last hours of sunlight for this doomed venture. Hear it not, Google, for it is a knell. That summons Stadia to heaven or (More likely) to hell!

Dying Light 2 dies it's final death?

Wait, is that more of a Vampire thing?

Zombies; a mainstay of video games, and popculure, since the dawn of time. (Or so it seems.) Unlike most pop fads, it seems that the zombie craze never dies and we always have a least one game about those flesh eaters on the horizon. Perhaps that's because we can never get enough of stories that recount the unquenchable thirst of death and it's unfaltering march ever onwards; or maybe we like reminders of how society may be the one thing separating us from animals; whatever the case, we can't get enough of zombie-mania. Which is why it's such a shame that one company who made their name on two successful zombie titles, Techland, seems to have been struck with the Valve curse as they are unable to bring out any sequels. And the latest news from their studio is not too encouraging on that behalf.

On Twitter, not so long ago, it was revealed to us all that Dying Light 2 was pushed back for a second time, only this time it was 'indefinately'. Personally, I can't actually remember the last time that has happened, so I can't be sure whether or not this news is extremely reassuring or incredibly disconcerting. (Although, judging from my title, you can probably see where my feelings ultimate settled.) Don't get me wrong, it's by no means irregular for games to find themselves launched into a pit of development hell, that happens all the time. Just look at 'The Last Gaurdian', 'Duke Nukem: Forever', 'Final Fantasy XV' or, to touch close to home, 'Dead Island 2'. All of those games got caught up in a whirlwind of 'behind the scenes' issues which ballooned development time out of control, and half of those examples turned out pretty all right games in the end. However, when a release date is announced, or even just a window, it's supposed to be a sign that the approaching seas are relatively calm and turbulence will be minimal. (relatively, at least.) But things haven't seemed to play out this way for poor 'Techland'.

Let me try to establish just how monumental this development is. Originally, Dying Light 2 was slated for a Spring 2020 release date. When Techland made that announcement, it wasn't just so that fans could start their hype trains to arrive at the station on time, it was also for Investors and analysts to start making their projections. That is why when such a date is moved, it's important for a new release window to be selected, else everyone ends up in the lurch. Now it would have been easy for Techland to push the game back to later in the year, citing 'difficulties' like CDPR did, but to push that window even further into oblivion speaks to a lack of confidence on behalf of the leadership. Will this game even make it out before the end of this console generation? At this point that seems unlikely, which has the potential to push the game back even further as they are forced to work on next-gen ports. (It would be positively foolish not to at that point.)

Now, it's possible that we as fans are the only one's currently in the dark at this point. Perhaps the team and investors have a 'goal date' in mind that they intend to hit and just don't want to make any promises just in case they have to break another; but that skepticism brewing around this title is sure to effect the mood towards the game and investor trust in the brand. (I hate getting all 'corprate' but I feel it's an important aspect of this story.) Say this title does get a Christmas release date suddenly, so we can expect to see it on shelves comes September, would you believe it? Would you wonder about just what corners had to be cut to meet this new release window? Even if you were a diehard fan of the original, aren't you, as a responsible consumer, going to have this sudden delay gnawing at the back of your mind like an annoying Walker? Maybe enough fans will feel that way to actually hurt those all-important week one sales, which will in turn hurt Techland. Now, that's a worst-case scenario that I just hypothesized there, but it's a possibility that Techland have opened themselves up to.

The key question on everyone's minds right now is probably the same one that raced to your head when you first heard of this delay; why? And for that, I'm afraid, there is no easily citable catch-all answer for us to digest and feel ultimately good about. If we refer back to the original delay tweet there is some fluff about 'needing additional development time to fulfill their vision', but that's so canned they may as well have said absolutely nothing for as much as it explained. (At least CDPR explained that it came down to an issue of bug fixing.) Once again, this maw of reasoning has left room for rampant speculation from folk with no first-hand knowledge of the issue, but what else are we to do?

For my wild speculation, I believe that this delay might have something to do with a vast restructuring of the game's framework, which would explain why this title hasn't been given a release date because they're still putting together what the final vision of the product will look like. When the original Dying Light came out in 2015, it was applauded for being everybit the original vision of the 'Dead Island' project. People couldn't get enough of the mobility of the game and, therefore, forgave the title for some of it's weaker moments. (such as in it's story.) Personally, despite being a lifelong zombie fan myself, I found 'Dying Light' to be largely underwhelming. (Much like Dead Island, for that matter.) Don't get me wrong, the parkour was fun, but in the same way that the newest Ubisoft game's gimmicks are fun, you enjoy them now but you're really waiting for the next game where they get implemented properly. (I just wished that there was more integration between mobility and combat in Dying Light.)

Dying Light 2 seemed to fix my concerns, in that department at least, judging from the reveal trailer; but I felt a whole slew of new concerns rising from the rest that they showed off. Now, these concerns were mostly just my own at this time (the fans practically ate all this up.) but perhaps with the changing attitude towards certain kinds of games, Techland started to see what I was seeing. To be clear, my issue was with the main focus of the game being on the idea of a 'faction dispute' wherein the actions of the player will have consequence. Now, this sort of marketing gimmick has become a stable in modern gaming, so 'no harm no foul', but Techland decided to take it one step further by insisting that the choices of the player would drastically effect the world around them. (Something which flashed me back to 'Saints Row 3' wherein your progress through the story would determine which colour drapes 4 of the city's building wore. Truly a gamechanger.) True to their word, Techland showed off a bunch of 'before and after' shots of districts whose faction flags switched depending on your quest choice, and folk like me were just left wondering. "Is that the best you've got?"

Now, one weak 'consequnce' system isn't enough to sink a game; but when it seemed to be the core mechanic that was leading marketing, it does make someone worry that this game had literally no over surprises up it's sleeves. In all honesty, this felt like one of those 'copy and paste' jobs that Ubisoft would do with their mechanics, and, as I mentioned recently, things have reached the point where even Ubisoft can't defend their own laziness in that department anymore. So what do you do when the people who you used be inspired by change course? You either double down and start a daily blog about the source of you loneliness, cut off all ties and shrivel into a loathsome shrew of a human who's only respite is the sham comfort of unconscious dreams; or just follow suit and pray you're making the right choice. (I'm being hyperbolic for effect.)

Does this mean that the Dying Light 2 game is dead in the water? Not exactly, but this could be a signal for development troubles, or even marketing troubles. As much as there are a loyal contingent of 'superfans' who bated their collective breath for this game, there are a larger public who seemed indifferent and totally forgot this title existed until it was delayed. (A group of which I am a member.) I mean, just look at how their 'Dying Light' Battle Royale: 'Bad Blood', from 2018, practically disappeared from the limelight a couple months after it's debut. This franchise lacks the staying power that the studio need for a successful sequel and I feel like that could have something to do with the choice to delay. (Maybe Techland want to mount a stronger marketing campaign. In their shoes, I would want to.) At the end of the day this is all just guess-work. The real reasons behind this are known by Techland and only them. We can only hope they know what they're doing and that the final game, if it ever releases, is worth the wait.

What is Genshin Impact?

In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again.

It's rabbit hole time, ladies and gentlemen! Not too long ago I came across an article reporting about the impending port of the game, Genshin Impact, on the Nintendo Switch. This post was accompanied with the helpful phrase "Awkward!" to let us all know how this news should makes us feel. And why shouldn't it, I thought. Genshin Impact on the switch, pfff, that's so awkward. Heck, I'm feeling awkward right now just talking about it. What an uncomfortable and unsettling turn of events that undeniably is... Yeah, I didn't know what Genshin Impact was either; so I started up the ol' investigating tab and started diving into the weird and wonderful world of the blatant rip off.

When first announced for it's PC and Mobile release back in June last year, there was an instant moment of "Haven't I seen this somewhere before?" for the majority of those that watched it. You see the game looked good, really good in fact; aesthetically, it benefited from this soft-edged brush artstyle which made everything adopt this dream-like painting-esque look to it. One might even go so far as to label the art style 'pioneering', if it hadn't been for the fact that it was identical to the same art style that wowed the world in 2017 with the launch of 'The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'. Now, similar art styles wouldn't be so much an indication of 'plagarism' if it wasn't for how distinct and iconic BOW's style actually is. But the similarities didn't end there, not by a long shot. Enemies seemed to copy the same colour grading, particle effects react in a disturbingly similar fashion, and the title even features an experimental cooking system. (Something 'Breath of the Wild' introduced to a Zelda audience.)

I'm by no means the first person to notice these similarities either. If you type 'Breath of the Wild Clone' into google, you'll be met with a plethora of articles about this game, showing that the studio have managed to cultivate something of an reputation through their alleged plagiarism. This isn't a new stigma either, even when the title was first debuted at the China Joy gaming Expo inside of Sony's official booth, folk were quick to point out this game for what it really was, a copy-paste job. One man was so annoyed about, not only this game, but the fact that Sony were officially promoting it, that he smashed his PS4 at ChinaJoy. (It's unclear why he bought his PS4 to a convention in the first place, but the image is pretty powerful. Actually the image kinda sucks, but the intent which made that image was pretty powerful. Actually the intent is kinda stupid, but the heart behind the intent which made the image was pretty powerful.) He wasn't the only one mad either; a huge protest formed outside of Sony's booth at the event of people so incensed that they were holding their Switches in the air alongside copies of 'Breath of the Wild', (Again, why did they bring them?) whilst flipping the booth off. (Which makes it kind of look like some of them are flipping their 'Breath of the Wild' game cases off, but I get the idea.)

This deluge of bad press didn't just end at the shameless creators, but also got levied at Sony's feet for having the audacity to promote this. (Seems some people wilfully forget the blatant lack of scruples that the Eastern branch of Sony has.) Fans rallied against the tech-giant, calling their behavior 'shamefull' and demanding a pull back on marketing which, surprise surprise, was never going to happen. One outlet who attended the event noticed how Genshin was the most popular game at Sony's ChinaJoy booth, with long lines despite the protest. (Or maybe because of it.) And that may be because the game resembles one of the best games of the last decade. Heck, if I was there I'd probably want to check it out, even if just to satiate my own morbid curiosity. This game has become something of a hit and that is the sort of thing that is probably worth a discussion about down the line.

But before we get to that, we should probably cover the basics, like: Who the heck had the gall to rip-off 'Breath of the Wild'? Well, that dubious honour goes to Japanese developer, MiHoYo, who are apparently best known for their 'hack and slash RPG': 'Honkai Impact 3rd'. (They like that 'impact' word, huh?) To their credit, 'Honkai' looks like a well-animated hack-and-slash adventure which is a cut above the sludge of low effort DS titles; (Which all seemed to be set in Akihabara, for some reason.) but judging from the presentation and trailers that I've seen, it is still as lacking in the story department. (Something about the tagline "Fight for all that's beautiful in the world" makes me want to burn down a rainforest.) Ostensibly, the game is about little more than a variety of colourful young Anime girls dressed in various questionable attire and wielding guns and swords. (Never seen that one before- way to push the envelope guys!)

However, we're picking on their previous titles when we should be ripping the limbs off of their newest game, that is what this blog is about afterall. So what is Genshin Impact? Well, it's a open world game that takes the framework of 'BOW', replaces the character assets and plays like a light MMO. (With levelled enemies and ability slots.) The new characters are mostly Anime girls again, although I think I spotted one stereotypical 'blank slate-self insert' male character for half a second, and they all look like drafts that were rejected from being secondary Xenoblade characters for somehow being too forgettable and too distinct at the same time. For their credit, I will once again point out that the game world looks simply stunning (For obvious reasons) and the one boss monster they showcased in their 'gameplay trailer' almost rivalled BOW in terms of epic scale. (Although, it still seemed just a little bit creatively lazy.) Wait. Did I just see that? For some reason the Devs thought it was smart to showcase their PC dying, only to reveal that the death animation is the exact same as BOW's teleport animation? (Guys, how hard is it to come up with a death animation? Come on!)

I can't believe that I'm saying this, but there are actually some people who defend this title and argue that it's emulating a 'Studio Ghibli' art style. Which is actually worrying to see how people will cite 'Studio Ghibli' as a bastion of incredible art without, it seems, actually watching one of their films. (For reference, 'Forgotten Anne' is more similar to their style.) Although, I can certainly understand something of an ulterior motive for Sony fans to defend this title, it does actually look a little cool. 'Breath of the Wild' is famously a Nintendo exclusive, and that limits a decent amount of the gaming audience who don't want to put up with the Switch or Nintendo's love-affair with excessive premium pricing. This title looks like a slight shadow on 'Breath of the Wild', and I can understand people wanting to experience that world if even in a tangential way. But should we stand for plagiarism for the sake of enjoyment?

To be clear, I do not think that this is a case of straight code-ripping; this is probably more a theft of ideas, and that's a more difficult beast to approach. There are those who subscribe to the belief that 'good artists borrow and great artists steal' and it can be hard to hold those principles whilst going after a rip off product like this. Did this game profit from copying BOW's art style? Yes. But all the rest of game's mediocrity is completely it's own, and that's probably not grounds for a total legal rejection. Now, this isn't exactly comforting for the artists who put their hearts and minds into making something distinct and new, but there's a growing number of people who just don't seem to care about that aspect. There is a larger argument to be had about this issue, but today is not the day I'll take part in it. Until then, I recommend that you take a look at Genshin Impact on YouTube and determine yourself just how guilty this game is.

The fall of Assassin's Creed, a prelude.

Oh, what are you, a tiny child?

I have a love-hate relationship with Ubisoft. When you read this blog you may find yourself under the impression that it's more of a 'hate-hate' relationship, but I'm tough on them because I love them and I want them to be the best they can. They're one of the biggest game studios still in the business, and yet they are one of the most creatively stale companies; they have several teams of world class asset makers and world builders, but they waste their considerable talents on spitting out dozens of lifeless 'open worlds' every few years. I see the potential that they can't see themselves, which is why I come back to them time and time again even after they disappoint me time and time again. My inexplicable gravitation towards Ubisoft is realized fully in my relationship to the one franchise which I would hazard to label their number one flagship; Assassin's Creed.

When the first Assassin's Creed game launched, I was still on the high of 'Prince of Persia', so I missed out on a lot of the hype surrounding that game and it's 'realistic' depiction of the land around the crusades. Once the second game landed, and was practically a global phenomenon, I decided that I had to try my hand at this new series and started from the beginning; and what a trip that was. I was astounded by the gorgeous vistas, the liberating free running and the engrossing story. Damascus, Jerusalem and Acre were cities unlike any I had ever seen before in gaming, and I revelled in their streets for countless hours as an Assassin. What really kept me hooked, however, was the mute but intriguing modern day sections that paralleled the action of the past with a sedate thriller-esque angle of being stuck in captivity. Assassin's Creed one was a game that seemed precisely made to breed a franchise stung along by fanciful ideas and a fun conspiracy plot; What's not to love?

And yet, somewhere along the way it all began to fall apart. As soon as Assassin's Creed 3 left that initial hype-period, people became dissatisfied with what they were given. AC3's story didn't seem as strong as the previous games, and the title seemed to up-the-ante only in terms of gameplay. The modern narrative, too, seemed to have reached an odd crescendo to which no one knew how it could be continued, and there a considerable amount of confusion as to where the series would go next. This confusion must have stuck the development team too, because this is when a large part of Assassin's Creed's story began to get insultingly lazy. And yes, I realize that the majority of people who play AC games don't return to find out where the overall narrative was going, but that speculation is the fuel that feeds the community, and without the community to push the hype train, some of magic starts to get lost in translation.

Assassin's Creed 4- oh sorry, I mean "Black Flag" (God, I hate it when series just abandon their numbering structure) was a fine game with great, if gimmicky, gameplay mechanics, a likeable protagonist and, in my sole opinion, one of the most powerful character-driven plots in the franchise; but it didn't really push the story of the games forward and so didn't build upon the 2012 hype that AC3 drummed up. (AC Rogue was pretty average and Liberation is a godawful abomination that makes my blood boil to think about.) When 'Assassin's Creed: Unity' hit, I think that was the moment when something broke in me. (It was my respect for this franchise, I think.) More than the lazy modern storyline that barely pushed the overall plot forward by more than a couple of inches; more than the straight lies that various demos told us about the way the game mechanics worked; the greatest insult to me was the presentation. Because that just told me that Ubisoft didn't care anymore and that this franchise had become another soulless annual release.

I fell off from picking up every entry in this series and eventually stopped caring altogether about when the next games would come out. A couple of years down the line I picked up 'Syndicate', mostly just to see their take on London, but the day after I finished the campaign I put that game down and haven't reopened it since. There were just too many other great, passionate, games coming out every year that didn't reak with squandered potential, and so I slowly let my fandom for Assassin's Creed die. But, as I've already mentioned, I am forever the optimist and so some subconscious part of me was always keeping an ear out for what this franchise would spit out next. It was that way that I picked up on the relatively well-received game which which is the only fuel for this new series of blogs.

As Ubisoft had hurt me before one too many times with this franchise, I waited until Assassin's Creed: Origins was well discounted before I even considered taking a look at what it had to offer. I'd heard all the positive impressions that the title had received, but I'd also heard the mumbled discontent from some pundits, and I was eager to wait and see where the dust ultimately settled. With an overall consensus of 'it's not half bad', I decided to open myself up once again and give Assassin's Creed another chance to prove itself, and what I discovered was... well, I'll have to explain it fully. In order to cover this in the best possible manner, I will have to delve into spoilers. And given that title's imperative place in the canon of Assassin's Creed, (as well as it's creative significance) I'll have to go through practically every game in the franchise. Although, honestly, if you haven't jumped into the Assassin's Creed lore train yet, I doubt you'll ever get round to it. (It's 15 miles long and most of it is shoddy quality anyway.) But still I should say: spoiler alert everyone!

I like to think that Ubisoft saw 'Assassin's Creed: Origins' as a chance to quietly reboot the franchise and start again from square one. They'd tried their hand at crafting a grand narrative once before and it had fell on it's face spectacularly whilst dragging all their names in the dirt with it. In order to put things back on track, they needed something of a blank slate to work from. We can see this from the work cycle for 'Origins', which warranted that the Ubisoft team to actually skip a potential release year in order to work harder on the game. (Gasp. They were taking this seriously!) Once final release hit, 'Assassin's Creed: Origins' would be a new dawn for the flagging franchise and it shoved that brand back into the limelight.

Unfortunately, in order for me to cover exactly why that game works as a fresh start I need to go over the story of the entire franchise. I know, I know; that's so much information to digest, but I'm doing it off the top of my head so the filter of my British snark should render the salient points a tad more palatable. Also, I feel it important to stress that I'm only covering the events of the main games. (and the movie, I guess.) I know that there's a slew of books in the Assassin's Creed franchise, but I honestly couldn't stomach this franchise enough to start reading books on it. I'd sooner sit down and start reading the 'Hello Neighbour' lore books. (Yes, those exist. No, I don't know who greenlights this crap.)

When it began, Assassin's Creed had a pretty hefty concept to sell to it's potential fans and it wanted them to take it seriously. The team wanted to tell of a story about genetic memory, wherein the experiences of one's ancestors is held within their DNA, therefore creating the basis of the phenom that we humans call 'instinct'. (I kindly ask that any scientists in the audience direct their "actually's" to Ubisoft.) But that wasn't even all; Assassin's Creed also wanted to use that background as a vehicle to tell a story about conspiracy that mirrors the 'illumanti' stories, only dating back thousands of years with a little bit of 'magic/space age tech' thrown in for good measure. Looking back at everything now, it's apparent how all of this was a wild concept for anyone to swallow, and it was really a huge testament to Ubisoft's writing talent that they were able to ensure this made any remote sense, let alone form the backbone of their biggest series of all time. (Whatever happened to that talent?)

In order to put players in the ripe position to learn all of this, Ubisoft placed us in the shoes of Desmond Miles, (Played by game VO veteran: Troy Baker) as he was kidnapped under the orders of Warren Vidic, director of the giant lifestyle conglomerate; Abstergo Industries. (God, recounting all this takes me back...) Abstergo bagged Desmond, a cocktail waiter, in order to get a glimpse at his 'genetic memory', for the reason that, according to their research, Desmond is the ancestor of an incredibly important figure to the Crusades. (So I guess these guys were real big on historical research.) To plough these genetic depths, they use their cutting edge machine, 'The Animus', which is the result of years of  R&D on a level only achievable by one of the biggest companies on the planet. This Animus would allow Desmond to live the life of his ancestors. (and allow the player to play said sections.)

Together with Vidic, his helpful assistant Lucy, and a surprisingly compliant Desmond, the player is thrust into the world of Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, an Assassin from an ancient order of medieval hitmen loosely based on the real-life Hashashins. (Which I believe translates to "Hash-eaters") Despite being right in the middle of King Richard's third Crusade, the Assassin's seem to focus themselves on solving local injustices by targeting and publicly murdering several corrupt officials from all over the region. (on both sides of the holy turmoil.) What seemingly starts off as a journey following local do-gooders begins to seep into something grander when Altaïr starts to realize that many of his targets seem to be in league with each other, despite hailing from all different walks of life.

This is when the 'conspiracy' angle plays in. Altaïr learns that all of his targets were actually secretly working for the same secret organization. Well... actually not-so secret for the time period that the game's set in; but for so many prominent officials to swear allegiance to their tenants would certain be a well-kept secret. You see they all seemed to serve a sect of the 'Templar order', only one that didn't seem to bow to God like the 'Knights Templar', but rather appealed to Objectivist ideals and a desire for order by any means necessary. These guys have ingrained themselves is almost every sector of society to achieve their goals even, funnily enough, the Assassin's; as it turns out that Altaïr's mentor, Al Mualim, was a particularly ambitious Templar who used the Assassin's to kill off his co-conspirators so that he could covet their ultimate goal. (With me so far? Cause this about to get a whole lot weirder.)

So the Templars have their eyes set on world domination (of course) only they want to do it "for the good of mankind" or some such nonsense. Unfortunately, there's this pesky little quirk of humanity known as 'Free will' which makes it pretty hard to make everyone listen to your drivel, even if it is for: "The Greater Good." Luckily, these guys discovered that there is a special ornament perched atop of the Ark of the Covenant which posses the ability to alter the minds of men and rob them of that pesky free will. This 'artefect', which is in the shape of an apple, is referred to as 'the Apple of Eden' (obvious religious reference is obvious) and it is the mcguffin that everyone wants their hands on, pretty much throughout this entire franchise.

Unfortunately for Al Mualim, by some strange quirk of fate the Assassin order was built around a doctrine that strictly protects freewill. (Kinda seems a little 'high brow' for an organization made up of murderers, but hey; everyone's gotta have their thing.) Therefore once Altaïr learns of the betrayal of his master, he fights to stop him. In doing so he sees the frightening power of the apple, his home village of Masyaf completely enslaved into mindless zombies, and discovers that he is somewhat resistant to the power of the Apple for vague reasons that only get somewhat explained several games down the line. He murders his Templar Mentor and seizes the Apple, at which point the Apple GPS tracks all others of it's kind with a helpful map interface that no other artifact in the history of this franchise has ever done since. (It would certainly be useful for some of the later games' redundant plotlines.)

This seems to be the one thing that Abstergo have wanted to see this whole time, so they pull Desmond out of the Animus and congratulate him for his service. (They'll kill him tomorrow, so it's only fair they let him sleep the night.) During all of this time, there have been brief periods in the modern setting wherein Desmond has been allowed to roam at night and read secret files. Through all this it has probably become clear to the player that Abstergo aren't just a super-influential mega corporation that are really interested in uncovering history, (darn it, I lost a bet) but are actually the modern branch of the Templar Order. Although some part of their 'operate in secrecy' rule must have got forgotten over the years seeing as how they've set-up the largest company in the world (Hide in plain sight, I guess) and sign off all of their emails with the Templar catch-phrase "May the father of understanding guide you." (Okay, that one I can't defend.)

In the post game, players will start to realize that Desmond has gained the use of Altaïr's special enemy-highlighting power; Eagle Vision. (Which, apparently, isn't just another 'game-vision' mode as seen in Hitman, Batman and Tomb Raider. This one has story connotations!) This is due to something called 'The Bleeding effect' wherein those who experience the Animus for prolonged periods of time will start to have their memories merge with those of their ancestors and thus learn some of their abilities. The game then sprinkles in some teases about the last man who Abstergo used the Animus on, Subject 16, who seems to have come out the other side of testing in a bodybag; the possibility of assistant Lucy Stillman being a double agent, through use of 'Eagle Vision' showing Vidic as an enemy and Lucy as a friend; and a hint at a greater story involving Desmond's past, implying that he isn't quite the clueless rube that he's played this entire game. (I know I went over a lot there, but trust me, it's mostly all relevant.)

Looking back, I can't get over how strong of a first game all that was. Not so much in terms of gameplay; that's all aged terribly, but in terms of how it set up everything to follow. Don't get me wrong, none of this lore was placed by the steady hand of someone how knows exactly what they wanted to do with this story, rather the opposite, but the execution was perfect for fostering up an air of mystery and intrigue that got people invested in the story. From the way that the modern world was mostly a mystery unless you went exploring and how the narrative required players to steal key cards and dig through terminals all benefited the feeling of being in a grand investigation. (Which is a very active way to tell a story which gets the audience invested.) This was all neatly topped with the slight story hooks that ask questions and leave you wanting for answers and the promise of more wondrous artifacts for the series to explore. (Little did we know 90% of them would just be more Apples of Eden.)

It was astounding, then, that Assassin's Creed 2 came along and pushed the franchise so much further with it's story, whilst also robbing the brand of it's mystique in many ways. Throughout that game we learn that Desmond is really an estranged member of the modern day Assassin's and theirs is an organization that has persisted since the middle ages for the sole purpose of hindering the Templars where-ever they go. (And, ostensibly, to promote a whole bunch of wishy-whasy hippie philosophy, but we never get to really see any of that.) The modern story practically explodes into full-blown action movie in this game, with Lucy turning out to be an Assassin plant sent to break Desmond out, which they perform in spectacular fashion.

What follows is a tense story about hiding in an undisclosed warehouse from a organization as big as the Illuminati whilst racing against the clock to figure out the modern-day hiding place of the Pieces of Eden. (What they suddenly decided to start calling those cool shiny mind-control baubles.) We are also introduced to two of the most annoying humans on the planet; walking British stereotype, Shaun Hastings, and, character who we'll never quite figure out how to write consistently for, Rebbecca Crane. (Unfortunately, these two bundles of fun are the only characters who persist in these games to this day.) Moaning aside, I liked the intimate nature of the new setting and the fast change of pace when compared to the first title, it made it feel like the story was actually moving forward and the heroes were set-up in a cool underdog fashion. (Similar to the Rebels in Star Wars.)

But these games are made by their historical connection, and this game introduced us to the one Assassin's Creed character with a permanent spot in the video game hall of fame; Ezio Auditore da Firenze. It was really a miracle that Ubisoft managed to write someone as well as they wrote Ezio. He was charismatic, charming and likeable, whilst also vulnerable, brash and relatable. He was the perfect Disney prince that proved so popular that the Assassin's Creed games kept coming back to him time and time again. His character's DNA is so ingrained with the Assassin's Creed formula that when you think of the theme tune of 'Assassin's Creed', you're actually hearing the tune 'Ezio's family' in your head. (All preceding themes have since payed some slight homage with thier arrangements.)

In terms of story, however... a lot happens. I'll try to cut things down as much as possible. Well... Rebbecca puts together a homemade Animus, despite lacking the funding and manpower of Abstergo. (Just go with it) This allows the team to enter the memories of another Assassin ancestor of Desmond's, Ezio. Desmond discovers that the 'Bleeding Effect' doesn't just relate to his genetic 'Eagle Vision' but also allows him to adopt the athletic prowess of Ezio. (Which makes literally no sense, but then neither does anything else.) and he 'subtly' indicates that he has the hots for Lucy despite him having only found out she wasn't one of his kidnappers only a few hours ago. (It can't be an epic adventure without some shoehorned in romance, right?)

Once again, the meat of the tale really picks up in the past where we follow the entire life of Ezio as an Italian rich-kid growing up in the age of the Renaissance who's world is turned upside down when his father and brothers are murdered for uncovering a conspiracy and he's forced to go on the run. Ezio discovers that his father was a member of the much-deteriorated Assassin Order, and sets off to hunt down all those responsible for his family's murders whilst discovering what it is to serve a higher cause along the way. By the end of the game he is no more a petulant kid angry and lashing out for revenge, but a respected master Assassin who applies his craft for the good of his country and, through transitive property, the world. (Wow, character growth in my Ubisoft game? Who'd have thought?)

Unfortunately, at the end things really 'jump-the-shark' as Ubisoft desperately rushed to answer questions that we didn't need to know yet; like where do the Pieces of Eden come from? The answer isn't the garden of Eden, or from god, but aliens from Mars. (Yup. That's how everyone felt during this 'twist', too.) Aliens from Mars with super powerful technology visited earth and experimented with tech in order to save themselves from a sun flare that would wipe out their planet. They failed and died and it's all very sad. Now this magic sun flare is about to happen to earth and you are the only one who can stop it. (Who spliced this b-movie sci-fi crap into by historical Assassin game?) All this is delivered, by the way, through a recording of one of these aliens, who goes by the name of Ancient Roman god Minerva. (because of course she does.) She stares directly in the camera for all of this, reasoning that she is speaking through Ezio to 'Desmond'. (which confuses the flying heck out of poor Ezio.)

It's probably one of the most infamous moments of this entire franchise as everyone collectively face palmed and went, "You were doing do well, what happened?" No one could tell if this was some weird environmental message to the audience or a serious attempt to evolve the story, either way it was a widely mocked fork in the story that just seems to become ever more baffling with age. And I wish I could tell you that this was the lowest point in the Assassin's Creed storytelling, but it seriously gets a lot worse.

Not immediately, however, as the next game to pop out of the Assassin's Creed franchise was 'Brotherhood' a game which can arguably be called the best of the franchise. In terms of story, 'Brotherhood' didn't push the needle too far forward, or evolve Ezio that much, but it's gameplay completely refined Assassin's Creed 2's mechanics and the game was just long enough to feel worth your money and just short enough not to outstay it's welcome. (A distinction that literally no other Ubisoft game shares.) If ever anyone was curious about the history of Assassin's Creed but didn't know where to start, I'd say skip the original, consider the sequel but don't miss out on 'Brotherhood', you owe yourself that.

The modern day narrative actually moved forward a little bit more than the historical story this time, with Desmond finally starting to come into his own. The graphics improved to such a point that I suddenly realized that Lucy was played by 'Kristen Bell' all this time (that took me too long to figure out) and the rest of the team actually started to resemble a family. A family of people you want to punch in the face, but a family nonetheless. After some Animus-work, the team finally discover that Ezio's Apple of Eden was hidden somewhere in the Colosseum of Rome and they all go to retrieve it. Yet, somehow, the Assassin's Creed creative team managed to screw things up in a subtle way that had big ramifications for the series.

At this point, everyone knew about 'The Assassin's Creed Aliens', so they expected it and weren't too shocked when this aliens started becoming more central to the plot. As long as everything was made relatively clear, folk could just about swallow all this nonsense. However, once Desmond and the gang find and grab the Apple, something weird happens. Some mysterious force takes full control of Desmond and freezes everyone else in the room. A voice from one of the Aliens starts barking nonsensical orders at Desmond, and his body is remote controlled to he to stab, and kill, Lucy just everyone passes out into a heap with no clue what just happened. Now on the surface this seemed pretty promising, this was a shocking development that no one quite knew what to make of, inspiring that intrigue that was once thought lost, but this set a precedent for the series' worst storytelling moments down the line.

As this was the height of the franchise, I feel this as good a point as any to wrap things up for this prelude before we get into how everything fell apart next week. As you can probably deduce, I was once heavily invested in this franchise, and was always interested in storytelling, so I do find this a fascinating topic to delve into given the boon of hindsight to serve as a filter. Obviously, this topic is going to get a bit grim in the next blog, but I will slip in a little spoiler that when I do get around to my review of 'Origins', there will be some positivity to spread. (Although I won't yet reveal if that's just a drop or an ocean.) See you next Sunday.

FF7 Remake Game Awards Trailer

Bring me Cloud, bring me Tifa, bring me Barret, Basher, Dancer, Prancer, Comet and Vixen.

Finally, I've run out of all of the smaller announcements that happened at the VGAs and it's become abundantly clear that I need to start working on the bigger ones before those games actually come out. Heck, it's only a month until Final Fantasy 7- oh wait, that game was delayed. Well then, maybe I should do the Cyberpunk blog, that game comes out Apri- oh wait, that game was delayed too. (Do you guys ever get the impression that video game companies sometimes don't know what they're doing?) Regardless, with the 'remake mania' gripping the creative landscape, even with budding rumors of a KoTR remake, (Please god, no.) it only makes sense that we look at the one game that was announced at the outset of this craze. One that has since been pushed back so far it looks like it's leeching of said craze. (Again, these constant delays are giving me a headache...)

I've probably said this thousands of times before, but I have quite the history with Final Fantasy 7. Or, that is, with the original Final Fantasy 7. Whilst many count this title as the very first JRPG that turned them onto the possibilities of roleplaying as a genre, (either FF7 or 'Chrono Trigger') I was already a huge RPG fan when I first heard of the Final Fantasy games, so they did nothing to draw me in. Whatsmore, my very first Final Fantasy game, the first I ever played, was FF13; a game so rough and bumpy that it practically put me off the genre entirely. (I didn't even really like the characters all that much. How is that possible in a JRPG!?) Luckily, I would end up accidentally picking up FF7 when I was binging Square Games for a year (curtsy of me finding, and falling for, Deus Ex) and I finally started to get what it was about JRPGs that is so special. Fast forward to today and I'm currently juggling a playthrough of 'Xenoblade Chronicles 2', waiting to start my playthrough of 'Fire Emblem: The Three houses' and am seriously eyeing by 'Bravely Default 2'. So I think it's fair to say that FF7 successfully converted me.

But my connection to the Final Fantasy 7 Remake, despite being a game that is not released yet, is just as strong and that is all because of the director. You see, after I gave up on Final Fantasy 13, the next FF to get my attention was actually FF15, which I discovered during my aforementioned Square Enix binge. There was only small problem, the game had literally been teased for the past 7 years and didn't look like it was coming out anytime soon. Be that as it may, I totally feel in love with the vision of game's director, Tetsuya Nomura, and that obsession gripped me so tightly that I ended up buying and playing Final Fantasy 7 to ease the pain. Obviously, after that Tetsuya was ousted from the project and game was handed to a new director (who actually managed to release it. Imagine that.) but the final game differed so substantially from the original vision that I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if Tetsuya was never let go. (The game would still be being developed.)

In comes the Final Fantasy 7 remake with Tetsuya Nomura in the director's seat again and I feel like we'll finally get to see what the adventures of emo-Noctis would have been like. (Although, in this case I guess we're following emo-Cloud. Who I guess is Vincent Valentine.) Of course, with Tetsuya attached to the team, this project has suffered numerous delays to the point where some, including myself, began assuming this title was shaping up to be nothing more than vaporware, but we're nearly there. A full game release of a Tetsuya Nomura game. Fingers crossed nothing happens before April like it almost certainly will.

Even with the delay, the VGA trailer will likely be the last time for the Final Fantasy 7 remake team to show off their game before release, (excluding the inevitable launch trailer) so there are significant pressures on the team to deliver. That being said, the title has been doing an excellent job showcasing itself around the trade shows and at this point most fans are happy with the similarities and differences that they are seeing. From that perspective, the Final Fantasy 7 remake team already have an impending hit on their hands, and as soon as the game comes to the rightful platform (PC release soon please!) I'll be happy to get my hands on what is shaping up to be an exceptional title.

The trailer is... oh my goodness it's good. I just watched it again for the second time and I still felt those chills up my back as that classic FF7 battle theme started ramping up. This game knows exactly how it wants to play upon nostalgia and where it needs to go it's own way for the good of the narrative, and I'll explain what I mean by that in a second. One thing to note in this trailer was that we got to hear the voices of all the main characters, excluding Yuffie, Red XIII and Vincent as they won't be appearing in this game. (Yes, I'm not including Cait-sith, because the entire concept of that character is undeniably creepy. Why is some weird voyeur following around teenagers through a biological remote controlled robot?) Their voices all fit; Ms. Gainsborough is already suitably adorable, I'm already feeling the playful camaraderie with Tifa, Barret sounds... as stereotypical as he always did in my head and Cloud comes across as the aloof protagonist ready to have his world turned upside down when- ah, no spoilers here.

As this game will only cover the events of the original title that takes place in Midgard (Which isn't even a quarter of the original game's content) there have been some significant changes and I'm liking where they're going so far. Most notable right now is the inclusion of Sephiroth in Midgard. (you even see a brief flash of him in this trailer.) So far I feel like his part will mostly be psychological, it wouldn't make sense for his physical appearance to pop up so soon, and I think that setting him up this early is a great idea from a thematic perspective. It establishes the rivalry off the bat instead of getting told all about it when Cloud visits his 'hometown'. (To be fair, I think the original did have a little dream seqeunce about it in Aerith's house, but this time around they seem to be expanding it into an active plot point.)

I've made note about my concerns regarding Square remaking FF7, especially at the cost of splitting the game into several individual parts, but my JRPG fan just wins out against my trepidation. Even though this is a game I won't be playing at launch due to Sony's annoying exclusivity plan, I'm still pumped to see this release and hear about it's impressions upon a world that has mostly forgotten how good Final Fantasy 7 was. Also, it might help to get a game out with a subtle environmental slant to it given the current state of the world, don't usually like to get too real on this blog but I feel that's worth throwing out there. 2020 seems to be the year of the remake for me and I, for one, am more than eager to lap it all up. (Except for the Disney Live action remakes. Those guys need to cut that out.)

Are Ubisoft finally changing things up?

Only now, at the end, do you understand.

Oh, the sweet sound of being right about a topic for a change; could there be anything so devilishly piquant? For years now it feels like I've been in the absolute lowest minority when it comes to calling out Ubisoft for being the idea-bankrupt hacks they are. (Or rather, that the Ubisoft A-team are. The B-Teams put together some cool games every once and a while.) Time and time again our argument was met that those who enjoyed lapping up the same game year upon year, as though these people loved the prospect of signing up to the industry's highest-bar season pass. In their defence, however, there was quite a lot of hyperbole from our side of the argument, but it didn't change the fact that Ubisoft reveled in their mediocrity to such a degree that Yves Guillemot offered a complimentary backhand to 'Breath of the Wild', claiming they did nothing new and just copied Ubisoft's formula, albeit to a flawless execution. (I love you, Yves, but that's some bull and you know it.)

But all this outrage and finger pointing can finally rest now that we have an admission of defeat on Ubisoft's end. For, you see, not too long ago it became public knowledge, as reported by Polygon, that Ubisoft are on the road to restructuring their editorial team going forward. A change, it would seem, brought about due to the similarities between 'Ghost Recon Breakpoint' and 'The Division 2'. (Something which seems to have cost both games dearly in terms of sales.) Of course, that isn't the only problem that those two games, or more the former game, suffered from; but it was a huge source of public and critical backlash throughout the launch period of those games.

'Ghost Recon: Wildlands', the game which bought the 'Ghost Recon' brand into the modern world of oversized open-worlds, was an action stealth game wherein all that players had to actively worry about was the state of their ammo pouch. 'Breakpoint' decided to 'shake up' this system by throwing in a pointless RPG system that would require players to constantly cycle out 'underleveled' guns and switch them for new guns as well as breaking down items for materials that would then be crafted into new guns and- God it all just makes me want to tear my hair out! Oh, and I did I say this system was 'pointless'? Sorry, I misspoke. What I meant to say was, this system did nothing to add value to the formula, rather just provided an excuse to ramp up monetisation to a 'pay-to-win' degree wherein the team could charge for anything from raw material to cool customization pieces to skill points. (Oh wait, sorry they're called: 'time savers'.) Seems most people weren't dense enough to fall for any of that, because mass audiences dropped 'Breakpoint' like a brick and here Ubisoft is, trying to recover from the backlash.

As for The Division 2, I can't speak from first-hand experience for it's troubles, actually from what I've heard on an anecdotal level, folk seem to like it. If I were to guess, that game's greatest failings may have been due to the fact that 'Breakpoint' worked to poach it's sales with a ludicrously similar premise, which would explain why Ubisoft have finally woken up to the fact that their systems need a significant change. As Polygon reports it, Ubisoft CEO has blamed the lackluster sales of both those titles (Which, remember, both hailed from the storied 'Tom Clancy' brand, and so should have been easy sellers) on "a lack of differentiation in consumers' minds". Now, ignoring the fact that he just called us all stupid, it does make sense, in a twisted way, that fans will grow tired with a game developer who puts out essentially the same product every year. (Unless you're a sports fan. They live off that repetition.) In today's age there are a plethora of other exciting titles all vying for attention of fans and all offering something wild, new and attention grabbing. If Ubisoft can't remain competitive in that market, it's only fair that they get left behind in the dust.

In regards to the actual steps being taken, we won't be seeing a complete reshuffle of the company's ranks, but more of a light overhual. To that end, Ubisoft's chief creative Officer, Serge Hascoet, won't be moving from his cushy seat as head of the editorial group, (You know, despite his failure to encourage creativity.) but instead he'll be given more subordinates with more autonomy of their own. Oh, add more rungs on the ladder... that'll help communication. According to the report, this will help Ubisoft's flagship franchises like Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs and For Honor, feel more distinct. Woah, hold up... 'For Honor'? That title has one game which barely scrapes into the most played online games list even at peak times, how does that even count as a franchise let alone flagship? (Don't get me wrong, I would very much like a sequel to come out and fix all of the problems of the first game but we don't yet live in that world.)

Allegedly, and I can't stress how alleged this is, the previous system of rule over at Ubisoft often meant that tastes and opinions of one or two important folk in the editorial team often managed to work it's way into the games themselves. And that just makes sense, doesn't it? That's why, after Watch Dogs 2 introduced a drone for spotting enemies, that same drone found it's way into the Division, Ghost Recon Wildlands and 'Assassin's Creed Origins'. (Through means of 'recon eagle') Way to take a fad and push it to it's absolute extreme, guys, you're doing gods work in making every single game feel the same and uninspired.

Of course, that isn't the only factor contributing to the 'samey-ness' of all these titles. As the Polygon article pointed out, Ubisoft have officially geared their company more towards open world titles that all have some sort of live service angle to them of late, meaning that every single pitch meeting for these titles have the exact same whiteboard set-up. ("Here is the circle for the recurrency loops and here is the level-gating to force players to spend money.") Guillemot believes that their upcoming games could suffer from the same lack of diversity that harmed the Tom Clancy titles. And that's likely why we haven't heard a peep out of 'Watch Dogs: Legion' since it's recent delay.

Ultimately, will this save Ubisoft games and make them more of a contender on the AAA stage, likely not, but this may work to halt their decline for the time being. Fans are just starting to realize how Ubisoft are half-arsing their creative process, and taking active steps to obfuscate that might just placate the immediate problem. I fear the real issue with Ubisoft titles are more deeply ingrained, however, and lie at the heart of the franchises themselves. Or should I say, lack thereof. Take a look at their most well known flagship, Assassin's Creed, and how pitiful it's storyline has been ever since the 3rd game; at this point there is not point getting these games to continue the story and reconnect with favourite characters, just to go sight seeing in whatever time period Ubisoft has picked next. Or how about the upcoming 'Beyond Good and Evil 2' which plans to divorce fans from their hero main character and have them take over some lifeless 'make you own character' avatar. (Showing that folks don't realize that is was the heart of BGE that made it so memorable.)

Maybe given time and enough effort, Ubisoft can start to reform this franchises into something as epic as they rightly should be. There's no reason why 'Assassin's Creed' shouldn't be as much of a landmark event as a new 'Final Fantasy', all it will take is time, talent and a bevy of creativity. For one, they could start by finally mixing Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs into one mega franchise before fans get bored of speculating about when that's going to happen. Or they could just shift gears and start making brand new franchises from the ground up. (I'm throwing ideas at Ubisoft for free. Anymore are going to cost you, Yves.) Unfortunately, it's going to be a number of years before we see these policies have any serious effect on Ubisoft games, and we can only hope that the company haven't sunk into irrelevancy in that time. That's probably unlikely, but the gaming world does tend to move faster than any other medium (afterall, look what happened to Bethesda) so you never rightly know.